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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
106067
|
Why does my pizza crust turn out too hard?
I made pizza from scratch, including the dough. I followed the recipe correctly and kneaded it for around 30+ minutes until it passed the windowpane test. It was stretchy and not too dry or wet. I let it sit and then proof in the fridge before stretching it out and baking it on a pizza steel (That was heated for 1 hour at 525F). The crust turned out WAY too hard, so much so that if I tried to fold the tip of the slice it would crack like a cracker. I like pizza crispy but I still want to be able to fold it! The dough seemed fine and nice and stretchy and easily workable before I put it in the oven... it was light and airy and the outer crust formed those nice big bubbles (that were way too hard, though)... what went wrong? Is it possible that I over kneaded? How do I keep a crispy outer crust but still nice and foldable so I don’t break my teeth when I eat it? Also, after kneading the dough can I let it rise in the fridge overnight?
Did it rise? It seems a problem with the yeast/proofing. How long did it sit in the fridge? And after you removed from the fridge, did you let sit until room temperature before opening the dough?
30+ minutes of kneading sounds like way too much.
@Croves I let it rise at room temp over night and it doubled in size. The next morning It was super puffy so i lifted the plastic wrap and gently formed it into a uniform shape without squishing the air out of it. Sat in the fridge for about 4 hours and let it sit for 2 hours outside of the fridge to come to room temp before forming the pizza.
@Pete Becker I thought it was way too much too but it kept tearing when I tried to do the windowpane test. Next time I’ll definitely knead for less and see what happens. Thanks!
What's your recipe? I'd like to answer but it is dependent on that.
@GdD I used this recipe (with the hand-mixing method): https://ciaoflorentina.com/rustic-pizza-dough-recipe/
@PizzaHelp Here is an Italian video that points out 6 common errors https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vV4gegZ7JNU.
Probably it is the cooking time, remember that a "pizza Napoletana" just takes 90 seconds to cook, but that's for a "forno a legna".
Here there's another video that shows how to make homemade pizza https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq90lUQUCUo. It is in Italian, even tough there are English subtitles you can write me if you want me to write a transcript/recipe.
@MammaDiGrenie’ Thank you so much! I’ll check them out.
Possible problems:
You have too little water in the dough (you said that it felt OK, though)
You baked it for too long at too low a temperature (likely).
You let it proof for too long or too high a temperature (sounds like this may not be the case if you followed the directions and had it in the fridge).
You kneaded it too much (likely).
I'd suggest making sure the hydration is correct according to your recipe, kneading 10-12 minutes, then cooking it on a pizza stone or baking steel in a really hot oven so it cooks as quickly as possible. Let us know if this solved your problem.
It sounds like the dough was kneaded too much. Rather than go by time in kneading a yeast dough recipe I try to go by the way it feels including texture and elasticity. I've had great success with my Kitchen Aid mixer and the dough hook. Also, be careful not to add too much flour if kneading by hand. A shaker with flour in it works perfectly to disperse an even, light layer of flour when flouring a board during the kneading process (or when rolling out any type of dough)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.028921
| 2020-03-26T18:40:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/106067",
"authors": [
"Croves",
"GdD",
"MammaDiGrenie'",
"Pete Becker",
"Pizza Help",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81897"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
129603
|
How can you dry out skin quickly and without a fridge?
Crispy poultry skin or pork belly skin is incredible but is best achieved by drying it out overnight in the fridge.
Are there any other methods that work to dry out skin preferably much quicker? Could you use a dehumidifier? Low oven at 40C? Blow fans at it on a wire rack? Anything else I haven't thought of?
blotting with paper towels does a decent job. My understanding is that peking duck traditionally just used fans, but issues with hygiene were different back then
Fans sounds like a good idea. I'm happy to completely ignore overly-stringent advice from certain countries.
You could always put a filter in front of the fan if you were worried that it might be blowing bad stuff on the food (box fan with a filter for an air conditioner)
I've never needed to dry a chicken overnight, to get crispy skin I coat it with a drizzle of olive oil and sprinkle sea salt before roasting it in a convection oven. No drying necessary.
With pork I've found even drying it in the fridge doesn't help that much, unless you get it very quickly from the fridge to the oven. If it sits out for 5 minutes condensation will form and it's damp again. I let it sit out of the fridge for 30 minutes, then dry it using fragrance free paper towels, and then salting it before getting it into the oven.
I can get crispy skin without but I can get better skin if it's dryer and high pH so I'm asking for ways to dry to improve the skin.
You are going to need to keep the product below 4C (40F) so as not to create a hospitable environment for bacterial growth, so the most expedient way to do this is with a small fan inside a refrigerator. At this point the only risk would be blowing meat juices onto uncovered food, potentially cross-contaminating what is already in the fridge. If you are mindful and careful, this can speed things up a bit. However, what you are trying to achieve, goes beyond removing surface moisture, so this is still going to take some time.
If you are only talking about the skin alone. You could use a dehydrator, but now you should ensure the temperature gets above 60C (140F). Even better, if you simply want crispy chicken skin, place it flat on a parchment covered sheet pan. Place another piece of parchment on top, followed by the bottom of another sheet pan. Roast in the oven until crispy.
I have an outdoor shed which is 4c at this time of year so a fan will be fine. I'm also not too bothered about keeping a large turkey or belly on ribs for example at 10C for a few hours. This would be for skin still attached though.
Putting it in an outdoor shed isn't going to help, you're just going to blow cold, damp air over it. A refrigerator is a dry environment, which is why one of the methods is to keep it in, uncovered.
Surely that depends on the outdoor humidity?
As the temperature drops relative humidity increases, so at night it's going to be wetter than the day. You'd have live at high altitude or in a very dry climate for a shed to work. You'll need to think about how to keep vermin from getting to it.
I get quite crispy skin on chicken merely by roasting in a convection (fan) oven (with the skin still on the meat.) I can't speak to pork belly skin.
You can pack it in salt (or sugar), which will draw out water. That will also affect the flavor, of course. Whether that effect is a plus or a minus for you will depend on you. I don't do that, but it is a normal way to somewhat quickly remove moisture.
I can get crispy skin without but I can get better skin if it's dryer and high pH so I'm asking for ways to dry to improve the skin.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.029218
| 2024-11-20T12:53:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/129603",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Turkeyphant",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71956"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
123560
|
How many items per order of dim sum?
Dim sum traditionally comes in multiples of 3 or 4 in each steamer basket. However, there doesn't seem to be any resource to let the customer know whether you are getting 3 or 4 dumplings/items.
Is there a hard and fast traditional rule for each type of dim sum? Do har gow 蝦餃 and shu mai 燒賣 always come in 4s or do some restaurants serve them in 3s? What about wu gok 芋頭角 or char siu bao 叉燒包 - do they come in 2s or 3s or sometimes even 4s?
Factually, when dining at a dim sum restaurant, how do people know how many they will get? Is it always the same amount (a sort of tacit knowledge that regular customers pick up from experience) or, factually, can it differ between restaurants?
I have eaten dim sum in many places and there is no hard and fast rule to it, it varies from restaurant to restaurant even in the same location.
In general the smaller the individual item is the more there is on a plate, Har Kau are small so you get 4, dumplings, paper prawns and other larger items take more space so you usually get 3. Bigger is more expensive, so having fewer means the plates will be similar in price as well as the general amount of food.
Others have said that the number of har gow can change from 4 though. Is this correct?
The information previously provided by helpful users in the comments has allowed me to answer this question.
It turns out that factually there is no hard-and-fast rule about the number of items in each order. This can vary between different dim sum cultures in different parts of the world and even between different restaurants at opposite ends of the same city's Chinatown.
In general, you can assume that smaller items like har gow 蝦餃 will come with more per order compared to larger items such as char siu bao 叉燒包 but there is no more tacit knowledge than this at play.
To be certain of how many of each item you will receive per order, the only way to be sure is to check with the restaurant staff beforehand.
I deleted the lengthy discussion, since it was going nowhere. A note about the "self-answer" feature on SE sites: It is meant for either cases where the OP knew the answer before asking the question, with the intention to make interesting non-trivial knowledge public, or cases where the OP solved the problem with information from other sources, and wants to provide this information to other users. It is not intended for repeating information that is already posted on the question page already, especially when it starts competing with other answers.
@rumtscho where have all the comments from the original question gone? They provided the most useful information on this page.
The comments with timestamps are also essential to showing where gdd copied previous content from me verbatim.
I also deleted the question comments, mostly to contain the drama. Most of the comments were an answer to the question, which is against our rules. Comments and posts on SE get soft-deleted, with moderators, high-rep users and staff having access to them, so should controversy flare up again, it will be possible to reconstruct the time sequence of events.
@rumtscho thanks for clarifying. I didn't know the rule about competing answers before and will avoid this in the future. Can the question now be reopened or not?
The question was closed by the community, not by a moderator. You would have to convince the community members that you have improved it into a form that is not closable, then they can vote for reopening.
@rumtscho Thanks. I'm not sure I understand the reasoning of closing it. There may well be problems with the question and some may think I may have shown poor etiquette in answering but it's factually false to suggest it's opinion-based.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.029510
| 2023-03-07T11:41:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123560",
"authors": [
"Turkeyphant",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71956",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41114
|
How can I get the maximum flavor from orange peels?
At first glance this question might look like a duplicate of this one: How can I intensify the orange flavour in orange cake? it isn't. I'm making this cake for the second time:Orange Olive Oil Cake but I'm giving it a bit of a tweak and could use some advice regarding the tweak.
The recipe calls for two whole oranges, quartered, peel and all. The oranges are to be brought to a boil and drained twice, then simmered in syrup until the rinds are tender. Then the solids are drained from the syrup and pureed in a food processor, the batter is then mixed in the food processor with the orange puree.
The first time I made the cake I followed the recipe exactly and fell in love with its texture. I also loved the way the olive oil came through as an aftertaste. Unfortunately, my oranges lacked flavor and had very thick rinds. I knew going in that the orange flavor component of the cake was going to be lacking, and I was right. As far as orange, all I could really taste was the pith.
So, now I want to go solidly in the other direction. I want knock your socks off orange flavor with little or no "pithyness". Towards that end I have this: (that's grams BTW, tared weight)
I assume the original recipe calls for rinsing twice because the whole rind (including all of the pith) is included. Because I used a peeler, not a zester, I do have some pith, but not nearly as much.
Towards the end of the cooking of the puree I plan to add a couple of peeled oranges. No matter how I treat the peels, I think I can guesstimate to get the volume, consistency and level of sweetness I want. I need the peels tender enough to puree, I'd like to eliminate as much of the pithiness as possible, but I don't want to pour great orange flavor down the drain. I'm not even married to the idea of boiling the peels, I'd love to consider other methods.I want maximum orange flavor from these peels for a very flavorful cake. Any advice?
First I would recommend viewing the episode of Good Eats, Orange Aid. While there is not a direct answer to your question Alton does talk about getting the maximum orange flavor as well as how to avoid the pithy flavor. (This link to Orange Aid will take you to Amazon Prime, where if you are not an Amazon Prime member you may purchase for $2.99...)
The take away that I believe applies to your situation is this: remove as much of the pith as possible (but I'm guessing you already know this)...
The second take away is that the variety of orange really matters, many varieties are more flavorful than others and these are NOT the varieties most frequently found in your mega-mart. (which are chosen more for appearance than flavor--go figure)
Valencia, Hamlin and/or Seville oranges would be good choices. Avoid NAVEL ORANGES!
Having looked at your recipe ever so briefly I might suggest an experiment as well... take about an ounce of vodka or everclear and let that sit for a few days with orange zest and vanilla beans, filter out the solid and use this concoction in place of the vanilla extract. The orange oils in the zest are alcohol soluble and thus should provide you with a nice orange extract to intensify your flavor. (I have not tried this with orange, so this is pure speculation).
I'm definitely going to try the extraction idea. I was planning on making the cake tonight, but I can put the big pile-o-peels in the freezer for a couple of weeks while I see what a few tablespoons of zest does with just enough vodka to cover. Great idea. Of course my 5lb pound bag of oranges are navel, dangit, but they are a particularly tasty variety Cara Cara so I'm still hopeful. I can't believe that I can't remember that episode of Good Eats, I thought I had them all just about memorized. :)
Make one tonight, make another one in a couple of weeks...can't have too much cake :)
transcripts available for the episode at : http://www.goodeatsfanpage.com/season12/oranges/orange_aid.htm
@Joe Great link! I was so bummed when the entire episodes (all of them) were deleted from YouTube (I've got to remember to copy videos that I like) but transcripts are almost as good. I don't get to see as much of my beloved, but I can read his words! Thanks.
@Jolenealaska How has the extract process been going?
@CosCallis It's funny you should ask, I just gave it a shake. At my most recent attempt at the cake http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41406/what-causes-a-cake-to-sink-in-the-center I declared it "not ready" so I'm using it for my third (and hopefully final) tweak. Just now it's starting to taste like orange extract should taste. I'm just going to add it all (including zest) to my next batter. I'll update then! :) Should I leave it uncovered for a couple of days before I use it? To let some of the alcohol evaporate? I'll edit my question later with a picture of the extract in progress.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.029818
| 2014-01-13T01:02:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41114",
"authors": [
"Cos Callis",
"Joe",
"Johnbot",
"Jolenealaska",
"Spammer",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"Stef",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95758",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95760",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95764",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95769",
"seattleppe",
"shas",
"situs pik4d spam",
"zadubz"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46626
|
What dish?: Japanese chicken skewer wrapped in a green leaf and sour red sauce
In Japan, at two occcasions, I had chicken skewer with a green leaf wrapped around it, and in it was also some red sauce with a sour taste. Is there a specific name for this dish? Ultimately I'm looking for what kind of leaf (maybe Shiso/perilla?), sauce (possibly something with plum?) and marinade it was so I can try to cook this dish myself.
I had the dish at two different small local grill bars near Nijo Castle in Kyoto.
Edit:
An answer suggested the name "shiso chicken". Googling that brings up mostly pictures of different combinations of chicken and shiso leaves, but a few do show something similar to what I had, this is one of them:
It looks like tsukune/tsumire chicken with shiso, search terms are chicken tsukune, ooba and plum. This yields some recipes, more without the plum, basically take minced chicken, add egg mirin soy sake potato-starch, divide, wrap in leaf and cook. Google translate/rikaichan will help you. For the plum sauce, basic recipe is to take Japanese plum pulp and add soy, not sure it is easy to do otherwise since it requires the special sour and salty plums.
More assistance with translation can be found on the Japanese Language Stack
This is a very good answer, thank you, welcome, and +1. I took the liberty of editing into your answer what you added in a comment. Next time just use the "edit" function beneath the answer. I also adjusted the formatting a bit, if you look at the editing by clicking on the line above my avatar, you can see what I did, and make any changes you wish. Again, welcome to Seasoned Advice.
I had the dish in Japan as well, he had regular yakitori sticks with the same sauce as normal, he wrapped a perilla (shisho) leaf around em and grilled for a bit, then dipped in the marinade pot then grilled a bit more then dipped/grilled again a few more times, then spooned over the plum sauce and served. I asked about the sauce, he made his own umeboshi (we were on the Kii peninsula the best Ume come from that region) and just mashed it into a sauce. But you can buy it online called umeboshi paste. He did all this while asking us all about life in Australia as his son was coming on exchange later that year :)
From your description, it sounds like you had shiso chicken. I have never been to Japan so my experience on this is from eating at Japanese restaurants in the US.
On two occasions in different restaurants I have had a version that used yakitori sauce as the marinade for the chicken. The menus described the dish as chicken breast yakitori wrapped in shiso leaves. Really good!
However, while out of town on a work trip, I found shiso chicken on a menu and it was described as chicken in pickled plum sauce wrapped in shiso leaves. This may be what you are looking for, at least from the way you described the sauce as being red and sour, and possibly containing plum.
Wish I had tried it! Hope this can be of some help to you.
Yes, googling "shiso chicken" brings up a few pictures with something similar to what I had! (A detail: the plum sauce was on the grilled chicken/leaf, so was not part of the marinade though.) Thanks for the info! Any more contributions on details on the marinade, leaf and sauce are welcome.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.030562
| 2014-08-24T14:35:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46626",
"authors": [
"Amy D",
"Carl",
"Gregory Wilson",
"Janet Turkoglu",
"Jolenealaska",
"Karen Williams",
"Kevin Vaillancourt",
"Meg Bressette",
"Sanjay Saigal",
"Sony Pun",
"Susan Dawes",
"Vera Ekara",
"Wanda House",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112404",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112406",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112408",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112783",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112784",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112794",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157827",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157829",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26737",
"norfahana talib"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
63267
|
What fish can be used for 'minced fish' in Chinese cooking?
I tried using mackerel which gave a good texture but was a little strong in flavour. What else can be used and readily available in the UK?
When I was in hong kong I was addicted to fish balls from the street food vendors.
I took a dim sum lesson and we used mince fish which was made from Dace (chinese mudcarp) and the teacher told me traditional fishballs were made with the same mince, but on the street they used small amount of any old fish offcuts adulterated with flour and other ingredients to give the desired 'springy' texture of quality minced fish.
Back in the UK, On teacher advice, I tried using a fresh mackerel which after slamming on the table 50 times gives a nice springy texture but when I added salt and white pepper and cooked in plain boiling water it was nice but a little strong. Anyone else had any luck? I was thinking a mix of mackerel and relatively flavourless white fish might be a good compromise.
I use a combination of Basa and what the shops mark as Spanish Mackerel (the basa usually being frozen in Australia) ... When fresh is available, I like to use Ling fillets.
I have had varied success with whiting fillets... Frozen whiting can sometimes have no flavor whatsoever.
Someone else suggested monkfish and butterfish.
Tuna made for an interesting meatball, and I used that with a Tom Yum preparation.
Addition of shell fish such as prawns also make a nice variation.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.030871
| 2015-11-08T01:30:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63267",
"authors": [
"David klasing",
"Heidi Hernandez",
"Rob Shelton",
"bob P",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150559",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150560",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150863"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
62694
|
Is it possible to make good fried salmon in a stainless steel pan?
I am trying to make fried salmon in my stainless steel pan. My goal is to have a nicely browned exterior, but I keep running into the same problem: Once the outer layer of the salmon starts to brown, it sticks to the bottom of the pan, and peels right off the fillet when I try to turn the fish over.
The answers to this similar question all seem to be focused on heating the pan before putting the fish in. This doesn't seem to work in my situation. I am already preheating the pan for a couple of minutes. In case it makes a difference, I have been using olive oil.
Is there a special trick to searing salmon in a stainless steel pan (I prefer to avoid pans with non-stick coatings) without the bottom of the fish peeling off as soon as it browns? Am I just doing this entirely wrong?
@rumtscho All the answers to the linked question seem to focus on preheating the pan. As I state in my question, I am already trying this, but it doesn't seem to help.
Your question is not any different from the original one. If there is a different answer, it still should be added to the old question and not to a new one. My best guess is that you just haven't experimented enough to get the temperature correctly (it can take many tries), but even if there were another trick, the proper thing to do is to give a bounty on the old question, not to repeat the same question under the same context and expect a different answer. As I remember how hard it is to give away rep when you have so little of it, I'll put a bounty for you, I have enough to spare.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.031019
| 2015-10-21T04:05:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62694",
"authors": [
"C.B. Pearson",
"Danielle Pendall",
"Dwayne Dunbar",
"J Jordan",
"Wendy Wimberly",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149102",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27071",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"lzam",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
66644
|
Do I have to adjust anything to add seeds to bread?
I have a go-to recipe for Honey-Oat Pain de Mie. I'd like to add about 1/2 cup total of combined sunflower and pumpkin seeds. Since I do bake it in a Pain de Mie pan,
I'll pull a small dinner roll's worth of dough just to make up for the increased overall volume.
Do I need to adjust anything else? Will the seeds affect how the bread bakes?
I think the substitution should be straightforward. From the recipe, the dough should be able to handle that amount of seeds.
My main concern would be with hydration level. Seeds can pull some moisture out of dough, which might make the bread a little dry or stiff. But the type of seeds you're talking about shouldn't absorb that much water, so it may not be a huge issue. (This probably needs a couple tablespoons of extra liquid, roughly within the "error range" of the recipe already.)
I'd "play it by ear" and see if the dough seems drier than usual. If you plan to do this substitution more than once, you can see what happens the first time and add a little water if necessary in future batches. (You could also try soaking the seeds first, but that seems unnecessary to me with these types of seeds -- nevertheless, that can give you a sense of how much water they might absorb if you measure the water and then measure the amount your pour off after soaking, before adding the seeds to the dough.)
The other issue is that you'll simultaneously be adding weight to the dough while removing some gluten (by removing a bit of the dough). Now the bread has to support more weight, so you need to ensure the gluten structure is strong. I personally would consider substituting some bread flour rather than just AP, which will help support the extra weight. (That could also affect the moisture level of the dough.) And/or you might add a "stretch-and-fold" maneuver halfway through the first rise (or maybe two), just to ensure the gluten has maximum development.
Finally, oven spring will be a bit less, so you'll want to wait until the dough is clearly risen enough before baking. You also want to be careful not to remove too much excess dough when substituting the seeds, or you may not fill the pan to the top during the bake.
But these are all rather "picky" things. Chances are if you just did the substitution you suggest without any other modification, things will turn out OK -- maybe somewhat dry, and maybe with the loaf a little denser in the crumb toward the bottom.
Excellent advice, I will consider all of it as I experiment. Thanks.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.031179
| 2016-02-18T21:40:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66644",
"authors": [
"Jolenealaska",
"Marcia DeLuca",
"Sandy Watkins",
"Stuart Chalmers",
"Susan Roberts",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159667",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159668",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159730",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"s.gilchrist"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
107476
|
Vegan mayonnaise never emulsifies?
I'm beginning to think this whole "egg-free mayonnaise" thing is an extremely elaborate practical joke. I have exhausted all the tips Google has yielded, so I'm hoping someone on here has an idea what else I might be doing wrong.
Here's my basic recipe (variations I've tried are listed below):
1/2 cup soy milk
1 cup sunflower oil
1/2 tsp salt
1/2 tsp mustard
1 tsp vinegar
1 tsp lemon juice
Combine everything but the oil and whisk.
Add the oil in super tiny amounts, whisking like crazy each time.
Result: a very homogeneous white soup the consistency of water. There are no visible oil droplets. It takes about ten to fifteen minutes for the first oil droplets to appear, and a few hours for an actual layer of oil to form.
Soy milk and oil are both at precisely 28°C (82°F).
Things I've tried so far:
with a blender.
with an immersion blender.
with an electrical whisk.
with a whisk.
with a fork.
on a boat. No, wait, that's Dr Seuss.
add 1 or 5 tsp of soy lecithin. Does nothing, but despite soy lecithin's supposed tastelessness, the result tastes terribly of soy.
have ingredients at 23°C (73°F) instead of 28°C.
use oat milk instead of soy milk.
use a warm water/soy flour mixture instead of soy milk.
use a different oil.
add xanthan. This makes a somewhat thicker, but terribly clumpy mixture that you really don't want to eat.
different blender speeds.
quadruple the amount of oil. This resulted in a much larger amount of soup.
continue mixing for ten additional minutes. Resulted in my hand falling asleep from holding the hand mixer for so long.
I am so very out of ideas. Any help is greatly appreciated.
Edit: tried a few more things and added them to the list of things that do nothing.
DId you try only this recipe, never any others? I don't see any emulsifiers in it.
@rumtscho I tried a lot of different recipes. I also tried adding soy lecithin before adding the oil.
@BettaGeorge, please see my answer below. If you still have trouble please write back and I'll see if I can come up with an exact recipe for you. Let me know what kitchen tools you have.
I've seen some recipes using soft tofu or aquafaba instead of just soy milk. Those might be alternatives worth considering. I also wonder how long you continues mixing/blending after the final addition of oil, and if you've tried increasing the ratio of oil to milk?
@kitukwfyer How long should I continue mixing? I gave up after ten minutes without visible change in consistency, mostly because my hand was cramping up. I shall try using tofu later today and report back.
Vegan bacon, vegan cheese, vegan mayo. Honestly, why even bother. Make your own vegan delicacies! This road only leads to hyper processed food.
@Betta 10 minutes should be plenty of time. Dang.
Turns out it wasn't anything I was doing or not doing; it was the brand of soy milk. I have posted an answer to my own question below. Thank you for your help!
Well this is ... disturbing. Switching to a different brand of soy milk let me succeed on the first try. I have no idea what the manufacturer of my usual brand does to it, but after more testing, even water+lecithine works better than that brand of soy milk.
I hope it's okay to answer my own question. For anyone who comes across this via Google in the future: I tried two different brands of organic soy milk with the same official ingredient list and no visible differences, and one consistently produces mayonnaise while the other consistently produces soup.
Thanks to all the nice people who took the time to try and help me!
Your recipe calls for a 2:1 ratio (by volume) of oil to soy milk. In normal mayonnaise recipes, the oil:water ratio is 5:1 or more. I honestly can't see that recipe ever producing anything but soup. Try quadrupling the oil.
Do you mean the oil:water ratio is 5:1?
Okay, tried that. Resulted in a larger amount of soup. Is it possible that some oils don't work for this? I've never read anything of the sort, but who knows.
I have made eggless mayonnaise before. For your quantity, in addition to the lecithin, add 5 tsp of modified cornstarch and 1/4 tsp or more of xanthan gum. Fine tune from there as I use less oil.
I make my own vegan mayonnaise every couple of weeks and it is so simple. Mix 1/2 cup of water with 1/3 cup of POWDERED soy milk. Using a spoon or spatula to turn it into a paste. Add 1 tbs of white vinegar and 1 tsp of salt and mix it in. Now, slowly pour in 1 cup of canola oil while mixing with an immersion blender. Blend for at least 1 full minute, 2 minutes wouldn't hurt. Pour into a jar and refrigerate. If you keep all the tools in the fridge first, it will reduce the likelihood of de-emulsification after a few days. Even if it does de-emulsify a bit, just whip it with a spoon for a minute. Check out my how to video https://youtu.be/a9u7bi2ezio
FYI, the recipe I used to use involved regular soy milk and avocado oil and it worked really well, but since I don't consume a lot of soy milk, it was going bad between batches. Also avocado oil is both expensive and not produced anywhere close to where I live, so I prefer to use canola oil which did not work with regular soy milk; hence a test with powdered soy milk and voila, heavenly mayonnaise!
If you want to make an aioli, just add in a chipotle mix of pure chipotle powder, smoked paprika, garlic powder, chili pepper (crushed ground chilis), some salt and a little bit of sugar.
Real Spanish Aioli has only three ingredients: garlic, oil and salt. Add drops of water to help fine tune the emulsion.
Mustard is an emulsifier. I would try just starting with whole-grain mustard if you have it (or any mustard if not) a little vinegar, lemon juice, and perhaps a bit of water, and then use a hand mixer and gradually add oil as you build the emulsion (you can do with a whisk but it is more work). When you have the volume you want, salt to taste.
I just found this recipe on line.
It looks like everything you are suggesting was already tried by the op before asking. And mustard is a terribly weak emulsifier, it's just about good enough to stop big eyes of fast forming on vinaigrette, but it cannot support a foam.
I have tried that, to no avail.
@rumtscho, no I don't see where she tried just mustard as an emulsifier.
It's right in the recipe, the fourth item. And I would possibly have downvoted without it being there too, since mustard doesn't have much of a chance to work for that, especially whole seeds.
@rumtscho, I think you're misunderstanding. I did read her recipe which has many items, but I don't see where she tried only mustard. The soy milk could making the recipe not work, or you could be right and it just won't work, but I have seen multiple people who say they've been successful with only mustard for vegan mayo, though I have not tried it myself.
P.S. I just tried an experiment with mustard. I used only mustard as an emulsifier, along with a little water, a little vinegar, and oil. I was able to create an emulsification, and I left it for about an hour while we went on a walk and the emulsification held. It was too thin and too mustardy, but I'll work on a vegan recipe that's respectable and post it here.
OK. I just tried an experiment and I'll call it a modest success, though more time needs to spent to perfect this.
Experiment 1:
Dijon mustard, oil, vinegar, and water. I was able to get a stable emulsion but it was too mustardy and too thin.
Experiment 2:
I started with 1 tbsp of soy lecithin and 1 tbsp of water and combined them with my hand mixer. Then I gradually added oil and it made a stable emulsion. I then added salt and the emulsion broke. :(
Experiment 3:
This time I started with 2 tbsp of soy lecithin and 3 tbsp of water. I added oil and the emulsion maintained. I added a little vinegar and water and more oil. Emulsion was good. I kept adding more oil, then I added some dijon mustard. At the addition of the mustard the mayo became much thinner and I was afraid I may have lost it, but I added more oil and kept blending with my hand mixer and was able to get most of the thickness back (see photo below).
More experimentation is needed, but I added some salt and lemon at the end and tasted it and it tasted pretty good.
Because of all the additives in most soy milk, it's best to use pure soy milk made from only soybeans and water with nothing else added.
I also use dried mustard and have had the best results with a food processor as it's easier to pour the oil in very slowly.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.031431
| 2020-04-11T18:00:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107476",
"authors": [
"Betta George",
"Emanuel Landeholm",
"Luciano",
"Tinuviel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79240",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81730",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83381",
"kitukwfyer",
"myklbykl",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
107561
|
Food Scientists: Please Explain the Final Dough Temperature (FDT) Formula
This is undoubtedly a question for a food scientist. I have seen online a formula to calculate the water temperature needed to achieve a final/desired dough temperature:
water temp = (FDT)*(mult. factor)-(room temp)-(flour temp)-(friction factor)-(preferment temp)
So for a desired dough temp of 78ºF on a straight dough (no preferment, mult. factor = 3) worked by hand (friction factor = 0) with room temperature flour (say 72º), you would need to make your water 90º, i.e.,
90 = 78*3 - 72 - 72 - 0
I've practiced this a couple of times now, and it seems to work to within a degree or so...magic! I'm baffled as to why, though. It seems quite suspect that no weights are contained in the formula. And, getting even more scientific, no specific heats.
Can someone please explain where this useful formula comes from? I'm a physicist by trade so this is really fascinating, and I would love to know the derivation. (Math doesn't scare me.)
For reference, here are two of the places that I found this formula:
https://www.kingarthurflour.com/blog/2018/05/29/desired-dough-temperature
https://www.theperfectloaf.com/common-bread-baking-calculators/
Thanks!
If kneading does not significantly heat up the dough, and the process is sufficiently quick then, by basic thermodynamics, the final dough temperature (FDT) is the average of the temperatures of the ingredients. (JoutlawPhysics points out in a comment below that this assumes equal masses of ingredients, which is usually only approximately true.) Hence
FDT = (water temp + room temp + flour temp + preferment temp)/4.
Here 4 is the `multiplication factor'. In general the multiplication factor is the number of temperatures involved, minus one. Rearranging the formula above we get
water temp = FDT*(mult. factor) - room temp - flour temp - preferment temp.
Your formula is the small generalization allowing for the heating effect of friction during kneading or mixing of the dough.
Ok, but a simple thought experiment contradicts this simplification. If I mixed 5 g of flour at 72º with 100 g of water at 90º, the mixture would surely be hotter than (72+90+72+0)/3 = 78...
So there must be an assumption about relative masses being comparable. Still, since doughs can run the gamut of hydrations, it seems to me that the assumption is not always great.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.032026
| 2020-04-14T05:58:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107561",
"authors": [
"JoutlawPhysics",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83451"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
96434
|
Pears caused uneven bake - how to stop this?
I baked a gingerbread cake following a recipe which seemed fairly typical for gingerbread. The instructions included slicing a pear and pinwheeling it across the top of the batter. I ended up over-baking it because the pears prevented the very top layer from baking and I couldn't see that the sides and bottom were plenty well done. Now I have a dry gingerbread that has a top layer of basically pears and batter.
Edit for details: Oven temp was 375, 9.5" glass pie dish (called for 9x9 glass dish, but I didn't have one). It is a very small, old oven that I'm not used to yet, though other things I've baked have so far turned out alright.
I assume the wet pears caused this, but it's not the first recipe I've seen that you bake with fruit on top. How could I have prevented this uneven bake while still using fresh fruit?
Maybe providing the size and type of baking tin, and the temperature of your oven, can help people construct a response.
Good call @moscafj I've edited the question to hopefully help more.
Something wrong with the oven (temperature) or setting?... But from your description, it should have cooked true. I might have had a little lower temp, maybe 175 C but that's just 15 degrees off from your setting.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.032214
| 2019-02-19T17:53:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96434",
"authors": [
"ErrantBard",
"Gwendolyn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50854",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72960",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
96902
|
Is there any difference between chakki and stoneground whole wheat flour?
Many websites have been telling that stoneground white whole wheat flour outside India yields lofty breads but 'CHAKKI MILLED' white whole wheat flour gives dense and crumbly breads. Take a look
This is made from chakki milled white whole wheat
made from KA whole wheat flour(i do not know whether roller mill or stoneground)
Chakki and stonegrounding device look same to me so I dont understand why there is a difference in the flour therefore in the loaf too.
This is a traditional chakki. These days chakkis are modernised with an electric motor.
Your question says "'CHAKKI MILLED' whole wheat flour(white)". Which is it? Whole wheat or white?
Sorry for the confusion but i'm referring to white whole wheat flour not the traditional wholewheat flour in America (both are whole wheat) but it shouldn't matter as white wholewheat flour yields more light breads
"White whole-wheat flour is flour milled from hard white spring wheat, rather than traditional red wheat. In the United Kingdom and India, whole-wheat flour is more commonly made from white wheat instead of red as in the United States"...................Wikipedia
I'm British, so (for me) there's no need to describe the wheat as white. Those more familiar with the distinction may disagree but if you need to specify I'd say "from white wheat" rather than using "white" to refer to the resulting flour.
You mention expecting "lofty" bread, bread that's risen tall. With the two loaves you have pictured, a freeform loaf will always be shorter and more spread out than the pan-baked loaf - the pan sides give the loaf structure to allow it to rise high instead of slump sideways. This doesn't answer the dense&crumbly attributes, or the differences in flour, but it will make a difference in height if that's one of the things you're looking for.
Also there may be other differences between commercially produced loaves which favor consistency and height and soft texture, and artisan-style or rustic loaves which often are looking for different attributes (flavor, texture, sturdiness) and may favor attributes that would be flaws in mass-produced loaves. It may be more difficult to compare these different kinds of loaves to each other.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.032345
| 2019-03-14T04:34:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96902",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Megha",
"User101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73453"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
96887
|
Where to order whole-wheat flour(NOT ATTA) in India?
Many people are deceived that maida(7.5% gluten) is ALL PURPOSE FLOUR and atta is WHOLE WHEAT FLOUR((10-12%)gluten but starch is lost due to chakki milling) so there is actually a lot of difference and simply one can't be substituted for another. I'm writing this so that many people don't think that I do not have access to atta. So if a bread recipe calls for whole-wheat flour, where can I buy it or order it in non metro cities like Chandigarh at "reasonable prices".
KAF is simply too high in terms of Indian money and the same is with Bob's red mill or Pillsbury, Gold Medal whole-wheat flour.
Out of them Gold Medal brand is the cheapest 626 rupees for 5lbs
Your question is very broad, check [ask] to understand what kind of questions you can ask here
Thanks for the suggestion. The question has been edited accordingly
We buy wheat grains and get it milled at a local flour mill. This way we can ensure the texture that we desire and also the quality. Time consuming but worth it. Not to mention the reduced cost.
Reduced cost !?!?!!?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.032530
| 2019-03-13T06:32:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96887",
"authors": [
"Hobbamok",
"Luciano",
"User101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73453"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46462
|
Does sugar go bad?
The package of sugar cubes I use has an expiry date. Even 2 months after the expiry, I can't taste any difference. Does sugar actually go bad, and should I throw away sugar past its expiry?
Also, if it does go bad, are there any indications that it's gone bad?
(stored at room temp which varies from 20-40C)
What I've heard is that honey is the only food product that never breaks down- since it has such a large concentration of sugar I would assume that sugar itself might fall under the same classification, although it wasn't mentioned as such so I'm not sure
@scrowler not just the sugar (though it helps), but bee secretions that act as preservatives. And no, honey does go bad. It can get mouldy (though it's rare), and of course the sugar can crystalise out depending on storage conditions.
If by going bad you mean becoming unsuitable for consumption due to toxicity, sugar, when stored properly, does not go bad for at least a few years. By storing properly I mean storing it in conditions of low humidity, as it absorbs humidity (water) from the air. This property is called hygroscopy.
However, it may lose some of its mechanical properties, form "rocks", or even solidify into your sugar container.
Theoretically very wet sugar can get infested with mold, but I have not seen it happen.
What if stored improperly (say, 50-80%RH), will the mold be visible, or can it be harmful when invisible as well?
Probably invisible, but you will definitely taste it.
Your sugar is fine, especially at 50-80% RH
yes tastes odd when kept long
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.032747
| 2014-08-17T21:07:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46462",
"authors": [
"Amy Djenan",
"Gbadamosi Kolade",
"Jason Varnes",
"Maxine Wylie",
"Mischa Arefiev",
"NN MM",
"Robin Boggs",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/111966",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/111967",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/111968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/111969",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/111984",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/111988",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25105",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8486",
"jwenting",
"scrowler",
"user87166",
"voddy"
],
"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
}
|
105892
|
What are the tiny white self-moving objects on pasta?
So, a lot of pasta I've bought lately came with some white substance. At first it looked like uncooked starch or something. But when looking closely I noticed it was MOVING ON ITS OWN.
After a while this incident repeated a couple times. Even when buying pasta from other factories, they have that self-moving white substance.
So... what is it?
On penne for example, in the "channels" that the pasta have, the white stuff collects there. It is quite tiny and long, and clearly alive.
Nothing on properly made and stored pasta is supposed to be alive. This is impossible to answer without a video. If it is actually moving on its own, I would bring it back to the retailer.
Did you notice this just after buying the pasta, or after it had been in your pantry for a while? If it's the second one, it sounds like you might have some sort of infestation
my rule, if it moves and shouldn't throw it away and it if doesn't move and is moving throw it away. (or something like that)
@Max, I thought the rule is "if it moves and it shouldn't, use duct tape; if it doesn't move and it should, use WD-40". :D
@Marti that rule is only for the Home Improvement page not Cooking lol. In the kitchen I follow Max's rule.
@Marti in the kitchen one would use duck pate on everything - easily confused, as they have a similar taste and texture in addition to the spelling similarity.
It's not just starch in the water?
@brichins: either I've been getting the wrong type of duct tape all my life, or your duck pate is, um, lacking in some respect. I'm kind of hoping it's the former. :D
Anything flying around lately (flour moths)? little "cobwebby" things?
@moscafj: I'm pretty sure that the store doesn't want to have it (i.e. refunding is much cheaper if it doesn't come at the additional cost of some pest being [re]introduced).
It's not April 1st, you posted this too early ;-).
Assuming these are open packets that have been open for a while - you probably have a mite infestation, probably the flour mite (Acarus siro), or a closely related mite. These are tiny almost-invisible-to-the-naked-eye members of the Acari, which is an animal order including the ticks and mites.
Flour mites are very small - between 0.33 and 0.66 mm (0.013-0.026 in), with translucent/whitish bodies and pink legs. They are, as the name suggests, most commonly found in flour, but are also seen living on a range of grains, cereal products, dried fruit and nuts. They can promote allergic reactions upon consumption of food contaminated with the mites.
Mild allergic reactions to mites are very common - about 1 in 20 people have them (mostly to dust mites), but they very very rarely cause severe allergic reactions. However, that doesn't mean that a mite allergy is an allergic reaction to these particular mites as there are many other mite species in our environment, so the chances of you being allergic to flour mites is relatively small.
Because the mites are so small, detection is difficult and usually not noticed until fairly heavily infested - if you are seeing the dust/flour/whatever move, then you most likely have a heavy infestation. You may be able to find them on the food or in your cupboards with a magnifying glass or using a piece of sticky tape to press down on cupboard surfaces, then examining it under bright light.
Severely infested foods should be discarded, but the mites can be killed by freezing the affected food-stuffs for 7 days. Just be aware that this will not kill off any antigens from the mites - they can still cause an allergic reaction upon consumption. They are difficult to eliminate because they are so small, but you can thoroughly clean your cupboards and any food storage containers with regular house-hold cleaners to get rid of food residues that they use as a food source.
There's a more detailed version of the above advice on wikihow.
Thank you for giving me one more thing to worry about.
Are the mites nutritious?
Y'all, let's not go overboard about the allergy thing - the answer just mentions that allergies are possible in the given situation. We don't need to debate exactly how likely and severe they are; the answer is just providing that information, and readers can use it based on their own needs.
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
@AndrewMorton Asking the real question here I see.
@AndrewMorton: since they live off the flour and basically nothing else, they are probably less nutrious than the flour they ate.
@AndrewMorton - conversely to cbeleites I think more nutritious - extra protein. Now, what you make of their feces is another matter
Well this has made me declutter. I've tossed everything out of the house.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.032918
| 2020-03-18T23:34:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105892",
"authors": [
"Andrew Morton",
"Cascabel",
"Cloud",
"J Crosby",
"Joe",
"Karlo",
"Marti",
"Max",
"Peter - Reinstate Monica",
"Reinstate Monica -- notmaynard",
"bob1",
"brichins",
"cbeleites",
"civitas",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22695",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76237",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
107639
|
I baked breads, rolls, pizzas, marinated meats starting with a cold oven to use less energy. Is my “strategy” unpromising when baking sweet desserts?
My strategy is as in the topic, plus near the end, I switch the oven off and then use the still accumulated heat to cook food. I think I have a good intuition as far as baking savoury items is concerned.
I make notes on how long it took to cook and I write it down so that I can replicate my results in the future (at least with the same oven) without constant checking (to save my time, and to save on heat loss when opening the oven door) - which works, my results are replicable. I make sure not to cut into baked food for some time (also written down), as even after taking it out of the oven the cooking on the inside still continues.
Now I'm not sure how my intuition would apply to sweet baked desserts, because I'm not knowledgable when it comes to the chemistry of baking. I know how yeast behave (in practical terms), but don't know how baking powders and baking sodas do - for e.g. would my brownies collapse because due to initially low-temperature steam trapping crust didn't form on top? Etc...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.033327
| 2020-04-16T11:58:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107639",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
108208
|
My sourdough started hasn't yet risen! What am I doing wrong?
I had started my first batch of sourdough starter a week back. Its just wheat flour and water (haven't added any pineapple juice or any other fruit juice).
The first 2 days had vigorous activity and the mix stank, a lot! After 3 days the smell has changed to a slightly fruity acetony/alcoholish smell with some remnant of the previous stink. I have been feeding the starter once everyday.
Its been 6 days now and I still don't see any rise that growth of yeasts is suppose to bring with it. The past 3 days I have always observed a slight layer of clear liquid form over my starter. And every time I throw the top part and a little of the starter away to add fresh flour and water. I live in India and its always hot and humid in the day, so room temperature isn't the problem.
My starter has just had a few bubbles in it nothing vigorous like I see in the pictures online. It never rises! There's no rise and fall.
What am I doing wrong? Don't want to waste flour if its dead. Would appreciate any help.
Attaching pics in link for reference
Sourdough starter pics
Edit: Forgot to mention before. I store the starter in a pyrex bowl, with the lid on it. Its not air tight, but neither is the starter getting the kind of air that covering the bowl with a cloth would let. I store it in a dark warm place inside a cupboard.
UPDATE1: So with accurate measurements (S:W:F= 1:1:1), there was a drastic change. No hooch whatsoever, the starter seems more active, there are bubbles throughout the batter. But there's nothing vigorous. There's no rise and fall at all.
Without the overnight rise and fall, is my starter ready to be used for leavening? How can I know if the yeast population is sufficient enough for baking a loaf?
UPDATE2: The sourdough starter rose very well. 2 days was all the difference I needed. The starter tripled in size once the yeast activity was good and going.
Have added the result pic in the same album linked above.
To me it looks too wet. What is your flour/water ratio? Feed it twice a day and keep it warm--70 to 80F or so.
The consistency is like thin cake batter- so if I take a spatula and check the consistency its not too runny, but its not too viscous to even form ribbons while falling back in the bowl. While feeding I take half cup measure of flour and then take the same cup measure of water and mix it in the starter.
@That-Kickass-GirL a half cup of flour and a cup of water is a lot of water! I feed mine a cup of flour and half a cup of water.
Do you mean there is no rise and fall now but there was one? Having bubbles throughout is a good sign but the bubbles should be fairly large to say it's ready. Remove 50g of that and add flour and water, give it a stir, and watch it grow. Put a piece of tape on the side of the bowl if that helps to know where it started from. Hopefully you'll see lots of growth within 12 hours. Then feed it again but you might be good to go!
I meant that in the 24hrs since the last feed ( when I correctly measured the ingredients), there has been no rise and fall at all. I had marked the level of the mix last night. So tonight ( after 24hrs) I see a lot of bubbles ( imagine each bubble diameter ranging from 1mm or less to 3mm). But there was no rise or fall in the 24 hrs. Do I necessarily have to look for the rise and fall?
While feeding I take half cup measure of flour and then take the same
cup measure of water and mix it in the starter.
And there is your problem to some extent. Always weigh your flour, water, starter and everything else when baking bread. Water weighs about 25% more than flour. This means you have about 25% too much water (or more).
Great bread recipes take into account humidity, temperature, ingredient weights and the fact that not everybody's measurements will be exactly the same size. Always weigh your ingredients.
So now take 4oz or 100 grams of your starter, add 4oz or 100 grams of water along with 4oz or 100 grams of flour, stir that all up and see what happens in 24 hours.
Then repeat the process again, twice a day, though you may notice great changes as soon as tomorrow. Report back as you do.
If 4oz is a bit much for your container, you can reduce it to 2oz. Making half of the flour wheat--and not just white--helps in the beginning along with a tablespoon of rye if you have it. (Yeah, I'm not picky about the tablespoon here.)
Just fed my starter again. I weighed everything this time. Lo and behold, the consistency is so much different! Much stiffer than before but well hydrated. So if earlier I could pour the starter, now the starter moves at a snail pace when I tilt the bowl to one side. Anyhow, I separated my initial starter(whole wheat) into 2 containers with-
20g Starter + 20g wheat flour + 20g water
60g Starter + 50g wheat flour + 10g Maida( AP flour) + 60 g water
Will check back in 24hrs
I have added an update in the question.
How exactly are you feeding the starter? Are you just adding new flour and water or are you discarding?
What I do (based on recipes I've seen) is discard 2/3 of the starter and add 1/3 of each new flour and water. So if I have 100g of starter, when I feed it, I discard 67g of it and add 33g of each flour and water.
The reason for this is that it gives the starter a lot more "food". If you start with 50g and add 50g, you've added 100% and then have 100g. If you then add 50g more, you're only adding 50% and have 150g. If you add 50g again, you've only added 33% and have 200g. Because you're adding progressively smaller amounts of food, you will get progressively less activity.
Instead if you discard 1/3 and add 2/3, you'll add 200%, and if you do it again, you'll add another 200%, etc. After a few days of this you should have a very active starter.
This does require discarding some of the starter which is why I keep it relatively small. I use 75g of starter for a loaf of bread, so with 100g I have enough for loaf and then enough to re-make the starter.
The discard can be used in other recipes such as pancakes, banana bread, etc. It is 50/50 flour and water so easy to substitute into other recipes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.033458
| 2020-05-08T09:06:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108208",
"authors": [
"Rob",
"That-Kickass-GirL",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84202",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84215",
"or1426"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
111080
|
Halloumi at room temperature
I recently ordered a batch of halloumi cheese online. It was packaged as fist-sized, vacuum-sealed pieces with a little liquid in each (brine I guess). It is supposed to be refrigerated, and the package had a gel pack for cooling. Unfortunately, the package was delayed by over a week, as the postal carrier mixed up. So I will have to assume that the halloumi has been sitting at room temperature for over a week.
Should I be concerned about any food safety issues here (botulism etc.)? Especially anything that does not go away by grilling/frying?
EDIT: I am aware of the two-hour rule etc., but that rule would already be violated if the package had arrived on time, as I cannot imagine that a little gel pack would keep temperatures in the safe zone for two days in a cardboard box sent halfway across the country (no special isolation or anything). I am really asking about the specifics of this particular food item.
To your edit: There are no specifics. Food safety rules are designed to be unambigious. You can either prove that your cheese meets the 2-hour rule, or it is unsafe. There is nothing more to it - on purpose.
So you are saying the vendor already violated food safety rules?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.033904
| 2020-10-10T09:12:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/111080",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84355",
"rumtscho",
"user32849"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
97221
|
Is this ground beef safe to eat?
A few days ago I purchased a pound of ground beef from the supermarket, it was already on clearance when purchased. Since then, the beef has turned grey all throughout, and has a slight scent to it. I wouldn't say that the scent is necessarily unpleasant, but it's slightly sour, and has an almost buttery or "farm" smell to it. I can't quite explain it well. I am currently cooking the meat, and it still has that smell, and it's since permeated throughout the house. I really have no idea if it's good or not, because it certainly doesn't smell unpleasant, though it does have a smell. As well, it didn't feel slimey, or anything of the sort. The only troubles are that the smell is there, whether it's bad or not, and the entirety of the beef has turned gray with very little red left remaining inside, and mostly dispersed. I am wondering if this is safe to eat or not, or if it's perhaps best to throw it away?
Edit: Also I should note, I noticed that the blood has also turned brown, and the sell-by date was yesterday.
going grey (or sometimes slightly brown) isn't a big deal. It just happens, unfortunately (which is why they try to sell it before that happens)... the smell is the only thing that you describe that sounds like it might be a concern. If I were in your situation, I'd cook it immediately, and use it in a dish where you crumble it up and cook it through entirely (eg, tacos, chili, etc) ... but I also know that I'm not someone with a weak immune system (elderly, children, HIV-positive, otherwise sickly, etc.) You might also want to check your fridge to make sure it's below 40°F / 4°C
When in doubt, throw it out.
There are three main indicators to spoiled beef:
Texture: beef becomes slimy as it spoils.
Color: beef will go gray as it spoils, BUT, it will also go gray due to it oxidizing. This makes it a somewhat unreliable measure without the other indicators.
Smell: as beef spoils it will start to smell sour. Note that you did mention the smell being sour in your description.
Your beef has hit two out of three boxes. It may just be starting to spoil.
I would consider it potentially unsafe to eat.
But why take the risk?
Actually, I think it will turn grey due to myoglobin not receiving oxygen, so it is not oxidizing, but rather getting deoxygenated.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.034027
| 2019-04-01T21:03:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/97221",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Thomas",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86973"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
99526
|
Why did mango lose sweetness after pureeing
It is mango season and I am pureeing Mangoes. I used Malgoa mangoes which have a very sweet taste. The mango pieces taste sweeter than the puree. The puree is still sweet, but less. Why is that?
How are you pureeing? It might be that if you are incorporating air into the mix that that would dilute the intensity, or if you are cooking it you may not be reducing the mixture sufficiently.
I am pureeing in a blender.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.034219
| 2019-06-13T07:05:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99526",
"authors": [
"Spagirl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68856",
"manu muraleedharan"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
99960
|
Does hard-boiling eggs in broth impact flavor?
I think the question says it all. I was looking at Marinated Soft Boiled Egg recipes for ramen and while trying them out I found it annoying to have a pot of boiling water for the eggs as well as a pot of simmering broth for the soup.
So would cooking CIFA Grade A Eggs in the broth impact the resulting flavor? I know eggs are slightly porous so I'm guessing some broth would get inside the egg. I'm also wondering (not too worried about it though) if it's a good idea to eat the broth afterwards since it might've absorbed the chemicals used to clean the eggshell ).
I am writing this as a comment, not an answer because it's not directly pertinent to Ramen.
In my experience in eating Chinese cuisine (like in China, as I lived there) that has hard boiled eggs in them, I have found next to no difference in the taste of the broth/base and a nice flavour added to the egg (but not overwhelming). As for the chemicals, I wouldn't worry too much about them, I would think that the noodles and broth you would ingest otherwise would have more than the eggs could absorb.
@JCrosby Yeah I'm not too worried about the chemicals either, I think a swift rince like any vegs would be fine. Is this common in Chinese cuisine?
Yes, and no. I found it pretty common as a street food breakfast or lunch kind of thing. But at a sit down restaurant or even a homemade meal, not so much. I actually liked it and have adopted it into my cooking since moving back to Canada.
I do this at least twice a week for dinner.
@mroll So... does it impact flavor?
@Halhex I don’t think it does at all.
I would doubt it would impart any flavor into the egg. The shell is pretty tough, unless you crack the shell and then soak it, after it's been hard-boiled (like a Chinese tea egg).
It does impact them, crockpot cooking in chicken broth. The lady that owns the hotel that I visit when I’m on business makes them all the time. Off the chain!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.034297
| 2019-07-04T13:43:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99960",
"authors": [
"Hugo",
"J Crosby",
"SnakeDoc",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73864",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76237",
"mroll"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
73870
|
How should I read a thermometer when it's got an extra indicator line?
The last time I got my candy thermometer out of the drawer, I noticed that there was an extra line of red above the normal column.
It looks like there's a "bubble" at the top of color that's raised a bit of it higher than the rest. Can I still use it like this, and if so, which line do I use to tell the temperature?
You have a damaged thermometer. You might try adding the short bit of red to the main red column. Or carefully shaking it down when cool.
@JanDoggen (a) Not much, that was my first attempt to fix it; (b) it goes up and down with the main column, and stays at approximately the same distance.
The problem is that such gas bubbles tend to affect the shape of the liquid around them in unpredictable ways, so it's not sufficient to just try to "add" the small bit of liquid to the large one if accuracy is desired -- the surfaces on these bits of liquid may be bent in various ways, making it hard to get a reading. Also the expansion of the liquid and the gas bubble may be affected, creating a little more inaccuracy.
If you only need rough accuracy (say within 5-6 degrees F or about 3 degrees C), you can probably continue to read the thermometer at the top of the solid red column, then correcting a couple degrees upward. It's really not ideal. (And I'm simply guessing based on a cursory look from the photo.)
If you want to fix it, though...
I can't tell what the rest of this thermometer looks like. Sometimes the problem can be corrected through simple shaking (swinging in a slow arc is often better than frantic jerking) or tapping. If not, the way to solve this problem in a chemistry lab is one of two ways:
Cool the thermometer to the point that the liquid all contracts into the lower bulb (sometimes called the "contraction chamber"). Once the main body of the liquid gets down there, you can often shake the thermometer a bit to encourage the gas bubble out. Depending on your thermometer and where the liquid gets down to the chamber, you may be able to do this with only an ice water bath, or a salt/ice bath. Use caution if the liquid begins to freeze: if not careful when it thaws, it can make the problem worse.
Most decent lab thermometers have an "expansion chamber" at the top in case of overheating. I have no idea whether this one does or not, though it's a common safety feature. One can also heat a thermometer (gradually) to the point that the separated portion of the liquid gets to the expansion chamber, at which point the gas bubble can be simply "tapped" gently out. (Note: if you try this, be very careful to heat gradually and slowly, never placing the thermometer in direct flame. If you force too much of the liquid into the expansion chamber, you will break the thermometer. Also, many organic liquids in thermometers these days are flammable.)
In either case, after correcting the problem, place the thermometer in an upright position and allow it to come to room temperature gradually.
Chemists tend to have little problem dealing with stuff like this, but if any of this sounds too complex or dangerous, I'd just buy another thermometer, given how cheap they tend to be.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.034483
| 2016-09-10T21:04:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73870",
"authors": [
"Erica",
"Optionparty",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12608",
"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
}
|
129581
|
Sous Vide: Why pre-heat?
I wonder why all sous vide recipes call for preheating the bath first and then placing the food inside. I always do the opposite: I place the food in first and then start sous vide cooking.
My reasoning is this: sous vide cooking is controlled by a PID controller. If I place the bag in after the desired temperature is reached, the temperature will drop, which will change the integral factor and cause fluctuations in temperature until the controller readjusts, possibly reaching a higher temperature than desired.
Edit
My self made sous vide uses a PID controller. Heating times to 60°C is 30 minutes in a 3L bath using a 1000 Watts hot plate. Temp oscillation is +/- 0.2° C. Not overshooting is first priority, because it ruin soft boiled eggs (I like them at 65°C). See Serious Eat guide to sous vide eggs.
I don't have an answer to "why" but I want to address your arguments against it. If your temperature drops when adding cold food, you're not using enough water. With a sufficient mass of water relative to the mass of the food, the drop in water temperature will be minimal. Also, a good controller shouldn't overshoot much the water temperature when adjusting, and certainly not to the point where the internal temperature of the still-cold food would overshoot the set point.
You are right; I'm using a 3L pot, and even a 1.5L for small items.
That's maybe not too bad. I used a thermal equilibrium calculator, and it said that if you put a 150 g steak, 4°C, with 2.85 kJ/Kg°C specific heat, into 1.5 l of 54°C water, you can expect thermal equilibrium at 50.81°C. But of course, the meat will cool the water quite slowly - so the controller won't have much trouble giving it heat long before it drops even close to equilibrium.
In case you want to dig more into the physics behind @rumtscho's comment, look up the heat capacity of water. It's the temperature analogy of what inertia is to a moving object. A truck and a ping pong ball can be moving at the same speed, but the ping pong ball will deflect off of you and the truck will barely notice that it demolished you, because of their difference in mass. Heat capacity is the same: two materials can have the same temperature but one can get colder faster than the other one. Water is closer to a truck than a ping pong ball.
Probably too short for an answer: maybe simply because you can prepare whatever you are going to cook while it heats up, so you save time?
Have you measured the temperature and found overshoot a real problem with your setup? Like if the food is very close to the bottom of the pot, it could get hotter there than the temp sensor the controller uses if that's off to the side?
@PeterCordes. Overshoot and oscillations was a big problem until I got the right PID parameters. Heating from the bottom eliminates any temp gradient without using a pump/agitator.
Not worth an answer, but I simply fill my container with hot tap water and then let my sous vide stick take over from there. I would find 30 minutes for heating up simply too long from a practical perspective.
@AnoE It heats slowly to prevent overshooting, especially when doing soft boiled egg.
If you use a larger pot, your temp will drop less and you'll get less oscillation. In fact, if you get oscillations enough to hurt a recipe, your controller is probably too peppy.
@ScottSeidman I love challenges. Anyone can made a sous vide with a 20 L pot; I want to do it with 1.5 L one.
Common food-borne pathogens are mostly found on the surfaces of cut pieces of meat. (That's why rare steak is safer than rare hamburger.) If your sous vide bath takes a long time to come up to temperature, that means a long time in the temperature "danger zone" for the surface of your meat, compared to those pathogens being knocked back quite quickly when taken out of refrigeration and added to a hot water bath.
Nevertheless, not everyone waits for the water bath to preheat. If your setup is going to come up to temperature in just a few minutes regardless, then it really isn't going to matter.
Could be addressed with a pre-sear in some situations.
@moscafj yes, but only if you can sear all surfaces, and the edges of something like a steak would be quite hard to do
I’ve seen people use a quick dip in boiling water before sous viding at an especially low temperature, to avoid serious off odors from some sort of thermophilic bug.
Bear in mind you have a relatively powerful heater and a small container. We've done sous-vide in large containers with relatively weak heaters, and they've taken hours to get up to temperature, but didn't have a problem keeping warm when they got there. Having some food slowly crawl through blood heat temperatures over the course of hours is a great ticket to food poisoning.
@DavidMcKee I think that's basically what I said in my answer, is there something you feel is missing?
If the PID parameters are set up properly, overshoot should be very small indeed (ideally comparable to the variation in temperature within the bath, which a circulator can minimise but never eliminate). If they've been auto-tuned on a small volume of water and you add a lot of food, it should still be OK as a reduction in thermal mass is much more likely to cause overshoot via the I term.
If the PID has been hand-tuned, an overly generous I term can cause overshoot; try reducing it and slightly increasing P if that happens
My cheap sous vide wand just does bang-bang control and is completely good enough. The large thermal mass of the water and the nearly immediate response of the heating element means that it's just a very very easy control problem. I can't imagine tuning a PID controller to the point where the food could notice anything amiss.
@Sneftel I think so too, but the OP asserts theirs uses PID. Of course you can do PID using PWM to vary the power. If you then reduce the PWM frequency to sub-Hz but actively control the duty cycle rather than just responding to a themostat with a deadband, you end up with a sort of pre-empting bang-bang control that's quite effective if the power per unit heat capacity isn't too high.
@ChrisH. I built my own sous vide. It's an Arduino + TRIAC (zero cross detection). My resolution is half AC cycle. Min power is half cycle ON ever 100 half cycles (50 Hz local frequency). Keep temp +/- 0.2°C
@CandidMoe I've thought about doing something similar, though there's no point in mine being too sophisticated - at least at first it would use a slow cooker which responds inherently very slowly, but I wouldn't be using it for meat. But I do a lot with PID controls in work (so I know that some, even commercial, controllers can be hard to get right on the integral)
@ChrisH. It was a nice project to learn electronic and get a sous-vide, which were to expensive/unavailable at that time. And PID only doesn't work quite right; I have to add several heuristic to manage border cases.
@CandidMoe that's a reason why I'd like to do it. My electronics skills are adequate but the first time I design a temperature controller it should be for an application that's self-limiting and with cheap failure modes.
Note this answer refers to a certain type of controller, which is what I have. The OP is using a PID controller, which works differently. I'm adding the note after two people commented on the difference, but not deleting, since there might be other readers with the simpler controller type.
I think that your concern is unfounded. It's not even the small effect size, as I was thinking when I saw your question at first; it's that you're using the completely wrong intuition.
A sous vide PID controller is not a sapient being like the proverbial frog being boiled; it's not even a sophisticated mechanism like, say, your metabolism, where a sudden spike of blood sugar leads to too much insulin release, sending you into an overcorrection which the body then struggles to counter-correct. No - it's a very dumb system, which neither takes into account speed of change, nor has any way of reacting beyond turning the heater to ON.
So let's see what happens with the water temperature when we do it your way, heating the water and the steak together:
Of course you get an overshoot of the selected temperature, up to the point at which the controller is programmed to turn off. When it turns off, the cooling phase starts (which is longer than the heating one, because there is no active cooling, just dissipation into the environment) until you reach the lower set point, and the heating starts again. Note that the diagram is not drawn to any kind of realistic scale, but the temperature boundaries I chose are very typical; you want to only allow a small deviation from the desired temperature before the controller reacts (by turning on or off), and 1/2°C is a common chosen value that works well in practice. (Note that it doesn't mean that the internal temperature of your meat fluctuates by 1/2°C, this is the water bath).
And let's see what happens when we instead start with cold water, wait for it to heat up, and then drop some cold meat inside:
The one big change is that during one fluctuation, the cooling down happens quicker. Also, there should be a bit of change in the slope in later fluctuations too, because the meat is "sucking out" a bit more energy from the water due to higher delta T, but that effect reduces with later fluctuations as the meat temperature rises.
The more interesting thing is, what did not change? A large overshoot didn't. The dumb controller does nothing but turn the heater on when it's at the lower set point, and turn it off when it's at the higher set point. It doesn't act in panic and set the heater to "turbo hyper blast" when it notices a sudden drop in temperature - it is neither capable of detecting a "sudden drop" as opposed to a "slow drop", nor does the heater have a "turbo hyper blast" mode, or any other mode than "on" and "off".
And if you have a PID controller
There is also my earlier point from a comment, that the drop in temperature isn't even all that sudden. If we assume a 150 g steak, 4°C, 2.85 kJ/kg°C, dropped in 1.5 l of water at 54°C, the thermal equilibrium temperature would be 50.81°C, so just over 3°C of a difference - but of course it would take a very long time for the steak to cool the water down, so the drop in temperature won't even be very sudden. As explained in the diagrams, with a threshold controller, this isn't even relevant, since the speed of cooling doesn't affect the fluctuation amplitude. But if you do have a PID controller, the disturbance size becomes relevant, and there the solution is to have sufficient water - as you see, 10:1 is already quite good.
That being said, I'm afraid that I don't have an answer as to why recipes tend to prefer dropping the cold item into hot food. All I can address is the wrong assumption behind your question, and point out the fact that, from the point of view of temperature control, both options are perfectly viable.
PID is capable of varying the power though - that's why we use it over a simple thermostat (whether it actually varies the steady state power or uses pulse width modulation (PWM) to do so doesn't matter if the PWM is fast compared to the time constant of the heat losses)
@ChrisH I admit I don't know how commercial sous vide appliances are programmed. I use a simple thermostat that turns an electric outlet on and off, with the simplest immersive heater possible plugged into that outlet, plus a small aquarium pump that mixes the water. It works great for me, and does exactly what I showed in my drawing. If it's common for sous vide machines to try to be "smarter" than that (although I don't know why they would, since my graph shows it may be counterproductive) then there's still the small effect size to make the concerns unimportant.
Also, another thought: If somebody was sophisticated enough to improve on that, by adding variable power in order to have the system match the ideal temperature more closely, they would hopefully program it in a way that takes into account the danger of overshoot at sudden disturbances, and minimizes that too. This might be wishful thinking, based on my experience with a few cheap cooking appliances which try to do temperature control and fail at it miserably :( but hopefully there are producers who get it right!
I did as you did, but results were unsatisfactory. I opted for a hot plate, no pump/agitator. Heating from below eliminates any temperature gradient in the water.
@CandidMoe interesting! I like the immersion heater because it allows me to vary the container (for example, I used to ferment yogurt in individual small glasses, in a large gastronorm that wouldn't have fit on a hotplate). How were your results unsatisfactory?
An immersion heater requires a propeller o a pump to eliminate temp gradient. That's a mechanical factor that can fail badly. A hot plate has no mechanical parts, is safe to left unattended, and it's quiet.
I can use a bigger pot over the hot plate if I needed.
@rumtscho that's what I'd do, except using my slow cooker as both vessel and heater. That's good enough for yoghurt and eggs anyway, and I don't eat meat. Of course a slow cooker is underpowered for that application and would definitely need preheating, but the extra hardware would take up no extra storage which is attractive to me
Your graphs appear to be showing a threshold controller, not a PID controller. PID controllers provide lower fluctuations, but are susceptible to a phenomenon called integral windup where a sudden change (such as would happen if you put cold ingredients in a warm bath) causes a sustained overshoot of the target temperature.
@Mark indeed. I wrote this up because it is correct about the setup I have, and I had made a hasty generalization :) Since you're the second person to point out the difference, I now added a note to clarify that it doesn't always apply. Thank you for the links about the controller types!
I wonder why all sous vide recipes call for preheating the bath first.
Maybe for the same reason why baking recipes call for preheating the oven first. The author doesn't know the details of your setup. They don't know how long it will take to come up to temperature.
You are cooking in a saucepan on a hot plate. Maybe I am cooking with an immersion heater in giant picnic cooler. Even if we both follow the recipe to the letter, we might not get exactly the same results. But, I bet our results will be closer to what the author intended than if the author had told us to plonk the food into "tap cold" water and then switch the heat on.
Sous vide times are much longer and forgiven than oven times, so taking a bit longer to reach temp doesn't really make a difference. Oven times are critical; you either end with a raw meat or a burnt one if you are not careful.
@CandidMoe, Less of a difference still is a difference. And, even if a reason for doing a certain thing in a certain way isn't really as important as most people think, even if the reason is completely wrong, it still can be the answer to "why does everybody do it this way?"
That procedure would just add guesswork.
The amount of time it takes for a sous vide prep to come to temp will depend on the power of the heater, the programming of the controller of the heater, how much water is in the bath, and the temperature of the water at start.
The failure modes for getting it wrong can be bad, and mostly have already been described -- health risks, and food not getting to the desired temp. The latter seems like it's more of an issue for shorter cook times, and the former, for longer cook times.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.034793
| 2024-11-18T10:35:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/129581",
"authors": [
"AnoE",
"Candid Moe",
"Chris H",
"David McKee",
"Flater",
"Mark",
"Peter Cordes",
"Scott Seidman",
"Sneftel",
"Solomon Slow",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110515",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42377",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84638",
"jcaron",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
119914
|
Is this steel casserole safe for use?
Yesterday I bought this 1 lt (1 qt) steel casserole in a chinese shop, and after boiling one egg, it's decolored and got black spots, as shown:
It's stainless steel, it weights 430g, and I guess it's fake, but i was so cheap that I couldn't resist.
Bäcken is a french brand, but their products look much higher quality than mine.
What it's happing here? How can steel be bad? It's safe to use?
Edit
Cleaned with warm water + soap before first use, then used to cook hard boiled eggs in unsalted water.
Try cleaning it with Barkeeper’s Friend or baking soda.
Did you put salt in the water? It might be a lower grade of stainless steel that’s prone to pitting
@Joe. Tap water, no salt.
Certainly it is stainless. It may ferritic stainless , magnetic- 13% chrome, satisfactory for cookware. Most cookware is 304 ( 18-8 type), austenitic, non-magnetic ( mostly). The Backen is clad, it was much more expensive and has a big disc of copper in the bottom for heat distribution and is better to cook with. The weakness of inexpensive stainless is that it is thin with poor heat distribution. As commented, salt/chloride can pit stainless, usually it is not a problem for the relatively short times involved in cooking ( compared to years in a chemical vessel). Mechanical scouring with something like SOS pads would probably clean it the best (not perfect).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.036084
| 2022-02-19T12:41:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/119914",
"authors": [
"Candid Moe",
"James McLeod",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84638"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
90815
|
Is it safe to boil sweetened condensed milk in the can to make dulce de leche?
Is it? I am talking about metal poisoning not the explosion risk, will the can leak dangerous metals into the dulce de leche product when boiled or is it safe to eat? (I am hoping it is because it is very convenient but if its not what to do safety first)
I have done it several times, since that is what my recipe for banoffee pie calls for to make the toffee. I am however not a chemist :)
Yes, it is perfectly safe. Nearly all if not all canned foods sold commercially have been processed in retorts (industrial pressure cookers) to kill microrganisms
The metal from the can is not going to leach into the food contained in it
It's perfectly safe as long as the can doesn't explode. You can avoid this by ensuring that the can stays completely submerged the whole time, or by opening the can and leaving the open end exposed to the air. Based on a quick scan of Google search results, the closed can method seems to be a lot more popular.
While many (if not most) commercially canned goods are pressure cooked, sweetened condensed milk apparently isn't. See, e.g., http://dairyprocessinghandbook.com/chapter/condensed-milk
@derobert but is it still safe?
@MoeEpo I don't know. I'd guess yes (I doubt any dangerous metals are used in the can, and none melt at so low a temperature). I'd be more worried about plastics/etc. used in it, though I suspect they're fine at boiling, but have no actual evidence to point to.
Many cans are lined with plastic or epoxy.
https://www.stevespanglerscience.com/lab/experiments/can-ripper/
https://www.mnn.com/food/healthy-eating/blogs/which-food-companies-dont-use-bpa-lined-cans
DO NOT COOK in containers made for packaging. They contain an epoxy coating that will leach BPA into your food when heated to cooking temperatures.
This is especially true with the recent craze of cooking sweetened condensed milk in an Instapot (pressure cooker). Inside a pressure cooker water boils at 250 degrees. Everything is hotter than on top of the stove and, even more BPA will leach into your caramelized milk.
Do you have any support for your claim here?
Welcome to SA! Your answer makes some claims about food safety; consider linking those claims to authoritative sources.
I don't believe it's a "recent craze". My mother has been cooking condensed milk in a pressure cooker since the 80's.
It's likely that condensed milk (depending on the brand/packager) is sealed in a can that has a gold enamel lining. You do realize that many foods, as part of the commercial canning process, are essentially cooked in the can? Even more go into the container hot and are held at temperature while being sealed, etc.
@gnicko did you read the other posts? Derobert's comment points out that sweetened condensed milk is not heated in the can. So we don't know if the cans for condensed milk are heat-stable or not.
@rumtscho Yes, the cans are heat-stable. The same coatings are used for multiple types of foods. BPA leaches into food while the can sits on the shelf without any additional heating. I'm not sure that milk products typically use internal coatings that include BPA, but even if they do, a few batches of dulce de leche shouldn't be a problem. The OP was concerned with metal poisoning, which is even more of a "snowball's chance" kind of concern.
I don’t mean this in a snarky way, but what’s wrong with just dumping it into a pan, double boiler maybe? I know you have then created one more dirty dish but that eliminates the possibility of any off tastes or metallic tang in the milk.
Yes with suitable pan this is the best choice with that I agree with you.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.036242
| 2018-07-05T15:08:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90815",
"authors": [
"Evpok",
"FuzzyChef",
"Luciano",
"Moe Epo",
"dbmag9",
"derobert",
"gnicko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67584",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"infogizmo",
"mrog",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
108998
|
First time egg pickler, does pressure in jar mean they're spoiled?
I hard boiled several fresh eggs, and pickled them with a chilli and garlic flavoured pickling vinegar which had been simmered for ~15 mins, storing them in jars that had been sterilised in the oven for half an hour or so and cooled. (I didn't follow a recipe as such, more a combination of different ones.) Everything had cooled when it was jarred.
They've since been stored in a dark cupboard at UK room temperature.
A couple of weeks later and the pop-up button on the lids is up under pressure.
Am I right to conclude that this effort has been a failure and the eggs are spoiled?
If so, where did I likely go wrong?
Updated to add:
This is one of the recipies I followed (since I used their pickling vinegar):
https://www.sarsons.co.uk/recipes/pickled-eggs
But having also looked at this one:
https://www.bbcgoodfood.com/recipes/pickled-eggs
.. amongst others, I additionally boiled the vinegar and flavourings for about 15 minutes and sterilised the jars in the oven at 180C for about half an hour. (I underestimated the volume of vinegar needed so topped up with fresh unboiled pickling vinegar.)
"I didn't follow a recipe as such, more a combination of different ones." That was a really bad idea.
So if I read your question correctly, you filled the cooled eggs + brine in a jar, and stored them at room temperature, no further canning/heating step?
@Sneftel Maybe so. But to be clear, they were all substantially similar, and in particular I followed carefully the sterilisation steps because this was an area I knew could catch me out erring on the side of caution if recipes differed.
@Stephie That is correct. (None of the recipes I found said to do otherwise.)
I've added additional info about the recipes I "followed".
Did you follow the recipes and peel the eggs before pickling them?
@GdD Yes, they were peeled before pickling
As somebody who ferments things, unexpected ferments generally should not be trusted. Even I throw them out, even though I'm pretty sure they're safe, personally.
Based on these two recipes and others I Googled, it seems like fermentation is not expected or desired. It seems like the two recipes you link to assume that the acidity of the pickling brine will be enough to preserve the eggs at room temperature for some time. We store vinegar at room temperature all the time!
But there are a lot of variables that could affect this. How much sugar did you use? How much chili and garlic? were they fresh or dried? How big were your eggs, and how much vinegar did you use relative to everything else? How much water did you add to your brine mixture before simmering it? And how long did you let your brine cool?
Although sterilization is hugely important, so is the pH of the brine and salinity/sugar content of your additions. So if you're inventing recipes, make sure you take some time and really think through how your additions could be altering the pH of the overall solution. If you're lowering it, consider how that might change the method.
In order to keep this from happening again, I would recommend hot-packing your eggs, and consider looking into canning them. Hot-packing means take your jars out if the oven, put your eggs in them, pour in your hot brine, and close the lid. Then let them cool and transfer to the fridge.
Thanks, I think the lesson I draw from this is to test the acidity of the brine...
Sorry, hit POST by mistake and can't edit. To your comments: no water was added, minimal sugar (I didn't want a sweet result), the garlic was fresh but boiled with the vinegar, the chillies were dried but also boiled. Hot packing sounds like a plan, but presumably the eggs themselves are at room temperature at the point of packing?
They don't have to be. you could toss the shelled eggs into the brine to dimmer for another couple minutes before packing. just ladle hot eggs into hot jars and then distribute the brine.
Vinegar is acidic so it dissolves the carbonate of the eggshells producing co2 gas in the Prozess. Had the same happen to me, eggs were still good. foul semell would be bad
Hard boiled eggs are shelled before pickling.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.036895
| 2020-06-12T07:53:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108998",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Mark Rogers",
"Sneftel",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85023",
"kitukwfyer"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
112988
|
How much does a tuppenny loaf weigh?
I recently found an old recipe dating from (we think) the mid 19th century. It states to, "grate a stale tuppenny loaf".
How much is that? Pounds, ounces, kilograms -- I haven't been able to find a weight that I can use, and none of my older relatives know.
Location could be Cornwall, but that's based purely on where my family came from, rather than any knowledge or certainty
Does anybody on here know?
What are the other recipe ingredients, and the intended result? Knowing the approximate proportions may help you work backwards to figure out how large a loaf it should be :)
Depends when.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assize_of_Bread_and_Ale
The price directly related to the cost of the wheat so would have fluctuated over time, and even where the bread was sold.
There were also several types of loaf. I think this would typically refer to white bread, the most expensive.
This is from 1765 in London
I'd say around 'one pound', but it's massively variable and not really answerable without much more context.
Thanks for that. Your google-fu is much better than mine.
The best I can do is "probably mid 19th century", so say 1850s. Location [i]could[/i] be Cornwall, but that's based purely on where my family came from, rather than any knowledge or certainty.
there are quite a few references in books around 1850s-1870s to a penny loaf being 8 to 10 oz. So I'd say anywhere 16-20 oz.
also 15oz here in 1889
https://books.google.com.my/books?id=hisPAAAAQAAJ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjlh6-t6bbtAhWp73MBHZTXBps4HhDoATACegQIBBAC#v=snippet&q=penny%20loaf%20housekeeping%20ounces&f=false
Assuming that a ‘two penny loaf’ is the same as a ‘tuppenny loaf’, it likely depends on the time and place, for example, in Dartford Prison in 1788 it was 19 ounces:
allowance, a two penny loaf a day (weight 19 ounces)
Source
But in 1774 at Norwich Castle county gaol it had been 20 ounces (source).
In April 1766 the ‘Assize of Bread in and throughout the County of Leicester’ a two penny wheaten loaf was set down as 1lb 5oz, or 21 oz. (source)
Shrinkflation isn’t new.
In the children’s game of leapfrog, according to wiktionary, to ‘tuck in your tuppenny’ is to tuck in your head ‘perhaps named from a tuppenny loaf’. From which we might assume that a tuppenny loaf is head-sized, or child’s head sized, or that it was a rhyming slang for ‘tuppenny bread’ rather than loaf.
In 1728, according to Eliza Smith's The Compleat Housewife
it was the amount of bread upon which, thinly sliced, you might spread a pound of butter. (Source)
So somewhere just over half a kilo or about the size of a head, depending.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.037272
| 2020-12-05T10:43:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112988",
"authors": [
"Erica",
"Fredd",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89316",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89984",
"thelawnet"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100115
|
How to keep dumplings from quickly drying out
Last night, I assembled a few (around 2 dozen) dumplings from simple wrappers made from just flour and boiling water. I kept the wrappers under a wet towel because the edges started to dry out really quickly, but by the time I was done assembling them all, the filled dumplings were getting dry.
Is there a way, other than keeping everything under a damp towel, to keep them from drying out so quickly?
I should also add that I left the dough to rise in the fridge for a day in a kinda damp towel in a plastic container, maybe that has to do with it? But the dough wasn't dry went a rolled it out.
How many did you roll out in one go?
My in-laws (who are Chinese) add a little oil to their "wrapper dough" as well. And I also ask, how many did you roll out in one go?
@Stephie Not that many! See edit.
Dumpling wrappers are by nature prone to drying out. A wet towel will only work to a degree. If the filled dumplings dry out slightly, it’s not too critical (note that I wrote slightly), so temporarily covering them with a humid towel or putting them in a sealed container should suffice, but the wrappers alone will become brittle and unusable.
If you don’t have a bunch of friends or family so that you can work in an assembly-line, rolling just a few wrappers at time is the best way. How many will depend on your how nimble your fingers are and what kind of pleat you are doing. Maybe start with around five to ten and adjust accordingly.
Then either cook all dumplings after you are done wrapping, or cook batches while rolling, filling and pleating the next. This will need some more time management and multitasking and it’s your choice which one fits your needs and general preferences.
If I understand correctly, you're suggesting I roll out some wrappers, fill them, cook them, eat/freeze them and then finally repeat with a few more.
Nah, roll out a few, fill them and set them aside under a humid towel. Repeat until done. Then cook and enjoy. Or cook in parallel, for larger batches. But that’ll mean more multitasking, of course.
Other than keeping everything under a damp towel, since that's what I did last time I was looking for a trick or different dough recipe, like adding oil, or something.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.037511
| 2019-07-10T18:37:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100115",
"authors": [
"Hugo",
"J Crosby",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73864",
"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
}
|
99993
|
What are the effects of abstaining from eating a certain flavor?
I've often heard that we become accustomed to oversalty food and that abstaining from eating such foods for a few weeks could allow us to taste salt in lesser quantities again. From experience I would say this is true, though it could be placebo, but does this also apply to other flavors? Are there any negative effects of doing this?
By flavor I mean Bitter, Sour & Umami, since most answers so far already deal with sweets and salt.
Health questions are off topic, but the rest is answerable, maybe it would be good to edit out the health part of the question.
Fair enough @GdD
It can take some years to truly eliminate the "taste for" sugar in coffee, say. It's a very, very deep addiction on many levels.
You nailed the correct wording in your question - "we become accustomed to". We tend to get used to and like what we become accustomed to.
For the same reason that we get used to overly salty things, we can get used to less salty things. What we get used to becomes normal and what we like.
I've experienced the salt reduction due to a health condition my husband has. We can no longer tolerate food with the same level of salt that we used to eat. By reducing the amount we use, we became accustomed to food with less salt.
I did the same thing with sugar in tea and coffee many years ago. I grew up with Southern style (very) sweet tea. I didn't gradually reduce it but cut it out all the way. To this day I don't use sugar in coffee or tea, add it to cereal (or buy frosted cereal) and I find many sweet things just too sweet for my taste.
I also liken this to learning to like new foods. There are many things I've tried and didn't like up front but, after continuing to try them, eventually found that I had learned to like these foods. One, for example is cilantro. When I first started tasting it I couldn't stand it. I swore that it tasted like soap. But after a while, I found myself really liking it. So much so, that I started adding it to many foods that ordinarily I wouldn't have thought to.
While taste is subjective, we can become accustomed to new things and often times need to.
Interesting, I don't remember from where but I heard linking cilantro with soap couldn't be change.
@Halhex Yeah, I've heard that, too. Something about the "cilantro gene". Obviously not true, at least not for me.
We can condition ourselves to anything.
@Cindy There is indeed a gene that expresses a specific aldehyde receptor that makes cilantro taste like soap to some people; that doesn't require "scare quotes". Perhaps someone with the gene could become accustomed to the soapy taste of cilantro, but it would still be a different flavor than the one experienced by those without the gene.
@Tashus I used the quotation marks because I was not using the proper name or number for the gene, but rather a loose term. They were not meant to be "scare quotes". I'm sure that people's perception of what something tastes like varies regardless of whether they like a taste or not.
@Cindy " I'm sure that people's perception of what something tastes like varies regardless of whether they like a taste or not." What do you mean by that? Are you saying that different people will taste things differently even if they process the same chemical components? Or just that they can have different opinions about it?
@JJJ Yes, l think that people can taste things differently. An example of this is about cilantro. People who don't like the taste due to the aldehyde receptor report different taste perceptions. Some say it tastes soapy while others say it tastes earthy or like dirt.
@Cindy right, but that's because they cannot process some chemical components. In your first comment "Obviously not true, at least not for me" it seems as though you say that can change, hence my question about "even if they process the same chemical components".
About 40 years ago I thought that 4 sugars in a coffee was perhaps a tad more than I really needed ;)
It took me maybe 4 years of gradual reduction - including about 6 months when I needed just that quarter spoon for the first cup then I would be OK without for the rest of the day.
Without actually intending to, by the time I'd got the sugar down to zero, I'd also stopped eating sweet things entirely. This was not any kind of 'health' or 'diet' thing, it just coincided with my gradual reduction of sugar in coffee.
To this day I cannot bear sugar in coffee. I rarely eat sweet things at all - it's not that I dislike them, I simply have little desire for them & when I do try, they're usually just far too sweet.
I've never tried it with salt... maybe it would work, but I have never felt the need to try. [I have some theories about salt addition, but they don't really belong here.]
It doesn't work with chilli. I've been a "chilli addict" since my teens & if I ever go a few weeks without anything seriously hot, it makes no difference; it's not suddenly 'hotter'. I'm not in any way 'chilli immune' but I do like it to bite back. [This applies not just to the pseudo-mexican dish, but to any type of 'curry' too.]
Well actually, it worked for me for chili, as I got (forced myself to get) accustomed to the heat I was able to discern more flavors in them. Maybe it only works on way though.
If I abstain from chilli [which I very rarely do] it doesn't get hotter when I come back to it. I've been accustomed to the heat for 40 years or more. I have never considered repeating the sugar experiment with chilli - I don't feel any need to reduce my chilli intake over the next 4 years ;)
True, but heat is more of a sensation than flavor so it makes sense we get accustomed to it but not the other way around.
It's not something I've actually studied, it's merely an observation based on an experimental sample set of... one. ;)
@Halhex Indeed -- capsaicin stimulates the pain receptors in your mouth.
I have personally experienced this with sweet as I reduced the amount of sugar (and sweeteners) I add to tea and coffee and I can at attest that I did get accustomed to less sweet to the point that when I had tea with the same amount of sugar as before it was far too sweet for me.
I didn't do a "big-bang" reduce by half all at once, I did it gradually over about a month until I was down to about half what I'd been adding. However, I found I hit a limit, if I reduced too much it was never sweet enough no matter how long I gave my taste to acclimate.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.037828
| 2019-07-05T13:34:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99993",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"David Richerby",
"Fattie",
"GdD",
"Hugo",
"JJJ",
"Tashus",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37796",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61703",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73864"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100634
|
Why did my chili oil flakes split in two layers?
I recently made chili oil at home for the first time, it is delicious and works great. I simply infused canola oil with some spices and then poured it on chili flakes mixed with a bit of black vinegar. However, when I look at pictures of homemade chili oils, I noticed mine is a bit different.
Most chili flakes sunk at the bottom, but there's also a layer that stayed nearly floating at the top. Nothing but oil in-between those two layers. Whenever I use it, I have to mix it with a spoon first, which gets it looking exactly like what you'd expect, but slowly goes back into layers.
Is this normal behavior for homemade chili oil? If not, what can be done to prevent it?
My few theories as to why that is are:
I haven't used enough chili flakes for the amount of oil (though I did research these amounts first)
Some of the chili flakes burnt when I poured the oil while others didn't
Cheap chili flakes are cheap
Finally an update:
Could you post a picture perhaps? There are different parts of the Chili and if you bought a blend that may even have some slightly different densities.
Yeah, I wanted to do that and took a quick picture of it last night but didn't look at it and it's extremely blurry. I will take another this evening and post it.
However, it doesn't look to me as there is any difference between the flakes that float vs the ones that sink.
What type of Chili flakes did you use? We make chili oil at home all the time and have only once had this issue (over the course of roughly 6 years).
@JCrosby, I used the only one they had at the Asian market without any English translation on it. I'll take a picture of that as well in case.
Please do - funny enough I happen to read Chinese ... and that's where I get most of my spices.
@JCrosby I have finally managed to upload decent looking pictures! (which I don't know how to resize) Was also wrong about the chili flakes.
Probably just due to moisture content (or density). I wouldn't particularly worry about it
@Bee I'm not worried about it, it's delicious, but I want to know what I did wrong to do it right next time.
I've had the same thing happen. My suspicion is that the flakes on top had residual moisture which puffed them up during cooking, or alternatively that other gases were produced by pyrolysis and similarly trapped. Either way, a quick Google image search suggests that this happens fairly often.
Chili oil has to be mixed before use in any case, so I wouldn't worry about it. But if you were particularly unhappy with the look, you could try cooking the chili oil at a lower temperature, or pre-drying the chili flakes in the oven (a few hours at around 120°C should do it).
After looking at the picture that is exactly what happened. +1 for "stealing my answer"
OP mentions the flakes were "mixed with a bit of black vinegar",before being added to the oil, that could easily be the source of the moisture you mention
Yeah my chilli oil always does that too... I just skim the "floaters" off the top with each batch, because i like control of being able to pour just the oil on its own without flakes in there... if i want flakes i spoon them from the bottom
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.038334
| 2019-08-07T15:44:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100634",
"authors": [
"Gamora",
"Hugo",
"J Crosby",
"Megha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73864",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75772",
"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
}
|
109416
|
Are there unwanted effects to simmering vegetables for days?
Simply put, will continuously simmering vegetables for days, even up to a week or two, in a perpetual stock lead to unexpected or unwanted results?
Since even the longest stock recipes I know don't take more than a day to make, I assume flavour extraction will stop after a few hours but does cooking veggies beyond that point generate off-flavours?
I've also looked up safety concerns of perpetual broths; in this case, since it's a vegetarian one consistently kept at a simmer to which I will regularly add boiling water, I don't think it will be an issue. I'm still new to food-science though so I might have missed something there.
Some answers, for example this one by barbecue or that one by jeabp, partly answer this question, however, I don't think it's specific enough to render this one a duplicate.
What different answer do you expect? It's already mentioned in the linked questions: "I think the issue is that there's a limited amount of the aromatic compounds which produce the desired flavor, and over time, these tend to evaporate." so why simmer further?
To me, this is a duplicate...any aspect that does not cover (will it lead to unwanted results) is probably a matter of opinion.
@moscafj That question does say "I'm asking explicitly about one unchanged stock: a pot of bones in water, optionally some spices and mirepoix" whereas mine is about a perpetual vegetable stock and the effects of simmering for a long period of time, not how long to simmer.
@Halhex, I hear you, but the first answer pretty much covers your issue.
@Luciano That answer does mention the loss of flavour over time, however, it does not talk about possible adverse effects of keeping it on a simmer for longer, such as unwanted flavours.
@moscafj If the answer to my question is no, except for loss of flavour then I agree with you. But since the question wasn't about a perpetual stock like mine I am left to wonder if there are other effects and other answers. In that sense, even if the other answer also answers this question, I don't think the questions are duplicates.
Both perpetual stock and unchanged stock are answered in the duplicate. Simmer for days: loss of flavor. Refresh ingredients: stock keeps going.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.038615
| 2020-07-01T19:09:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109416",
"authors": [
"Hugo",
"Luciano",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73864",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
95612
|
Is there a way to make this bread recipe's crust less crunchy?
This is a challah recipe I inherited:
1 cup warm water
2 eggs, lightly beaten
2 tbsp vegetable oil
4 1/2 cups bread flour
1 tbsp sugar
1 tbsp yeast
Knead, let rise, braid, let rise, egg wash, and bake at 375°F for an hour.
I like the flavor of this and the consistency of the bread inside. However, I don't like how hard and thick a crust it gets. I've tried leaving off the egg wash but it's still crispy and tough. (This hasn't always been a huge deal, it's just how this loaf bakes... but my daughter recently got braces, and she's finding it very difficult to eat!)
Are there tweaks I can make to ingredients, baking time, or oven temperature to get a more pliable crust?
How crispy are we talking here? Usually crispy bread is a good thing!
Very -- it crumbs easily, and is unpleasantly dry compared to the inside of the load. Generally challah is shared at our meals by tearing off pieces (each braid portion makes a chunk, sort of) and this doesn't really tear, it requires a lot of effort to break.
I'd say it is either overcooked, or cooked at too high a temperature.
Tenting it with foil towards the end will help to keep the outside softer, but I think dealing with the potential over-baking should be the first step. I also can't remember if a milk wash (vs. egg wash) helps. I know it makes it more brown, but I can't remember if it makes it softer or not (it might just be that I pull it earlier because it's more brown, so it's cooked less)
I make the same Challah bread recipe every year, and mine says to bake at 350°f for 35 min and the crust is chewy but not crunchy or crisp. I've never had it under baked either.
I agree, 1 hour is way too long.
Yeah, I'm starting to wonder whether Grandma's oven was extremely miscalibrated, and that's why it's so hot/long...
Another way to ask this question is: how can I cook the exterior of this food less, while keeping the inside cooked? The answer to this question is a lower temperature. This applies to most foods, including meat, cakes, etc. I suggest cooking this bread at a lower temperature for longer. The inside will be cooked and the outside will be relatively less cooked. Perhaps try 325.
Is your oven using convection by chance? If so, turn that off. Convection increases surface temperatures significantly and dries more due to moving air.
The convection function isn't running when we bake this.
I've made normal white bread before, and when it came out of the oven I would cover it with a clean dish towel, and the crust would be soft after it had cooled. I'm presuming the steam would be trapped next to the crust and soften it. I remember the loaves I didn't do this to had very hard crusts.
As the currently provided information seems to point to overcooking, as the commenters and other answers already found out: you want to cook it until it is "just through" and see what happens. So I would suggest going by internal temperature instead of time.
Stick a meat thermometer in the bread and remove it when it reaches 96C, that should give you a properly baked bread. If that turns out to be too doughy, you can experiment with 98 C or so. But keeping it in the oven until dried out a lot will indeed produce the hard crust you describe.
When you do this, the inside of the bread will change also. Challahs tend to be rather soft-squishy, although this one probably not so much, as it is not overly heavy on egg yolk. But be prepared for a different texture on the inside.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.038799
| 2019-01-13T19:21:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/95612",
"authors": [
"Behacad",
"Erica",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61080",
"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
}
|
37025
|
Why are there spikes growing out of my ice tray?
This is sooo weird. As is my habit, I filled my ice trays with cold tap water and let them settle on the counter for 15 minutes or so. Then I put them in the freezer. A few hours later I opened the freezer and found that the ice had these nail-like projections. The longest was maybe 3 inches long. They weren't touching anything. What the heck happened? Notice the baby dude in the first picture? WTF?
They're often called ice spikes. Ten years ago these things were pretty mysterious, but now Wikipedia even has a video of them growing out of ice cube trays in a freezer.
Basically, the ice surface freezes first, which slightly pressurizes the water underneath. That water breaks through the crust, and continues to flow, and freeze to equalize pressure within the cooling cube. Temperature conditions have to be just right for it to happen, so you don't see them all the time.
So I guess the big question now is, "Are they safe to drink?"
@Jolenealaska Should be. The contaminants in freezing water tend to get concentrated into the last bit that freezes, via the process of freezing point depression. Since the spike can't be the last bit to freeze, it should be reasonably pure water.
The question was actually intended to be a small joke.
Well, you could poke an eye out if you're not careful with em.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.039094
| 2013-09-23T13:30:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37025",
"authors": [
"Allan Brewster",
"Audrey",
"Barry MSIH",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kyrilex ",
"PeterC",
"Saifdameh",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"dalton",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86944",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86945",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86947",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86962",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86964",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86977",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87005",
"rvijay007",
"user86946"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
49654
|
Old-Fashioned Candy/Deep-Fry Thermometer - How Shallow Can I Go?
I have a thermometer like this:
Today I'm making tostadas. I don't need or want deep oil for that, just over a centimeter would be plenty. In order to submerge the bulb of this thermometer in oil that shallow, the bulb would almost be touching the bottom of the pan. Would I get even close to an accurate reading that way? Is there an accepted minimum depth for using a thermometer of this type?
I disagree w/ Elendil; in any case it will not hurt to try it. As long as there is a couple of millimeters gap at the bottom, you'll be able to tell when the oil reaches temp and when it has cooled down because, e.g., you just dumped stuff in it.
@goldilocks as is my nature, I will experiment if I don't get a canonical answer. But I do like Elendil's chopstick trick.
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/12283/67 (although I need to fix some typos)
That is probably not deep enough to get an accurate reading. It varies with the thermometer, but usually you need at least a couple of centimetres to be submerged to get an accurate reading. Also, unless you are super careful, it will be nearly impossible to stop the thermometer touching the bottom of the pan. In my experience the clips on these doohickies are terrible for adjusting the angle of the thermometer.
When shallow frying in this manner I usually just go by rules of thumb. One that has never let me down is to use a wooden chopstick. When you think the oil is getting hot enough, place the tip of the chopstick in the oil. If bubbles rapidly appear around the chopstick, you're hot to trot.
NICE! I even have wooden chopsticks!
There are certain details missing here that would make this problem easier to solve. I would want to know what kind of pan you're using, what kind of oil you're using, and what temperature you're shooting for. However, even without knowing these things in an other than general way, there is still an approach you can use which will meet your stated aims.
Using whatever oil you intend, add to your pan significantly more than you know you'll need. Perhaps half an inch or more. Crank up your heat to something reasonable. Give the oil a chance to really heat up. Check it with your thermometer. Holding it in a well gloved hand is fine. If it falls below your target temperature, (meaning hasn't reached it yet), wait awhile longer to see if more time is needed. Next time you'll be able to tell whether to crank the heat up a bit more. If, however, the oil has already exceeded your target temperature, obviously you'll have to turn it down a bit and work this same process in reverse.
Sooner or later you'll be able to tweak this amount of oil to your target temperature. The beauty here is that the setting you've found will work just the same on the lesser amount of oil, that is, so long as you keep all other things equal (same pan, same kind of oil). In other words, whatever temperature your larger amount of oil gets to (unless it's excessively large) is the same as what your smaller amount of oil is going to get to (unless it's excessively small). So once you've got everything determined, you won't need to make any more temperature measurements.
This wouldn't be true for the skinniest amount of oil. But it's fine for what you describe.
So, without in any way adjusting your heat settings, just pour off all of the extra hot oil and return your pan to the burner. Because you've fine-tuned your settings your oil will rise to your target temperature and not exceed it. Just wait a bit each time you find it necessary to add a little oil (the tostadas will absorb a bit themselves) since, of course, the cool oil will need time to reach the target temp. For greater convenience you could perform this same process on a small pot of oil on a back burner, so that while you're frying your tostadas you'll always have instant access to oil at the proper temperature which, that is to say, you can just ladle on over into your pan. Muy buena!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.039281
| 2014-11-10T07:11:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49654",
"authors": [
"Anna Herendeen",
"Anthony Olmos",
"Dinah Salinas",
"Janet Vetter",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Mark Jones",
"Tam Shields",
"goldilocks",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118652",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118653",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118693",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25585",
"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
}
|
54095
|
Fermenting Sauerkraut - Should I Stir?
I haven't done this for a very long time. I am following Alton Brown's recipe, which conveniently fits perfectly into a little hack-job of containers I already had. (Related: Why isn't glass ideal for the fermentation of sauerkraut?) @Athanasius' answer to that question led me to what I'm doing with this batch. At this point I feel pretty comfortable with it:
The two containers are identical, and I have a few inches of water in the top container so that it weighs down the cabbage in the lower container. It seems to be working pretty sweet. I'm three days in and it's starting to smell like something is happening. There is a funk in the air.
So far so good.
Now I am dying to stir it...to do something! Everything I have read (including Athanasius' answer) suggests that in a less awesome container I might have to stir, but now I don't necessarily have to do anything but scoop off scum which has yet to appear.
That's killing me.
Is there a reason not to stir? Will stirring offer any benefit?
Fermentation is anaerobic. Introducing oxygen can actually be dangerous in some cases (probably not w/ Sauerkraut), but in most cases it just spoils the food. I'm a brewer, not a sauerkraut maker, but fermentation is fermentation.
Well, having grown up near "the" Sauerkraut region in Germany - I'd say don't.
Honstly, I hadn't ever thought about why until today (can't have been only lazyness that my ancestors left the kraut in peace until done.), but:
Why making really sure to create a water-seal when you are breaking it with stirring? The kraut is supposed to ferment under the absence from air! You are supposed to check on the kraut regularly and even fill up with saltwater, if if the water level is too low. If even the smallest bit of cabbage sticks out from the brine, you risk mold.
Besides, I'd be afraid to drag something nasty into the half-done kraut (and I'm so not implying that your utensils aren't clean!).
I'm adding a detail from a classic fermenting pot: note the groove at the top which is supposed to be filled with water. The lid sits in this, ensuring the seal. The two stones are supposed to weigh the kraut down (what you do with the second plastic box).
Exposing the sauerkraut to air is undesirable: we want an oxygen-free environment for the bacteria to do their work, and air exposure also brings increased (though small) likelihood of surface contamination (by mold for example).
I don't have a reference but I'm pretty sure that historically opening a crock to stir was not a thing.
And regarding your statement @jbarker2160 that sauerkraut
is also the favored environment of some really nasty bacteria
I'd certainly like more information about that claim if you have some. If anything I would think the opposite to be true. A high-salt and increasingly high-acidity environment is not friendly to most bacteria, which is why sauerkraut is hard to screw up. Considering that throughout history people generally would not have sterilized their equipment (or even had the means to do so) you would not have expected fermented foods to have caught on at all if it posed a significant health risk.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but to my eye it looks like there is a tiny gap between the two containers so the surface of the fermenting liquid is slightly exposed to air. Is that correct?
If so, you have an "open crock" apparatus where the surface is exposed to air. While "open crock" is a very traditional method (and Alton Brown seems unconcerned), as I mentioned in my answer to the question you linked, many people tend toward airlocks today to avoid some of the surface "scum," which could include mold or occasionally something less nice.
There are some who advocate mild agitation of the water surface in an open crock at least for the first few days (until the liquid turns quite acidic), which might prevent some molds from settling, for instance. But if you do have any contaminants in that surface layer, agitation also risks pushing them further down into the cabbage.
For that reason, I'd recommend against stirring, if by "stirring" you mean dipping something down far in and agitating the cabbage itself. The only thing that can come from that is contamination. You won't speed up the fermentation significantly. And there's no positive benefit to it. So, don't stir the cabbage.
If you want to agitate the exposed water surface slightly (which in your containers could just be lifting the top one up a bit and putting it back down), maybe it might prevent some "scum" from settling on the surface. But I don't know that I've seen anything conclusively showing that this would be better than simply skimming off any scum that might show up after you see it.
Yes, that is correct, there is a tiny air gap between containers. I could wrap that gap with plastic wrap, do you think I should? Your answer and the others have convinced me and I won't stir, but I will lift the top container at least every three days to check and skim if necessary.
Why lift? You are using clear containers - you should be able to see what's happening...?
@Jolenealaska - People have used "open crock" fermentations for millennia. Things rarely go wrong, particularly if you skim anything weird-looking that appears. However, people who actually measure stuff that grows in ferments these days have noticed that there are bits of mold and stuff that can get into your food even if you skim, and that happens less often with better seals. Usually that stuff is harmless, which is why no one cared about it historically (and many people don't now). Plastic wrap might help a little, but other people would say it's unnecessary. It's up to you.
@Stephie They're not quite clear enough to really see. So far, no scum.
Stirring won't necessarily cause any safety problems or anything like that, but you'll change the flavor of the finished product(although the detectability of the change is debatable) due to the bacteria switching to making acetic acid(vinegar) instead of lactic acid in the presence of oxygen.
An occasional stir won't make a noticeable impact on the final product(probably), but make sure that you stir with a sterilized instrument since the type of environment that's most conducive to sauerkraut production is also the favored environment of some really nasty bacteria. Also, make sure that the brine level is above the cabbage when you are done.
Since stirring can only harm not help, leave it be!
Also, I agree that fermentation is the preferred method of preservation (other than freezing) to avoid spoilage by molds, bad bacterial, etc.
Botulism is so rare with lacto fermented veg as to be virtually undocumented. Basically if it doesn't have visible blue, black or green slime on it, and it smells good to you, it won't harm you.
My mother has a recipe that you have to mix in 2 to 3 days. The reason being as in a large quantity the centre can heat and rot. I just finished 17 large heads of cabbage in a 20 gallon crock. I mixed on day two. I could feel heat in the centre. I now leave till ready.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.039640
| 2015-01-28T16:24:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54095",
"authors": [
"Around The Clock Garage Doors",
"Athanasius",
"Chris Pfohl",
"Helen Brophy",
"John McClaeb",
"Jolenealaska",
"Journey Psyche Arizona",
"Joy Voda",
"Ling Yan Luk",
"Michelle Lesser",
"NewbornDC",
"Spammer",
"Stephie",
"Varsha Rajendran",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127233",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127235",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127240",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127250",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127252",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131875",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27326",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100065
|
Does proofing time depend on the quantity of dough?
One recipe, for example, specifies the dough should be left to rise for 4 hours. If I make halt the amount of dough, will the proofing time change?
I'm not providing the recipe because I will be trying and experimenting with many in the next few days.
Are we talking about yeast-based recipes? (See why adding the recipe may least get the discussion started in the right direction?)
@stephie- Do you proof your chemically risen dough? This question is not about a single recipe and including a recipe would be distracting. IMO most questions are not improved by including the recipe.
@Sobachatina We may also be dealing with language imprecision - many dumpling wrappers are completely without leavening (not unlike pasta dough) and would need a resting period. Just trying to clarify what exactly we are talking about.
Fair enough. The question stated they were left to rise. Seems very clear to me. Either way- the question is about rising in general and not about this particular recipe.
@Sobachatina learned to assume very little and ask for clarification just to double-check. Like your answer, btw.
No.
The proofing time of a dough is a function of the ratio of yeast and available water, and the temperature of the dough. Notice these are ratios. If you doubled a recipe but didn't double the yeast with it the dough would rise much more slowly.
The quantity of dough will only play a role in rise time if the dough is a significantly different temperature than the surrounding environment. In this case the dough in the center will rise at a different rate than the dough on the outside.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.040305
| 2019-07-08T20:02:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100065",
"authors": [
"Sobachatina",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"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
}
|
100264
|
Am I cooking mushrooms wrong?
Since I was a child, I never really liked mushrooms. To be honest, I was extremely picky, but now, I eat anything. Well... Almost anything. I can't stand mushrooms. Except, I can't understand why, and I want to learn to love mushrooms since they're really useful as a vegetarian.
For example, yesterday, I made some pretty simple miso soup and added some, supposedly delicious shiitake mushrooms to it. I salted them and fried them at medium-high heat for a few minutes until they had a nice color and texture. Did doing that affected the taste in a bad way?
I also remember making mushrooms risotto some time ago and getting the same disgusting taste.
Am I missing something obvious here? Is this not how you're supposed to cook mushrooms?
We can't provide any suggestions for how to prepare mushrooms so that you will (or might) like them. Those responses would simply be comprised of personal opinion, which is not what we do here on this site. We are also not a recipe sharing site. There are questions on cleaning and cooking mushrooms that have been asked, and have answers. Have you tried the search bar...or the related questions? If these don't capture your question, try rephrasing it so that what you want to know is more obviously captured.
@moscafj I did wonder if asking for directions was on topic, my main question remains fairly non-opinion-base though, I think.
Have you tried different types of mushrooms?
@Halhex can you edit your question so that it focuses on, and specifies, your main question? Part of the problem is that there are multiple ways to cook mushrooms. For example, this might help: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27713/how-to-properly-saut%c3%a9-mushrooms-so-that-they-dont-release-water. So, see if you can search the site, then rephrase your question.
Is your issue only with cooked mushrooms? They certainly don't require cooking to be eaten. Have you tried them raw (for example in a salad)? Strangely I'm suddenly feeling a craving for a salad with mushrooms ...
Everyone experiences flavors and scents differently. It's possible that you taste chemical compounds that others don't (similar to the 'cilantro tastes like soap' group of people), and you'll never like mushrooms. But it also takes trying things a few times so you're not surprised by the taste/texture/scent of things to really make up your mind about things. (I didn't like olives 'til I was in my 30s and had a castelvetrano)
what did you fry then with? It is possible that frying them with a different fat would have a different outcome. Certainly I wouldn't mistake a mushroom cooked in butter for one cooked in olive oil, or goose fat.
@Spagirl I fried it in some cheap vegetable oil, I'll definitely try butter next time as I constantly see it in recipes
@Joe Hopefully not, I think I was traumatized a few years ago by some really really bad raw mushrooms, so if I keep eating them I'll get pass that.
@brhans Though I'm not a fan of raw mushrooms I actually don't think I get the same disgust from them, I'll have to experiment some more with that.
Many people overcook their mushrooms. They end up soggy, like the ones canned in liquid. With enough heat and some oil, you can sear them, so they get brown, but still have a fresh, non-soggy, flavor. It's easy to put too many mushrooms in a frypan on a small burner, and that gives you soggy soup.
There's nothing wrong with the way you cooked those mushrooms, you fried them to give them some color and seasoned them, which is perfectly fine. You didn't mess them up, you just don't like them. No matter how you prepare them you probably still won't like the flavor, there's nothing wrong with that, it's just how you are.
The answer to your question is: It was not a "wrong" way to cook them., people just like different things. Mushrooms have glutamates and maybe you are either sensitive to them physically or sensitive to them taste-wise.
That said, if you fried (pan fried, right?) at medium high and the edges got darkish, you likely intensified some of the flavors, which you seem to not care for. Shiitake can be strong flavored to begin with. If you want to try again, I suggest trying a mild mushroom like a white button (at least that is the common name in the USA) and sautee at low heat with salt and pepper until they look cooked, but not "caramelized" or burnt on the edges.
Disclaimers: I adore mushrooms, pretty much any variety cooked in any manner.
Have you considered that maybe you're in the very slightest allergic to mushrooms? Is it just the taste or is it also the smell and or texture of the mushrooms?
For example I'm allergic to raw cucumbers and, I'm assuming as a defence mechanism, I can't stand the smell of them if someone is preparing or consuming them near me.
I also can't stand the taste and smell of most melons as they're in the same family.
It could just be your body telling you that it doesn't like mushrooms even if it isn't bringing on a full-on allergic reaction (vomiting/rash/anaphylactic shock).
I'm not allergic however, I had a traumatic mushroom experience so I probably just need to recondition myself; that's what I've been doing these past few days.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.040480
| 2019-07-18T19:57:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100264",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"Hugo",
"Joe",
"Spagirl",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"brhans",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73864",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100473
|
How to safely reuse glass bottles to store oils
I like to reuse glass bottles and jars in my kitchen in order to create less waste. Recently, I bought a large quantity of olive oil which I would like to use by pouring some of it in an empty 500ml vodka bottle:
I have a few concerns, however, since the oil I bought came in a dark glass container which I can only assume is there to protect it from light. I also wonder if it would be fine to simply top off the oil in the bottle once it gets low or if I should clean the bottle every time to ensure it remains safe. Basically, how can I do this safely?
Yes, you can refill when the oil gets low without emptying and washing. I've never had it happen in a case like this but, if it ever smells rancid, obviously you'd want to wash it before adding more oil.
Yes, it is safe.
Just wash the bottle with dish soap and hot water.
Unless you do not use the oil in the new bottle frequently, degradation from light should not be an issue; you could store that bottle in a cupboard when not in use (or get a dark glass booze bottle)
Personally, I would try to use a small bottle than a 750ml bottle.
I'm actually using a 500ml bottle so it should be fine, didn't bother looking for the exact picture.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.040876
| 2019-07-30T13:59:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100473",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"Hugo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73864"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100977
|
I accidentally used a bathroom sponge on my dishes
Somebody help, please! I don’t know what to do?
Wash it again with a clean sponge? What have you used that sponge on before? just tiles, sink or toilet bowl? That might make a difference.
I mean, I wouldn't eat off them like that. I suggest washing them with regular dishwashing equipment first.
Your dishes aren't ruined or anything. A big reason they're made out of something non-porous, like ceramic or metal or plastic, is so you can scrub them clean with soap and water without any food or, uh, other stuff getting stuck inside them. The scrubbing clears off any macroscopic dirt, and the soap both rinses off microscopic stuff and kills a lot of microorganisms. If cleaning dishes with normal methods weren't enough to get rid of dangerous germs, a whole lot more people would get food poisoning.
Maybe he needs some special cleaning method but not just regular dish-washing equipment. Seems he might have some "shadows" on the dishes...
What do you mean by "shadows"? The ghost of poop?
Fears, more precisely.
I don't think there are chemicals to get rid of that. ;-)
@Sneftel - oh but there are ... just not the type you put in your dishwater ... ;)
I once read a post where someone freaked out because someone else washed their underwear with their other clothes. When health inspectors came to my restaurants, they would mark you down for using sponges cause they could harbor bacteria. In this case, the greatest fear is the fear itself--knowing what has occurred rather than any real danger but, I agree, rewashing them should rinse those fears down the drain.
If your dishes are ceramic, you could put them into a pot, fill in water and heat up until boiling and switch the fire off. Later turn cooler take them out, then use 70% rubbing alcohol to wipe your dishes, then finally wash them with clean water thoroughly.
Any regular or special cleaning method should do the work to get rid of those dirtiness or adhered bacteria. However if you still have concern about the dishes, maybe just abandon or not use them and remember to separate bathroom's and kitchen's sponges completely, and DO NOT misuse again. Prevention is always better than a cure.
Is that how you ordinarily wash your dishes? What special things do you expect rubbing alcohol to do?
@Sneftel Of course not. Due to his dishes is contaminated with bathroom sponge(maybe the sponge is used to wipe the toliet? I don't know), alcohol might be not too heavy for cleaning because those dishes still need to put food on it!
@Sneftel 70% alcohol is often used in labs as a surface decontaminant as it is pretty good a killing bacteria and viruses through dehydration, destruction of lipid membranes and precipitation of proteins. 100% doesn't work so well, it's too quick to evaporate and more expensive to use.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.041006
| 2019-08-27T04:29:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100977",
"authors": [
"Conifers",
"Luciano",
"Rob",
"Sneftel",
"bob1",
"brhans",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76671"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100053
|
How long will schmaltz last in the freezer?
I have three frozen containers of schmaltz. The newest is three months old; the oldest is probably a couple of years old. Are any of them edible?
It definitely depends on the kind of schmaltz you are having, but to be honest I never have seen schmaltz gone bad, even after several years. I have had schmaltz in the fridge for over a year and it was still perfectly fine.
I'd suggest the following: follow your gut. Just look at it and check for the usual signs. In order: Does it look normal (no mold, no discoloration, normal consistency)? Does it smell normal? Does it taste normal? Then it's probably still good and you can use it for whatever you like. If you're still unsure: use it for cooking only.
An addendum: The thing that'll happen to any kind of fat in the freezer is that eventually it goes rancid (never happened to me, so I'd guess the timescale required is at least "several years"). A slight rancidness may bring a bit of complexity and actually improve taste, so you may well have a little fatty treasure in your freezer. If it's gone too rancid it smells and tastes bad, but it's still safe to eat (assuming it's not spoiled in any other way). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rancidification
I'm not certain about the older ones, but frozen schmaltz should be fine for a while, at least a few months.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.041257
| 2019-07-08T15:32:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100053",
"authors": [
"gustafc",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3303"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
99792
|
What cuts of meat are preferable when you want to avoid drying out?
I want to cook meat that is well done in an oven, doesn't have crust on the outside and doesn't dry out.
In this question What am I doing wrong when cooking meat? it seems people were saying its the cut of meat.
Are there parts of chicken that may be more suited to avoid drying out. Is chicken breasts more likely to dry out or not?
What cuts of meat from say beef or lamb would be preferable, or is it that case when you get a well done piece of red meats, it will always be too tough?
Is steak more likely to come out drier than other cuts of meat or about the same?
SnakeDoc's answer on the other question covers just about every eventuality already. Your goals, though, seem to be in opposing corners of a triangle... well done, tender & homogenous [no crust]. A slow cooker would seem to be your best chance of that, not an oven.
1) Chicken is a tough meat to cook right, in that it dries out very easily. A few too many minutes of cooking and you can go from a deliciously juicy piece of chicken to a dry and chalky piece of chicken.
If you're newer to cooking chicken, I highly recommend using a meat thermometer and taking the meat off the heat about 5-10 degrees before the final temperature is reached, as the meat will continue to rise in internal temperature during the resting period.
For cuts of chicken, it doesn't really matter. I personally like chicken breast, which is white meat and is lower in fat. But chicken thighs (dark meat) are also great, and tend to be juicier by default because of a higher fat content. The entire chicken is great!
Start with some known chicken recipes, which include cooking times and spice/marinade combinations. Once you try a few, you'll get an idea of how to experiment on your own.
Chicken Breast Recipes
2) It will depend how you intend to cook and eat the meat. If you just want a piece of beef, you're going to usually want what's traditionally considered a steak. This will be a NY Strip, Rib Eye, Tenderloin (Filet Mignon), Porterhouse, and many more. Stay away from Chuck (stew beef), Round, Flank, Sirloin etc. These cuts are tougher and require more than just grilling or baking to become enjoyable (although can be very enjoyable when marinated, or slow cooked).
Well done meat isn't always tough - I highly suspect it was the cut of meat you were trying to prepare in your other question. Although, most people will find well done meat less enjoyable than, say, medium-rare or similar. This is preference though - so eat what you find most enjoyable. (although if you have not tried a medium-rare NY Strip or Porterhouse, I recommend it!)
3) This entirely depends on how you cook the meat and what cut of meat you start with. Things like Chuck are usually cheaper than NY Strip, because they are tougher to start with, and contain more connective tissue that must be broken down before it can be enjoyed. For example, Sirloin is usually a bit tougher than a NY Strip, however if marinaded and slow cooked properly, it can be turned into a delicate, tender and delicious Tri-Tip! Same goes for Flank, which when marinated properly can be turned into delicious carne asada for "street tacos".
For more tips on how to prepare and cook your meat, see your other question: What am I doing wrong when cooking meat?
If you have the ability to find it, I highly recommend watching some episodes of Alton Brown's Good Eats tv show. It's fantastic, and doesn't just explain how to cook something - it explains the why reasoning behind cooking things a certain way. This will equip you with the knowledge necessary to experiment on your own without a recipe!
In my experience dark/fatty chicken meat like the thighs has a much more lenient window of time for doneness and juicyness than a chicken breast.
At the end of the day, the controlling factor is the fat content in the meat, and its distribution. The overall percentage of fat is a good indicator of whether the cut will dry out or not, and its distribution, a means to determine if part of the cut will dry out, if for example, the fat is concentrated in parts of the meat.
All three of your queries, i.e. well done, no-crust and no-dryness depend on cooking temperature and duration in addition to the cut of meat for the last requirement - no-dryness.
To answer your questions:
Yes, chicken breast is more likely to dry out than, say legs and thighs, due to its low fat content.
Cuts of beef/lamb that are attached or have an embedded bone, or well marbled with fat are always more likely to be juicier and moist, even when well done.
Depending on its fat content, steak is likely to be less dry than others, but ribs for example, will stay moist longer, due to the thickness of meat, proximity to bone and fat content.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.041376
| 2019-06-27T16:01:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99792",
"authors": [
"ElectronicToothpick",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71299"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114270
|
How to convert Ring Cake to Square Cake
I have a baked chocolate ring cake, but I want to convert it to a square cake. How I can do it?
Please clarify: Do you have a baked ring cake that you want to cut into a square (Why?) or have you baked a ring cake and now would like to use the same recipe to make a square cake?
Well, if you find a square pan with approximately the same surface area as the round pan, then you can just bake it for the same amount of time at the same temperature. The same surface are is important, since we want the cake to still have the same height as the original.
For some algebra: We can't construct this pan with a compass and a straight edge, but we can approximate it with a calculator. The area of the round pan is pi * r^2, where r is the radius. So a 9-inch round pan would have area pi*4.5^2. We want a square pan with side length s, so we want s^2=pi * r^2. Hence, s=\sqrt(pi * r^2). So for example if you would normally bake it in a 9 inch pan, you would need a square pan with side length approximately \sqrt(pi * 4.5^2) = 8 inches.
A ring cake usually is baked in a tube pan, bunt pan or similar. They often have higher sides than standard cake pans.
It's dependant on surface area to volume ratio, so setting up the same surface area in a rectangular prism as a solid cylinder or hollow tube changes the ratio of SA to volume. In essence it comes down to "How far is the centre of the cake from the centre of the nearest face; which isn't a math problem I'm likely to solve on my fingers. I'd use a thermometer.
While your calculation makes sense (if it is a circular and not toroidal cake), the OP says that their cake is already baked, so I don't think your answer applies here.
@rumtscho - i wouldn't read it that way myself - but it is not the clearest explanation. One would presume, though, that if one had a circular cake, then taking a big knife to it would get you closer to the required square ;)
@Tetsujin the OP says literally "I have a baked chocolate Ring Cake", so I don't see much room for interpretation. I know that to an experienced baker, the whole idea sounds absolutely impractical, but we do have beginners on the site, and maybe the OP just bought a cake in the supermarket for the first time.
The other problem with this calculation is that the OP would need to subtract the small circle in the middle: subtract pi r^2 of the interior circle.
@rumtscho - you're right. For some reason I hadn't read it that way. I'll blame coffee deficiency, sorry :))
Cake is very easy to cut to shape, although you cannot reuse the cut-off pieces to somehow remodel the thing. So, to get your square shape, you will have to cut off enough of the sides of the cake to make it square. This obviously means that the cake will be much smaller - there is nothing you can do to fix this.
The second problem you have is the hole in the middle of your ring-shaped cake. You have to do something so it appears to be there intentionally. Options would be to make a pi~nata cake, or to fill it with some substance firm enough to stand up on its own, and tasty enough when eaten in spoonfuls. You have tons of possibilities, pretty much any firm cake filling mass will do. Looking up no-bake cheesecake recipes would be the easiest place to start. Or you may be able to wing it and reuse your scrap cake if you crumble it and mix it with your filler. If that's too much work, you can decorate it on the plate to make it appear intentional, placing some inedible centerpiece in the hole (a vase of flowers?).
Third, your sides will now be obviously cut, which is undesirable when serving a cake. So you will have to frost the cake, or at least the sides. Don't worry if it is already frosted on top, as long as it isn't decorated, you can place a second frosting of the same or a different kind on top.
All of the above is doable, but a lot of effort and requires full reengineering of the type of cake. Most bakers will not do it, and either serve the cake as a ring, or bake a new cake in a square pan.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.041723
| 2021-02-13T16:22:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114270",
"authors": [
"Damila",
"Debbie M.",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76675",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
112450
|
Cooking jelly avoiding overboiling
In the last months I cooked a lot of jelly and found an interesting pattern from my ceran stove top: When the heating unit barely fits under the pot the juice will boil over. However if I use the smaller circle (same place at the stove, same pot), it boils but does not overboil. Why does the diameter of my cooking field have an effect on the boil-over-behavior of my juice?
One is heating the to edge of the base and consequently also the pan side-wall, the other is not.
The cooler pan side-wall will just make the difference between it boiling over and not.
This is assuming the centre of the pan is being heated to exactly the same degree on each, which is a larger variable.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.042064
| 2020-11-03T18:29:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112450",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
99740
|
Why is my boneless beef tough and unedible?
I've been baking some meat (either lamb chops or boneless beef - not sure of cut).
I coat it in oil, rub some salt on it and them immediately put it in the oven for 30 minutes at about 150f. Apparently, the oven is quick for a home oven.
What I find is after about 20 minutes the meat feels soft and tender (like I want it) however some of the inner meat still seems pinkish so I continue to cook for another 10 minutes. However, after 30-35 minutes it becomes too tough and not edible.
It seems I'm cooking for too long. How can I ensure the pink from the center of the meat is gone? Can you see what I'm doing wrong?
I have to do it with either frying, baking, or grilling.
Is it the case that I need to cook it on a much higher heat for 20 minutes?
Do you really mean 150F? That is very low for an oven. It would come up to that temperature very slowly and you would need to use a thermometer to be sure it didn't stay below 130 for too long.
so perhaps the pinkness is due to the temp? My concern is that higher temp leads to crusing on surface which i want to avoid.
I'm not sure what result you're going for. Is a well done steak with no sear/crust on it what you're after?
if the meat has no pink at all then it's well done, and many cuts will be tough, dry or straight inedible at that point.
@AlexReinking Yes, tha's exacly what I want.
Without knowing the cut of meat, thickness, etc. it is very difficult to fully answer, but take a look at this chart for steaks: http://chicolockersausage.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/cook-a-steak-blue-rare-medium-welldone.jpg (Putting link, not pic in case of copyright issues.) To summarize though, a medium steak is about 135F and still has about 25% pink in it. Med-well is about 150F and still has a hint of pink. That is the highest you should be able to reach in a 150F oven and for many cuts would definitely be too tough for many people's tastes. No pink at all is 160F plus, is not reachable in a 150F oven, and is almost always going to be dry and tough for most cuts. Lamb chops number will be roughly the same.
Their comment on well done as being a waste of a quality steak is their statement, but one I and many others would share, and definitely towards a lamb chop. I would never, ever intentionally cook one to no pink through, and certainly not without expecting it to come out dry, tough, and chewy. I would also almost always sear before putting in the oven if at all possible to form a nice crust and help hold in some juices.
Now, as to your temp stated, a well done cut of meat, one with no pink through, is one that is 160F or more. If you are really cooking at 150, this should not be possible. The only way at that low of temp to get all pink out would be to cook so long that all liquids drain except possibly rendered fat. If cooked for hours that way, something like a pulled pork or a pot roast might be tender, but only because most connective tissue has broken down. A far more typical practice would be to sear-seal the meat first and the finish in a heated, higher temp oven to allow the meat to get to your desired temperature/doneness without cooking away all the precious fluids that allow it to stay tender. You normally are cooking working muscle groups and they will very much have a tendency to become tougher the more you cook them unless using a method like braising that will start to break down the connective tissue with time.
It's certainly the cut and cooking method that are to blame.
As others said, 150F is very, very low in an oven. But... ultimately will achieve a medium-well to well done piece of beef, which depending on the cut, may or may not be pleasant to eat. You may need to vary a higher temperature and a faster cooking time, or try different methods of preparing and cooking the meat.
Here's some suggestions:
Try a marinade for the beef to help break down some of the connective tissue. This will make the meat more tender when eaten.
Try pounding the meat with a meat tenderizer or poking it all over with a fork to break the connective tissue. This will also make the meat more tender.
Try a slow cooking method, such as a crock pot, instead of the oven. Tougher cuts of meat such as Chuck (stew beef) require longer cooking times over lower heat to really tenderize the meat and again, break up the connective tissue.
Try basting the beef as it cooks, or cook it in a stew or something that will ensure it doesn't dry out while cooking.
Lower the final temperature of the meat if safe. Use a meat thermometer and go for 125-135F for a medium-rare to medium final temperature. This will depend on what type of meat you're cooking and how you intend to eat it.
Allow the meat to rest when done cooking. Place it on a plate and loosely cover with aluminum foil for 5-10 minutes. This is essential to allow the meat's "juices" to redistribute throughout the meat, and prevent them from just running out of the meat and onto your plate when you cut into it. Failing to let the meat rest properly will lead to a dry piece of meat.
Stop cooking the meat when it's about 5-10 degrees from your desired final temperature. After you stop cooking the meat, it will continue to rise in internal temperature for a few minutes. If you stop cooking at your final temperature, the end result will be an overcooked (and tougher, drier) piece of meat.
Lastly, always - always cut across the grain of meat. Cutting with the grain will always guarantee a tougher, more chewy feel in the mouth. Cutting across the grain ensures the connective tissue is severed and in small pieces, so when you chew the meat it breaks apart pleasantly.
+1 all of these are good. Given that OP said in the comments that they want a well done steak with no sear, sous vide at 155 for, like, 12 hours or more would yield a very tender steak, indeed. No way of cooking to well done would actually yield a juicy steak, though...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.042164
| 2019-06-25T23:50:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99740",
"authors": [
"Alex Reinking",
"James Wilson",
"Luciano",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7945"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
99787
|
How long is raw (unrendered) beef suet is good for in the fridge?
Note that this question
is about suet (unrendered kidney fat from cow), not tallow.
was never answered before on this site; this question specifically does not say anything about unrendered fats.
Therefore please refrain from closing this question as a duplicate of either of those aforementioned questions.
The question really is: how long can raw unrendered beef suet be left in the fridge? Suet when rendered is called tallow and can be left outside for about a year, but what can be said of suet when not rendered and left in the fridge?
Sorry, you cannot ask the same question again when your first one got closed. You would have to convince users or moderators to reopen the original one. Also, it was explained in the closure that the information in the other question applies to your case - the FDA does not issue different guidelines for different parts of the cow.
@rumtscho The FDA does not issue any guidelines for products of bovine origin because it's not their jurisdiction. And OP, I saw the issue with getting your question posted up here, my condolences. I would strongly recommend -- especially if you are trying to find out for development of a Food Safety Plan -- to post up on AskFSIS. Although I'm not familiar with the specific product you're referring to, I'm fairly certain it falls under FSIS (USDA) arena for inspection policy and guidance.
Also, I can't post an answer since this post is marked, but there should be plenty of HACCP plans online available for you to review and conduct your own hazard analysis. At our facility, we handle very little beef (usually raw ground, going into NRTE Not-Shelf-Stable), I can't remember the exact parameters off the top of my head. You can follow the standard guidelines of 40°F-80°F < 8 hours, 80°F-120°F < 2 hours (Thompson), but you'd have to see what specific pathogens of concern are to narrow it down more than that (and that requires lethality treatment 165°F for Salmonella, 160°F others).
@Arctiic Thank you for taking the time to comment. This is exactly the kind of answer I was looking for. Unfortunately this community is not friendly enough to formally allow that.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.042713
| 2019-06-27T13:12:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99787",
"authors": [
"Arctiic",
"Sridhar Ratnakumar",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43720",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7202",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
99802
|
Canning potatoes in instapot canner
I just realized that I canned some potatoes for 25 minutes instead of the recommended time of 35 minutes last night. The jars all sealed. My question is, do i throw those out or do i just have to use them quickly? Thank you in advance, I'm new to canning potatoes.
I'm not a canning person, so can't speak with any authority ... but if it were me, I'd re-do the pressure canning for 35 minutes, and if they end up coming out too soft, I'd use them for mashed potatoes (possibly adding potato flakes to thicken them up if they've absorbed too much liquid). You could also move some to the fridge and use them soon.
Joe's comment is correct.
If you haven't canned them as long as the recommendation then you can't have confidence that they will be safe for a long period at room temperature.
Your options are to try again or treat them as not shelf stable.
The downside with trying to can them again is that the food is likely to be hopelessly overcooked. For something like potatoes, I don't know how much of a difference that will make as they will be thoroughly cooked anyway from the first time. If the potatoes have broken down into a mush, I would not recommend this strategy. The canning recipes are tested against food in a particular state. Potato chunks in liquid would conduct heat differently than mashed potatoes.
There is also the downside that you will have to use new lids which is an added expense, albeit small.
If you treat them as not shelf stable- simply put the jars in the fridge and use them soon as you would any leftover, cooked, potatoes. Realistically speaking, I believe you will find that they will last a long time in the fridge as they would have been sterilized- just not to a high enough confidence level.
Also, though the general risks of botulism are low, the consequences are high, and the risks tend to increase with root vegetables. I would err on the side of caution.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.042910
| 2019-06-27T18:31:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99802",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"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
}
|
99598
|
Why does cooking oatmeal starting with cold milk make it creamy?
I'd always made oatmeal according to the "traditional" method of bringing the liquid to boil first, then adding the oatmeal. I recently discovered a recipe that calls for adding the oatmeal to cold liquid first, then bringing the mixture to boil - the claim is that that technique results in creamier oatmeal.
Upon trying this recipe, I found that, indeed, the resulting oatmeal was creamier than the traditional method. Can anyone explain the food science behind why cooking oatmeal starting from a cold liquid yields a creamier end result than by dropping the oatmeal into already-boiling/simmering liquid?
I'm not certain there's one single traditional method. https://porridgeclub.wordpress.com/recipes/ has several, some from hot, some from cold. Scott's was unfortunately swallowed by Quaker then Pepsi a long time ago - Quaker can't even manage a simple 'just cook the damn porridge' recipe these days - https://recipes.quaker.co.uk/oat-and-porridge-recipes/breakfast-recipes though I think the answer is somewhere between how long it soaks & how much you stir it.
Cooking oatmeal from water makes them creamier, I'm not sure about adding everything before the boil though. When trying this recipe was that the only diffrence from your "traditional" method?
@Halhex - I actually tend to use milk (for kids) or almond milk (for myself) when making oatmeal instead of water. But other than that, yes: I tried making just plain oatmeal: (1) my "traditional" method of adding oatmeal to boiling liquid, and (2) the "new" method of adding oatmeal to cold liquid then boiling, and I did observe the latter resulted in a creamier texture. Not exactly a scientific, controlled experiment, but it does seem, more or less, to be true, by casual experimentation.
@StoneThrow I'll have to try that out myself tomorrow! The only thing I can think of would be that the oats might get cooked for longer.
I think there may be a soaking time aspect. When camping I add boiling water to premixed oats+milk powder (no need for a fridge), stand for about 10 minutes and return as gently as I can to simmering. This gives a lovely creamy result.
Flour and cornmeal are well known to clump when added cold to boiling water. Such clumps arise when starch molecules unball and forming a mesh that traps other starch molecules, preventing them from hydrolysing in the same way. Hence lumpy gravy and sauces.
For oatmeal I've observed similar clumping behaviour, but not to the same extent. Anyway I suspect the same mechanism is at work. Since starch hydrolysis is the main reaction making oatmeal creamy, I'm not surprised that slow and steady heating is considered best.
This makes sense. The starch would have a chance to dissolve into the water before it gels.
Would that mean adding starch to the liquid would result in creamier oatmeals?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.043098
| 2019-06-18T19:00:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99598",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Hugo",
"Sobachatina",
"StoneThrow",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73864"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113272
|
I want to halve a cream cheese cake recipe, how do I adjust the pan size, so I can keep the same cake height?
I found a 9 inch cream cheese cake recipe I want to try for 12-15 people and I want to halve the quantities.
How do I adjust the temperature, baking time and pan size? Thanks
Assuming you're baking in a round pan: The volume of a cylinder is pi * r^2 * h. You halve the volume and want to keep the height the same. That means you want to scale the radius of the pan by a factor of 1/sqrt(2). So for example, if the recipe is intended for a pan of diameter 25 cm it has radius 12.5 cm and you want to use a pan with radius 12.5*(1/sqrt(2))=8.8 cm, or diameter approximately 17.6 cm.
Adjusting the baking temperature and time is a bit trickier. I would start by lowering the temperature by about 25 degrees Celsius and start checking the cake with a pick about 15 minutes before the stated time in the recipe.
In practice 1/√2 is near enough 2/3, given that you'll be rounding to the nearest available pan. So in the OP's case a 6" pan is probably the closest you'll get
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.043597
| 2020-12-21T09:33:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113272",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
110524
|
Which gum/gums to use to get a gummy texture when using Agar agar powder
Trying to do a school project that needs me to make gummies from scratch in an innovative way. I decided to go with Agar agar for a vegan based gummy. Unfortunately, once I make the gummies the agar agar sets but I don’t get the gummy/chewy texture that is required. What should I use in conjunction with the agar agar to get this texture without having to compromise the vegan factor?
You can't change the texture by adding stuff to it. It is done the other way around - you decide what texture you want to end up with, and choose the thickener that gives you the proper texture.
Agar agar gives you a brittle texture. If you want a gummylike texture the way you know it from gelatine-based candy, you have to use gelatine.
Vegan gelatine exists too, it's the result of professional food engineers spending a lot of research time on mimicking the final texture. It should give you the desired texture while keeping the product vegan. You have to purchase it as a separate product, it's not just a different name for a more conventional thickener.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.043708
| 2020-09-02T12:17:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110524",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113416
|
Matcha tea chocolate ganache
I have this nice recipe of chocolate-matcha pie in which the ganache is made in the following way.
boil 1dl milk with 2dl cream
add 50g sugar and let it melt
cut the fire and add 200g dark chocolate
mix well until chocolate is melted
wait 10min and add two eggs and mix well
The resulting ganache is then to be put inside an almost cooked dough, and then cooked for 20min at 150°C.
My problem is the following.
The original recipe said to add 1 ts of matcha tea powder at step 5.
The result is good but the flavor of matcha is weak, almost vanishing. I tried adding it at step 4, but same issue. I don't know if I should add more of matcha powder or what could be the problem.
Also : I am filtering the matcha before putting the ganache inside the pie. Obviously the taste would be stronger without this step but then I fear the consistency would be wasted by some lumps.
When you say matcha tea do you mean matcha tea powder or actual brewed matcha tea?
I will check on the pack when I'm back home to be completely sure but I think it's powder.
Are you using powder? If so please edit and make sure people understand that.
I confirm it's powder and I edited the post. Thanks.
By "filtering the matcha” do you mean that you are brewing the matcha and filtering out the dregs? Or that you’re sifting the powder directly into the recipe?
I mean that the preparation of milk+cream+sugar+chocolate+tea is sifted before being put in the semi-cooked dough.
If the matcha powder has been adequately mixed/stirred in, it should pass through the strainer - on the other hand, if straining/filtering is not in the source recipe, perhaps you should concentrate on mixing throughly so that there are no lumps, and not strain.
As an additional possibility for weak flavor:
I'm always willing to guess (when things don't seem to come out right, especially) that at some point in the passage of any recipe involving teaspoons and Tablespoons some transcriber might have misinterpreted some prior writer's Tablespoon (T, Ts, Tbs, 15 ml) as a teaspoon (t, ts, tsp, 5 ml) or vice versa.
Now that I read your answer I realize that I put the matcha at once directly with the spoon. This is most probably the cause of the lumps : I should sample a bit. I will also try mixing more and if it works I'll validate your answer. However I am quite sure of the quantity.
I think adding the matcha at step 4 makes good sense, not step 5. Matcha flavor is best extracted in the range between 75-80°C, any higher than that and you can damage the flavor, but a lot less than that and you won't extract the flavor from the powder effectively. Adding matcha to boiling milk isn't a great idea, but adding it after the chocolate has cooled it down some is the right way to go, although maybe it's dropping the temperature too much. You could add chocolate until the temperature drops just below 80, then add the matcha and let it steep for a minute before adding the rest of the chocolate.
Matcha powders vary in strength, and people's tastes for how much matcha flavor they like are different. It's possible that the author used a stronger matcha powder or simply liked less of that flavor in the finished product. If you are getting the most flavor out of your powder and you want more matcha flavor then the answer would seem to be adding a stronger matcha powder or more of what you have to get the right flavor. Sprinkle it on as you stir rather than spooning it on all at once to avoid lumps.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.043835
| 2020-12-27T16:47:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113416",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90450",
"xounamoun"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115277
|
Can I use Yakult as a yogurt starter?
I'm wondering if we can use Yakult as a yogurt starter to obtain drinkable yogurt?
Update: Yes, it is possible.
After a note in the comments, I tried researching and had to go no further than Wikipedia to see how it is done commercially: The incubation happens in the presence of glucose and continues for 7-8 days. I checked their source too, an article in an encyclopedia on food technology, and the information was correctly transcribed.
Method
I decided to try it out. As I didn't have glucose, I poured in a random amount of agave syrup (a mixture of glucose and fructose). Indeed, at 8 hours (my standard incubation time for Lactobacillicus Bulgaricus yogurt) it was still completely liquid. But after 24 hours, it started looking good, and now, at hour 36, it has firmed up as normal yogurt.
Result
The Shirota yogurt turned out to be quite interesting.
Visual
It looks like normal yogurt, with a small layer of whey on top, which looks somehow different from typical yogurt whey. The top slightly-fatty layer that builds on top of other yogurt is on top of the liquid layer and not below it. The colour is very slightly off-white, but nowhere near as orange as Yakult drinks.
Taste
The yogurt tastes differently from standard yogurt. It has a fruity smell, and is more sweet than sour, with bitter notes mixed in. I didn't notice acetic acid smells, the sourness must be predominantly lactic acid. The smell is rather subtle. The texture is unremarkable, just like standard Lactobacillicus yogurt.
Verdict
At first, I was afraid that the long incubation time and the need for dextrose might mean that L. Shirota is difficult to grow, and might not work well under not-so-precisely controlled conditions, producing spoiled milk instead of yogurt. Now, having smelled the yogurt, I am pretty sure that there is a lot of the original Shirota culture growing there. My new hypothesis is that they need long growth times to achieve a very high concentration, so they can dilute it to make the drink and still get a strong taste.
Long-term results
I left the yogurt to incubate somewhat longer than a week. I was not happy with the result.
Some of the glasses got a band of light-reddish colour, reminiscent of commercial Yakult but slightly paler, while others got no such band. Those who had it had the band in the top third of the glass, but it was not the top layer.
The yogurt smelled quite sour. I tasted just a little bit, the taste was sour, but not as much as over fermented L. Bulgaricus yogurt. I didn't smell much acetic acid if any. There was a bit of sweetness in the taste, but no more than at the beginning, it felt. The Shirota-typical smell was subtle, not much stronger than at 36 hours.
After some more resarch, L. Shirota is sensitive to the absence of certain nutrients, mostly aminoacids and vitamins. See https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2019.108735 for details. But note that even without nutrients, they reached a good (for typical yogurt, not for yakult) concentration after 31 hours.
You can use most yogurts as a starter, no matter the brand. The only requirement is that they contain live culture, and all the ones marketed as a probiotic should have it.
It should give you normal yogurt, not a yogurt drink. You will have to follow a recipe for a yogurt-based drink if you want it liquid - just water and sugar to taste should do, of you want to mimic Yakult, or you can branch or into more interesting stuff.
I tried yesterday. After 12 hours of incubation, it's not thick, which I don't mind because I want to make it drinkable. But it's not sour either. I think using Yakult doesn't work.
Lol, that is so „you“! Well done!
The flavours will be a result of the metabolic processes of the particular strain used in the Yakult - much like beers have distinct flavours, the same applies to all fermentations. The length of fermentation will enhance these. I'm a little surprised at the length of ferment needed. I wonder what the phenotype is. If I can dig it out, i'll post it for those interested.
@bob1 yes, I thought that different bacteria will produce different flavors. After my experiment, I also think that the Shirota strain is quite picky about its fermentation conditions - seeing how strong the specific flavor is in the diluted drink, they must have a much stronger culture going on in the commercial production, but I was not able to get that at home, while other strains are much more robust and make good yogurt under a wide range of fermentation conditions. If you have additional info you can post, I would be interested to read it.
@bob1 can you find out if it produces esters? The smell is very characteristic, but hard to describe beyond slightly sweet/fruity, and, well, estery. It feels like the main component is not an acid - certainly not lactic or acetic acid, these are present too, but there is something else that makes is different from other yogurts.
It seems that it was originally used in cheese making, though I can't find if it was the main one or one of many in the cheese. It looks like Yakult has ~10^11 cfu/ml, which is a fairly high concentration - most yogurts get up to ~10^9 cfu/ml
It seems that lactobacilli (not Shirota strain specifically) produce about 90 flavour compounds in yogurt see here
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.044146
| 2021-04-15T10:16:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115277",
"authors": [
"Sean",
"Stephie",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83760",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100462
|
How to have poached eggs in "sphere form"?
I have been trying to learn how to make poached eggs. The main issue I have is the shape of the egg whites.
In a "perfect" poached egg, the white builds a sphere around the yolk and covers it completely. However, with my eggs, the white just hang on the side, next to the yolk, and the end result somewhat resembles a fried egg.
I've been following the usual steps (sieve the runny white, move to cup, heat the water to almost a simmer, ..) so I'm at a loss as to why this is happening.
For what it's worth, my mother used to deep fry eggs (after frying potatoes). Crack the egg and drop carefully into the deep fryer and it comes out 3-D.
The number one thing is having fresh eggs. Older eggs have a looser inner white and there's not much you can do to keep the yolk from hanging on to the side. Contrary to the other answer, I have not found that swirling the water helps the egg stay together, compared to dropping it in very carefully (the water should go into the cup before the egg comes out; you shouldn't be pouring it in, as much as allowing it to slowly slide along the side of the cup further down into the water). The water should be well-salted, and a bit of vinegar can be a good idea although adding too much can cause the outer skin of the egg to become a bit leathery.
If you want a truly absurdly perfect poached egg, you can use a sous vide cooker (or just a pot of carefully tended warm water). Cook the eggs in their shells at 64 degrees celsius for 1 hour, remove the shell and separate the loose white, and cook in simmering water for just a minute or so. I actually find the result a bit off-putting in its perfection, but it's the closest to "sphere form" you will ever get.
Thanks. Everywhere I read that fresh eggs are important but I can't really find anything on what exactly "fresh" means. I bought my eggs less than 24h before from a store but there's no way to know how long they've been sitting there. Is there a way to check if the eggs are sufficiently fresh? In the "water test" my eggs always drop to the bottom so that's not accurate or the problem lies somewhere else.
That's the tricky part. :-) You can try to find eggs with the latest possible expiration date. Eggs from a farmer's market will likely be much fresher than eggs from a supermarket, and one brand of eggs may tend to be fresher than a different brand. Unfortunately, overall it's not something you'll have full control over unless you feel like owning chickens.
Still, I would assume that eggs you buy from a large supermarket and use within 24 hours would generally be "fresh enough".
Where I am (Toronto, Canada) I've noticed that "fancier" eggs (free run, brown, omega 3, special plastic cartons, etc.) tend to be less fresh, with runnier whites, while the cheapest eggs tend to be fresher. I assume it's simply because the cheap ones sell faster and so are brought in more frequently. You might also want to check where they are produced, the cheapest "local" eggs are probably a good bet for freshness. The expiry date should be quite a ways away, at least a month.
When I was a professional chef we used the sous vide method, for what that's worth.
Importance of fresh eggs really can't be stressed enough. In my experience, many other tricks people mention are just (perhaps unintentionally) trying to accommodate stale eggs. Unfortunately as you seem to have found, there's no surefire way to know how fresh an egg is. If you're having bad luck, just switch brands or supermarkets. Or find a local hobby farmer who sells on the side. An egg poached within hours or at most a day or two of being laid is an entirely different thing than one that's gone through the supermarket supply chain process.
Ok, I'll try to find some fresher eggs at a local farmer's. I'll accept this answer even though I'm not absolutely certain it will solve my problem as it's the only one that provided a new suggestion to me (except for the plastic wraps which I want to avoid).
In the EU, it's very easy to tell how fresh an egg is - you just look at the date printed on it. This is the date of collection (which will be the date of laying).
@CameronRoberts Note that egg colours are pretty regional. People who live in areas where most eggs are white think that brown eggs are fancy and vice-versa.
A fresh egg is still warm from the hen you had to shoo away to collect it. Once you get used to those, you never buy eggs again.
Jamie Oliver has a method (around 2:53 in the video) that involves poaching the eggs wrapped in plastic. I've never tried this myself, but the gist from the video is:
Tear off a roughly square piece of plastic wrap
Line a bowl with it
Lightly oil the plastic
Crack the egg into the bowl
Pull the corners of the plastic wrap together and gently twist it shut, until there's pretty much no air remaining
Poach the egg
Carefully slice the twisted part off with a knife, then place the egg on whatever you're serving it on and gently slip the plastic off
He insists on fresh eggs as well.
That would be the "Arzak" method.
Sounds like it. But at the time I wrote my answer, yours didn't elaborate on what the Arzak method was, so I didn't realize.
You could try the "Arzak" egg, made popular by Spanish chef Juan Mari Arzak. It is not difficult, but does require the extra step of wrapping. Line a ramekin with plastic wrap, leaving enough overhand to enclose an egg with extra to tie off. Brush with oil. Crack egg into plastic lined ramekin. Carefully bring the plastic end together, encasing the egg, and tie off with a piece of butcher twine, or the plastic wrap itself. Lower into simmering water. Alternately, use string to tie to a wooden spoon that is rested across the pot, so that the egg bundles hand below the surface of the water, but above the surface of the pot. Cook for 5 to 8 minutes, depending on your preferred level of doneness. Remove from pot, unwrap, and serve...or, chill in ice bath for later reheating.
I read of that option before but I'm a huge opponent of the amount of plastic waste that is caused by that method.
Could you put the details of this method in your post? If your link quits working, your answer won't be very helpful.
@Andreas there may be a texture of fabric that would work if oiled well, and could be washed and reused.
Do the trick of swirling the water first at the moment you will add the egg, remember the water must be boiling, and then add egg by egg in the center of the pot, do not add them all (i meaning to cook more than 2 eggs at once), by doing this it will get the "sphere" form, and cook by the time that you like poached eggs to be.
Unfortunately, swirling didn't help much. It also doesn't seem like the "right" solution as many cooks are able to achieve good form without swirling the water.
@AndreasT you could try the trick of cooking the egg with the plastic wrap tho, i dont think you want to your eggs have some toxins (or traces as well) of the plastic wrap when its heated for a few minutes like that which you wouldnt want in you food. idk its somethin that i am not agree to do myself.
@AndreasT I wouldn't rule this one out -- although I disagree with M.B.D. about not adding more than two eggs at once; I've found this quite effective for up to 6-8 at the same time, in a reasonable size pot. Important points that may be causing you to not succeed with this method: The water needs to be at full boil, and you need to swirl it very hard, with a whisk is best, until you get a real vortex going in the center. Then quickly but gently tip the eggs in from a Pyrex measuring cup or similar. There's often 1-2 that aren't perfect if you are doing a lot, but this should never miss for 2.
@jkf i said just one by one whether its a small pot, and that the egg might cook and form more even when poured, yes you would have to swirl more harder if are more than one that you gonna pour.
@MichaelBenDavid I should add that I've found a smaller pot to make things much less reliable in general -- you need the water to stay hot when you pour the eggs in so they don't have a chance to spread out too much. So I always use a bigger (~3 qt) pot even if I'm only doing a couple of eggs.
@jkf anyways depends on the like of the person :P
That's a tall order.
Just to get the coveted "teardrop" shape on a poached egg is hard enough.
Some chefs use scissors to clean up poached eggs to get this shape. A bit of a hack, but maybe you could do the same, and cut it into a spherical shape.
Personally, I tend to get the classic egg-drop-soup shape of my poached eggs.
Although I agree with all the answers already posted, I thought I'd add my approach as I'm pretty proud of how mine come out!
Bring a pan to the boil
Add around 1-2 tbsp of white vinegar to the water for a medium size pan (more than you might think!)
Crack egg into a small flour-sieve (note everything previously stated about the freshness of the eggs)
Let any 'loose' white drain off slightly
Transfer from sieve into a small ramekin or bowl
Turn the water down until it's just on the point of simmering. i.e. there should be very little movement but just a degree or two higher and it would simmer
Lower the egg gently into the water (out of the bowl)
Leave until the white is just firm, you can test by lifting out with a spoon and poking the bit of the white next to yolk is firm but the yoke is still soft
Use a slotted spoon to transfer onto a clean dry piece of kitchen towel before transferring onto toast
Just a note, I used to be a French Chalet chef and would have to cook ~20 eggs every morning so I do not swirl the water to allow me to cook more in one pan at a time. I can't comment on whether this helps or not.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.044578
| 2019-07-30T07:37:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100462",
"authors": [
"Andreas T",
"Cameron Roberts",
"David Richerby",
"Kat",
"Martin Bonner supports Monica",
"Michael_Ben_David",
"RedSonja",
"Sneftel",
"User1000547",
"alephzero",
"arp",
"dwizum",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53701",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67281",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72584",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75681",
"jkf",
"moscafj",
"user2752467"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100141
|
Why did my rum cake turn black?
A friend baked a rum cake for me. She baked it in an aluminum pan. The cake was soaking in rum. Overnight the cake turned BLACK. I suspect this is a chemical reaction, but cannot find information to back my theory. Surely, this may not be safe to eat. Anybody?
My gifted cake....well....it's a bit scarier......
Never made Rum Cake before, but a quick google search came up with a few different variants of it. Including this one, where the cake is black(ish). https://www.alicaspepperpot.com/black-cake-caribbean-rum-soaked-fruit-cake/
I felt quite sad thinking that the cake might be ruined...
Can you check with the cook if she has had this happen before?
Maybe dark rum?
This is an interesting question. Personally I would throw it out, the discoloration and resulting taste are the result of a chemical reaction with the pan.
The brownish discoloration is a sign that the Aluminium (Al, the chemical symbol for the element from here on), is being attacked by a chemical reaction. This is most likely by an acid, though salts can also cause this to happen. In both cases what is happening is that the Al is being converted into the cation Al3+. Al3+ is bio-available and considered to be the main source of Al toxicity in humans. Acute Al toxicity results in non-specific symptoms, like confusion, muscle weakness, and bone pain, however normal exposure is not considered harmful. Not a lot of long-term data has been produced, but there are potential links to things like Alzheimer's disease, and breast cancer.
The European Food Safety Authority has a limit of 1 mg/kg of body weight/week for intake from foods. This paper suggests in passing that some people are often at or beyond the EFSA limit, but this might not result in any problems, also mentioned in that paper is that the WHO has a provisional limit of 2 mg/kg/week.
Now, as to how much of the Al has dissolved into your cake, and how much you are ingesting if you ate the whole cake is impossible to estimate without measuring the Al content of the cake and syrup. Generally you will be able to taste the metallic taste of Al and other metals when they dissolve to this sort of level, though in this case, the already strong taste of rum might well overpower the metallic taste.
Aluminum cookware is "reactive", as opposed to "non-reactive" cookware like glass or stainless steel. When cooking acidic ingredients, a reaction occurs that can discolor food and sometimes leave a taste of tin. It would appear that the rum cake in question was acidic enough to cause this reaction. While I have yet to come across anything that says this is dangerous, I have come across several discussions that say aluminum discolored food is "ruined."
"While I have yet to come across anything that says this is dangerous" Camelford.
@DavidRicherby The article sounds like there's been a lot more going on than just aluminium though. I don't think your average cooking pan has copper & lead solderings, for instance.
The Camelford incident isn't really comparable, because it was a case of an aluminum compound causing the acidity leading to leaching of other metals into the water. In this case, the acidity is already present, not caused by the aluminum itself, and there are no other metals available.
@DavidRicherby That was aluminum sulfate, which is an acid.
It is unlikely but possible that it is unsafe to eat. This study of aluminum leaching from pans during cooking of acidic liquids (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1397396) showed a levels as high as about 50mg/kg. Let's assume your cake is about 1kg, so 50mg aluminum. The European Food Safety guideline for aluminum according to this paper (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5651828/) is 1mg/kg/week. So if you weigh only 50kg and you eat the whole cake in a week and it really leached about the most aluminum seen, you're up against that limit.
But probably not, since the average human weighs more than that, the rate of leaching should be much lower at room temperature, the limits are for chronic intake and anyway WHO thinks you can tolerate twice as much.
Also, from the second paper: "The acute toxicity of aluminum is low. No acute effects due to dietary exposure to aluminum have been observed in the general population."
We found the same paper... Nice answer BTW. I wonder how much of the lack of acute effects from food seen is due to lack of recognition and subsequent lack of testing, as well as a low prevalence.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.045520
| 2019-07-11T17:45:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100141",
"authors": [
"David Richerby",
"Gamora",
"J Crosby",
"M.K",
"Suthek",
"barbecue",
"bob1",
"gnicko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73886",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76496",
"wjandrea"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
98666
|
Can I save the seasoning on my cast iron skillet or do I need to strip it and start anew?
I have a Lodge 12" cast iron skillet that I have been cooking in almost every night for about 6 months. I recently scrubbed a little to hard and created a "bald" spot into he middle of my pan. I wanted to know if I can save it or do I need to strip it and reason it. Thanks!
I've had success in restoring bald spots in my cast iron skillet. After cooking and cleaning, I add oil when the skillet is warm. Eventually the "bald" spot fills in. Mine took about 3 months of 1-2 weekly uses.
Thanks B540Glenn! I'm cooking bacon in it right now.
I too cooked bacon to help with the re-seasoning. :-)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.045900
| 2019-04-24T14:19:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/98666",
"authors": [
"B540Glenn",
"Hilltopteacher",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75259"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
98947
|
Anti-Coagulant for Oat Milk
I am trying to make my own oat milk, primarily for use with coffee (Lattes/Cappucino's etc), so I am trying my best to mimic the results of oatly barista edition, which is not available to buy here in South Africa. The main problem I am having is that although the oat milk is fine when cold, when heating (i.e. steaming), it becomes thick and gloopy. Oatly use Dipotassium phosphate to stop the milk from coagulating when heated, but this doesn't seem to be readily available in shops/online (at least, not in South Africa).
Does anyone know of an alternative that I could use?
The recipe I am using is as follows:
Ingredients
1 Cup Steel Cut Oats
3 Cups Water
80ml Rapeseed Oil
Method
Blend steel cut oats and the water for 3 minutes in a high speed blender.
Extract milk with a nut-milk bag and discard oat pulp
Blend milk with rapeseed oil and a pinch of salt
Can you add to your question the recipe you are following to make oat milk? It is interesting to me on a physics level that something gets thicker and more viscous when it is heated but is liquid when cold. That is the reverse of pretty much anything else I can think of. I look forward to answers here!
I've added the recipe, although it's pretty simple.
Have you tried any hydrocolloids/thickeners etc?
@zetaprime I haven't. Do you have any recommendations I could experiment with?
My go to would be Xanthan Gum
Any results on your experiments?
What about soy lecithin?
@zetaprime The Xanthan gum (1/2 teaspoon) turned it into sludge, unfortunately. I might have a go with a bit less next time. I just got hold of some soy lecithin (thanks @matthew-leingang), will update again once I have experimented.
Recipes I have seen for oat milk suggest that a nut milk bag is not sufficient to properly strain out the solids from the oats. When I have tried to use homemade oat milk in cooking (for a bechamel sauce) without straining fully, I think it basically turned into thick porridge, which is what happens after all when you cook oats.
Heating oatmilk basically works on the same principle as heating any other thing with starch like a roux or thickening soup/gravy with cornstarch.
To get less thickening, add less starch i.e. less oats content per liter of water. To compensate for lack of flavor blend it with any other type of plant based milk, like soymilk (protein-based) or cashew milk(protein+fat based), or anything which is not primarily starch based. It will add nutritional value, compensate for watered down flavors (due to less oats and more water) and will not thicken upon heating.
The only other way is to use chemical additives.
I don't know if it'd be worth heating the milk ahead of time, then letting it cool (and possibly thinning it some), so it's pre-gelatinized, and there won't be as extreme a change when it's heated in the coffee
I'm not suggesting you to pre-heat the milk. I'm explaining to you what happens when you heat it.
I know you didn't. I'm saying that might be a possible addition to your strategy. (as it would keep it from being too thin when cold, and give you an idea of what proportion would be needed.) Of course, the starch thickens as it cools, so it might be good to thin it partially with unheated oat milk, so as that part thickens it it balances out the thinning of the pre-gelatinized part.
and we have an oatmeal drink that we make, but we make it different. We use less oatmeal, I would try 1/2 a cup per 3 cups of water. Then we cook it as if you were making a watery oatmeal, then you blend it. Let me know if this works.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.046007
| 2019-05-12T10:30:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/98947",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Love Bites",
"Matthew Leingang",
"Nathan Moynihan",
"Tom",
"Willk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68275",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/759",
"zetaprime"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116121
|
Can falafel be made using previously frozen chickpeas?
Many falafel recipes caution against using canned chickpeas. For example, this recipe has this to say about using canned chickpeas for falafel:
No canned chickpeas (very important!) If you're after the best texture and flavor, you need to start with dry chickpeas. Many falafel recipes use canned chickpeas which is not authentic and will cause the falafel patties disintegrate in the hot cooking oil.
Because of warnings like this, I'm wondering if using previously frozen chickpeas is fine. I had some dried chickpeas which I soaked overnight, but I soaked too many of them, so I froze the remaining ones. If I thaw these frozen chickpeas, will they work well for making falafel?
Good question! The key is for the chickpeas not to be cooked, but they're not. So the question is -- does freezing change their composition in any way that would prevent them from forming a good paste? You might have to try it and see.
@FuzzyChef I plan to do just that if no one here tells me not to. In that case I'll answer my own question here with the results. Might try doing it a few times just to be sure of the results.
Please do it and report back! I'm curious now; freezing soaked chickpeas would save quite some time when preparing falafel!
Will: given that the most likely failure condition is that the batter won't hold together, you could test with a very small batch.
I made 4 test case batches:
Dried chickpeas, soaked for 24 hours
Dried chickpeas, soaked for 24 hours, frozen, then thawed
Canned chickpeas
Canned chickpeas, frozen, then thawed
I tested with canned chickpeas even though it's well known that they don't work well for falafel so that I'd be able to provide more points of comparison.
I started with the dried but never frozen chickpeas, and it went great! No surprises there.
Next came the previously frozen chickpeas. The consistency of the batter made with them was, as far as I could tell, practically indistinguishable from that made from the never frozen chickpeas. When I deep-fried them it seemed like they bubbled more, so maybe freezing them resulted in the chickpeas holding onto less water. The batter held together just as well as the batter made from the never frozen chickpeas. After eating some of both types, I think the falafel made from previously frozen chickpeas were a bit drier, but still good.
Finally came the (never frozen) canned chickpeas. The batter had a finer consistency than the other ones. When I put the first ball of batter into the oil, it began bubbling much more than the previous ones, and within about 45 seconds the ball had broken apart, and had seriously dirtied the fry oil. I tried again with another ball, this time a bit smaller, and made very carefully, but the same thing happened. After that I called it off, since the canned chickpea batter clearly wasn't working. I made the (small amount of) remaining batter into patties, and shallow-fried it. It was edible, but it wasn't falafel, and so I can't meaningfully compare it to the falafel - at least it didn't go to waste.
In conclusion, falafel can certainly be made using previously frozen chickpeas. It may be a bit drier than falafel made using never frozen chickpeas, but is still quite good, and it comes with the added convenience of being able to soak the chickpeas in advanced.
So did you end up testing the frozen, canned chickpeas? It would be interesting to find out if the freezing somehow cancelled out the canning.
@csk Unfortunately no, I did not. The oil was too dirty to continue frying after the never frozen canned chickpeas. Given the similarity in the batter between the never frozen and the previously frozen canned chickpeas, as well as the similar results (in the batter and final product) between the never frozen and the previously frozen dried chickpeas, I do not expect the previously frozen canned chickpeas would have worked.
Most authentic recipes I have followed specify split fava beans in greater proportion than chickpeas. Soaked dry split faba/fava very much work fine frozen defrosted. And especially well in frozen falafel mix (flat bagged for easy defrosting)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.046324
| 2021-06-18T05:07:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116121",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Luciano",
"Pat Sommer",
"Will Da Silva",
"csk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75700",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85773"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109861
|
How to replace sugar with dry fruit in a cake recipe?
How do I replace all the sugar in a cake recipe with dry fruit e.g. dates?
should I rehydrate dry fruit and make it into a paste? how much liquid should I add to the dry fruit to make that paste?
what is the correct ratio of dry fruit paste to use compared to other ingredients in a recipe like eggs, flour and butter, in weight or volume?
I am trying to make any cake that allows me to replace all the sugar with dry fruit, I don't mind a denser cake.
Thanks
Could you please add more details - for example, what kind of cake do you have in mind. (Caveat - the answer may be “don’t” for some.)
Is there any particular reason you can't just Google for "cake using dried fruit as sweetener"? I get thousands of suggestions when I do that.
You can add jaggery instead of sugar as a sweetener. It will impart an amazing flavor too.
Jaggery is unrefined cane sugar. So, it doesn't fit the requirement for replacing the sugar with fruit.
This will definitely require some experimentation on your part. As a starting point, I recommend comparing the sugar content of the fruit to the sugar content of sugar. Below, I use dates as an example.
48 grams of dates (approximately 2 dates) contains 32 grams of sugar (source)
48 grams of sugar contains 48 grams of sugar (source: common sense)
So dates are 2/3 (67%) sugar by mass. This means it takes 1.5 times the mass of dates as sugar, to get the same amount of sugar. For example, in a recipe with 100g of sugar, substitute 150g of dates.
Making the dry fruit into a paste seems like a good way to get the sweetness evenly distributed through your batter. I suggest re-hydrating in hot water. Then puree the re-hydrated fruit, and incorporate it into the wet ingredients. Measure the amount of hot water you use, and reduce the amount of liquid in the cake recipe accordingly. Depending on the type of liquid used in your cake recipe, you may be able to use that liquid to re-hydrate the dry fruit. I know from experience that citrus juice works well for re-hydrating dry fruit; I'm not sure about milk or cream.
Of course the results will not be exactly the same as the original cake recipe. Different types of fruit will seem more or less sweet. The fruit paste will add flavor and effect the texture of the cake. Typically it will probably make the cake more moist and dense. This technique will not be suitable for cakes which are intended to be very light and fluffy, such as angel food cake or sponge cake.
i like the idea of substituting 150g of dates for 100g of sugar. in practice I find dry fruit tend to absorb a lot of liquid and as a result makes it harder to mix other ingredients such as flour if the total amount of liquid I use is the same as in the original recipe.maybe It could work if I can find a recipe that calls for a higher liquid ratio. but yeah more math and experimentation is definitely needed. have you seen any cake recipe that calls for all dry fruit and no sugar? thanks!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.046654
| 2020-07-25T19:02:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109861",
"authors": [
"Ojasvi",
"Stephie",
"bakingfanatic",
"csk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85824",
"user141592"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
110472
|
Can I reuse glass bottles with plastic lids for homemade sauces?
I have bottles with plastic screw top lids (from supermarket bought hot sauce). Can I use these bottles for my homemade bbq/tomato sauce? I would sterilise the bottles as I usually do. I have previously reused bottles with metal lids and stored these on the shelf for months, successfully. I don’t plan to “can” the sauces in the bottles, I am using recipes that have enough vinegar to preserve without “canning”. The sauces are usually just poured hot into a sterilised jar and left on shelf.
Thanks J. I’m not “canning” in this instance, have updated my original post.
Just pouring a sauce into a sterilised jar and leaving it at room temperature is not safe using any type of jar, unless it's acidic enough to be "pickled".
Reusing the bottles shouldn´t be a problem as long as they can be cleaned properly.
But I wouldn`t use them for canning for two reasons:
Metal lids usually have a 'click' that ensures they keep the vacuum seal and allow you to check if it is still unbroken.
Some sorts of plastic are not meant to be heated and when cooking the bottles for canning there is a risk that some chemicals (e.g. BPA) diffuse to the food.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.046921
| 2020-08-29T10:51:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110472",
"authors": [
"Nic",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87395",
"user141592"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
110782
|
Canning Tomatoes: When are they too blemished and why does it matter?
In every canning recipe I have seen, the recipe calls for unblemished tomatoes, but this has never been explained further. The sources of these recipes has been on various internet sites (the kind with the interminable story preceding the recipe about how the great-aunt-twice-removed used to love this recipe), on recipe cards left by my relatives, and in that venerable bible of preservation: The Ball Blue Book.
What is the reason we should avoid a blemish?
Surely there is some good reason blemish = evil. My guesses on the matter:
A blemish makes it harder to blanch.
The blemish through the surface of the skin allows bacteria to penetrate into the flesh.
A blemish may indicate the presence of a bigger problem with the tomato.
Are all blemishes equal?
Consider the following from my wife's garden:
Case 1
This tomato (heirloom: Principe Borghese) has been over-watered and has begun to split. The split has begun to show blackening on the edge. When I was canning the batch when this tomato was picked, it was still fresh and unblackened. To me, it looks someone made skin cut too deep prior to blanching.
Case 2
This ugly looking specimen is typical for the "Purple Cherokee" heirloom variety. The large fruit grow quickly and every specimen we have picked shows the same radial splits. The green and dark red is typical for the variety as well.
Case 3
This is a tomato, another Principe Borghese which has been attacked by an unknown insect. The little black dots are very small bore holes through the skin. I assume that this tomato is the most obvious unacceptable example, but I wanted to include it anyway to see what the experts think about this kind of defect.
Is this some old piece of granny wisdom which has been lost to us?
Ideally, I'd like to have a reference for this. Scientific literature is a plus.
Presentation. Who would want to open a can of tomatoes & see that lot staring up at them?
I don't know if this is the reason or not, but I've had some cases where there were blemished tomatoes in the form of insect holes other seemingly minor damage, but the tomatoes were abnormally firm in the area of the damage. Besides the possibility of canning some insects along with the tomatoes, food density plays a function in canning. (at least, everything I've ever seen warns about dense foods such as pumpkin)
It's exactly what you suspect: blemishes indicate the possibility of contaminants, or provide an avenue for invasion, inside the tomato flesh. And while pressure canning kills a lot of organisms that would cause contamination, the higher the bacterial/fungal load, the more likely a few spores or cysts are to survive(PDF, large) and eventually germinate in the canned food.
To quote Michigan State University:
... the tissue damage and a rise in pH can create conditions that promote the growth of other potentially dangerous microorganisms ... The condition of the food item will not improve once it has been canned or frozen.
Tomatoes are particularly risky because they hover around the border of being acidic enough for low-pressure canning, and most home processors don't want to kettle them too long for texture reasons.
So it may be "granny wisdom" but it's solid, scientific granny wisdom.
In terms of your specific blemishes: yes, the skin splitting on otherwise fine tomatoes is still a problem. One thing that does is provide an avenue for botulism spores to embed themselves in the flesh of the tomato. Normally when you can tomatoes you remove the skin, and with it the vast majority of spores. But any spores that got into that split are still there.
(note: the long PDF on heat-treatment was included to show that spores die over heat/time as a percentage of the spores originally present. Hence, more spores, more risk)
Excellent source material. I hadn't thought to look up kinetics for food safety. For future readers, if the link ever goes down to the paper cited here, use doi:10.1128/AEM.62.10.3745-3749.1996. The TL;DR of the paper is that you will never kill all the spores of one common fungal contaminant with low temp canning unless your source (tomatoes here) has a low number of starting spores (10^3 spores/mL). This low number is unlikely to be achieved if the skin is punctured. Granny wisdom quantified.
Honestly, this site has made me a lot better at searching scientific papers.
Generally speaking, blemished tomatoes could have suffered from various diseases or frost. Frost is generally not good for the tomato skin and can be more easily be penetrated by various things you don't want to can. This is especially true for tomatoes where the skin is clearly cracked, like in the pictures.
Furthermore, tomatoes from plants that have suffered from fungi (e.g. blight) could have a significantly higher pH which makes them unsafe to can. If you check pH when canning, you're probably good, but those recipes that call for unblemished tomatoes are usually rather safe than sorry. Some recipe call for the addition of some kind of acid, specifically for this reason.
By the way, those Cherokee Purples are amazing, also for canning. If you continue having trouble with the skin cracking, check the soil and your watering scheme. Tomatoes don't like "wet feet" but they do enjoy being watered regularly and consistently. So, make sure they stand in well-drained soil (mostly sand) and I'd recommend watering twice on hot days.
Thanks for the answer. I picked @FuzzyChef over yours since he included good literature references to back up his claims, despite the answers having similar content. I love the Cherokee Purples too, but I can't do too much about the watering. That is The Wife's domain, and I dare not intercede there.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.047046
| 2020-09-19T16:42:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110782",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe",
"Tetsujin",
"WesH",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87713"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
112603
|
How do I make noodles greasy?
The Internets are great for healthy and fresh and refined. Today I need help being none of those things. I am trying to satisfy my partner's craving for cheap, greasy chicken lo mein. I know how to make chicken lo mein. The Internet is full of recipes that "aren't greasy like takeout" or "healthier and fresher!"
But what if I don't want healthy and fresh?
Does anyone have any suggestions for preparing egg noodles (or lo mein in particular) so the results are cheap-Chinese-restaurant-style greasy?
It's not just more oil, though it might be the type of oil. I suspect it also has something to do with the order and length of cooking the noodles vs the vegetables and meat. I think the vegetables also have to be slightly overcooked. In case it matters, I don't have a wok.
Your question suggests you have already tried to simply be more generous with oil?
I have. It makes it more oily, not more greasy. It's not being absorbed.
Interesting question, I'm curious to see if there are good answers as I like that style of noodles too.
Most Chinese cookery uses neutral oil, with a high smoke point, for wok cookery. What is your process? Are you tossing cooked noodles in a pan that contains condiments (+ oil)?
Related: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28786/panda-express-style-chow-mein
FYI, I just talked to a local Chinese grocer who suggested corn starch might be part of the equation.
Corn starch is the basic 'shiny sauce' ingredient for Chinese take-away. It doesn't add 'greasy' though it does kind of homogenise the sauce in an easy way.
Are you starting with fresh noodles or dried?
Fresh are already 'greasier' than dried, so it may be a case of letting dried ones cool in the colander after their soak, in a good coating of oil, then adding towards the end of cooking as normal, just to re-heat.
One would imagine a take-away are not starting each portion of noodles from dried for every single order. They're already prepped & oiled so they don't stick.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.047610
| 2020-11-12T06:02:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112603",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"LoftyGoals",
"Sneftel",
"Stephie",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89536",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
112978
|
Why would I want to pre-heat a pan before cooking?
New to cooking here.
What are some examples where I should wait for the pan to pre-heat, for how long, and why?
Thank you in advance!
This really depends on what you are cooking. It's all about understanding effects of temperature on your product, control of your cooking surface, and your desired outcome. I think you are going to need to be more specific in order for this question to remain open. We do best with questions that allow for specific, focused answers.
@moscafj thanks for your response! I revised the question a little more, I know it's not really too much more specific, but I realized that what I'm looking for is "why." Let me know what you think. Thank you!
Hi Jackie, I absolutely understand and admire your desire to know "why". The problem is that you might have stumbled into a much larger field than you intended. As general as your question is, the answer corresponding to it is "because we live in a universe in which different temperatures lead to different thermodynamic reactions". If you want to know something concrete, you will have to ask about a specific recipe.
That really depends on what you want to make! For example, the Spanish Omelette (potatos, onions, eggs, "potato omelette") needs to be poured in a pan which has had to be preheating for some time until it's quite hot (you can pour a little bit of olive oil, and if you move it and it moves VERY fast, that's usually a sign. Don't overdue it as you can "burn" the oil!). That is so you can "sear" the outside while the inside still remains with the liquids and flavours!
If you want to sear a meat (I asked a question about that a little ago, or in the case of the omelette, cook it on the outside so it can have a shape, and let the omelette be runny on the inside. Here you can see something I made the other day!
Another example in which I use it, if I'm cooking curry or something related with CHICKEN, I'd just toast a bit (in Spanish we call it "to golden the chicken", "dorar el pollo"), which basically is at high heat (PRE-HEATED!!) and with some olive oil, cook it quickly, so the outside is seared, but it still has all the liquids on the inside (still raw in most cases because of this quick cooking), and you can add it later!
Common kitchen wisdom is to pre-heat your pan most of the time, but especially when searing meat. The reason for this is to get a good sear (look up Maillard reaction for more details) relatively fast, while the inside can stay at a lower temperature; while you want to cook chicken all the way through, beef steak should mostly be at most medium in the middle.
You could absolutely get away with not pre-heating your pan or pot when you do not care about getting a sear, but most things develop a lot of flavour when seared, e.g. roasting garlic or onions before adding tomatos for a pasta sauce.
One thing to keep in mind is that stainless steel and cast iron cookware will stick more when not preheated. If you are shallow frying a piece of fish in a not hot enough pan, it will tend to stick and possibly tear when you flip it.
So in general, I would recommend preheating (with a little bit of oil in the pan).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.047800
| 2020-12-04T20:51:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112978",
"authors": [
"Jackie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89971",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
88195
|
How do I know the lentils have gone bad?
I brought brown lentil two months ago. Now when I cooked them under pressure they remained in the same form as before and did not even slightly swell the way normally brown lentils swell up slightly. The gravy was watery and the lentils weren’t looking as they normally look when cooked nor smelled the same as they normally do. First I cooked under pressure for 18 minutes, then it kept cooking on normal flame with the cap on top for almost an hour and it still didn’t change texture, what should I do ?
Dried lentils don't go bad as such if stored sensibly (i.e. dry), but they do go hard and take longer to cook. It's always possible they were stored for some time before you cought them. An overnight soak before cooking can help. Other tips include:
not adding salt/acid/sugar until they've softened,
avoiding hard water
making the water slightly alkaline with some baking soda (slightly at odds with the previous point, but I suspect calcium in hard water may have something to do with it given the use of calcium compounds as firming agents)
It's not definitive, so you need to apply common sense, but when pulses do spoil they smell terrible as soon as you open the container. They'd also be slimy, because they have to be wet to spoil.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.048056
| 2018-03-07T20:28:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88195",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113449
|
Why does rye flour dough require more water?
Most discussions I have seen on the internet recommend increasing water content when substituting wheat flour with rye flour.
I find this a bit puzzling since I always thought that hydration of the dough should be based on the protein content - more gluten means stronger dough, which means it stretches without tearing even at higher hydration.
Rye flour (at least the one I have) is very high in carbohydrates but low in protein content, so why is more water required?
This feels the wrong way round - "when substituting wheat flour for rye flour." You mean rye for wheat?
no, i mean rye. see for example this.
Still not clear. "To substitute x for y" is to use x where y was originally specified. Same on a football field (or anywhere) New player x was substituted for player y who had to retire because of injury.
@Tetsujin -- unfortunately, "substitute" gets used backwards these days. Usually it's "substitute X with Y", analogous to "replace X with Y", but that seems to have corrupted "substitute X for Y" to also mean "replace X with Y". Sigh.
oh, good catch @Tetsujin! I misused the expression. I will edit the question to make sense. Thanks!
You are correct that higher-protein flours are capable of absorbing more water. However, protein is not the only thing that affects water absorption. In addition, according to Bakerpedia, there are:
starches & pentosans
enzymes
flour grind
Rye flour, while low in protein, is very high in water-absorbing pentosans. Hence the need and ability to add more water.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.048185
| 2020-12-29T10:14:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113449",
"authors": [
"Pete Becker",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90486",
"tungli"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
119411
|
Wild Salmon from grill is too dry
my local restaurant served me recently some wild salmon (slice) from the grill. It tasted delicious, but was pretty dry.
I'm aware that wild salmon has much less fat. So I'm wondering, is there any preparation or cooking technique for barbecuing wild salmon on the grill to avoid that the fish gets dry?
note: Placing the grill a bit higher, is not an option for a restaurant, where they grill several kind of fish at the same time
P.S.: there is a similar question here, but the answers focus on how to cook farmed salmon
I think this answer from the question you link to applies to your question--probably moreso than it applies to that other question. With fish that are less fatty, they are also less forgiving to being overcooked.
@AMtwo I'm asking specifically for barbecuing (see tag charcoal), so you cannot just take off a few degrees
"take off a few degrees" refers to the final internal temperature of the cooked salmon(125-135°F), not the temp over which they are cooked. That said, you certainly can adjust the temperature of a charcoal fire. How you "build" the fire is a key factor in grilling.
Cedar planks.
https://www.thespruceeats.com/cedar-plank-salmon-4140628
So easy, so delicious and it works great.
Get cedar planks. You can pay big bucks for cedar planks intended for this use. Or you can buy cedar planks intended for use as siding or building cedar closets for very cheap. I have done both.
Soak plank. If you are a planner aheader, soak it over night. Weigh down the planks with a coffee cup of water. If you are a non planner aheader, microwave the plank and glass pan full of water and the coffee cup for a few minutes. You get the same result.
Put salmon on plank on grill. Salmon does not lose juice from below. It stays moist. And great plank flavor.
Discard plank. Usually this uses up the plank because it is all burned on the bottom. But if you grill on charcoal the fish-grease soaked plank makes great kindling for next time!
My psychic powers saw a comment in the future saying planks for use in construction contain poison and persons should buy the $3 each planks. Yes: do not cook on treated lumber. Part of the thing about cedar is that it does not need preservative. I could not determine that there was anything but cedar in any of the cedar. A 20 lb box of planks from the big box hardware store costs the same as a plastic wrapped set of 4 planks from the fancy cooking store. Do what you are comfortable doing.
Thanks a lot for this great idea, sounds really nice. I've not accepted your answer yet, since I hope some more delicious ideas will pop up and don't want to discourage other users to post more answers
I've just talked to a friend, who uses banana leaves for that effect, he also said in the Madeira islands the banana leaves are often used to cook a variety of dishes in the oven
also what about oak planks? Those are easier to get in Portugal, since there are tons of oak trees due to the cork industry. How about the thickness of the planks, it looks like 1/2inch (1cm) to me?
Banana leaves steam the food inside, so a different deal. Re other wood types: an interesting idea but I have only ever seen or heard of salmon being planked on cedar. Cedar is sweet. I worry oak might be bitter., But you could definitely try: principle of moist fish should be the same. 1 cm is what the fancy stores cell. I have used thinner; cooks faster.
yes you are probably right with oak, it might add some bitter taste. I'll try the banana leave as it was a plank. My friend said, no soaking needed, since the leave has enough liquid in it, when it is used soon after cutting it off. He'll bring some tomorrow, excited :)
Speaking from extensive personal experience, banana leaves, as well as grape leaves and fig leaves also work, provided that you coat the salmon in a fatty marinade (e.g. flavored olive oil, mayonnaise, coconut-based dressing etc.). The leaf makes sure that the marinade sticks to the salmon.
Also: NOT oak (or pine). Substitute woods that would be OK would be alder, birch, maple, or cherry. Oak and pine are way too strongly flavored and would ruin the fish.
"3. Salmon does not lose juice from below. [...] 4. ... the fish-grease soaked plank makes great kindling for next time!" - This is contradictory ;)
@marcelm - crushed in the jaws of cold logic. Salmon loses less juice from below because plank is in the way. Still loses some.
The answer to "how do I grill plain wild salmon without it being dry" is both simple and hard: don't overcook it.
Wild salmon fillets are thinner, with less fat, than farmed salmon. As such, They go from "done" to "overcooked" in less than a minute. For a thin tail piece, for example, time on the grill should be only around 3-4 minutes. If you're not sure it's completely done, it's already done.
For this reason, I only order wild salmon at restaurants that are specifically seafood-focused, because I know that more general restaurants will overcook it.
Above is based on my experience as a resident of the US Pacific Northwest with a grill and a subscription to a wild salmon CSA.
thanks for your answer, which is my experience as well. It's just that I'm at this local seafood restaurant, every second day and would like to give them something new to try out, since they only do sardines, salmon, mackerel, sea-bass, bream or cod. And all at the same time. And the poor salmon suffers each time overcooking
Yeah, leaves or cedar planks per the other answer are going to be more reliable, specifically because they give the cook more error time on the grill, and it's something they can do which isn't "learn how to cook wild salmon properly". I posted my answer mainly for posterity, because your question is likely to get referenced for other, future, wild salmon questions.
The other way to manage this is to cook it at a specific (much lower) temperature. If you had a sous vide circulator you could cook all your salmon to 120 and then finish it on the grill before serving. Brief research suggests 120f to be an excellent midpoitn.
Chris: that's really a separate answer ... add it, for posterity?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.048347
| 2022-01-04T15:33:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/119411",
"authors": [
"AMtwo",
"Chris Pfohl",
"FuzzyChef",
"Vickel",
"Willk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27326",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85307",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90522",
"marcelm"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113551
|
re-hydrate dried and salted cod with water and milk
I usually re-hydrate and desalinate dried and salted cod with water, changing the water several times during 48 -72 hours, keeping the fish refrigerated during the process.
dried, salted cod pieces
Lately I've read people use water and milk for the soaking. As I didn't find any information about that technique I'm wondering what is the benefit of adding milk? What is the change in the fish itself, if we use milk to soak it?
There are quite a lot of recipies calling for milk for soaking and or cooking. I think the two main benefits are keeping the fish white (like cauliflower) and help with the Aroma. I can‘t find hard evidence on this so I‘m posting as a comment.
@jmk I found some results for poaching fish in milk, but that is using the fresh fish. The "milk effect" when soaking a salted and dried cod might be similar. I'll continue searching, too. Thanks for your comment
Normally I poach the fish in milk as a last stage of preparation, especially if I'm making brandade. The milk, in that case, adds creamyness to the fish. both making up for some of its residual dryness as well as helping mask the salty taste. However, that's after the fish is soaked in water for 24-48 hours. A 1-hour poach in milk is also my way of "emergency quick soaking" cod.
Presumably soaking it in milk would be to achieve the same effect, without poaching it. Salted cod has almost no fat, so the milk bath would be adding some much-needed fat to it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.048815
| 2021-01-02T19:52:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113551",
"authors": [
"Vickel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90522",
"jmk"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113530
|
Slight smell and slight bitter taste of the belly parts of grilled fish
One of my favorite grilled fish is the Blackspot seabream
Unfortunately, now and then, the belly part of the grilled fish tastes slightly bitter and smells a bit, which makes me not to eat those parts (quite a waste).
Does this come from not cleaning/preparing the fish properly or, as I've been told by a local fish-restaurant owner, is this caused by the pheromones of the fish during certain times of the year?
From what I've been told, the bitterness around fish belly is caused mainly by spilled bile when the liver or gallbladder is punctured.
May be caused by improper handling, packaging, rough treatment, excessive pressure (too much weight during storage or transportation), or careless cleaning procedure.
Improper cleaning or removal of the guts may also play a secondary role, though I suspect bile to be the main culprit.
You can some times tell in advance if you notice mustard-yellow spots in the inner walls of the fish belly before or cooking, which tend to turn silvery-greenish after cooking, caused by the spilled bile tainting the meat.
These are usually a indication of bitterness.
You can see an example around the area where the finger is touching the fish. Image source
Food source of the fish may also play a significant role in belly taste.
I have noticed that aquaculture or farmed fish tend to have little to no bitter taste at all, as opposed to wild or free range ones, possibly due to different feeding habits. Farmed ones likely exclusively eat the provided feed (with controlled selection of ingredients for taste and growth), rather than whatever they can naturally find in their environment.
Specifically addressing the pheromone as a cause, I've never personally heard about it, but pork does get Boar Taint (which is pheromone based effect on taste), so it is not totally beyond the realms of possibility, thought I'd expect it to have a widespread effect of fish as well, rather than just around the belly.
I have recently had fresh grilled wild White Seabream (Sargo) and it is one of the worse fish in terms of bitterness, which contrasts strongly with the aquaculture Gilt-Head Bream I can buy at the same vendor, and has absolutely no bitter taste, supporting my food source hypothesis.
I still wonder if pheromones could be the reason, as I buy the fish at the local fish-market and they really know how to clean the fish (doing it for a life-time)
Never heard about the pheromones, I'd expect those to be present in the fish as a whole, not just the belly area, but it is possible. I generally buy fresh fish from a local super market where the staff ladies are also experienced cleaners, but spilled bile is quite frequent if not the norm. Maybe they are just careless. Just grilled wild white seabream (sargus) a few hours ago for dinner, bellies were quite bitter. One of the worse fishes in terms of bitterness even with proper cleaning
yes Sargo (seabream ) and Besugo (Blackspot seabream) are definitely some of the worse in that bitter aspect. The reproduction part of a fish is also in the belly area, and as I was told by a local fish-restaurant owner, I continue to wonder if there is such thing as smell/taste caused by pheromones.
I found this article, but it doesn't reflect if pheromones would change the belly taste of the fish when the fish release it in their mating season. BTW, your image shows a "GROSS" failure in cleaning the fish and someone must have left it in a fridge for a day or so in order to get this color. YAK
Well for what is worth pork does get Boar Tain which tastes quite awful, so it is not a totally absurd idea, but it is a widespread taste.
thanks for your feedback, I'll wait for some more days to see if somebody knows if the pheromones eventually could cause this.
thanks for the update, Sargo and Besugo are really bad behaving in that aspect, thanks
When preparing whole fish at my household, we always slice open the stomach and use a pair of kitchen scissors to snip and remove its guts. We also rinse out the inside of the stomach after removing the guts.
I believe the reason the belly region of your fish tastes bitter is because of un-finished cleaning, just like your local fish-restaurant owner says.
Usually bitterness comes from the gallbladder if punctured while removing the internal organs, because fish bile is extremely bitter.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.048961
| 2021-01-01T20:31:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113530",
"authors": [
"Duarte Farrajota Ramos",
"Vickel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76228",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90522",
"mbjb"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
54489
|
Why does a cake recipe call for 2 tbsp of hot water?
This is my sponge cake recipe, I would like to know why add the 2 tbs of hot water
4 egg separated
1 tsp vanilla essence
3/4 cup caster sugar
1/2 tsp
bicarbonate of soda
1 tsp cream of tartar
3/4 cup cornflour
1 tbs
custard powder
2 tbs hot water
1 pinch salt
1 tsp icing sugar
1
tsp cornflour
Here is the method:
Prepare 2 x 20 cm deep round cake tins. Grease with butter and dust with combined icing sugar and cornflour
Preheat oven to 180C (356F)
Add vanilla to egg yolks.
Sift all dry ingredients, except salt and sugar, twice.
Beat egg whites and salt until stiff. Gradually add sugar. Beat in yolks.
Fold in sifted dry ingredients, THEN ADD THE HOT WATER.
Hi, does your recipe say what to add the water to? It's a very unusual recipe, with three separate starches (custard powder, cornflour, another teaspoon of cornflour). Are you supposed to add the water to the egg yolks before foaming them? This would be the most logical thing to do with it.
There's 3 amounts of corn flour in you recipe (taking into account custard powder is just coloured corn flour) yet no form of gluten... To me that's more confusing than the extra water?
My sponge cake recipe has the same thing (though I think it has 1/2 dl water). It's basically because the person creating the recipe found that without it the cake batter was too thick and didn't yield a cake that was airy enough. When I left out the water, the cake became more dense and didn't rise quite as much. I find that that water is a nice place to add various flavours, like lemon juice or coffee by substituting some of the water.
Dl=deciliter? So half of a dl=50ml? It seems obvious, I'm sure, but in the US we don't see dl in cooking contexts, so I want to clarify.
@Jolenealaska Correct :)
But at what point do you add it, and why hot? I'd be afraid that hot water would start "cooking" the spot it hits prematurely. Thinning makes sense, but it's normally done with room temperature liquid.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.049291
| 2015-02-07T06:53:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54489",
"authors": [
"Blogger",
"Callum Spires",
"Cozette Neal",
"Derek Williams",
"Doug",
"Eureka",
"J.W. Wallace",
"Jolenealaska",
"chan marie lloyd",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128222",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128226",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128227",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128228",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128280",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"matthew gibbs",
"rumtscho",
"user141592"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
122861
|
Are sardines I order in Winter farmed?
In Portugal and Spain, there are quite strict quota regulations limiting fishing to late Spring, Summer and early Autumn: quota regulations for sardines. Those quotas regulate the fishing of "free range" sardines.
However, some restaurants in Portugal offer sardines also in the Winter. Where would those sardines come from? Since frozen sardines taste quite differently — badly, in my opinion — compared to fresh ones, could those stocks come from farmed sardines (aquaculture)?
I was in Lisbon around New Year a few years back and plenty of fresh sardines on the menus. But those could have been frozen or from farther away like south America.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.049499
| 2022-12-30T21:34:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122861",
"authors": [
"Willeke",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81092"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
122908
|
Octopus on the grill, Aussie style
On my last trip to Australia (Perth), I was invited on a lobster boat (crayfisher they called themselves) .
One of the boxes pulled out of the water had a large (1,5m from arm to arm) octopus in it, and only some remaining casing of the lobster. The fishermen, not happy for getting an octopus for a lobster, invited me anyway to a grilled octopus "Australian" style.
Each octopus arm was cut off and seriously hammered down (using a large meat hammer) to transform a 5cm diameter arm into a 3-5mm thick filet, still raw at the time. Then it was just put about 30 seconds on each side on the charcoal grill, while only adding some sea salt and a nice quite tender octopus filet was served.
I'm in Portugal and trying to get the same result, but my "filet" just shrinks and rolls-up when putting it on the grill. Do I need to get the skin off first? If so how can I manage, I tried but was not able.
I can also imagine eventually a difference in the species caught in Portugal to the one in Australia and what I try is simply not possible?
2 octopus arms hammered down into a filet,
on the grill they shrank and curled-up, but tasted great and quite tender anyway
What causes the curling?
The curling is caused by the muscle fibres contracting when exposed to heat. The primary purpose of hammering the octopus leg is to destroy the links between the muscle fibres so that when one link in the chain contracts, it does not pull through the next link.
What went wrong?
Your meat tenderizer appears to have fewer large bumps on both the head-end and the face-end of the meat tenderizer. This means that it would be more difficult to destroy all the links compared to a meat tenderizer with a larger number of smaller bumps and spikes, or even a flat face. By the time you have achieved this result with your current meat tenderizer, the octopus leg has effectively been minced and not good to grill anymore.
What can you do next time?
Freeze the octopus meat before thawing and flattening, but do not flash freeze it. The slower freezing that you would expect in a home freezer produces large ice crystals that penetrate and break the links in between the muscle fibres. On the other hand, flash freezing produces fewer crystals and therefore the act of freezing the octopus meat does not break down the muscle fibres as much.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.049687
| 2023-01-03T01:07:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122908",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113559
|
for how long can I store homemade chocolate mousse in the fridge?
My chocolate mousse recipe includes just raw eggs (2 weeks until best before date), butter, sugar and black chocolate, ingredients are mixed together with the hot, liquid chocolate.
I know about this canonical question/answer pair: How long can I store a food in the pantry, refrigerator, or freezer?, but its answer is unsatisfying in my case, as the eggs are not completely raw, since the yolks are mixed with the hot chocolate and the whites, beaten to Egg Whites are also mixed together with the hot yolk and chocolate. So neither uncooked proteins nor cooked proteins in the canonical answer apply to my question.
I'm worried about the time of its preservation in a refrigerator (5ºC).
How long can I store my chocolate mousse before it becomes critical for consumption? If I see a liquid at the bottom of the container, is this a sign to throw it away?
Hm. Assuming that you are not heating up your chocolate to somewhere close to boiling, I don’t think it could be seen as “cooked” and should be treated as “uncooked”? Especially when you mix in the whites after the first mixing step?
I see your point. But you don't need to boil an egg to start its partial protein denaturation. Anyhow I read this in an article: Denaturation, by which soluble proteins are rendered insoluble, of egg proteins is brought about in a variety of ways, including the action of acids, salts, heat, mechanical agitation, and radiation. Mechanical agitation or beating of egg white, as well as the tendency of proteins in surfaces to form films, causes partial denaturation of the egg proteins.
With food safety, it’s usually way simpler: Was it heated enough to destroy most pathogens? - then it’s “cooked”, especially for proteins. Remember that the guidelines are written so that the average user without detailed biological or chemical knowledge can follow them.
In the UK, anything longer than 3 days from production is generally deemed risky and unsaleable for commercial purposes.
For home use, if you're fridge is at the warm end of the scale /5°c 3-5 days sounds about right to me. If it's a cold fridge /2or3°c you can add a day or two onto that range. This is a slightly higher risk approach than in a commercial setting though.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.049906
| 2021-01-03T00:18:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113559",
"authors": [
"Stephie",
"Vickel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90522"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100252
|
Whipping heavy cream with melted chocolate
This morning I put 60g dark chocolate (pieces) into a glass jug and heated it in the microwave for bursts of 10 seconds, while stirring, to soften it.
I then added a table spoon of cold, extra thick cream and gave it a couple more bursts/stirs to melt and mix them together.
Obviously, the mixture was fairly warm but as there was not much cream involved I thought it would be ok to mix and whip.
I added ~300ml of cold, extra thick cream, mixed it until smooth and evenly chocolate coloured and then whisked with a hand mixer.
The result was 10-20 seconds of smooth, but not "whipped" chocolate cream and a sudden change to lumpy, mud-like chocolate cream.
I tasted it and found it to be palatable, but not aesthetically pleasing as it was clearly not "whipped". If I wanted an edible scene which included a muddy garden I'd be winning. (I don't.)
Do I need to re-chill the chocolate+cream mix before attempting to whip it?
Did I curdle (and thus should avoid eating) the cream?
EDIT: I finally got it to work by melting chocolate into a small amount of cream with the most minimal microwave heating. This was the refrigerated and when I returned (after work) it had completely solidified, so I heated for 10 seconds and whipped into the rest of the cream. This worked perfectly.
Curdling is just a change in the physical structure. There's no reason you should avoid eating curdled food per se: you should look at why it curdled. Milk curdles when it goes off, and you should certainly avoid eating gone-off milk (unless you're calling it "yoghurt" or "cheese" ;-) ) but milk curdles when you put it in an acidic environment, too, and there's no health reason to avoid eating that.
I assume by "gone-off milk" you mean soured milk? That is nothing to be avoided. I remember my mom making it on purpose when i was a child, because it gave her pancakes (the german variant) a nice tartness. It's just a different diary product. I wouldn't use it in coffee, sure, but it certainly has its uses and you definitely shouldn't have to "avoid eating gone-off milk". ;) When some of my milk has gone sour by accident, I generally use it wherever i'd use butter milk.
If it helps (it probably doesn't) I was attempting to make the ganache featured at the end of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Exsvibw3mfA
If you are trying to make chocolate frosting using whipped cream, you need to:
Whip the cream first.
Melt the chocolate and add some amount of whipped cream to the melted chocolate (mix it by cut and fold method)
Add this mixture to the remaining whipped cream and fold it. Don't
over-mix it, it would knock out the air from the whipped cream.
To make chocolate ganache frosting, you just need to follow simple steps:
The ratio to make chocolate ganache frosting I use is 2 parts of chocolate to one part cream (by volume).
Heat the cream and bring it to the boil.
Once cream comes to boil, add the hot cream to chocolate. Let it sit for2-3 minutes. Now stir till it is well combined.
Let it cool completely. It would thicken up. Use it as your requirement.
If you feel that the ganache is too thick, you can add hot milk and mix it and then cool.
The images have been taken from internet.
"is 2 parts of chocolate to one part cream" are those parts by weight or volume?
You can expect any reasonable recipe to refer to weight, especially when it comes to solids like chocolate or butter.
@Vality It is by volume...I use measuring cups
@FvD You can expect any non-N. American recipe to refer to weight, but in N. America, most recipes use volume measures rather than weight. So 'reasonable' is relative...
I was a bit edgy on purpose, because I think volume measurements for baking (and the N. American tradition of using them) are unreasonable. But it's true that you need to be on your guard with N. American recipes :)
It's difficult to say what exactly happened to your cream so it got lumpy, but it's quite possible that it's overbeaten.
When making chocolate whipped cream you should make sure to chill the mixture thoroughly. I always let mine stay in the fridge over night. This of course only works if you mix enough cream with the chocolate, otherwise it gets too hard to whip it properly. I always heat the cream and then just dissolve the chocolate in it, let it chill over night in the fridge and whip it the next day.
Also: If you in fact over beat your cream, you can still use it. It's just not suitable for a cake anymore. When the whipped cream gets flaky you basically made yourself some butter. I once made vanilla butter by accident but it was quite nice on toast with some jam. ;)
Whenever I've made chocolate whipped cream I start with a cold bowl, cold mixer, and cold heavy cream and beat it until it starts to hold small peaks. Then I add 1 tablespoon of cocoa powder and 3 tablespoons of powdered(confectioner's) sugar and a teaspoon of vanilla and mix it again until evenly distributed. The sugar is necessary to balance the bitterness of the cocoa.
You might be able to get away with using chocolate syrup and mixing into plain whipped cream. I wouldn't try mixing melted chocolate with the cream. In this case, I think you probably needed more cream and less chocolate.
I considered that, but the recipe calls for melted chocolate and I'm trying to make a ganache (but screwed up!)
maybe you could add to your question, that you wanted to make ganache (i already added the tag). This makes it easier for people with a similar problem to find this question :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.050368
| 2019-07-18T09:12:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100252",
"authors": [
"Alan Munn",
"David Richerby",
"FvD",
"Gretel_f",
"Matt W",
"Vality",
"aashii",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21284",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42797",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45625",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76000"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
99783
|
Cooking a nice pan seared steak for picky eaters
So here's the situation:
I love a tasty steak. I also have really particular family. If the meat is not cooked all the way (aka very little or no pink left) it's still partly raw and no one will eat it. If the meat has globs of fat on or in it, they dissect it and remove them. My Mom buys steak on the principle of the less fat you can see, the better meat it is (and is therefore convinced that more expensive steaks are worse, not better, and not worth the outrageous price). Obviously, my goal is to convince my family that this is not true, so we can have some better beef sometimes. They like delicious food, so I know they'll still love the taste of good beef, IF I can work around the aforementioned roadblocks. After much pleading, I convinced my mom to get to some better steak as a treat for me. She brought me some NY strip (what I asked for), though it's thin cut (it is a bit under 1/2 inch thick, I think). I'm hoping that the thinner meat may actually work in my favor, since it has to be medium well to well done anyway or no one will eat it.
So, a lot hinges on the results of the meal I'm cooking tomorrow, and I want to get it right. After much internet research, here's my game plan:
Remove steak from fridge about an hour before cooking, pat dry and salt it.
Heat a thick bottomed stainless pan to super hot (we don't have cast iron).
Dry steaks off well, coat them in canola oil, and put in the pan. Sear a couple minutes on each side.
A few minutes before finishing, add some butter and minced garlic and spoon over the steaks while they finish cooking.
Take em out, discard the garlic, let them sit a few min while finishing other meal prep stuff, and then slice them up in thin strips (against the grain, of course!) and serve them.
Am I missing anything? Anything else I should know? Thanks!
P.S since I haven't cooked with these before I'm not sure about all that fat my mom is so offended by. I know the marbling makes the steak tender and juicy, but will it cook down somewhat and be less "present and offensive"? Or if I trim what's along the edge before cooking to help avoid complaints, will it ruin the way the steak cooks? Any help here on how to still make a still pretty tasty steak that my family can't be overly snobby about is welcome!
Also, please: if the only thing you have to say is "if you're going to cook it near well done then you're ruining it anyway, so why bother?" DON'T. It's not helpful unless you also have some nice tips on how to make a more thoroughly cooked steak better.
UPDATE: Steaks were actually closer to 1/4 in upon closer examination, and so they cooked really fast. Ended up a bit overdone even for what I had in mind. BUT they still tasted much better than what we usually have, weren't noticeably fattier after cooking, and even overdone weren't as tough as some of our usual beef. I got more compliments than complaints and they seemed to be a hit, so I consider this one a win. My brother said it was the best thing I'd made since I took over most of the cooking. :) The only thing I did differently from my original plan was I cut back on the amount of garlic I used, since I didn't want to overpower the meat's flavor too much, as someone pointed out in their answer. Thanks guys!
[I don't think I can really turn this into an answer, but] speaking as someone who abhors great globby lumps of fat on meat, removing it first will probably be less offensive to someone who also dislikes it. The 'it tastes better with it on' argument is purely subjective. Some internal marbling should be OK, so long as it's effectively 'vanished' before presentation. I can't comment on cooking it well-done, it's just the fat I avoid.
We might need to know what is is about the fat they hate - is it the sight, or actually the taste. I think I can come up with an answer if we know that.
@Tetsujin it is the sight and the texture of it. Basically if it's squishy and they can see or feel it when eating
Any complaints about the liquid part, tell them it's "juice" or "just the butter". After everyone tells you how much better it taste, still don't tell them that it was really the melted fat until you've done it a few times.
@Rob if it's completely liquified, they probably won't really care, fortunately. It's the still solid (squishy slimy) stuff that creates issues
This doesn't solve your immediate issue, but if it were me, I'd have a butcher grind some steaks as you like them, and some as your family likes them, then cook a simple preparation (so the meat flavors shine through) and see if their preferences hold up.
@Georgem thanks that puts my mind more at ease. Don't worry, I was always planning to cook mine how I like it. Just wasn't worried so much about how that one turned out bc no one but me will be eating it, lol
If you're willing to buy a gadget, you might try cooking your steak sous vide, which is a technique in which the meat is cooked in a relatively low-temperature water bath and then seared in a really hot pan. The result is perfectly cooked medium rare steak from edge to edge with a nice seared crust. I bought the Anova Sous Vide cooker from Amazon for about $100. Sometimes I buy USDA prime tri-tip from Costco, which is a delicious cut without a lot of fatty bits. Here's a great guide: https://www.seriouseats.com/recipes/2010/03/sous-vide-steaks-recipe.html
The method you describe should work, timing wise you have it about right, except it will need longer if you are aiming for well done. Salting and oiling before cooking works well, as does letting the meat come up to room temperature (if you are aiming for rare medium-rare a cold steak isn't a bad thing as it lets you char the outside more while having the inside less done). Maybe you're better off leaving garlic out unless you know that's their taste. If they don't like fat adding butter may backfire on you, plus, butter and garlic can cover up the flavor of the steak that you want them to enjoy. You know your family and what they might like best, it's a judgement call.
The thing you are missing is that a steak doesn't have to be a monolithic thing, and by treating it that way you miss the opportunity to have something the way you like. If you have 4 steaks then cook 3 medium well to well and cook 1 to your taste, if you have 1 steak cut a quarter off and do the same thing. They don't have to eat your steak and you don't have to eat theirs.
A couple of things:
Don't trim fat before cooking as you will end up with a dry steak. As you plan to serve it carved trim the fat after cooking as part of the carving process
If fussy eaters don't like the look of food raw they won't eat it cooked, so keep them out of the kitchen if you can
As a fussy eater, I have to agree on point 2. If I see any fat on the meat before being cooked (or I predict it may have those white fatty stuff), I kindly pass it to others who will enjoy it. Something that works for me, when I'm super curious, is to just show part of your results (nobody can resist a nicely looking piece of meat) or let them see how nicely it smells in the kitchen. That surely should open their appetite. (I hope this helps)
It's a bit late, but for your next attempt, you might want to try a 'reverse sear', where you cook it slowly first in the oven, then finish it in a hot pan.
This should help you prevent overcooking it. (although the article says that steaks thinner than 1.5 inches are a problem using this technique, I suspect that the thinner steaks would still be better so you get to well done without it taking an hour to cook)
If you're going to continue with your existing mention, you might want to read up on 'butter basting'. Basically, the idea is that you add the butter after searing, and then spoon the hot butter over the steak as it's cooking, rather than waiting until it's almost finished to add the butter.
There's also a variation of butter basting where you sear the steak, cut it up, put butter over the top, then put it in the oven ... but I've never seen recommendations for cooking a steak well done this way.
Really interesting articles. Thanks :) I'd heard of the reverse sear before, but mostly in passing (and attached to words like "medium rare"!) It sounds like it's a really handy (and tasty!) technique to know. I'm always up for learning alternative ways to do things!
I make these for breakfast all the time.
Consider
1: Dredge steak in flour before pan. Salt and pepper. This will make tasty brown bits on the outside. It is a pan fried steak after all.
2: Use butter to cook. Warm it up and fry steaks in butter.
3: Picky people might be picky about garlic; too much or too little. I love garlic but for picky people I offer it on the side in a condiment of some kind - as below.
Mashed potatoes are a good side for the picky. Trim the fat from your steaks once cooked, mince it fine, put it back in the empty pan now with your garlic, melt it on low heat. The flour left in the pan and the fat will be a roux of sorts. Then add broth and make gravy for the mashed potatoes.
I'm actually safe with the garlic, since I know they like it. Surprisingly, they're not really that picky about FLAVOR. If it's tasty, they're usually on board. Other than being really catious about meat being too "raw", it's food texture they are really iffy about (which is why, ironically, my one brother HATES mashed potatoes, because he despises the texture of mashed foods). Though I actually did serve my steaks with mashed potatoes, since everyone else besides him likes them :)
Thank you for the recipe, I may try that one of these days :)
Won't the butter burn before getting hot enough to sear nicely? Or are you clarifying the butter first?
@JJJ - I think this is actually a sear cheat because the flour gets brown in the butter without the butter getting super hot.
Do you have an idea what temperature your butter is heated to before putting the steak in? Does it smoke? Does it have white bits (milk solids) floating on top? Does it bubble (i.e. is the water cooking)? Serious Eats has some nice pictures in their guide on clarifying butter.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.050794
| 2019-06-27T08:52:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99783",
"authors": [
"Ismael Miguel",
"JJJ",
"M. S. Frave",
"Rob",
"Tetsujin",
"ThisIsTheDave",
"Upper_Case",
"Willk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14935",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41781",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61703",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76227"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115489
|
How to make Luxury White Pancakes
Please HELP!
I have a burning desire to know how luxury breakfast restaurants (I'm talking like expensive yuppy brunch places like Waldorf Astoria hotel and Sweet Maple in San Fransisco) make their pancakes. It is IMPOSSIBLE for me to find correct information on how to do it because everyone that I read online is looking for the exact opposite of what truly makes a good pancake. If you look online for the best pancake recipe, all you'll see is recipes talking about ways to make the pancakes as fluffy and light as possible. At Sweet Maple, they are called Buttermilk Thin Pancakes.
However, from my experiences dining at these luxury restaurants, their delicious pancakes are completely opposite from that: they are thinner (not as thin as crepes or Swedish pancakes mind you), not fluffy, and they also are NOT fall-apart crumbly. They are actually quite chewy and sort of dense in a way! It's hard to explain to most people that haven't tried it why this is a more desirable pancake texture, but trust me, once you have these pancakes, you'll never seek out recipes of the typical American diner being thick, light, and fluffy.
The only piece of info I've been able to discover about these mysterious pancakes is the restaurant told me they are more of a European style than an American style, but that doesn't tell me much. Are they using different types of flour that only restaurants can get? Are they leaving out baking soda/powder to get that texture?
I need a pro/restaurant baker to help out here! I would be so grateful.
PS: Yes I've seen the other thread of someone asking essentially the same question (How can I make NON-fluffy pancakes?), I only hope I can get better answers from the right people this time around.
Update, here are some pics of the pancakes I found online. Hard to see the thickness though.
Welcome to SA! I'm having trouble believing that all upscale breakfast restaurants in the US make their pancakes in the same way. Maybe you could leave that part out of the question, and instead talk about the texture and size you're looking for, possibly with some photos? Or name the exact restaurant you're talking about?
I did name the 2 restaurants that I ate the pancakes at in the post. Posting some photos might be a good idea. I'll look for some.
Just to follow up on some progress, I actually googled the menu name of the item from the SM restaurant and a recipe that I've never seen pulled up: https://www.food.com/recipe/gers-awesome-thin-buttermilk-pancakes-85504. Going to give it a try soon, maybe it's what I'm looking for.
The difference between "fluffy and fall-apart crumbly" and "thinner, chewy, and sort of dense" is precisely governed by baking powder/soda. Baking powder/soda creates the fluffiness. If you want thin and chewy, omit the baking powder. This should get you 90% of the way to the texture you want. The next variable to experiment with would probably be the water/flour ratio (more water = thinner pancake). This should get you 95% of the way to what you want. The next 5% comes down to more subtle things (whole milk vs 2% vs skim, bread flour or cake flour, etc.), but the key point is baking powder/soda.
I agree, I am Dutch, we never use baking powder in our pancakes. We do use different flours, like buckweath at times but that does not influence the structure.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.051608
| 2021-04-30T22:42:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115489",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Kayan",
"Willeke",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76536",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81092"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100229
|
Are all the processing steps of tofu harmless?
Tofu is considered as a processed food. After watching a couple videos on YouTube. I am only concerned about two points specifically:
Is heating the soaked and crushed beans so that they become a paste harmful? As sometimes high heat can harm a food product.
I don't know about the coagulant they add, which is magnesium chloride. I see that they sometimes add calcium chloride/sulfate too. Are these safe coagulants?
Nothing else I watched in the process made me think they could be harmful.
Welcome to SA! What do you mean by "harmful"? It's not clear from your question why cooking or magnesium chloride would be harmful. Particularly since raw soybeans are poisonous.
Hey @FuzzyChef, thanks for the welcome! By harmful I mean having any effects that can be bad for your health/body, etc... Why cooking at this temperature or magnesium chloride would be harmful is not my claim. This is a question aiming to de-mystify some myths about tofu, that I keep hearing.
Reminder: we won’t accept questions about general “health” topics. Only food safety and quantifiable questions (“does cheese or gummy bears contain more vitamin B2 per ounce?”). So please don’t ask whether something may have “any” effect.
@Stephie This question is also aiming to question the safety of the food processing steps while producing tofu. It's not a question asking if tofu is harmful for health, body, etc... Please edit the question as you see fit or close it, I don't mind.
Making tofu for mass production and consumption and making tofu at home generally follow the same procedures. Soybeans are soaked, ground, and cooked. The resulting "milk" is separated from the soilds. Then a coagulant is added (either salts, acids, or enzymes depending on producer and type of tofu). Finally, the tofu is pressed. The one difference between tofu you purchase in a package and tofu made at home is that the mass-produced variety likely goes through a pasteurization step. In general, this is a process that has been used for centuries (other than the pasteurization, of course, which is more recent technology). Given the history of tofu production, and the number of people who consume it, any health concerns would have been identified by now.
Okay, thanks for the answer. As I detailed in my question if the temperature while heating the beans are safe and if that coagulant is a safe food additive, I have trouble understanding all this "tofu is bad because it's processed" arguments. Not all processing is harmful and I wanted to double check this with people who are knowledgeable in food processing.
@aslisabanci, I have never heard the "tofu is bad because it is processed" argument.
I'm seeing it in many places. Apart from the "Is soy bad for you?" discussions, some people are also claiming that tofu is bad because it's "highly processed" That's how I became curious about it. I wanted to know if there are any steps involved, similar to adding nitrites while producing certain types of processed meat. So I wanted to learn all the steps. After learning a bit by myself, I wondered how safe those coagulants are and how safe the preparation temperature is. If these are also okay, then this argument is apparently a myth.
There are food regulations in place for this kind of stuff, it would of been flagged if they are harmful. Would you consider vitamins in gummy bear form processed food?
@Huangism as I said, I don't consider every artificial matter or every food processing in the same sense. Take the example of virgin olive oil for instance. It has a certain burning degree. If a food processing step would involve heating a product that has virgin olive oil in it, above that burning degree, then I wouldn't want that. My question was to clarify these types of issues, to see if they exist or not. I don't know if food processing steps like my example are also regulated or not. I am not an expert in this, thus my question to people who are more knowledgeable.
@aslisabanci If you want peace of mind, then you should email or call the regulators in your country and ask them. For Canada, https://www.inspection.gc.ca/food/eng/1299092387033/1299093490225 For US it would be the FDA https://www.fda.gov/food but historic data shows no signs of tofu related side effects. As in the people in my family and friends including my parents and grandparents, we are all chinese and no issues from eating tofu for years
Thanks for your comments @Huangism, I had no real concerns actually - I was only after de-mystifying the things I've been hearing. After elaborating more into the topic yesterday and with the comments and answers of the community, I don't have any more questions on my mind. Cheers to you and your family! :)
Centuries (if not millennia) of being a staple in Asia amounts to nothing to some, apparently.
Just wanted to state in addendum to all the comments and answers already given, magnesium chloride, calcium chloride, and calcium sulfate are all classified as GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) per the FDA.
EDIT:
After coming back to read the comments from the OP, I decided to elaborate a bit on the process in the interest of demystifying how industry goes about insuring the safety of food processes involved for foods like tofu.
First of all, a bit of the fundamentals and clarification on terminologies: what is "harm"? We define harm as any unintended, adverse health impact that results from the ingestion of foods containing hazards; and likewise, we define "hazards" as the unintended presence of potentially harmful elements or substances. These hazards are traditionally grouped into three major categories: physical, chemical, and biological (note: radiological and allergenic hazards have been consolidated under the chemical hazards category post-FSMA). The sciences and disciplines involved with the prevention, reduction, and control of such hazards as what is known as food safety, and just like any other branch of science, there are systematic, evidence-based methodologies deployed in the interest of mitigating aforementioned hazards. Of the existent systems, the USDA and FDA in particular enforce what is known as Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) — and in more recent years in light of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), we now incorporate the more robust Hazard Analysis and Risk-based Preventative Controls (HARPC). In short, the principles and practices in these sets of methodologies allow us to quantify health hazards, and once quantified, we are able to manage undesirable outcomes based upon principles of risk management. And what is "risk"? We define risk as the product of likelihood and harm. Employing such principles, each and every individual processing step (and beyond) is analyzed and potential hazards are systematically addressed. This is enforced on the federal, local, and most of all, the retail spaces; surprising as it may seem, the driving force of food safety in the past few decades has in fact been the major retailers and international consortiums. Why? Because food recalls cost money, it's as simple as that.
This is a very gross generalization of how food safety fits into todays industries, but at least to the average laymen I hope that helps shed some light on how things work.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.051888
| 2019-07-16T13:36:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100229",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Huangism",
"Stephie",
"aslı",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90290",
"mantra",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113505
|
Nuts and raisins don't stick to cookies after baking
I decorated my cookies with raisins and nuts, but no matter how deep I pressed them into the dough, they fell off after baking. How can I avoid that?
This likely happens when the fat in the cookie dough sizzles out and make the nuts & raisins slip out, or the cookies expand greatly during baking, pushing out the nuts & raisins.
If possible, try reducing the fat content and the amount of leavening agent of the cookies. Another solution is to roll out a paper thin layer of dough to press onto the tops of the cookies.
If the problem really is due to excessive expanding of the cookies, flipping them upside-down on the baking sheet before placing them in the over might help.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.052546
| 2020-12-31T22:06:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113505",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114122
|
Oven features required/desirable for baking bread at home
I am considering to buy a new built-in electric oven for my kitchen because the old one does not have top or bottom heat (believe it or not). I regularly bake heavy rye bread (e.g., of the Danish kind), but would also like to bake other kinds of bread, both sourdough and yeast variants. For this purpose, which features and functions should I be looking for in a new oven?
Just top and bottom heat, or anything else?
I have seen steam functions in some brands (e.g., AEG), which I guess would come in handy (?).
Are special bread baking settings (e.g., NEFF) useful?
Is a proofing function useful, or is leaving on the light just as effective?
Would a food sensor/oven thermometer be useful? Some ovens come with one that you can stick into meat (I guess probably also bread...), and it displays the temperature on the outside or stops when done. Good or bad for bread?
People have recommended getting telescopic rails (e.g., Bosch and other brands). Are they still worth it if the oven is below the worktop?
Anything else I should look out for with a view to baking bread? Or is a basic model with just top and bottom heat useful enough for all kinds of bread?
So your current oven has neither top heat nor bottom heat? Where does the heat come from?
The only functions are "light", "grill", "fan", "fan with grill". It is not possible to switch on heat without fan or grill.
Dear all, if you can think of criteria for a good oven for bread baking, please post them as an answer, not a comment. Or site does not have a requirement that each answer is complete, but there is a requirement that any information that goes towards solving the problem is on an answer. Moderators are required to delete answers in comments.
Probably also not a complete answer (can there ever be for such questions?), but the main criteria for me with a focus on bread would be (in no particular order):
Maximum temperature.
For bread, 250°C is usually good, but speaking from experience, the step from bread to pizza is small and for those, the hotter the better.
Sturdy rails and racks.
I bake my bread either on a stone (2.5 cm thick, rectangular, almost as large as a baking sheet, not the flimsy round ones sometimes sold as pizza stone) or in a rather large Dutch oven. Especially the stone is heavy and I still pull out the rack halfway for some breads, because it’s easier to maneuver them. That’s a serious bit of load.
A non-fan top and bottom heat option.
Yes, people make good bread in fan ovens, but I have also had issues with hot air blowing onto one side (remember that turning a half-baked bread is not a good idea, as opposed to some cakes), and the fan can also prematurely “blow away” the very important steam. If you can set top and bottom heat separately, it’s nice, but not that important.
A non-crucial but actually neat feature for bakers can be a timer that starts or stops your oven at a given time. My stone needs quite some time to heat through and a timer means that I can set it to pre-heat well before I get up, then I can just take my overnight breakfast buns straight from the fridge to the oven when I get up and we have them for breakfast with maximum convenience. But that’s just a very personal preference, not a determining feature in my opinion. I have also used it for other timed applications and it was especially handy when the kids were smaller and life a lot more unpredictable in general.
Apart from the specific use case, there’s one feature that I miss a lot at the oven I am using at the moment:
A self-cleaning function.
Of course running the pyrolysis cycle uses a lot of energy, but I hate scrubbing the oven, especially the little nooks and vent openings and roasting a chicken or something that does splatter leaves a mess, no matter how careful you are. And instead of harsh chemicals, you just need a humid cloth and perhaps some all-purpose cleaner to wipe out the ash.
A few thoughts about the various extras:
Unless you already know what you are going to use the specific features for, I wouldn’t pay extra for them, as there’s a good chance that you won’t be using them. If the oven you selected for its basic features anyway comes with some of them, fine. If your budget is large enough and you just want them for a reason (even “just because”), that’s of course another case.
And remember that the more features you have, the more can fail - a separate meat thermometer can be exchanged cheaply (or you can use multiple ones or one that connects to an app, or...), a built-in one would need either a costly repair or you would switch to a separate one in that case. Just for example.
I struggle to see how “special programs” for bread would cover the many cases of bread - your Scandinavian rye needs a totally different baking temperature gradient and time as, for example, a fougasse. But I admit I haven’t explicitly researched the feature.
This is borderline opinion based but I'll take a shot. I have used fan and non fan ovens to bake bread, and you can get excellent results either way. When I used a fan only oven I would typically make an air diverter out of tin foil to keep the fan from blowing directly on the bread, which worked really well. I also used a large ceramic coated cast iron pot as a bread cloche, and you can buy purpose made cloches for a lot less than a new oven.
That being said I have an oven with a non-fan mode now and I use that almost exclusively for bread baking as it is easier and more convenient than having to mess around with diverting the air. My primary oven has about 16 modes, half of them I don't even know what they do! I use fan, non-fan (top and bottom) and top grill almost exclusively. My secondary oven is a Neff with a bread mode and I can't tell the difference between that and regular non-fan mode. If the AEG steam oven you mention is what I'm thinking of the 'steam mode' is just a pocket to pour water into and the steam comes out of the bottom of the door, probably not something worth shelling out lots of extra money for when you can put a pan of water at the bottom instead.
You may want to have a look on local sell and swap sites, ebay and the like for used appliances, people will sell some really good stuff when they remodel a kitchen, or want something with a touchscreen.
The most important thing is that your oven can maintain a humid environment.
Features such as vents, designed to reduce the odour of cooking food when you open the oven door, are therefore undesirable. Some people say that this makes fan ovens unsuitable, but at least in the UK, most new ovens are fan ovens (and often the fan cannot be disabled) and people still seem to get good results. In any case you can use a Dutch oven within your cooker to trap steam, and use low-tech methods such as a tray of boiling water.
A fan oven will maintain a more even temperature: this is important in all types of bakings, particularly for cakes where a temperature gradient can cause a lop-sided cake or noticeably uneven cooking. Accurate temperature control is also important. Oven thermostats are notoriously unreliable, perhaps because they're taking the temperature too near (or far) from the heating elements. One can work around this using a separate temperature probe situated exactly where you're going to do the baking.
I still consider myself a novice at bread baking. One point that I keep coming across is that home ovens are designed to vent steam but we want a moist environment in order to prevent the crust from setting too early before the bread has a chance to expand (and probably a few other reasons). A common and effective way is to bake the bread inside another container that can trap steam for the first half of the bake. A Dutch oven is a great option. An upside down metal bowl on a pizza stone or metal sheet will also do the trick. I have no idea how effective or expensive home oven steam options are. It is worth researching.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.052662
| 2021-02-06T00:30:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114122",
"authors": [
"csk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91225",
"rumtscho",
"space cowboy"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100877
|
Is this mold on my sour dough starter?
I received the starter in early June this year. I feed 2 parts flour to 1 part well water. The flour is sometimes organic whole wheat, sometimes white flour. I keep it in the refrigerator. I feed once a week, but sometimes longer. It had been about two weeks when I opened it and saw stuff that looked like yeast granules. They are tan in color. I fed it and let it sit out for a few hours, then back in frig. I just took a look at the starter and it looks filmy, like the same thing is developing. It has a strong yeasty smell.
Is this mold? Is it still usable?
Welcome to the site. Could you add some more details to your post - such as a photo (preferably macro) of the thing you want to show us, and what you have been doing for the starter (e.g. storage conditions, length of culture, flour(s) used etc).
I received the starter in early June this year. Feed 2 parts flour to 1 part well water. Flour sometimes organic whole wheat sometimes white flour. Starter is kept in frig. Fed once a week but sometimes longer. It had been about two weeks when I opened it and saw the stuff that looked like yeast granules. Tan in color. I fed it and let it sit out for a few hours, then back in frig. Just took a look at the starter and looks filmy like the same thing is developing. Strong yeasty smell.
Your yeast is growing yeast! That sounds like a vigorous starter. I propose you take it out on the road and make some bread.
On the surface, it sounds like it is doing its job, likely could use mixing a bit more often, but for fears of mold or other contamination a picture is really needed for anyone to guess. My experience is that sourdough can overcome a lot and stay healthy and active, but if it goes bad you know it and it is not a yeasty smell. A picture in this case is worth at least 1,000 words though. ;)
I don't know how to post a picture. Sorry.
When you go to edit your post - have a look at the tool bar. There should be a button that looks like some very pointy mountains with a tiny sun in the top right corner. That's the image button. It should be next to some curly braces "{}"
No. You are looking at "hooch", the fermented alcohol released by the yeast organisms, floating on top of the starter with little blobs of starter pushing up from the gas released below. Your starter is just fine.
Pour off the hooch and continue.
@Martha Hooch is normal part though heavily hooched starter tends to mean you need to feed more or more often. Pink or dark brown tend to be danger signs. No sign of that in yours.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.053314
| 2019-08-21T17:36:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100877",
"authors": [
"Martha",
"Willk",
"bob1",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77131"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
101026
|
Where should heat comes from when baking brownies?
I’ve tried baking brownies many times and they are always burnt on the top (darkened to black instead of being brown). My question is where should I set the heat to comes from, from bottom, top, both and with fan or no fan.
Edit: I am using a electric oven and baking at 180 C
What temperature do you usually use? "Standard baking temperature" for me is usually 180 °C/ approx. 350F
What part(s) are burnt, the bottom, top or all the way through? Also what pan are you using, is it dark?
The top is burned after only 10 minutes inside, though the recipe I use calls for 25 minutes. The heat I use is 180c
Sounds like the oven is hotter than the dial indicates.
Fan ovens are generally regarded as 10% hotter than regular ovens, so I would suggest fan only, dropping the oven thermostat setting down by that amount than your recipe dictates. Fan mode will give you a more even, consistent temperature throughout the whole oven, whereas the different elements (and non-fan mode) will bring different results.
Using the top and bottom elements will concentrate the heat at the top and bottom of the oven respectively, and will also affect the texture of the top and bottom of whatever you are cooking. Non-fan may lead to hot-spots or the heat concentrating around the elements.
I find turning all the elements on at first to quickly preheat the oven, then switching to fan gives good results, but I have a very large 90cm single oven.
https://hummingbirdbakery.com/blogs/hummingbird-bakery-blog/oven-temperatures-and-baking-explained
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.053532
| 2019-08-29T13:38:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/101026",
"authors": [
"Debbie M.",
"John Doe",
"Pete Becker",
"SoulPleumz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77265"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
47814
|
What is this dipped powder cookie called?
After hunting around online for "black and white cookies" and "powdered sugar and cocoa powder cookies", I can't find what kind of cookie I am looking for.
Not the black and white glazed cookie:
I am thinking of a cookie I had as a kid that is made of a slightly sweet, heavy, and egg-sized lump of dough. The lump of dough is baked, and then one half is dipped in powdered sugar, and the other half is dipped in cocoa powder. Then you eat it.
If you can help me figure out what it is called, I can send pictures of the cookies once I make them :)
Are you thinking of a Crinkle Cookie? It's not exactly what you describe, but I could see your description being a family variation.
Can we all have a moment of silence for the Black and White cookie? What an invention that is.
And, if you ARE thinking of a Crinkle Cookie, the folks at Cook's Illustrated just recently posted their take on the classic cookie here: http://www.cooksillustrated.com/recipes/8125-chocolate-crinkle-cookies
Sorry, not a crinkle cookie. The cookie I am thinking of has one half that is cocoa and one that is powdered sugar, not a chocolate cookie dipped in powdered sugar. That recipe does look good, though. :)
If not crinkle, how about snickerdoodle? Why not powder-coat before baking? After baking, if warm, your cookies will deform when dipped. If cold, your powder won't stick as well; hence crinkles and snickerdoodles and ginger cookie/snap are rolled in powder/granules before baking.
Can you edit the question with more description of the nature of the cookie? E.g., what kind of dough: Sugar cookie? Shortbread? Same as black-and-white? Contains egg? Other spices (nutmeg, cinnamon, ...)? Region of origin? That ilk might help. From comments, I glean only: drop cookie; not chocolate dough; dusted after baking with two powders.
Found it!
The recipe was in a book at my house called Cookies and published by Reader's Digest (ISBN: 0-7621-0593-3).
This recipe is typed up verbatim from the source mentioned above.
Two-Tone Cookies
1 2/3 cups all-purpose flour
1 teaspoon baking powder
1/8 teaspoon salt
1/3 cup butter, softened
1/4 cup granulated sugar
2 large eggs
1 tablespoon milk
1/4 cup confectioners' sugar
1/4 cup unsweetened cocoa powder
Preheat the oven to 350°F. Butter two cookie sheets. Sift the flour, baking powder, and salt into a large bowl and make a well in the center. Add the butter, sugar, eggs, and milk. Use your hands to knead the mixture into a smooth dough. Form the dough into balls the size of walnuts and place 1 inch apart on the prepared cookie sheets. Bake for 15-20 minutes, or until just golden, rotating the sheets halfway through for even baking. Transfer to racks and let cool completely. Dip half of each cookie in the confectioners' sugar and the remaining half in the cocoa.
Makes 26 cookies. Prep: 35 min. Cooking: 15-20 min. Level: 1. Keeps 5 days.
I made the cookies a couple nights ago- they are a bit time-consuming to bake and dip, but I ended up with the cookies that I remembered- light and covered half with cocoa powder and half with confectioners' sugar. I used little bowls of powder to dip the cookies in. Here is a picture that I took of the finished cookie:
In terms of eating them, I recommend eating the entire cookie in one bite. If you decide to have a little nibble, you won't really enjoy the whole mixture of the flavors of the cocoa and the sugar at once :) Enjoy.
Cool! I'm glad you found it. It looks like the attempts weren't that far off.
Your fond recollection sounds like a variation on the Russian tea cake. Here's the Betty Crocker recipe (and photo below).
Now, without powdered sugar underneath, the cocoa-dipped end would probably have been bitter. So if you remember it as being sweet but just less sweet than the sugar-dipped end, it's very likely the cookie was first rolled entirely in powdered sugar (just as this recipe suggests) and then dipped in cocoa powder as a finishing touch . Also, if the size and shape varied a bit from what's in this photo, this was probably at your baker's discretion as it's easier to dip something a bit oblong than it is to dip something spheric.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.053711
| 2014-10-10T03:18:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47814",
"authors": [
"Blue Ice",
"Carrie Lambie",
"Harshitha Dugyala",
"Jolenealaska",
"Lorrie Galuski",
"Marlese Novalinga",
"Pamela Berry",
"Preston",
"Rasheed",
"SEAN HEINLEN",
"Stephen Eure",
"Teresa Beckley Young",
"hoc_age",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115444",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115445",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117083",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27605"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
123548
|
Amounts of MSG and natural glutamates in bouillon and soy sauce
Bouillon has a tasty umami flavor, as does soy sauce. The umami in bouillon can come from added MSG (monosodium glutamate), while the umami in soy sauce is said to arise from naturally occurring glutamates.
What is the amount of MSG or naturally occurring glutamates in bouillon and soy sauce?
In their concentrated forms
Diluted in common stock recipes
Does one tend to have more? I’m looking for absolute mgs and percent!
(Sorry to nitpick, but bullion or bouillon? I know you can use gold to make cake decoration, but stock…?)
Maybe ask a chemist to analyse them in a lab, or contact the manufacturer and ask them.
Not sure this is possible to answer. For soy sauce, there are many varieties, and those various versions produced in many different countries. Further, in soy sauce there are a variety of amino acids that contribute to umami...free glutimates are only a portion of this. Secondly, bouillon concentrate generally has MSG added, but might also contain ingredients with amino acids. Unless you do a chemical analysis of one product, it would be almost impossible to arrive at "absolute msg and percent."
Just answering the "soy sauce" part of your question. The "bouillon" part of your question is completely unanswerable given the vast range of products that call themselves bouillon. For that, read the package.
For soy sauce, there's a paper. Naturally fermented soy sauces contain l-glutamic acid, rather than MSG, and they contain between 8.77 and
147.98 mg/mL of it (note the very wide range there). If you want an exhaustive treatment of everything that's in your soy sauce, read the rest of the paper.
Saw that one...interesting paper. Wide range, and that is just in the "10 samples of Chinese -style soy sauce available in Chinese markets in 2016."
The packaging of bouillon where I live doesn’t give me the mg of MSG, so reading the packing doesn’t help. Must be journal articles or FDA documents that note the avg amount of MSG in various bouillon products? Thanks for the soy sauce paper link.
Milo: no, there mustn't. While the FDA does have an online food database, but it just has generic values, not a range of products -- and those generic values don't measure MSG: https://fdc.nal.usda.gov
Further, while bouillon cubes are obviously bouillon, there are many products where it's a matter of opinion, including soup powder, concentrated canned stock, demi-glace, etc.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.054091
| 2023-03-05T17:32:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123548",
"authors": [
"Billy Kerr",
"FuzzyChef",
"gidds",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91439",
"milo",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
123551
|
How to identify extra virgin olive oil with desired taste profile?
While many extra virgin olive oil bottles state “floral” or “fruity”, these seem like generic terms applied to most oils. Similarly, even those that omit the “peppery finish” description, have a pepperiness to my tongue.
However, I once tried my housemate’s dad’s olive oil grown in Portugal and it was actually floral and fruity. It also had no pepperiness whatsoever; It tasted like a well-watered Mediterranean meadow, a bouquet of freshly picked wildflowers, and dense stone fruits just harvested.
I was shocked and enamored. And I have never tasted an olive oil like that again. I have sought out Portuguese oils and oils that exclude any mention of “peppery,” but I have yet to taste again an oil like that truly floral and fruity one from so long ago :)
Here are two sub-points to my question about accurately identifing oils with specific flavor profiles:
Is there any consensus or regulation on the terms used to describe olive oil, or is this entirely at the manufacturer or retailer’s discretion?
Are there particular manufacturers, retailers, places-of-origin, or 3rd-party tasting organizations that use precise and reliable descriptions to help identify an olive oil with the flavor profile that is being sought?
Olive oils come from numerous places around the world, and are made with a variety olives. They are also made in different styles and qualities. The flavor profiles vary widely. Are you asking for a specific recommendation? If so, perhaps altering your question to request a producer, region, or olive variety might help.
I don't see a question here. It's a yes or no answer, and will vary highly according to individual taste, what is peppery to one person may not be to another.
Hi milo, just as GdD said - this is a subjective question, and as such, not suited for the site. See https://cooking.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask for types of question we can't take, it is valid across pretty much all sites across the network too.
I’ve seen specialty olive oil shops before… they have bulk oil dispensers and will fill (or refill) bottles… and they’ll usually offer samples so you can find one with the characteristics you’re looking for. They’re usually in bigger cities, but I know of one out in the mountains near Harrisonburg, VA.
@rumtscho : if the question is ‘how to find such an ingredient’, I think it’s answerable. See my earlier comment
@Joe this aspect was completely missing from the question when it was closed, I see that it was now edited in. With this new aspect, I agree that it ould be brought into an answerable form. The current edit makes it a shopping recommendation question, which is also closable. But if it is made more general, without asking for the name of a product or manufacturer, then it could be reopened, and your comment reposted as an answer.
I think it's reopenable. We can definitely recommend varietals of olive oil that are "high fruit, low pepper", based on authoritative resources.
@FuzzyChef the criterion is not whether there are authorative sources, but whether it would be a recommendation question - "these brands are the right ones to buy, here is the list" (that would be closable) - or a more generic question whose answer is not a list of brands, but a description of how to go about finding sources of olive oil outside of a supermarket carrying a few big brands, or how to find information on the taste of potential products.
@milo thanks for editing, the new version looks not only answerable, but also quite interesting! Reopened and upvoted.
@rumtscho I want to edit my question in italics at the bottom to: “How does one accurately identify oils with specific flavor profiles? (Bonus for addressing either sub-question.)” Its a bit redundant to the title, but will make it easier to accept an answer, as right now I am asking people to answer to questions, which I think rarely happens. Would you recommend this?
I'll speak to the first bullet. There is absolutely consensus and criteria for judging the quality and characteristics of olive oil. There is, for example, a World Olive Oil competition, which makes use of a set of criteria.
The International Olive Oil Council governs 95% of world wide olive oil production. Their standards (many documents) may give you insight into what you are looking for. They have guidelines for tasting panels, for example, that specify the criteria that you are asking about.
I think there is an identifier, which raises the probability that the oil will be to your liking. It is the variety/cultivar of the olives used for the making of the oil. There are multiple sites describing the cultivars (Wikipedia, OliveOilTimes), but my suggestion is to first ask your housemate, what cultivar does his dad use and try to buy/taste some other oils of that cultivar. I am personally quite partial to Picual, but I like grassy flavors.
This approach has one side-effect (possibly downside): It will steer you towards more expensive olive oils which actually declare their content (and which will probably describe their taste at least a bit.
Olive oil is a lot like wine, in that you can predict some characteristics based on the olive variety and/or where it’s grown. But how it’s pressed (cold vs hot, if solvents are used) and how it’s stored (temperature, length of time) can also affect the flavor.
Most ‘olive oil’ sold in the United States is a blend (more like ‘apple juice’ than wines from a single variety of olive. You can occasionally find Kalamata olive oil in stores, but most stores usually don’t bother. They might have an ‘American’, ‘Italian’, ‘Spanish’, ‘Turkish’, or blends. (And beware of country names—- they often list where it was packaged and you have to look at the fine print for where it was grown.
There exist ‘olive oil stores’ that will have a larger variety, sorted more like wine varieties and will typically offer samples so you can taste for yourself which variety you prefer (and are willing to spend the money on; these places aren’t necessarily inexpensive, but some will fill/refill bottles from large dispensers so they may be able to keep costs down)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.054331
| 2023-03-06T16:20:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123551",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91439",
"milo",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114769
|
browning meat in Dutch oven--why doesn't it work for me?
A stew recipe I was using said to brown the meat in the Dutch oven first. I tried to--added oil and let it get hot on the stove top with lid off. However, the meat did not appear to brown as much as, I think, broil. I am unsure if I waited long enough to get the Dutch oven hot all the way--but the oil seemed to get hot in it. I was wanting to let the meat stay longer in the Dutch oven but it began to stick to the bottom without looking browned. I made sure not to crowd the bottom of the oven and the oven itself is a 4.3 quart cast iron enameled one.
Is there a particular approach to browning meat in a Dutch oven vs a pan?
Are you heating the Dutch oven inside an oven or from below?
I suspect you just needed to wait longer after the meat stuck to the bottom; often once it has browned it will release by itself.
Did you per chance close the lid?
I was heating it on stove top.
I did not have lid closed
A few things that I would suggest for browning in general, some of which moscafj has already hinted at:
Dry your meat: Any surface moisture has to be evaporated, cooling down the meat and the pot. A dry piece of meat will brown more easily. For grilling, many people use paper towels, but for stews you can also roll the chunks in flour so it later acts as a thickner ... but if you do this make sure to shake off any loose flour before adding it to your pot.
Work in small batches. You want to have a bit of space around each piece of meat so that any moisture given off can quickly evaporate, rather than pooling and cooling off the pan. (if you're not using flour). Generally I try for at least 1cm (about 1/2 an inch) gap between the various chunks when browning meat.
Be patient. Browning takes a little bit of time. If the food sticks, just leave it alone. This is a sign that the proteins are starting to change. Once they're fully browned, they'll release their hold. (this is a useful test for if it's browned in a large pot, as you can't easily see under it ... just wait until you can prod it from the side and see if it releases ... but don't push too hard, as you can end up ripping the crust that's starting to form and leave that stuck to the pot; if this happens, deglaze before your next batch, and save the liquid (to add back to the stew later).
But specifically for a dutch oven:
If you have a fan near your stove, use it. The high-sides of a dutch oven prevent the moisture from escaping easily, leaving you with steamed meat. If you don't have a fan, you may want to leave a little more space between your chunks of meat.
If you're crunched for time, it's often quicker to brown large batches of meat chunks under the broiler (grill / top heat) of your oven, rather than in a dutch oven, but you need to keep a closer eye on it.
Heat the pan over medium heat for a minute or two. Add fat. When you barely see it smoke, add meat without crowding the pot. Wait. Sticking means it has not yet browned. It will release with gentle prodding when a crust forms. Too much movement will not give it a chance to brown. When it releases (or when brown, sometimes it does not stick), turn pieces, and continue. The advantage of cast iron is that it retains heat well. Keep the heat at medium high and be patient.
Preheating “for a minute or two” is definitely not enough with a thick bottom pan (such as a Dutch oven), and might explain OPʼs disappointing results. Oh, and many materials (including enamelled cast iron) don't cope well being heated dry. Add fat before preheating.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.054927
| 2021-03-13T12:59:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114769",
"authors": [
"Isabella Leonarda",
"Konrad Rudolph",
"Stephie",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91793"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114689
|
can light beer be used as substitute for white wine vinegar in marinade recipe?
A chicken marinade recipe calls for both 1/2 cup sour cream and 1/4 cup white wine vinegar. I was wondering if I can swap the vinegar with a light beer, and if so, would proportions remain same as if when using vinegar?
If not, can unfiltered apple cider vinegar work as a substitute for white wine vinegar?
White wine is to white wine vinegar what beer is to malt vinegar.
This is how new recipes are made (discovered?) but be ready for it to possibly taste unpleasant. Or it could be fantastic. Do let us know how it turns out should you try it.
Give it a try. It is not a substitution but it may be a replacement...
The answer to this is: No, beer won't substitute, but another vinegar could.
The main reason here is flavour - beer tastes completely different to vinegar, and would change the flavour profile of your marinade substantially. This may work out, but it may not, and the only ways to tell would be to test it and/or look for recipes with the same ingredients as your marinade but beer instead of vinegar.
Another reason beer might not work work is that beer is not generally acidic, whereas vinegar has a substantial amount of acid (acetic acid in the case of vinegar from grapes) in it. The acid will help macerate/soften the tissue so that it is easier to eat. Having said that, beer will contain enzymes that break down protein, that might do the equivalent of the acid, but these may not work in the presence of other substances in your marinade recipe.
Interestingly, if you are going to marinade with beer, use a canned pasteurized beer or a fresh brew of unpasteurized beer as the proteolytic enzymes in the beer are broken down in unpasteurized beers (warning: PDF, possible paywall).
A marinade with beer flavor sounds amazing, but you're right in that OP will need a recipe designed around this, instead of just plucking it in
A sour beer like a lambic or gose could work (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sour_beer). They’d be harder to find and more expensive than a normal vinegar though.
In many cases, any acidic liquid may work. If you don't have any vinegar, lemon or lime juice might be a good substitute in a pinch, though the flavor will be somewhat different (though certainly closer than beer).
@DarrelHoffman: One hydrochloric acid marinade coming up! ;-P
@Vikki-formerlySean You know? Maybe if extremely diluted? I don't know, don't try this at home, kids.
@DarrelHoffman - if they make bagels and pretzels with boiling lye (NaOH/KOH) why not the obverse? ;)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.055230
| 2021-03-09T01:16:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114689",
"authors": [
"AdamO",
"Criggie",
"Darrel Hoffman",
"Hobbamok",
"Robin Whittleton",
"Vikki",
"bob1",
"gnicko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84884"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114732
|
Does anyone know the name of the knife this ice cream seller is using?
Here is an example of the knife being used.
ASMR - Energy Ice Cream Rolls Oreo | How To Make An Energy Drink Out Of Ice Cream || Chinese Food
Notice it is similar but like a cleaver. I have also been trying to find the name of this, but the closest I found was a Japanese menkiri.
Hope someone can answer this.
PS: it is similar to the knife that was used by BanBan from one piece anime, which was asked by another user.
What kind of cooking knife is this?
Updates:
I just found a clearer view of the knife at 3:58 in the video in the youtube link. Basically, it is like a cleaver, without the handle jutting out, but part of the blade it self.
It should look something like this:
I tried to use google image search, using this image, to find but no luck.
PS: The photo above is photoshop of what I think the cleaver looks like.
It doesn't look like a knife, it looks like a dough scraper.
There is actually a similar question asking about a similar type of knife: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73443/what-is-the-name-of-this-style-of-knife/114748#114748 , and I found out the name of the brand is "YAX" which is from Japan but it is a vintage type of knife. But it is still not the one I was looking for.
I tried taking your mock-up and running it through various reverse image search engines (https://www.duplichecker.com/reverse-image-search.php), but had no luck. You might try changing the handle placement and try again -- on the left of the handle, the top of the metal aligns with the bottom of the wooden handle, not the top. (I suspect Baidu is likely best for this ... but I just got a page that translated to "Could not find information about the picture")
@GdD aren't dough scrapers curved?
I'd go to a restaurant supply company with the picture, and ask them.
That's a scraper, not a knife, as in it doesn't have a sharp edge. That doesn't put you any closer to finding one, though.
@RonJohn, any luck?
"I'd go to a restaurant supply company with the picture, and ask them" if I were motivated to know what that knife is.
I agree with @FuzzyChef. It's neither a knife nor a cleaver. It looks like a dough cutter. May I ask for what purpose you are looking for the name or the object itself?
I also believe the style of knife you're looking for is called an "ulu" though the OP pix look to be a ulu cleaver.
Here is an ulu more similar to the OP pix: https://www.kitchenknivesonline.com/products/12-ulu-chef-knife-walnut
Might be a effort saving knife.
Or a Ulu knife, as you have noted in the other question. This one is a GH5074 Gil Hibben Knives Legacy Ulu Knife.
That looks nothing like OP's knife: the handle position and orientation is completely different.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.055456
| 2021-03-11T07:56:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114732",
"authors": [
"Boondoggle",
"FuzzyChef",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Nova_Super",
"RonJohn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76460",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91843"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
48943
|
How to see if cast iron cookware is enameled?
I have found a cast iron grill manufactured by the French company Le Creuset. This cookware is probably around 20 years old and you can see a picture of the same model below.
I'm wondering if this grill is enameled cast iron or raw cast iron. Indeed, if it's raw cast iron, I will strip of the former seasoning and create a new one. If it's enameled cast iron, I'm not sure how to deeply clean it but I will not put it in my self-cleaning oven.
Today, all cast iron products from Le Creuset are enameled but I don't know if that was the case 20 years ago. The cookware is black and has been used a lot, so I don't know if the (quite) smooth aspect of the top is enameled or not.
Do you have any tricks to recognize if cast iron cookware is enameled or not?*
Photos (click for full-size)
On this last one, you can see "Le Creuset * Made in France* D2" but I didn't find anything about D2 grill model on the internet.
Enamel is a ceramic coating applied to the metal - it will typically be colorful and glossy-smooth to the touch. Raw cast iron will be black and matte in appearance, the unseasoned surfaces rough to the touch, the seasoned cooking surface will be smooth and a tiny bit greasy. Complicating things is the "black satin" enamel some manufacturers (including Le Creuset) apply to some of their pans to mimic a well-seasoned raw cast iron pan.
From the photo, you have a raw cast iron grill pan - we can tell, as it has been misused and the seasoning mostly removed. The coloration, going from black to grey, almost white, indicates the early stages of oxidation and rough scrubbing, and parts of the raised grill-ridges have likewise been polished from rough use.
While enamel can stain and discolor from use (Le Creuset calls this a "patina"), it's failure state does not include a metallic shine in places, and does include cracking or flaking. The glossy black bits stuck to the ridges are seasoning, and ideally should cover most of the cooking surface - if it were uniform across the surface of the pan, it could be enamel. As is, it's a great raw cast-iron pan begging to be restored with a good cleaning and re-season.
You can easily test whether a piece of cast iron is enameled or not with a multimeter. Set the meter to resistance measuring mode (e.g. on the megaohm range) and (carefully) stick the probes across the pan.
Bare cast iron is electrically conductive, and will have a resistance of close to 0 ohms. The enamel on an enameled cast iron pan is an insulator, and the resistance will be near infinite.
Of course, the seasoning on a cast iron pan may add some resistance. I tested this with an enameled pan (resistance >10MOhm) and a brand new bare cast iron pan which came "preseasoned" from the factory, which measured around 300 Ohms over a stretch of several centimeters. I suspect using sharp probes and digging into the metal a little bit would help lower the resistance, but that would damage the pan and just making gentle contact is enough to determine whether there is enamel or not.
We're going to do all of our analysis on the back side, so we don't mess up any cooking surface:
if it's rusted : not enameled (or possibly damaged enamel)
if it's greasy, clean w/ hot soapy water and a scrubbing pad, just in the middle of the pan.
if it's any color other than black, brown, bare metal or orange-brown : enameled
look for a model number, then look it up online
... that should get you though 99% 90% of the cases ... if that still doesn't help:
run your fingers over the cleaned surface
if it's rough : not enameled (or someone polished the surface ... which is rare, but not impossible; also beware of more recent 'satin enamel', but that's typically an interior treatment)
if there's signs of crazing (tiny cracks all over the place; not sure how obvious it'd be w/ black enamel) : enameled
If you're still not sure after that, I guess post a picture, close up of the cleaned back side, with good lighting.
No, it won't help for 99% of the cases. Le Creuset frequently uses black enamel, sometimes over a slightly rough surface. Not as rough as naked cast iron, but a person has to have touched both a seasoned cast iron and this thing to know the difference. I'm not even sure I'll know it without samples for comparison, or after the pan has been cooked in.
@rumtscho : I guess the black enamel is more popular in europe ... you rarely see it over in the US (red, blue, or other bright colors are more common here). As for the roughness ... when people season pans, you don't get a smooth surface unless you also scrape it with metal ... so the back will have undulations in it, even if seasoned ... but you're right, having an seasoned and emaneled pans to compare to on hand would help.
@rumtscho - Amazing, but true! I had to delete my answer after double checking your comment. Le Crueset and some other European manufacturers use a black "satin enamel" that mimics raw cast iron on skillets and grill pans. These are not common in the US, but it's definitely something to watch out for!
@Joe my worry wasn't that the iron might be smooth (although this is a possibility too), but that the enamel will be rough. I have touched enameled Le Creuset pans on display, they have a coating which is black and slightly rough, mimicking seasoning, but it is enamel, not seasoning. This is probably what RI Swamp Yankee found under the name "satin enamel".
@RISwampYankee : was the 'satin enamel' on the inside, or outside of the pan?
And does it leave the edges exposed?
@Joe - The inside, on the cooking surface. It's designed to mimic a seasoned raw cast iron pan. Why, I can't even guess - in the US, Le Crueset and those copying them generally use a white enamel on their skillet's cooking surfaces. I haven't seen one of these "satin enamel" pans in person, but the picture on Le Crueset's site indicates the edges are unenameled, but you'd really need to see one up close to determine if this is the case or not.
@RISwampYankee : another reason for looking at the back of the pan, then.
Thanks for this answer and all the useful comments. In my opinion, there is black enamel in the inside of the grill. I don't see any rust, no other color than black (maybe some white spots on the back). What do you see (I update my question with pictures)?
@ppr : looks unenameled to me; where you see speckling looks to me to be where the seasoning has rubbed off, and you see bare metal peaking through.
As a follow up - I have a large cast-iron skillet from Cuisinart I haven't found an opportunity to use yet (it's fairly huge). It's enameled on the outside, and wouldn't you know it - the cooking surface has the black satin enamel on it! This will simplify cleaning, but it's durability and non-stick properties are now reduced to how good that enamel is. I would never have guessed before this thread.
Apply a really weak sheet magnet to the surface of the pan, like the ones that come attached to the phone book for hanging on your refrigerator. If it sticks, it's not an enameled surface. If it does not stick, there's a film of enamel there preventing it from doing so. Just be sure and test it first to make sure it sticks to the frig.
Nice idea! Maybe also test it on something known to be enameled cast iron to make sure it doesn't stick, though? Fridges usually have coatings over the metal too (except shiny stainless steel ones) so I'm guessing a lot of things that stick to the fridge would stick over enamel too.
I agree that magnets might be a bit too strong. I wonder if magnetizing a needle and trying with that instead would work better?
The enamel coating isn't that thick so I doubt this would be a good technique to use. Magnets stick without being in direct contact; e.g. using a magnet to stick a piece of paper to the fridge (which may have paint or a veneer)...
I tried this and a weak magnet sticks on my enameled pan.
After seeing the pictures, I'm almost sure this is naked cast iron. "Almost", because I haven't seen the satin enamel after use, only on new pans. But when it's new, it's glossy like seasoning, not dull like what your pictures show.
For a confirmation, you can try to rust a small spot. Take a drop of acid - maybe essence of vinegar, or descaling agent - put it on the pan, and heat. If it changes or even rusts, it is unseasoned iron. This test won't work to distinguish between oil seasoning and enamel, but it should work on pure iron. But you'll have to derust it before seasoning again, so it may not be worth doing it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.055713
| 2014-10-15T10:36:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/48943",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Charles Cline",
"Deanna Ribbons",
"Dom Smith",
"Elizabeth Daleo",
"Gary Nutt",
"Jerome Duncan",
"Joe",
"Kareen",
"Karen Andrews",
"Margaret Wamuyu",
"Mistie Renee",
"Nancy Lang",
"Nick T",
"RI Swamp Yankee",
"Seppo Enarvi",
"Tamara Sauls DiGiovanni",
"Tasha Harbick",
"Tim Herzing",
"erich glass",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116799",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116800",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116801",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116810",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116883",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116886",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116890",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116908",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116970",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117326",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"love aroha",
"michael webster",
"ppr",
"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
}
|
124696
|
How do you cook and prepare hotdogs that are finished with a smooth, unblistered exterior with grill marks?
So, it's summer at last and we've finally made it to another BBQ season without COVID restrictions. So, as it is appropriate for the BBQ season, I had a question about BBQing hotdogs.
I know that it's possible to prepare hotdogs by boiling, and indeed, many restaurants do so. It's also possible to prepare them on a BBQ.
But, I notice BBQed and grilled hotdogs at ye ol' family get-together or beach episode tend to turn out blistered and very ugly looking.
I want a hotdog that looks like its boiled and isn't blistered. And, then with those dark black grill marks. What should I do to achieve this look?
Hi, we have somewhat strict guidelines on what kind of question we take. The question about a technique for a specific look is a great fit. I removed some of your background musings on how others prepare hotdogs, because it not only distracts from the question, but also creates unnecessary friction. We don't believe in the idea that there is a single "right" way to prepare food, and we're happy to help you no matter which way you prefer your hotdogs.
Let me rephrase @rumtscho‘s comment: Asking about how to achieve a certain result is perfectly fine. Lengthy discussions about real or perceived cultural faux-pas‘, merits or other issues that don’t contribute to the basic technical question are not ok.
My guy, this question was answered a year ago. What's the motivation for continuing to make inconsequential edits?
@the-baby-is-you Perfectionism and idealism to build beautiful societies despite not-so-beautiful society members.
@PrashanthC Mod here: Your post is perfect enough. You can either read this as inspiration to reflect on where to aim your efforts in an inherently imperfect world (e.g. find beauty in imperfection) or a warning to cease pushing this up in the active question view with inconsequential edits. No matter which you choose, I strongly recommend that you stop these edits now.
Use a two-tiered cooking method. First set up your grill with a "really hot" side and a "less hot" side. The idea is to gently heat the dogs on the "less hot" side of the grill and get them up to a good temperature for consumption, then use the really hot grates on the other side to quickly put some grill marks on the dogs without causing them to blister and so forth.
I don't know which order that these events happen for the best results. You could maybe do a "reverse sear" kind of thing by slowly heating the dogs and then applying the grill marks, or hit the dogs with high heat at the beginning to get the grill marks before moving them over to the lower heat side of the grill to gently come up to temperature. This may require some experimentation to get it perfectly right. I've done it both ways without really paying attention to which method worked better.
The advantage of this is the dogs get added flavor from the smokey grill without boiling them.
This makes sense, thank you. Raise the temperature, slowly, then sear at highest heat. So, on a BBQ its on heat and off heat. But, I use a griddle. Wonder if that changes anything.
Sorry you didn't mention a griddle in your original question. You could use the same approach I suppose. Heat the griddle very hot, get your "grill marks", remove the hot dogs and then let it cool some, then reintroduce the dogs and let them heat through more slowly. Honestly I think you'll find it easier to use a charcoal or gas grill, but only marginally so.
I suggested the reverse sear as you mentioned as the alternative in your helpful tips, but, in hindsight, I think the straight sear-then-cook is the better way because the hotdog is colder so you don't risk blistering or busting the dog. Great post. I think you're the winner here! Thank you.
It's the high direct heat from the coals that chars, the metal bars that make the stripes, so stripes without flame - a grill [griddle] pan.
Pre-heat dogs & pan, then a minute or so each side to put the stripes on. Works for steaks too.
This seems to be dividing the field somewhat on up- vs down-votes.
Maybe this is more useful for the Brits, who tend to have a shoebox-sized live-flame charcoal BBQ about twice per summer [one of which will be ruined by the rain anyway] so we are used to grills that will turn anything put on early into pure charcoal in under three minutes, whilst anything put on half an hour later stays raw. For those too eager to get the food on it there's also that delightful smell of paraffin to add zest to the first round of charcoal-crisp burgers.
We also pre-cook our chicken portions in the oven, for fear of killing the guests by serving thighs burnt to a blackened crisp on the outside, whilst still being raw in the middle.
For the US with your football pitch-sized grills powered right from mains gas, with smokers, mesh lattices & assorted steel hot-plates at various heights - generally looking more like an office block under construction - this might be less useful. Or you already have one built-in, over in a far-flung corner of the structure out of easy reach, behind the half a cow currently slow-cooking…
;)
…plus, the Brits can take this indoors & put it on the stove when it rains - so long as they also remember to bring the buns in, and send one or two of the more water-resistant kids back out to fetch the beers too. Everybody can then have lovely looking hot dogs whilst gazing out of the window at another bank holiday ruined.
My comment on another answer would work too - get a George Foreman grill [They didn't have a hot dog recipe to borrow from, so here's some chicken] …
That would work for the Brits too, if they're expecting rain ;)
Examples, for those who have never visted both sides of the pond…
US barbecue
British barbecue
I don't think grill pans are useful for very much. But if you want grill marks, they're even better at making grill marks than actual grills are.
I find the "rant" about American grilling highly entertaining and totally accurate
@Yorik - It's nice to feel appreciated ;))) I'm sure someone could write a book on the "joys" of British barbecuing too. I once spent a month staying with a friend in Laguna Beach, California, & I'm sure his barbie cost as much as the house… and looked about as permanent. We ate in the back … acreage… about 4 nights a week. He could fire it up without even going outdoors. We'd stagger out, well-lubricated, to enjoy the sunset & things you just cannot cook on your typical UK service station aluminium one-time carton. Also, seemed far less chance of setting the garden alight.
I once bought a pack of four of those disposable barbies in the UK [never again] & they lasted me two years ;)
It really wasn't a rant, ha ha.
As a USian, I am offended to be lumped in with those god-awful aircraft-carrier sized grills. I have a very functional Weber grill. It's the bestest.
@XanderHenderson I also am generally quite content with my Weber but I have used the trailer grill shown in the second picture quite a few times. It is somewhat difficult to grill half a hog to feed 40-60 people using a Weber. (North Carolina born)
@doneal24 How often do you smoke / roast / grill half a hog? I would imagine that, for the vast majority of people with oversized grills, they never actually use enough of it to justify owning one, rather than owning a Weber, and renting an aircraft carrier for the three times in their lives they need it. :D
@XanderHenderson One person in the area actually owns the grill and it is loaned out to friendly neighbors. I wouldn't even know where to rent one from. Also, I am the lead griller about once every two years and participate in a few other events. And no, I am not suggesting that anybody run out and buy anything that can cook a hog unless they have definite plans to use it or share/rent it frequently. And the one I've used most often was homemade from a discarded fuel oil tank and placed on a ancient trailer.
@XanderHenderson growing up a neighbor would roast a whole pig every summer. Not sure if he rented it or not, but I saw it used over a dozen times (and likely more). You're not wrong in general, though
@Tetsujin Actually, to be most accurate, the first picture is an American grill, the second an American smoker or barbecue, the third picture is a British meat incinerator.
@Tetsujin Haha, the images are useful to get some perspective, thank you, sir. I think your images here gently back my sociocultural generalizations about the luxurious aspect of the USA and Canada. I'm sure all ancient cultures had their own methods of using heat and fire to cook food, but the BBQ seems to have its etymology from the Taino people of the Caribbean.
@gnicko I am not sure if this is true. Common parlance would say the first is indeed a BBQ (call it American or Western, but if I see that sold in a store, its a BBQ--and a fancy one to note). The second one is a barrel-style charcoal BBQ. I think it pops up in Texan/American and Jamaican grilling/BBQing a lot.
And as for the "British" "meat incinerator" i don't want to be mean, but this could look like you're making these things up if not trolling at this point, haha.
Hey, @Xander Henderson, welcome to the chat. Also have a portable, beautifully engineered "weber". And, I'm from the same continent, so its not solely taking shots at others but at myself as well, haha.
@PettyCashPrash Just having a little fun with it. But seriously, BBQ (v.) refers to cooking slowly with smoke and indirect heat. The smoker/BBQ (n.) is designed to primarily cook using indirect heat from an offset firebox. The grill (n.), on the other hand with higher, direct heat directly below the food. That being said, you can BBQ (v.) with a grill (n.) and grill (v.) with a BBQ (n.) with acceptable results... but the devices (and the cooking methods) are two different things... which many people, even here, frequently confuse.
Great, indepth answer, @Tetsujin thank you!
Another great comment, @gnicko!
If you’re more concerned about the looks of your food, you should probably be looking to ‘food stylists’ rather than people who cook food to eat.
You basically take a straight heating element, and use it as a branding iron to put lines on the food where you want it.
There are a devices made to do exactly this, with multiple elements so you don’t have to worry if all of the lines are parallel and evenly spaced: https://www.tastingtable.com/906146/the-real-reason-some-restaurant-grill-marks-arent-real/
Or a George Foreman grill, as we mere domestic cooks use instead [indoors] ;) Makes decent panini too… & grilled cheese…
@Tetsujin Yeah, but they actually cook the food, so risk overcooking it. If you just want likes to be decorative, you just use something to burn the lines on there. This woman mentions ‘charcoal starter’ which is the electric devices to put in with your charcoal to get it lit: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=f2Y_hTFpJus&t=9m28s (and she mentions just painting the lines on)
It's the high heat for too long that blisters and/or bursts your dogs. If you want to use a grill make sure the coals are burned down...or the grate is high enough...or use a combination of direct and indirect grilling. Don't leave them on long enough to blister and burst. Alternately, if you keep them moving, they may not get pretty grill marks, but they will be nicely browned.
I've plan to use a water solutions. Best of both worlds.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.056658
| 2023-07-11T12:07:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124696",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Prashanth C",
"Sneftel",
"Stephie",
"Tetsujin",
"Xander Henderson",
"Yorik",
"doneal24",
"fyrepenguin",
"gnicko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77256",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87868",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/92007",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99813",
"rumtscho",
"the-baby-is-you"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
125478
|
How to cook daikon radish while minimizing the bad, off-putting smell? Is there a way to get rid of that sulfur-y, fart-bomb-like smell?
Made a chinese-style daikon soup in a pressure cooker, and it left an sulfury odor reminiscent to a subtle fart bomb. I know veges and roots that have sulfuric compounds tend to do this. Is there a way to prep the daikon to prevent this from happening?
Perhaps, an acid wash or quick pickling or a rinse in baking soda?
A way to address the sulfuric "bite" of raw onions is to slice them thin and then soak them in a baking soda solution for 10-15 minutes. You can try to do the same with sliced daikon, but know that even if it works, doing so is going to affect the flavor and won't get rid of the smell entirely.
@Abion47 Thank you, Abion47. Good points. :) Haven't had a good definitive answer yet
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.057681
| 2023-10-06T12:44:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125478",
"authors": [
"Abion47",
"Prashanth C",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/92007"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
125480
|
A definitive physicochemical guide to smoke points of cooking oils?
I've seen many charts of Smoke Point charts for cooking oils online. And, there all slightly different if not very different. Even MasterClass and SeriousEats seems to have their own versions (butter moves around). Perhaps, that's due to the particular quality of the manufactured oil they tested, but I'm not sure.
So, a lot of cooking websites indicate that the smoke point of an oil is when the oil burns and breaks down--which chemically speaking, isn't correct from my understanding. Sure, at the smoke point, some compounds inside the oil may have broken down already since they break down at temperatures below the smoke point, but the smoke point itself is not a direct indication of that breakdown, rather, that, if any breakdown at lower temperatures should happen, it already happened when you achieve the smoke point.
So, what is the smoke point then? For me, what I've learned is that its just the vaporization temperature for oils. Water that evaporates (vaporizes) is steam. Oil that evaporates (vaporizes) is smoke (because its smokey looking). Also, I'm assuming fats and oils with the longest fatty acid chains, chemically speaking, have higher smoke points.
But, also, there's this note on Wikipedia:
"Specified smoke, fire, and flash points of any fat and oil can be misleading: they depend almost entirely upon the free fatty acid content, which increases during storage or use. The smoke point of fats and oils decreases when they are at least partially split into free fatty acids and glycerol; the glycerol portion decomposes to form acrolein, which is the major source of the smoke evolved from heated fats and oils. A partially hydrolyzed oil therefore smokes at a lower temperature than non-hydrolyzed oil. (Adapted from Gunstone, Frank, ed. Vegetable oils in food technology: composition, properties and uses. John Wiley & Sons, 2011.)"
Any thoughts?
Not an answer, but I think your point about vaporizing oil == smoke isn’t accurate. I’ve a vague recollection of seeing a boiling point for an oil that was markedly different from the smoke point
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke_point
Not sure but that's what I also recall from my chemistry days. I think the main thing to discern here is: At smoke point, does the oil (substance that mainly consists of a carboxylic acid with a long hydrocarbon chain from the alpha-carbon (i.e., a fatty acid) break down (irreversibly)?
Another question to guide us would be this: Can, you re-condense the oil in a container if you catch the "smoke"? I think so. I've seen oil condense on range hoods and range hood have apparatuses for catching oil.
Triglyericdes (in fats) are a different beast. Those may break down. If significant acroilin evolves from oil, its not an oil as there's significant amounts of glyercol. Honestly, great subtopic tho.
Smoke and vapor are not the same thing.
The process of something smoking is a form of thermal decomposition called pyrolysis where heat acts as a catalyst for something to chemically change into something else. For instance, if you press wood against a hot surface, it will start to smoke and char even without bursting into flame, and that's because the heat is causing the chemical compounds in the wood to degrade into different compounds. Food being cooked will do the same thing in a hot pan or oven - eventually, it will burn, releasing smoke and leaving behind a lump of glorified charcoal. The smoke is composed of the components that are vaporized (such as water), gaseous (such as CO2), or exist as tiny particles that are buoyant in the hot air (i.e. ash), and the char is the stuff that's left behind.
Vapor, on the other hand, is a product of the process of evaporation. How this process works on a technical level can get complicated, but the grossly oversimplified explanation is that a material has entered a phase in which it is both light enough to be buoyant in air and energetic enough to no longer be stably connected to other nearby molecules. Boiling is the widely known way a substance can evaporate, but it's not the only one; some substances are energetic enough on their own to just leech directly into the air given enough time. For instance, if you leave a glass of water out at room temperature, the water will eventually entirely disappear, though how long it will take depends on the temperature and humidity of the environment.
When oil reaches its smoke point, it is not boiling, it is decomposing. This is because while it's technically possible for oil to boil, the boiling point is higher than its smoke point. The reason for this is that the molecular bonds in oil are so strong that the amount of energy required to break them and cause the oil to boil off is higher than the amount of energy to get the oil to start decomposing into something else entirely.
Now it's possible for trace amounts of oil to start vaporizing during the cooking process, hence why range hoods over stoves and griddles can get pretty oily over time. But as mentioned before, boiling is just one way a substance can vaporize - just because the oil is vaporizing doesn't mean it's boiling. Theoretically, yes, this oil can be captured and reused, but its in such low quantities that it's hardly worth the effort. And besides, oil isn't the only thing condensing on those range hoods; the smoke is condensing on those surfaces too, and when smoke condenses, it forms tar.
Great answer by Abion47. Off the top of my head, I would add that this feature of oils is also somewhat analogous to that of sugar. If I am not mistaken there’s also a thing about sugar decomposing into carbon and water at a temperature that’s lower than it’s boiling point. So you will never really get to boil sugar.
Great answer, and thank you for your time. I think there should be a distinctions and connections made between these terms:
Vaporization point
Smoke point/Burning point
Fire Point/Combustion point
Flash point
Also, as addressed previously, as been referenced previously, acrolin evolves following decomposition of gylcerol from trigylcerides. However, many oils are not trygylcerides, but fatty acids/FFA. So, if fatty acids must decomposed, just as someone else suggested here, it would be via pyrolysis, which would require splitting of C bonds, which requires a lot of energy...
Also, "Smoke point" seems to reference a macroscopically observable phenomon of "smoking". Impurities in cooking oils that may contain substances that may undero pyrolysis readily may also exist. And, Wikipedia point this out as well, referencing "blue smoke" but no physicochemical mechanism. So, for me, its hard to discern still despite your great answer.
Thanks again.
Also on your point where you say this: " But as mentioned before, boiling is just one way a substance can vaporize - just because the oil is vaporizing doesn't mean it's boiling."...
So, you do understand my point here as I did allude to the observed phenonom of oil collecting on range hood surfaces and even devices that collect said oil (drip pan apparatuses).
Since you also likely are a technical person, the distinction of between boiling and vaporization matters. However, I was careful not to mention boiling in my initial post so I'm focused on vaporization here.
@PettyCashPrash At the end of the day, the distinction between smoke and vapor is simply that smoke is a product of decomposition and vapor is a product of evaporation. The end result may look similar visually, but the physical/chemical processes that happened to get there are completely different. Granted, this is greatly confuddled by sources around the internet who, in their cooking-centric views rather than scientific views, use these and other related terms rather arbitrarily and interchangeably.
It's worth noting that there are cooking oils with a low enough boiling point that you can see them boil before they fully combust. Soybean oil, for instance, has a smoke point of 257°C and a flash point of 330°C, but its boiling point is somewhere in the neighborhood of 300°C though it varies on the quality of the oil and other conditions. If you're determined and a bit lucky, you can heat a pot of soybean oil past its smoke point but before it bursts into flames and see it boiling off. (Of course, this is highly dangerous and very not recommended in a home setting.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.057799
| 2023-10-06T14:01:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125480",
"authors": [
"Abion47",
"Prashanth C",
"culinascience",
"fyrepenguin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/92007",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95587"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
103666
|
How long to cook at turkey for at low temperature in a convection oven?
For the past few years I have been cooking turkey using a low temperature method, using the Splendid Table recipe. In short: after a 45 minute blast at 450 F to kill the bacteria on the skin and in the chest cavity you turn it down to ~170 F and cook it for ~1 hr/lb.
Those instructions are for a conventional oven. This year I have a convection oven, and I would like to use the convection feature. There are plenty of recipes for the normal high temp convection oven turkey cook out there, but I haven't really seen anything talking about using a convection oven for a low temp cook.
Has anyone done this? Does the convection feature shorten the cook time? How many hrs / lb in a convection oven? The obvious answer is: "cook it until the meat reaches 165 F". Yes, that will be done, but I first wanted to see if anyone had any suggestions for time so I can roughly schedule the cook.
I've never cooked anything that low and slow in a convection oven.
But a cursory lookabout led me to this Sysco chart,
https://impacweb.cbord.com/reportsets/~common/Cooking%20Times%20For%20Convection%20Oven.pdf
There is a section for whole turkey 16 to 20lbs, 275-300F, for 4-5 hours.
But more importantly a note at the bottom states,
"For menu items not listed, use recommended time and temperature for conventional oven but reduce the temperature setting by 25-50 degrees F and reduce the total bake/roast time by approximately 10 to 15 percent."
So if I were you using that recipe, I'd do 420F for 40 minutes, then 140F for 45m/lb, adjusting the time and temp by intermittent temperature checks.
Looking at a couple more sites and conversions those numbers from Sysco appear to fall in line. That's if the oven goes that low I'd imagine, 140F is pretty low.
At 140°F, doesn't that mean that the meat will never heat more than that temperature? If so, it's going to taste rare no matter how long it's cooked for. Chicken dark meat tastes best at around 165°F for instance, so would it make sense to set the oven to anything less than that?
Cooking by time and weight is extremely unreliable.
Get an electronic thermometer, insert the probe into the meat and watch the temperature on the display on the counter.
When the breasts are 150°F (66°C) and the thighs 165°F (74°C), it's done.
(Try the probe in a few places to ensure there are no cool spots.)
No weighing, no timing, no guessing.
The Best Simple Roast Turkey With Gravy Recipe | Serious Eats
For even better control of the uneven ideal temperatures (white meat at 165°F will be very dry), try spatchcoking (removing the spine from) the turkey:
Crisp-Skinned Spatchcocked (Butterflied) Roast Turkey With Gravy Recipe | Serious Eats
So when do you start cooking the turkey? With the information from your answer I would guess an hour as easily as 10 hours. Not helpful for what OP asks about.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.058445
| 2019-11-24T01:35:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103666",
"authors": [
"Ray Butterworth",
"Willeke",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81092"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
120019
|
Making butter at home
I decided to make home made butter. I haven’t done this since I was a kid. We shook the jar until the liquid separated. I wasn’t sure if this meant it was done or not even though I kept reading the instructions over and over. Now I have a cream that looks like soft cream cheese. Have I over shook? Can I still use this if I have, or do I keep shaking?
J@J... we don’t talk down users for experimenting and making butter can be just a fun project. Heaven knows I made butter with each of my kids plus a few guests and it was never about the quality of the end product (or the economics), but about understanding and experiencing the process.
We had kitchen experiments as kids (France, late 70's) and butter was one of them. I decided to perform the experiment when my parents were away, with an electric mixer. My left buttock still remembers that day when all the butter and whatnot was all over the kitchen.
(well, in reality, I was not beaten (just never had the opportunity to use the expression about the buttock) and my parents did not even yell when they saw this, just heavily sighted - but my mom still reminds me about that from time to time. And about the campfire, we did with my brother on our wooden and varnished balcony. And the lift we blocked with us inside and then made so much noise to get out that all neighbors were out. And the time we decorated the school walls with toilet paper hanging from the roof. And , and, and ...)
@Stephie I did not talk down whatsoever. I simply made the point that making butter at home is not economical nor does it produce a superior product. It's fine if people want to experiment and I said absolutely nothing against that. There is rampant disinformation out there, however, and there are those who would tell you that homemade butter is somehow special or better - it's not, and it's difficult to extract all of the buttermilk which makes it prone to rapid spoilage. It was cautionary, nothing more. No need to go for the nuclear option on my comments, thank you very much.
There's two different schools of making buttermilk - oddly the Jar thing is something my mom spoke of doing in india, and they used cultured yogurt made from fresh, non homogenised milk to make butter and what translated to "buttermilk with the butter removed". The other school of thought is to use fresh cream (whipping works) and then optionally culturing it?
Keep at it.
You have made butter once you see distinct lumps in the liquid, indicating that the fat and liquid have separated.
What you described is pretty close to whipped cream. And all bakers know not to over-whip their cream or they make butter unintentionally. You can’t over shake butter, at least not with the jar method
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation about buttermilk etc. has been moved to chat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.058708
| 2022-03-03T20:03:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120019",
"authors": [
"J...",
"Journeyman Geek",
"Stephie",
"WoJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58050"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
126663
|
Why is it important to fold the dough three times before running it through a pasta machine?
I have been told to fold fresh pasta when making fresh pasta. Why is it important to fold the dough three times before running it through the pasta machine?
just a guess: gluten formation. In sourdough baking you do a stretch and fold to promote gluten formation, which gaves you more flexible dough.
Broadly because you're trying to ensure it blends not only physically, but also chemically.
I don't know what they teach in today's schools but 'cookery' might well ignore such details. For me 50 years ago 'domestic science' included such details… although sadly, most people who weren't on such courses derided them as fancy terms for cookery and housekeeping.
It's not, in particular.
A common way to knead pasta dough is by repeatedly folding it over, and running it through the pasta machine on its widest setting. This spares you the difficulty of trying to knead a very hard, dense dough on a board.
However, how you fold it is really up to you. I tend to fold mine by quarters, with the edges meeting in the middle (two folds, non-overlapping), which eventually provides the dough with a nice, clean, straight edges. There are lots of different folding patterns, and none of them is really "best".
I tend to partially disagree here: for what I know, folding & subsequent stretching is done to stretch the gluten in the dough. The more you stretch, the better. Folding in three and then passing it through the machine in the orthogonal direction will stretch the gluten by 3x, while folding it as you suggest will stretch it by 2x in one direction, and none in the other as the machine can really stretch on one direction only. I am happy to better understand your point though.
@VladimirCravero I think you overestimate the importance of the directional component of the dough going into the machine, and underestimate the exponential effect of the stretching of the layers.
Vladimir: regardless, I'm going to keep folding and rolling until the pasta dough looks right. Folding it the way I do might mean running it through the past machine more times, but it's also easier because I don't need to flatten the folded dough before putting it in the machine. It ends up being the same amount of effort either way.
Thanks to both, you raise valid points - of course a few more passes are not an issue, and I did not consider the exponential component. If I understand correctly FuzzyChef technique, they still end up with three layers, like folding in thirds, so theoretically the directional component dominates as the exponential one is the same, but regardless you need to get the texture right. I was just wondering if I was missing some specific effect, hence my question.
As a kid making pasta with my dad we always folded in three on the first 2 passes. I never asked why. As an adult I have made ravioli and tagliatelle multiple times. The first few times I forgot about the fold(old age!). When I remembered to do it the ravioli had straighter lines. But it also allows you to ensure the pasta is smooth and even before rolling/cutting which may not happen if you hand press then roll. I.e. the sides splitting out and being thinner or jagged.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.058972
| 2024-02-13T23:59:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/126663",
"authors": [
"Captain Giraffe",
"FuzzyChef",
"Robbie Goodwin",
"Vladimir Cravero",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84365",
"jcollum"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
120280
|
Why would a fully-developed dough lose consistency (elasticity / extensibility)?
I've been experimenting with panettone and I've come across the issue time and time again of losing dough consistency while mixing the secondo impasto (i.e. the final panettone dough). What makes this super bizarre to me is how I can go from fully-developed gluten to puddle of mud in only a minute or so after adding some fats/sugar.
The new dough consistency is similar to cake batter, or pudding, or thick mayonnaise. You can stick your finger into this gloop, pull it out, and it literally forms "stiff peaks" (a reference to whipping egg whites). It's kind of glossy and can definitely be described as similar to choux dough. I guess it could be also compared to a very very over-fermented high hydration sourdough (i.e. a dough left to ferment for days or weeks). The viscosity is high -- I can "pour" the dough from a Teflon coated container as a single big thick blob (without it sticking to the bowl). (It's unfortunate that I don't have pictures to give a visual.)
Thus far, I've determined that the issue does not stem from
Using a flour that is too "weak" (though I'm unsure if using an even stronger flour would decrease the likelihood of the dough losing consistency)
Adding too much water (I've tested adding a tad bit extra water, but not a whole lot)
Over fermentation
I'm assuming overfermentation isn't the issue because over-fermented dough can be identified before the second mixing is initiated. (But perhaps the byproducts or acidity produced during the fermentation process can aggravate the issue?)
I've found references to this issue online,
https://www.thefreshloaf.com/comment/26611#comment-26611
https://www.thefreshloaf.com/node/5232/panettone
http://hilda.hhandg.com/?p=1483
https://www.thefreshloaf.com/node/69835/panettone-trouble
And they seem to point to sugar being the culprit in the loss of dough consistency. The comment mentions how mixing for another hour turned the "milkshake" to "finally...where it [gluten] needed to be".
But I've experimented with a very long mixing time to see where things would go. It doesn't take too long for the dough to overheat, so the first thing I'll notice is that the dough is leaking oil. After a couple or a few hours, the dough seems to solidify to form a somewhat grainy paste (like stiff/thick icing), which can be shaped and isn't sticky -- however, it has no elasticity.
Currently, I suspect too much fat and sugar/erythritol*** as being the main contenders for causing this issue.
I'm aware that fats prevent long gluten chains from forming, and that regular sugar can compete for water which hinders gluten formation. (Well, the thing is, gluten was already fully developed...and then, well, all the bonds seemed to break down and refused to reform.) Furthermore, erythritol is not hygroscopic and is less than 1/5 the solubility of plain sucrose, but I'm not sure about how that would change things. Perhaps undissolved sugar actually cuts gluten (just speculating)? Does adding sugar slowly actually have any meaning/effect?
Could overmixing be contributing to the issue? Is it even possible to overmix panettone/brioche dough (assuming you don't overheat it)? I haven't tested this but I was wondering if too much mixing could result in an irreversible puddle, as referenced in this post
I'll also note that I add diastatic barley malt (~0.6% flour weight) in the final dough, but I doubt the proteolytic activity from diastatic barley malt could be fast enough to cause the issue (correct me if I'm wrong).
More testing definitely needs to be done on my end, but I was just wondering if there are any experts out there that know the chemistry behind this fiasco and how to prevent it.
***: I'm using a erythritol+monkfruit blend in place of plain sugar; in total it's about 7% of the final dough weight (before adding dried fruit), or about 20% of the flour weight.
Update: After some further research, it looks like mixing definitely plays an important role. From what I've read mixing (improperly or over) can result in the trouble I'm facing.
What is the fat you are adding in the final step, and at what temperature is it?
@moscafj the described effect happens independently of temperature, in my experience. For example, Reinhart has a procedure for butter-rich brioche dough which involves a lot of cooling, to help it maintain its shape. I have used it, and the dough doesn't flow around, but it is certainly not elastic like low-fat bread dough.
@rumtscho not necessarily... In my panettone-making experience, if the butter is too soft when mixing the second impasato, it has a negative effect on the overall texture, and can turn the whole thing into a puddle as described. So, it is a relevant question.
@moscafj then it sounds like an important enough information to post as an answer. Even if it is not the problem in this case, it will be relevant for other bakers with the same question.
I wouldn't experiment with a sugar substitute. In fact I wouldn't experiment with a pantatone recipe at all. Panatone is a pretty complex finely balanced recipe which needs to be followed accurately, and if you don't use the proper ingredients all bets are off.
In my experience, the secondo impasto can be a delicate balance. In the formula I use, most of the sugar, fat, and eggs are added in the first dough, with a smaller proportion added in the second mix. At that point, I find the temperature of the butter to be important. Soft enough to get worked into the dough, but not too soft. Too soft, and the whole thing can come undone, as you describe. Also, these final ingredients need to be added gradually. I don't have experience with the sugar substitute you are using, so I don't know if that is the culprit. But, be sure you are paying attention to proceeding gradually, with butter at the right temperature.
Let me address your last sentence specifically, since it is such a great summary of your post.
the chemistry behind this fiasco and how to prevent it.
The chemistry
There is nothing special or convoluted going on here, it is simple dilution. When you mix two substances with a different consistency, the default result is to get a consistency that is somewhere between the two. For example, if you mix sugar and flour, you get something that is neither completely a soft powder, nor completely sandy, but in between. In this case, you are mixing dough with sugar (which hydrates) and butter, and you get something that is somewhere in between bread dough (which is elastic), butter (which is plastic), and dissolved sugar (which is liquid).
This fiasco
It is not a fiasco. This is how the dough for pannetone, brioche, and other super-enriched breads of this kind feels like.
The one thing that you should do is to ensure that you have kneaded the dough sufficiently that it no longer flows. I have never made pannetone and don't know its exact specifics, but brioche, kozunak and the like are expected to be shaped by hand and baked in a pan, not poured into a mold. If you have a super-fat-rich recipe, it may flow at the beginning of the kneading, but you have to just persevere until it becomes cohesive. If doing it by hand, the process starts a bit like pouring the mass from one hand into another, and gradually develops into a stretch-and-fold.
A side note: I suspect that you may have learned baking based on American literature. It has the advantage of being ubiquitous, accessible and in-depth, but it is of course based on the categorization of baked goods inherent in American culture, which prescribes a sharp delineation between "bread" (which is made with yeast dough) and "cake", which is made with batter. This is not a relevant distinction in most European baking traditions. There is no prescription or expectation that a brioche, etc. will have a breadlike texture, neither before nor after baking. It has a briochelike texture, which is considered a thing of its own.
How to prevent it
If you have a preference for a more breadlike texture, choose a recipe which is lower in fat and sugar. There are many "gradations" of this class of baked good (I am hesitating to call it "bread" or "cake after my last paragraph!) and you can pick your favorite along the continuum.
I don't think the monk fruit is feeding the yeast.
I'm pretty sure yeast needs glucose and\or sucrose to feed so that could be the issue.
I would make the entire recipe as is except use a sugar instead of the monk fruit; then you will know if it's that.
I'm one of those cooks who, after around 60 years of scratch cooking, just grabs what feels right and I've found that sometimes one tiny thing changes everything.
Luck!!
There's no need to add sugar; the flour contains enough sugars for the yeast to thrive. (That's why bread is able to rise.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.059276
| 2022-04-09T05:31:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120280",
"authors": [
"Billy Kerr",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69138",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115572
|
Substitute agar-agar for gelatine in no bake cheesecake
I realise that there are similar questions but I'm confused by the quantity I should use.
Various cooking websites say anything from equal quantities to 8 of gelatine = 1 of agar-agar.
Maybe the ones who say 1:1 haven't heated the agar-agar to near boiling point so it isn't fully dissolved whilst the 8:1 sites have boiled it in some liquid for 4-5 minutes, but this is unclear.
My current recipe uses about 6 leaves of gelatine or about 1tsp of gelatine powder.
Being a lemon cheesecake it also contains the juice of 3 lemons. Some sites say that acid can reduce the effectiveness of agar-agar.
Any advice would be appreciated.
Since posting the original question earlier today I have experimented with using 1 tsp agar-agar and it seems to work. I have been requested in one answer to post the whole recipe. Here it is in both gelatine and agar-agar forms.
Lemon Cheesecake
300 gr biscuits
75 gr melted butter
2 X 340 gr tubs (family sized) ordinary Philadelphia cream cheese
1 250 gr tub Mascarpone
Zest and juice of 2 lemons (maybe 3?)
100 gr caster sugar
6 leaves of gelatine (or one sachet of powdered - possibly only ½ is enough)
OR 1 level tsp agar-agar powder
Put the semi-sweet biscuits. 200gr digestive + 100gr other Hobnobs, almond biscuits,
ginger nuts etc. (or it could be all digestives) in a food processor and blitz
to a fine crumb. Add melted butter, blitz, scrape down, blitz again until
it's fully mixed.
Take a 24cm loose bottomed (springform) cake tin, use the loose bottom
as a template to cut a circle of greaseproof paper / cooking parchment
and assemble with the disk in the bottom. Add the biscuit mixture and press down
into an even layer. Use whatever you like, finger tips, knuckles, spoon, bottom
of a jar or glass. Put it in the fridge to firm up.
If using gelatine, separate the gelatine leaves and put them in a bowl of cold
water to soak. Not necessary if using powdered gelatine or agar-agar.
Put the cream cheese and Mascarpone in your food mixer and beat at high speed
for about 2 minutes, speed consistent with keeping the cheese in the bowl .
Scrape down the bowl. Beat in the sugar and lemon zest.
Squeeze as much water as possible from the gelatine leaves and add to the lemon
juice in a small bowl, or just stir in the powdered gelatine, making sure there
are no lumps. Add 1 or 2 tbsp of water (not too much, just enough to partly cover
the gelatine). Microwave at full power for 30 sec or until the gelatine has fully
melted when stirred into the liquid.
OR
Put the lemon juice + 1 or 2 tbsp water in a small glass bowl and whisk in the
agar-agar powder with a fork. Bring to the boil in the microwave, 1 minute at
full power then, stirring occasionally, run at low power for another 3 minutes
to keep it boiling.Check you don’t boil dry! Add more water if necessary.
Stop the mixer, add the gelatine / agar-agar / lemon juice scraping the bowl
to get it all. Cautiously restart the mixer. The contents will now be a lot more
liquid you won’t be able to run at full speed without it sloping all over the place!
When fully incorporated, pour the mix into the now chilled cake tin.
Scrape the bowl, shake the tin to get the top flat.
Put it back in the fridge for 2-3 hours.
With agar-agar the mixture will set much more quickly even at room temperature,
you need to work quickly.
Whole recipe would be useful.
Going by various popular vegan no-bake cheesecake recipes, I see 1 to 3 tsp of agar powder.
Higher ratios of fat will need the higher amount of agar.
Lemon juice as a flavoring in this case shouldn't be an issue. Even half of the liquid being lemon sets up fine as in these bars:
https://thehiddenveggies.com/vegan-lemon-bars/
Personally, I prefer kappa carrageenan over agar in stove top dishes as there is less boil time and partially sets while hot allowing for last minute tweaking.
ie test amount removed to cool surface.
Recipe added as requested.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.060032
| 2021-05-08T11:09:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115572",
"authors": [
"Peter Jennings",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93812"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115635
|
What is white meat and dark meat in Canada KFC?
According to US KFC, a chicken is cut into 2 breasts, 2 wings, 2 thighs and 2 drumsticks. White meat is breasts and wings, dark meat is thighs and drumsticks. But on KFC Canada's website, the options confuse me. Do they have different cuts or a different meaning?
From kfc.ca/different-pieces
Does https://www.kfc.ca/different-pieces help you?
@KateGregory It really helps, I didn't use the right keywords when searching.
Wings aren't white meat. "White meat with wings" is likely a breast piece + wings, as opposed to "breast only". (and based on the image tthat Kate found, it's possible that "breast only" is 3/4, while "white meat" is 3/4/5/6, but I that's more a guess than anything else)
@KateGregory I just get an Access Denied error when I access that link.
Me too. Might be geofenced.
@nick012000 I added the screenshot of the page to the question
As an unrelated note... How on earth can you take the same product, cut it up into more pieces and get the same amount of product in an N piece bucket?
@talon8 you can't, if you think on a weight by weight ratio. Basically they're making the pieces relatively smaller (if you look at the division before and after, 6 and 8 became 7, 8, 10 and 11; and 5 became 5 and 6), so that's a sneaky way to disguise an increase in price. Another evidence that points to that is that "breast only" is significantly more expensive than the other options
@Juliana, oh I caught that. I am completely amazed at how un-sneaky it is. "Don't worry, we are just giving you less." I am even more flabbergasted that if it works on anybody.
@talon8 It works very well, actually - the average consumer is more sensitive to price increase than quantity decrease, so "shrinkflation" is a common price increase tactic. I found this article that's pretty comprehensive on the basics https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/06/01/package-sizes-shrink-inflation/
Akk! We're eating four-breasted chickens!!
@talon8 the ‘different pieces’ graphic also contains text to the effect that sone of their suppliers now grow larger chickens so some will be cut differently. I’m not saying whether it’s a shrinkflation thing or not, but there is a rationale and they don’t say they are changing all of their butchery.
So, since nobody answered it yet, this is a classic case of "shrinkflation", which is companies disguising increase in price by reducing serving / package size. Which, coupled with the already expected difference in portion sizes between countries, may lead to confusion if you're used only to your country standard.
The 9-cut diagram on the left represents the original 9-piece cut scheme from KFC, with:
2 wings (1 and 2)
2 breasts (3 and 4)
1 keel (5)
2 thighs (6 and 8)
2 drumsticks (7 and 9).
Of those cuts, only the breasts and the keel are considered white meat.
KFC then proceeded to "shrinkflate" by changing the cut scheme to the one on the right, with 12-pieces by splitting the larger pieces in 2, so you have now:
2 wings (1 and 2)
2 breasts (3 and 4)
2 keels (5 and 6)
4 thighs (7, 8, 10 and 11)
2 drumsticks (9 and 12)
The classification of white x dark meat doesn't change, so you'll have 2 breasts and 2 keels as white meat and all the remaining parts as dark meat
Now, let's talk about one important concept in food pricing that's called "non-edible portion". Chicken has bones, which are considered non-edible, and those bones are not uniformly distributed across the chicken. If you take a good look at the different chicken pieces you'll see that the white meat (breasts and keels) has relatively less bones, with the breast having more meat than the keel. So, you get more meat per piece of chicken.
Of course, KFC has accounted for that when designing the menu, so that's why you're going to pay the normal price for the standard dark meat pieces and pay extra for the following options, as you're effectively getting more chicken:
White meat with wings = replace 1 dark meat (expected to be a thigh or drumstick) piece with 1 white meat (breasts or keel), pay +1,50
White meat only = replace both pieces of dark meat with white meat, pay +2,50
Breast only = receive only the chicken parts with more meat per piece, pay +4,00
You can eat chicken bones if you really want to. Don't know if you can really call it inedible.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.060368
| 2021-05-12T18:16:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115635",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Juliana Karasawa Souza",
"Kate Gregory",
"Neil Meyer",
"Spagirl",
"Tetsujin",
"gnicko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93879",
"maP1E bluE",
"nick012000",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
120914
|
Best Practices for Cooking Rueditas?
Rueditas, or "little wheels" in Spanish, are a crunchy snack commonly available from street vendors and Mexican markets in California. In some cases they may be called "chicharrones" which may cause confusion with pork rinds, but the things I'm talking about are a wheat product, not pork.
In Mexican markets in CA, you can buy either a precooked bag of these rueditas, or from the bulk bins you can buy raw ones which you then deep-fry.
I think the fresh-fried ones are much tastier, but every time I do it, they are too oily. Mine have an oily sheen, but the pre-cooked bagged ones do not.
One thing I have noticed, while using canola oil, is that getting the oil hot enough to sizzle a splash of water is not hot enough. The canola oil has to be frighteningly close to smoking temp in order to cook these things.
How do the factory producers make their rueditas not have an oily sheen like mine do?
Raw Rueditas from a bulk bin, in a bag. Diameter is about 1 inch each
My frying setup. About 1/2 inch of oil in a pan.
My cooked rueditas, which are delicious but too oily.
Are you buying pre-made ones and frying them at home, or making your own batter? If you are making your own batter you will need to edit with a recipe and method.
@GdD I'm frying the premade ones you get from the bulk bins. No batter. Thank you!
Do you have access to a frying thermometer so you can see how hot the oil actually is?
Tips, since I don't have a lot of direct experience here, but I did check three different recipes.
Deep-fry instead of shallow frying. All of the recipes I checked showed frying in a deep pot. It's quite possible that, no matter how hot your oil starts out, adding the raw rueditas to the shallow oil cools it too much. Also, any parts of the rueditas that curl up and stick out of the oil will get "splashed", making them greasier. Recipe #3 shallow-fried like you do, and hers were greasy as well.
Heat the oil to between 350F-375F. Use a frying thermometer if you can get one. Overheating the oil can cause greasiness just like it being too cool can.
Oh you might be on to something with the deep vs. shallow thing. Never even considered that. I have already considered getting an infrared thermometer to help me judge pan temp for things other than frying. Do you think that might be a good alternative to a frying thermometer with a probe? Thank you for the answer!
@AldusBumblebore infrared thermometers might not be the most accurate on shiny things (like metal pans), might want to look into that.
I've found that they work well enough for measuring oil temp.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.060747
| 2022-06-25T23:59:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120914",
"authors": [
"Aldus Bumblebore",
"Esther",
"FuzzyChef",
"GdD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94147"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115953
|
Prevent matcha gelatination
I have made matcha (bubble tea powder + cream) in bulk and mixed with water and sugar, stored it in a large container and put it in the refrigerator. In couple of days the content become jelly-like, and had green deposit at the bottom.
Is there any way to prevent gelatination?
I'm not really bothered by the green deposit at the bottom.
I have tried adding some preservative (potassium sorbate, sodium benzoate, citric acid) but with no luck.
Hi, I am not sure I understand the question. Did you buy straight matcha powder from a shop and store it in the fridge, or did you create some other powder with matcha taste and store that, as a intermediate step in making bubble tea? If it is the second, you would have to add the recipe.
Per Rumtscho, "matcha" is powdered green tea, and has no gelatinizing agents in in. So what was it that you actually made?
Hopefully not slime mould :\
Voting to close because the question does not supply enough information to be answered.
@rumtscho it is ready made powder matcha + cream, what i add just sugar & water
@FuzzyChef it happen when I mixed with water & sugar
I'm afraid this is becoming even more confusing. Currently, it seems that you either used matcha, or you used bubble tea powder. We still cannot tell what it was - to me, it seems more likely that you used bubble tea powder, but we already got an answer assuming that you used matcha. You also said it was "a couple of days" but you don't say if it was below or above 5 days (the safety cutoff for food in the refrigerator). It's not clear if you used bubble tea powder that contains powdered cream from the manufacturer, if you added cream to bubble tea powder, or if you added cream to matcha.
@rumtscho sorry for confusion, it is boba mixes / bubble tea powder (contain powdered cream) / , I'm also confused with terminology and names, not an expert in this field. it is about week.
If you mix matcha powder with cream, sugar and water, you have created a substance that will make some microbes very happy. For that mix, the same rule as for other "prepared foods" apply: No longer safe after two or three days in the refrigerator.
What you are seeing is one or multiple of the following:
Green Deposit: Powder sinking to the bottom - when you mix, it's not dissolved, but just particles suspended in the remaining liquid.
Gelatinization caused by:
Milk/cream curdling (if you added citric or another acid, that will promote curdling)
Microbiological growth
In short, I would not recommend this kind of shortcut for more than two days. You have seen already that it doesn't work the way you planned. Freezing would at least stop bacterial growth, but depending on the ingredients (e.g. sugar content) the mix may not freeze too well and remain slushy.
Kudos on taking a stab at a very confusing question
@FuzzyChef the kind of powder is secondary - just water, cream and sugar in the fridge is good for a very limited time only. The mysterious powder (which I kind of read as matcha = ground up green tea) will not make it better.
yeah, and presumably if it's some kind of matcha + tapioca, that would be even worse.
A quick web search shows “boba mixes” containing matcha, creamer and sugar. Instructions are to mix that up with water and ice cubes. Seems quite similar to the OP’s description.
@Stephie yeah that's one of name, so many names & terms
I'm too naive to think I can replicate bottled beverage, by just throwing random preservative :D
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.060990
| 2021-06-06T06:47:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115953",
"authors": [
"Andikac",
"FuzzyChef",
"Stephie",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94233",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
105821
|
What do to with cans that you just dented?
I just dented ten cans, moderately. Would it be safe to put them straight into the refrigerator or do I have to remove the food from the can and store it some other way?
Background:
I had around 35 cans in one of my side bags on my bicycle. However, I leaned my bicycle against the wall and it fell. The end result was dented cans. What should I do? They still seem good.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice
Before this continues: comments are for clarifications, not answers, half-answers or similar. Btw., @MathCubes welcome to Seasoned Advice!
Related, but not a dupe due to the time factor: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92742/safety-of-tin-cans-dented-in-shipping?rq=1
If you just damaged previously unharmed cans and they don’t show signs of leakage, the cans should be perfectly safe, even if you store them at room temperature.
The US Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service writes:
If a can containing food has a small dent, but is otherwise in good shape, the food should be safe to eat. Discard deeply dented cans. A deep dent is one that you can lay your finger into. Deep dents often have sharp points. A sharp dent on either the top or side seam can damage the seam and allow bacteria to enter the can. Discard any can with a deep dent on any seam.
So if you inspected the cans and found them ok, I would recommend you
Store them at room temperature, not in the fridge, and
Use them in the near future, not keep them for months or years.
Apart from that, I would probably check the inside of the can when open them, in case the inner lining was damaged and especially acidic foods (think canned tomatoes) caused oxidation or corrosion. I would probably discard them, not because of food safety issues, but because it may cause an unpleasant taste.
For cans with significant damage, the rules for opened cans apply: Don’t store the food in open cans, but empty the content in suitable containers and refrigerate.
——-
Edit, as I had a dented can at hand:
Under normal circumstances, I would probably have left this can at the store. But thanks to the recent wave of panic buying, a family member decided a dented can was better than none.
You can see that the edge of the dent doesn’t affect the seams, so no problem with leakage, and no subsequent food safety issues:
Also, the inner lining is intact, so no risk of the acidic content (tomatoes, in this case) corroding the metal. No problem either:
Still, this was the can I decided to pull first from the pantry, only a week or so after it was bought. I don’t know when the damage happened, though. If I had noticed anything beyond a shape change, I would have discarded the whole can and used another.
Base on the pics what do you think I should do. I saw that quote already but I can stick my figures in some of them.
https://i.sstatic.net/7nUpj.jpg
Personally, I would use them. Soon-ish, but not worry too much.
Like a few weeks but less than a month should be fine?
Thanks. SEeing if other answers before accepting this is a solution.
And it depends on the content. A bit, at least. If you can fit the most dented ones into the next week’s menu, go for it. But that’s my personal opinion.
The USDA says "A deep dent is one that you can lay your finger into." Maybe I'm being stupid, but I don't get what this means. Here's what the dent looks like: https://ex.plicat.io/bpt/can.html. Does anyone happen to know if this is too deep?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.061297
| 2020-03-14T15:22:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105821",
"authors": [
"Johannes_B",
"MathCubes",
"Raffi",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75595",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75899"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116499
|
Any success with gumbo in an Instant Pot?
I love cooking my grandmother's seafood gumbo recipe, and I have done this successfully many times. Recently, my husband suggested we try this in the Instant Pot to save time with the roux, which I did not advise.
There are many questions about roux here. We have tried similar gumbo recipes twice specified for the Instant Pot, and it's just not the same. His impression was that the high-heat of sauteeing to make roux in the Instant Pot for less time (10 minutes) yields the same result as doing this on the stove top for longer (30 minutes). Both times, our gumbo was the consistency of light soup, and it did not thicken.
The roux was not the same consistency as when we've done this on the stove-top. It was not smooth and a much lighter color than a dark roux. I suspect the constant high-heat can be problematic for a roux. Was it the roux (or lack of a dark roux) from the Instant Pot or cooking in the Instant Pot in general?
I might just be a purest and skeptical of the Instant Pot for some dishes to believe that a good gumbo and roux are just not the same with this method. Has anyone had success cooking gumbo or roux in this vessel?
What did the roux look like when it was done cooking in the instant pot?
@GdD it was more of a light-medium color (definitely not dark) roux, and it didn't seem to have the same consistency, more lumpy. My gut thought is that the high-heat overdoes this process. To note, both times the Instant Pot overheated during the pressure cook portion. We assume this was because we did the sauteeing in the device versus on the stove.
I'd assume two problems with making roux in an IP: the lack of stirring (which means the flour doesn't get distributed and evenly saturated with oil) and the lack of evaporation if making a butter-based roux (butter is 10-15% water, which needs to boil off). However, I don't own an IP, so not posting this as an answer.
To solve for the roux in the IP and the time it takes to make a proper dark roux. I would recommend making a large batch of roux and then freezing in ice cube trays. You can pop out of the tray and place in a freezer bag for future use. We would do this often in restaurants because of the time and labor involved in making a dark roux. They discuss freezing roux here https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1934/can-i-freeze-roux
Some thickeners will lose thickening ability if you heat them too much, and as a pressure cooker allows you to get past the typical boiling point, it’s possible that this has happened.
But you should be glad that it did— because you shouldn’t cook really viscous things in an instant pot.
Basically, you can’t stir things in the sealed vessel, so you need to rely on thermal convection. If there is insufficient convection, you risk it scorching on the bottom, which acts as an insulator. The instant pot will recognize that it’s gotten too hot, and displays a ‘burn’ message.
Once it cools off sufficiently, it will try cooking again, but if it triggers too many times it will shut off completely.
If I were to try making gumbo in an instant pot, I would hold back the roux, and not add it until after the pressure cooking
In case it's not clear, instant pots only save time in the pressure cooking mode. In saute mode with the lid off, cooking a roux is no different than cooking a roux on higher heat in a pot on the stove. If that were advisable, people would have put it into the recipes a long time ago.
So, you can cook a roux in the instant pot if you know how to turn your saute mode to low on your device, but it wouldn't save you any time. What does save you a bit of time is if you pressure cook stewed ingredients like chicken and ham hocks in the instant pot while you're making the roux on the stove, then you can finish up in the instant pot in unpressurized slow cooker mode.
A roux is a starch-based ingredient. Starch does not thicken properly under pressure - I think it may even be written in the Instant Pot manual somewhere. So neither gumbo nor other roux-based (or starch-thickened) foods should be expected to work as usual.
You can use some starch-based techniques if you want, such as flouring meat before sauteing it, but it will only give you the change in browning effect, not the thickening effect. For starch-thickened stew liquids, either use a different cooking implement, or stir in the thickener (prepared roux or slurry) after you have cooked the meal through and let out the steam, but while still hot enough to cook the starch.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.061611
| 2021-07-21T14:53:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116499",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"GdD",
"corythecook",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42889",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94783",
"sillydarla"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
110013
|
In a professional kitchen, can the use by date on raw boneless meat be ignored because it has been vacuum-packed, and if so, for how long?
I threw it away but was told later that someone else (a professional cook/chef) had said that, as it was (supposedly) vacuum-packed, it was safe to use a few days later than the use by date.
Alternatively, https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46722/do-best-by-xx-xx-xx-foods-have-an-expiration-date
The edit doesn't make it any less of a duplicate, sorry. If you want to learn basic food safety, please read our writeup under https://cooking.stackexchange.com/tags/food-safety/info. We tend to close as duplicagtes all questions which are already covered by the information there and in the linked questions.
I buy most of my meat in the "last day" section ,as long as it is sealed. Sometime I cook in a week, sometime I freeze it , never a problem.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.062111
| 2020-08-03T20:06:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110013",
"authors": [
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
104054
|
What is the trick to kneading silk smooth bread?
I've been teaching myself how to make bread for a few weeks, had some success but never able to create dough that is completely smooth why?
Following a recipe like this one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTDvqn5SLGs
You can see that the bread is literally like plastic.
But when I knead my dough (even with a mixer machine) the dough is more like this:
Recipe shown in video (and what I used in my attempt) is
300g Medium-fat dough
160g milk
3g instant dry yeast
30g sugar
6g veg oil
"Cloud buns" and your bread dough are really two different products. The dough in the video is likely based on a "milk bread" recipe, which results in the smooth texture that is pictured. It reminds me of the Momofuku Pork Bun, a recipe I have made often. This recipe produces a very smooth dough, which is portioned, shaped, and steamed. It has a much different texture than my rustic sourdough loaves, which are generally a higher hydration than the dough you've pictured, but not nearly as shiny and smooth as the milk bread. It's just the nature of the recipe and the ingredients. You can knead all you want, but you are not going to get the same texture and sheen, likely because your bread dough does not include milk and fat.
I followed the exact proportions of every ingredient and don’t have smooth dough. The only difference being I use AP and the video use medium-fat dough, whatever that translates to in English
Thanks for the translation. Not being able to translate myself, I was unable to read the ingredients and simply going by the pictures. Can you explain "medium fat dough?" I don't know what that is.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.062205
| 2019-12-11T23:39:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104054",
"authors": [
"erotsppa",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79171",
"moscafj"
],
"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.