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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
120499
|
What is the relationship (if any) between natto and miso paste?
Just curious. I believe they both come from fermenting of soybeans. So are those completely different processes or is natto simply an earlier product of the same fermenting?
They are completely different. They use different fermentation conditions and different cultures. The result is also totally different in taste and texture, with natto being slimy beans and miso being a paste. They are also used differently, with miso being more of a seasoning.
You can think of it as similar to two kinds of cheese, maybe emmentaler and camembert: they are both made from fermented milk, but the process is not the same, and the result is not the same either.
Cheese is a really good analogy.
Miso is also mashed before fermenting, so the process is different. I don’t know if this means it’s more like how beer and bread can use the same ingredients, but the process results in different food, or like mozzarella vs gouda where one is stretched while the other is pressed and aged.
I;d have used the metaphor of emmenthaler vs. yogurt. They're more different than two cheeses.
I think of parmesan and casu martzu. One is a delectable flavor enhancer for almost anything, and one just grosses me out.
Natto is fermented whole soybean product, fermented with Bacillus Natto. To my palate, Natto has a complex flavour. Mostly it's the upfront flavour of the beans. But there is also a strong blue-cheese like note from the ferment. I really enjoy this part of it. Of course it would be remiss of me not to point out the slimy texture, which I like, but seems to be polarising.
It's possible to buy frozen natto in single-serving containers. If you eat the natto while it's still very cold, the cold numbs your taste, and a lot of the flavour can be missed. Please let it warm up a bit first. Also stirring it up will enhance the mucilaginous nature of the dish.
Miso Paste is a fermented, mashed combination of Soybeans and Koji Rice. Where Koji is a fermented rice using Aspergillus Oryzae. Different lengths of fermentation time create the white/red colourings. It's also possible (and common) to make Miso using other/extra ingredients, like Barley.
Miso is more often used as a further ingredient (or condiment), whereas Natto is eaten as a foodstuff in its own right. Both are fermented, and use cooked soybeans as an ingredient, but that is really the only commonality.
Miso is quite salty, with a subtle nutty soy-like flavour. A typical miso has around 20% salt by weight. The older the miso gets the stronger the flavour is. So a "white" miso has a lighter flavour than the darker "red" ones. I have a 18-month old batch that has been continuously fermenting (sealed in a vacuum bag). It's approximately chocolate brown, and it has a achieved delicious flavour. My friend's mum has been using the same big batch of miso for years.
One of my favourite uses is 50% miso & mayo brushed on top of grilled fish (or eggplants) before cooking.
@theonlygusti - please see edits.
Kingsley's answer is correct, however, there is also such a thing as "Natto Miso", sometimes called "Natto Miso Chutney".
This is usually a mix of barley, soy beans, a sweetener such as tapioca/potato syrup, and a flavouring such as ginger. All fermented with koji, as is plain Natto.
It's used as a garnish or condiment.
I would not recommend trying to ferment natto with koji. Instead, use natto moto. The brand I have used in the past is "Yuzu Takahashi".
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.062365
| 2022-05-03T03:43:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120499",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"GdD",
"Ian Campbell",
"Joe",
"Kingsley",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90559",
"user37496"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116890
|
Cause of Spoiled idli?
I have prepared idli which was spoiled after steaming.
I followed the following process:
Soaked idli rava (coarsely ground rice) along with whole black gram(without skin).
Grinded with mixie to become batter; Left overnight to ferment.
Idli came out like this when steamed:
What could be the reason?
What colour was the batter before steaming?
@mbjb Dull white. This is the first time I have seen something like this. I have prepared idli many times and everytime it was good as it should be. What shocked me here is the color and it's structure.
1 What is the ratio of rice to dal? 2 Did you add Fenugreek seeds? 3 Did you add salt before fermentation? 4 What was the smell like after fermentation?
@AJN: 1. 2:1. 2.Yes. 3.Yes. 4. Normal smell as it should be.
Fermentation is a crucial step in idli-making as it helps the batter rise and develop a fluffy texture. It's possible that the batter didn't ferment properly or for long enough. Factors such as temperature and humidity can affect the fermentation process. Ideally, the batter should be left to ferment in a warm place for at least 8-12 hours, or until it has increased in volume and developed a slightly sour smell.
The ratio of idli rava (coarsely ground rice) to black gram (urad dal) could also impact the outcome. The typical ratio for idli batter is 4:1 (four parts rice to one part dal).
Although the image you shared clearly represents that the batter was not properly fermented. The same thing happened to me and I came to
conclusion that my proportion was not right which led to non-fermentation.
Hope this helps.
Thanks for the information.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.062663
| 2021-08-18T03:42:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116890",
"authors": [
"AJN",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76228",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95204",
"mbjb",
"prashanth kumar"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
103193
|
Does shaping dough require punching/folding it?
Newbie baker here with a pizza dough recipe that says this:
Mix and ... allow to rise at room temperature for 8 to 12 hours.
Turn dough out onto lightly floured surface and divide into four even balls. Place each in a covered quart-sized deli container or in a zipper-lock freezer bag. Place in refrigerator and allow to rise at least 2 more days, and up to 4. Remove from refrigerator, shape into balls, and allow to rest at room temperature for at least 2 hours before baking.
I understand that you can either punch or fold dough before shaping it and both have different benefits. This recipe doesn’t mention this step, though. Is it just supposed to be understood that I’ll have to punch it before shaping or do they intend that I somehow divide and shape it without knocking the dough down. Also, would I punch the dough down twice? Once when dividing and again right before shaping?
I understand that you can either punch or fold dough before shaping it and both have different benefits.
Just understand what you're doing. During the fermentation process (rising), yeast consumes sugar and starch in the dough and turns it into alcohol, carbon dioxide, etc. That carbon dioxide collects gets trapped in the dough (thanks largely to the gluten), and bubbles form. Those bubbles (along with good flavor) are a big reason we ferment dough in the first place, so you want to keep most of them, but you also don't want large bubbles that'll create big empty lumps in your pizza.
"Punching down" the dough and folding it accomplish the same things: the idea is to release the gas from the large bubbles, and also to shift the yeast cells around a bit after they've used up all the food that's available in their immediate vicinities. You don't really have to punch the dough with force like you're angry at it, although some people (especially on TV) like to make a show of doing so. You can just press your hand down into the risen dough so that some of the gas gets pressed out. Removing the dough from its bowl and folding/kneading it a little bit does the same thing, and probably also helps develop the gluten a bit.
This recipe doesn’t mention this step, though. Is it just supposed to be understood that I’ll have to punch it before shaping or do they intend that I somehow divide and shape it without knocking the dough down.
Yes, dividing the dough and forming balls will do exactly the same thing as punching it down, perhaps a bit more gently. Forming balls will also give you a nice round shape that'll turn into a disc as the dough relaxes, and that disc will be easy to form into a nicely shaped pizza.
Given the long fermentation time, I'll bet the recipe you're using calls for a relatively small amount of yeast. Between that and retarding the fermentation in the refrigerator, it may be that you won't get the kind of large bubbles of CO2 that you'd get with more yeast and shorter rise time, and without large bubbles there's no need to punch down the dough.
Also, would I punch the dough down twice? Once when dividing and again right before shaping?
No, there's no need for that. Shaping the pizza will break any large bubbles. Sometimes large bubbles will start to form as you're shaping the pizza, or even after you've put it in the oven, and it's fine to pop those with the tip of a knife if you want to.
For Neapolitan pizza, once my dough is shaped into pizza-sized balls, it rests anywhere from 30 minutes to a couple of hours. At this point I do not punch or fold! I am gentle with each ball, forming it into a disk with a combination of turns on the countertop, and gently stretching with fists under the dough. Most importantly, I find, is that I try not to de-gas the outer ring; that is, what will become the crust. I never roll flat, with a pin for example! I find this gentleness, especially with the outer ring, helps with oven spring for the crust, which is what I like.
It's pizza dough, the shaping comes at the end, this is just dividing nothing complex is required. A bit of punching is good to get rid of any large air bubbles to make sure you divide it evenly. Remember you will be nocking a load of air out when you make the base, so it's not important to preserve lift in pizza dough in proofing.
Expectations for "shaping" can vary a lot in a recipe. Years ago, I tended toward a minimalistic shaping routine, degassing as little as necessary just to get rid of large bubbles and form the dough into the rough shape I wanted. (This was, for example, the gentle shaping promoted by Peter Reinhart, based on the idea that gentle shaping would lose less gas and thus bring lift to the final dough.)
Then I read Jeffrey Hamelman's book, which devotes an entire lengthy chapter to various shaping techniques. I followed his detailed diagrams and instructions for shaping various loaves, and I discovered more aggressive shaping usually resulted in a higher rising dough, even if I was degassing more. I was both strengthening the gluten significantly and redistributing the yeast better.
I see little benefit for degassing ("punching down") for the sake of degassing. You don't need to deliberately try to squeeze air out of the dough, and being too aggressive about it can be counterproductive.
However, I would suggest more purposeful shaping for a better final product. Many people see shaping as "roll the dough into a rough ball, and then you're done."
But that's not what most professional bakers think of as "shaping," which is an involved process that can require several stages. Shaping is more important with free-from bread loaves, but it can also have a significant impact on your pizza dough in terms of how it stretches, how it rises, etc.
Personally, after retarding in the fridge, I shape pizza balls pretty aggressively through repeatedly folding dough in on itself in my hands to stretch the exterior. For best results, I'd also recommend a pre-shaping, where you roll the dough into loose balls and shape a bit, then wait 5-15 minutes until the gluten relaxes somewhat, and then shape again more aggressively. In the process, you'll degas the dough plenty for what you need to do.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.062825
| 2019-10-31T03:57:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103193",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
103487
|
Pecan pie says "keep frozen" on the box, but the store is selling them just sitting out. Is this safe?
My local supermarket has a display of Edwards Pecan Pie boxes that all say "keep frozen" on the box, yet they are just sitting out at room temperature in a display.
I asked and the manager said this was fine. So my question is, why does the box say "keep frozen"? How does it make sense that the store could sell them unfrozen and then the customer is expected to freeze them at home?
It really varies by exactly what it is, and what temperature it's meant to be served at.
In general, when the box says 'keep frozen', the cooking instructions assume that the item is frozen when it goes into the oven unless it specifically has multiple sets of times & temperatures.
If it's an item that's meant to be served at either fridge temperatures or room temperature, then the box likely has information about how far in advance you can thaw it (and how far in advance you need to thaw it, as it'll take a few hours if you just set it out).
Searching for that specific item's reheating instructions led me to a site that I wasn't familiar with: https://www.directionsforme.org/item/1892860
... but they have on there (with my adding some bold to highlight) :
Preparation instructions: Serve at room temperature or warm for best flavor. Pie can be thaw for up to 28 days. Ready to eat. Remove pie from carton. Thaw at room temperature for 3 1/2 - 4 hours or refrigerate overnight. Reminder Freezers, refrigerators and ovens may vary. Adjustments to time and/or temperature may be required. For a flaky crust: preheat conventional oven to 350 degrees F. Remove pie from carton. Place pie in center of oven on baking sheet and heat as follows: Conventional oven: Frozen pie - Heat for: 15-20 minutes - Let stand for: 5 minutes. Conventional oven: Refrigerated pie - Heat for: 12-15 minutes - Let stand for: 5 minutes. Conventional oven: Room temperature pie - Heat for: 10-12 minutes - Let stand for: 5 minutes. Or. To microwave: Place slice on a microwave-safe dish and heat at medium power as follows: Microwave oven: Frozen slice - Heat for: 60 seconds - Let stand for: 1 minute. Microwave oven: Refrigerated slice - Heat for: 35 seconds - Let stand for: 1 minute. Microwave oven: Room temperature slice - Heat for: 20 seconds - Let stand for: 1 minute Refrigerate or discard any unused portions. Store frozen, refrigerated or at room temperature. If purchased thawed, we recommend that you consume or refreeze within 24-48 hours. If you choose to refreeze the product, understand that it may not provide optimal taste performance.
Thanks. That makes me feel better. They should really make this more clear on the box!
If you bought them frozen, you can keep them frozen, possibly for months, until you want to eat them.
If you bought them already defrosted, you should eat them within the next few days.
You could refreeze them, but refreezing often affects the texture of many foods (the package will usually say "do not refreeze").
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.063621
| 2019-11-15T00:29:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103487",
"authors": [
"SurpriseDog",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79503"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
36656
|
Is the "gamey" taste of venison just a polite name for "rotten"?
I have had a theory for a long time that it is the blood in the deer which causes the gamey flavor. Hunters gut the deer soon after a kill, but they don't bleed it or chill it for hours or days. It takes time to haul it from the woods, then drive home and wait until the next day before visiting the processor. It seems that the blood would be the first part of the animal to spoil.
It is my opinion that the bad reputation of venison’s “gamey” flavor comes from poor processing habits and the serving of meat that is actually rancid or at least borderline.
The key to fresh tasting meat it to get it cool and skinned as fast as possible. Leaving it hot or leaving the hide on will cause it to rot quickly and leave your meat tasting quite “pungent” (i.e.: rotten). This is important whether you plan to butcher the animal yourself or are taking it to a pro. If you leave the hide on longer than necessary or don’t cool the meat quickly, it will have a bad flavor.
http://lazyhomesteader.com/2012/08/21/the-gamey-taste-of-game-meat-part-ii/
Is it true that the gamey taste is caused by spoiled blood in the meat?
According to the University of Minnesota Extension (emphasis added):
What causes the wild or gamey taste in venison?
Venison refers to the
meat of antlered animals such as deer, moose, elk and caribou. The
'wild' flavor of venison is directly related to what the animal eats.
Corn fed deer will have a milder flavor than those that eat acorns or
sage. The 'gamey' flavor is more noticeable in the fat. Removing the
fat, connective tissue, silver skin, bone and hair during processing
lessens the 'gamey' taste. However, undesirable strong flavors are due
to inadequate bleeding, delay in field dressing or failure to cool the
carcass promptly.
So while some gaminess is simply due to the diet of the wild animals, improper dressing or treatment can be a contributing factor.
I did a little experiment with freshly killed deer meat. Some of it was marinated in wine "to take the bad blood out". Some wasn't. The wine treatment is a winner.
The short answer: No, the gamey taste of venison is not a euphemism for rotten.
Factors that may contribute to strong or "gamey" flavor in venison include:
the animal's diet (animals that forage a lot of grain from farm fields rather than grasses, wild plants, and nuts have a less gamey flavor)
its age (older animals tend to be gamier)
the inclusion of large amounts of venison tallow or connective tissue in hamburger or sausage
Inadequate bleeding and purging
The season the animal is harvested
Poor processing can lead to other off flavors which can include rottenness:
Failure to age the meat
Delay in field dressing and skinning
Bacterial contamination from poor procedure during gutting and skinning
Contamination from tools from improper cleaning
Contamination from improper removal of tarsal and metatarsal glands
Failure to cool meat quickly
As a lifelong hunter I must comment on the debate on what causes the gamey taste in venison.It is actually the blood of the animal if not soaked properly that gives venison the gamey taste.I learned from my Mom as well as generations of hunters before me that soaking the meat for a few days in ice water only makes for the best tasting venison.Also I need to point out that when deer are in the rut,It is the musk of the male deer that causes the strong odor in the meat. The female deer do not produce this musk and are therefore tastier and requires less soaking time to remove the blood from the cuts of meat.When soaking the meat, look for a pinkish to white color of the meat that indicates the meat has purged the blood.Happy hunting!!
As well to add on to the comment above and might be in relation to the cooling and aging of the meat, overcooking it (medium at most) causes it to become gamey and tough. I love the gamey flavor however. Try Colorado Lamb and compare it to New Zeleand Lamb big difference in flavor
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.063861
| 2013-09-10T03:56:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36656",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Guendi Cortez",
"Joyce Clinger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/121948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
117578
|
Reheating and Storing Chicken/Potato Soup For 10 Hours
I would like to reheat chicken/potato soup (heavy whipped cream, cooked chicken, flour, potato, cooked bacon, some salt, and vegetables to name a few ingredients) i.e. thick soup and store it in a thermos (vacuum insulated flask) and eat it at work between 9 and 10 hours later. I work 12 hour shifts, getting a break too brief to use microwave to evenly reheat the soup, breaking at 2, 4, 6, and 9 hours into the shift.
I wanted to ask if I could take the soup from the refrigerator, heat it in the oven for 30 minutes (or more/less time in oven) at a higher temperature, then pour into a warmed thermos, to prolong how long the thermos would hold a soup that is warm and reasonably safe. Also, I have a strong immune system, so I might be willing to take on "above average" risk.
As this is a public site we can not advise other than to follow the food safety regulations of your local area.
Assuming that your thermos is high quality and will keep things cold for an extended period of time (10-12 hours or longer), then your best bet is to follow the food safety rules promulgated by various governmental agencies (e.g. USA FDA, UK FSA, etc.). This means that once you have cooked your soup, you should chill rapidly, then only reheat portions as you need them. Do not reheat all, then chill again etc.
Generally you need to avoid maintaining temperatures between 4 C and 60 C (40 F to 140 F), as this is the zone where bacteria can easily grow and will make food unsafe in a short period of time.
Based on the food safety "rules", the safest way is to pour the cold soup into a chilled thermos (ideally store in the fridge if you can) and only reheat those portions you intend to eat at the time. You would need to reheat to the "safety zone", which for liquids means re-boiling. As you only have a microwave, you would need to reheat, stir and then heat some more to ensure even heating and that the whole soup is thoroughly reheated.
I am not sure on the guidelines around if you can keep it above 60 C (140 F) for an extended period so I will make no comment there.
I would think you'd want to heat it on the stove top to boiling (or thereabouts) and put it in the thermos. It should keep for the 10 hours or so if you have a good thermos.
It will keep for 10 hours if you have a good Thermos and don't keep pouring small portions out - each time you open it, quite a bit of heat escapes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.064238
| 2021-10-21T13:03:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117578",
"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
}
|
117586
|
Substituting one cup creamy peanut butter with peanut butter Reese's chips to make peanut butter swirl brownies box made recipe
On the side of the chocolate fudge brownie mix family size box there's a peanut butter swirl brownies recipe and I'm trying to figure out how to substitute the one cup of creamy peanut butter with Reese's peanut butter chips if that's possible even if I have two previously melt them or something to get it to work I know chips are meant to stay solid and whole while in oven during high heat that's why I'm asking because the person that went to the store didn't read the side recipe and assumed that it called for peanut butter chips or that it didn't matter what form the peanut butter came in and so they got a pack of reeses chips and we currently don't have any regular creamy peanut butter like the recipe calls for.
I don’t think it is a possible substitution. I feel that the recipe aims for a special consistency/wetness for the brownies. If you substitute a creamy ingredient for a solid one you might end up with quite a compact block of brownie rather than a fudgy one
Welcome to the site. How is the peanut butter used? Is it mixed in with the batter, or added later as a swirl?
Welcome to SA! In the future, the following will help folks provide you with better answers: name the box mix you're using, provide notes on quantities and ingredients for the peanut swirl variation, and let us know what kinds of results are acceptable.
Please break your question into sentences. It's quite difficult to read as it is.
Why not just add the chips to the brownies, and have peanut butter chip brownies? Those would be excellent on their own, and you don't have to figure out how to make melted peanut butter chips behave like wet peanut butter.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.064474
| 2021-10-22T04:11:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117586",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"GdD",
"Kat",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"jmk"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
117618
|
How to make crispy fried prawns without overcooking them?
I fry medium prawns for 2 minutes per side on a high flame, and I think they shrink quite a lot, I tried cooking them for 2 minutes per side and 1 minute on the other on a medium flame but they didn't turn out to be crispy.
Can you clarify "crispy?" Do you intend to coat them with some type of batter or starch so that they are actually crisp?
See also: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116691/how-do-you-properly-and-consistently-pan-sear-shrimp?rq=1
No, just oil @moscafj
In that case, I will suggest that my linked question provides the guidance you need.
hmm, okay I'll follow those tips, makes sense, thanks.@moscafj
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.064649
| 2021-10-25T14:37:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117618",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96152",
"krtchen",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
117856
|
How to remove that raw chicken taste while cooking chicken?
While frying chicken, with a basic marinate of eggs, salt, pepper and ginger-garlic paste overnight, I get a sort of raw taste of chicken, but when I eat the same fried chicken at the restaurant - they somehow are able to remove that taste.
Can anyone tell how is this gone? Has anyone experienced this before?
I think I'm not able to describe that taste, the most rough idea is chicken taste in general tso's chicken or something like chicken kebabs vs just boiling plain chicken(which has that taste)
I think I know what you mean, but I only have ideas (not an answer). It might actually be the texture you're talking about. To improve meat texture (and flavor), you could try adding tarragon. I'm guessing they add something that chemically reacts with the meat, somehow, to make stuff stick better; maybe they add more sugar; maybe they add starch; maybe something acidic (like citrus). Maybe it's just the quality of the pepper.
I think it's based on which brand of chicken you've bought. In where I'm currently located, there are a number of brands of chicken (mostly the frozen ones) that the purchasers of restaurant strictly avoid. Maybe try buying another brand?
One more thing, you haven't defrosted your chicken THEN refreezing it again right? Based from my experience, that's how you end up with "off taste" like that.
Are you buying fancy chicken meat?
Free range chicken has a stronger animal taste than factory produced birds. Maybe the "raw" flavor is that? Fried chicken from a restaurant is no doubt cheap chicken and it will be bland, with less animal flavor than a bird that was out pecking up bugs.
Free range chicken is also more expensive. Try cooking up some cheaper chicken.
I found out recently that while I love rotissiere chicken, when I try to make baked chicken, it never tastes as good. The only way I can describe it is "gamey".
A friend mentioned her grandmother used to soak her chicken in a salt or vinegar water solution 24 hours prior to cooking to "pull the blood" out of the chicken, thus getting rid of that gamey taste. I will try it next time!
Chickens as sold have virtually no blood in them. Even if they didn’t, soaking in salt or vinegar brine would not “pull out the blood”.
Without knowing exactly what you're tasting I would recommend washing your chicken before cooking it. Rinsing in a colander can help with off flavors. Secondly do you temp your chicken? If the chicken isn't getting to 165 it isn't cooked which would be why it tastes raw
I wouldn't recommend washing chicken, it's against food safety measures https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115336/how-to-properly-clean-raw-chicken-cut-in-pieces rather just give it a quick boil of a few seconds
Rika on Dining with the Chef also mentioned plunging the chicken into boiling water for a few seconds (so basically, blanching), or marinating it in sake to remove ‘chicken odor’. I’m not familiar with the smell, so I do t know if it’s something about how the chicken is processed in different countries, or if it’s something that not everyone can smell
washing chicken is not advisable. it is not good from a health and safety perspective, and it will have little (if any) impact on the internal flavours of the cooked meat.
Look I understand that lots of people in the western world are against washing chicken. The point isn't to wash so it's safer to eat, the point of washing meat is to soften muscle fibers, and yes affect the flavors. If you've never done it I seriously doubt you would know if it changes the flavor. It's no more dangerous than cutting raw meat and then washing your cutting board, Yes you have to do it in an intelligent way so you don't get raw chicken juice everywhere but it's not impossible. I strongly suggest you look up J. Kenji Lopez Alt's video on washing meat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.064849
| 2021-11-14T17:26:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117856",
"authors": [
"Brōtsyorfuzthrāx",
"Joe",
"Luciano",
"Mixed Rice",
"Mr Shane",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96932"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
49023
|
What is the charcoal snake method and how does it work?
I've read in places about using something called the charcoal snake method for slow smoking in a kettle bbq. What is it and how does it even work?
Here's an example picture.
This is the method I use to smoke meat in my Weber! The basics are exactly what you see in the photo, with one more step. Start about a dozen (or in a 22.5" grill like that one, maybe 18-24) briquettes in your charcoal starter (you have one of those right? if not, go get one, they're awesome). When the coals in your starter are glowing, carefully place them with tongs at one end of the snake.
This is a super low maintenance way to smoke meat. It keeps a small number of coals lit far enough away from your meat that you have indirect heat similar to an oven, and the smoke is metered because only a limited amount of wood catches. The coals at one end slowly light the remaining coals and you can cook this way for hours. The circle in your photo will probably burn for 4-6 hours. If you add more coals as you cook, you can keep this method going for very long cooks (I've done a brisket doing this cooking for something like 14-18 hours). You'll want to rotate your meat as you cook to keep it directly opposite (or maybe a bit closer to the lit end so you don't have to rotate as often).
This blog post for SA's blog has a bunch more information and some pictures of one of my cooks using this method.
Thanks for the detailed information :) Really appreciate the blog post article as well!
The goal is to maximize the cool spot in the grill, so you can cook larger items slowly. I'm not aware of there being any magic to it, other than being a differently shaped fire for indirect cooking.
Unlike your typical two-level fire, you don't need a hot area to sear over, so it's pushed as far to the edge as possible to create a larger cool zone. I've personally never used this tecnhnique. I've typically started my coals in a chimney, then dumped them around the side of the kettle. It's possible that the coals may stay cooler and burn longer than using a chimney to make sure they've caught well.
I assume you light one end. The charcoal then burns along the path creating very low heat and smoke. Seems like it would work, but my worry would be the quality of the smoke. For a detailed analysis of techniques, click here: http://www.chefsteps.com/activities/barbecue-techniques
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.065179
| 2014-10-19T05:50:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49023",
"authors": [
"Esther Rodriguez",
"Kiratikorn Naksompop Tulip Bla",
"Paul Maguire",
"Sasha 2009",
"aug",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117044",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117078",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20233",
"jkdel rossi",
"user117078"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
125406
|
Baking sheet in air fryer, and alternatives
I want to bake cookies in the air fryer but unfortunately I have no baking sheet. I am thinking maybe to use parchment paper or aluminium foil above the air fryer base. However, it seems a lot of experiences that people have with aluminium foil in air fryer seems negative.
But I really do wonder, do I actually even need a baking sheet for air fryer? If yes, what would be some alternatives?
The air fryer I am using: Ninja Air Fryer Max XL 1750W 5.2L
What type of airfryer do you have? A basket type? Paddle type? Or an oven type?
What type of air fryer to you have? There are ones that are shaped like a toaster oven, some of which can just be used as a convection oven and would likely have no problems with this… the ones where the fans are above a cooking basket are going to be more problematic. (And don’t use aluminum flashing…. It has a protective coating on it)
Air fryers are convection ovens with extra steps, so you need to be careful using an actual sheet pan as that could block the air flow and prevent the air fryer from working properly. That said, they do make circular silicone baking mats that you could look into that could work as long as you get one that's small enough to leave an inch or so of a gap around the edges so the air can circulate.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.065394
| 2023-09-29T12:21:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125406",
"authors": [
"Abion47",
"Joe",
"Tinkeringbell",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79613"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
124961
|
Reliability of nutritional information readily available on the internet
I've seen this post but I find statistics online which seem to say otherwise. This site says there are 1.6g of fiber in 100g french fries but apparently if I were to boil 100g of potatoes instead then I'd have 1.8g of fiber according to this site.
What gives? Wrong information? If so, what are the correct fiber qunatites.
1.6 and 1.8 are very similar numbers, and all nutritional information for natural products is a rough estimate because they aren't consistent. If anything I'm surprised that two websites have numbers so close together.
@dbmag9 that's an answer
I’d actually expect there to be more fiber in fried potatoes (because moisture is lost when frying, leaving you with less weight, so more raw potato is required for 100g fried vs 100g boiled)
1.6 and 1.8 are very similar numbers, and all nutritional information for natural products is a rough estimate because they aren't consistent. If anything I'm surprised that two websites have numbers so close together.
I don't think there are exact duplicates, but this certainly isn't the first question here along the lines of 'why do different sources give different amounts for the nutrients in a natural product?' and I will try to find some of the others to edit them in later, as they have more detailed answers.
I wrote one on peanuts , and I've also written something on moisture loss but that may have been comments on someone else's answer
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.065546
| 2023-08-12T22:32:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124961",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
125409
|
Knives and Knife sharpening for a college student/someone short on time and money
Cutting things seem to be the number one time sink when I cook. I use bought some random knifes and use them. And I keep them sharp by a machine which looks like this :
I am completely unsatisfied with my experience with knives. I searched on internet on how to have a better knife experience, and it seems so that many people suggest a chef knife. The problem is, many of these cost an absurd amount above (200 euros at minimum), and for sharpening them, whetstone slabs are suggested which is another 40$.
And, another insane part is, if one messes up something they can apparently irreversibly damage the expensive knife they use... which seems too risky for me...
Having provided my details, I state my question, what would be the most economical and time saving way to go about this issue? Are there knives which cuts well and can easily be maintained with less time which I can get without spending a lot of money?
I simply want a knife which makes cutting easier and I don't have to struggle a lot for it.
Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on [meta], or in [chat]. Comments continuing discussion may be removed.
Let me try to push some thoughts into something approaching an actual answer.
Firstly - knives aren't cheap or expensive because they're inherently bad or good. It's more complicated than that.
As has been pointed out in comments, you can get a good cheap knife. You can also get a lot of abysmal cheap knives. Quite often they don't really tell you what they're made of either. Even if they do, you need to be a metallurgist to make any sense of it. One of mine says on the blade Stainless Steel X50CrMoV15. Now, this turns out to be 'pretty good' if you look up geek lists of 'what makes the best knife'. It's not 'the best' but by heck it works.
$£€ 12 from Ikea - can't complain. It keeps its edge well. I hone it when needed, once or twice a week, as I'm not an actual pro chef, just a housey cook, so I'm only making one big meal a day really. It goes through the actual sharpener maybe twice a year, maybe not even that.
Now… honing & sharpening is another thing altogether.
There are so many 'miracle' devices out there that it's almost impossible to choose.
I have never found any drag-through system that was any good for anything other than honing. My own honer is a drag-through & i've had it maybe 25 years. I'd send you straight to a shop for it… but they stopped making it years ago & I've never found anything similar. One thing you have to be reasonably sure of for a sharpener is that it's made for the type of knife you want to sharpen. As a general guide, European-style knives are set at 20° whilst Japanese-style are at 15°. Having the wrong sharpener will either blunt a Japanese blade or never even reach a Euro blade edge, so it won't ever sharpen it. In my admittedly not comprehensive search for a good drag-through, I found most were for 15° blades… but almost all my knives at the time were 20°, so it just didn't really work at all.
After 40 years of disappointment I eventually bit the bullet & bought a good electric sharpener - but at £170 that is right out of budget for this question.
BTW, you won't usually 'irreversibly damage' a knife blade by sharpening it badly, but you will make it far more of a task for either you or an expert to get it back in shape.
I really can't recommend a sharpener that isn't expensive. People will talk about using a whetstone, but if you have neither time nor patience to learn, or an abysmal lack of aptitude as I proved to myself, then you wasted your money & blunted all your knives. You can get guided blade systems, which I was once investigating - but the good ones are again out of budget.
So impossible to cut things without breaking my hand when at a budget?
For zero budget you can get an Ikea knife & a drag-through sharpener. It will be better than nothing.
But don't I need to hone my blade rather than sharpen it? @Tetsujin
Yes - but as at no point have you actually told us what your existing equipment is ['a bit like this' doesn't help] we've got nothing concrete to go on. We don't know if you have a 20° knife & a 15° sharpener, or just a really soft knife…
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.065687
| 2023-09-29T14:32:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125409",
"authors": [
"Brian",
"Stephie",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96288"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
124546
|
Should I remove the vegetables I put in my brine for cooking again?
I've brined chicken for the first time today, and I included garlic and ginger in the brine. My question is, could I take the garlic and ginger and add it to my cooking later after draining, or should I throw it out?
I'm concerned if they become flavourless after brining or oversalted.
The bigger issue is if they’ve picked up any bacteria from the chicken… they need to be fully cooked now.
You should not. Brine at the concentrations for brining meat does not kill all bacteria, and you had that ginger and garlic swimming together with raw meat.
but wouldn't heatingi t kill the baceteria
Why wouldn't that apply to the meat as well?
No, because chicken -- if you're cooking it properly -- is going to be cooked for longer than ginger and garlic would necessarily be. If you're stewing them with the chicken, and adding them at the same time, then they should be bacterially fine. At that point, they're just tasteless and salty.
The main issue here is that you asked about removing items from the brine to use for another time. This is a problem, as they have been cross contaminated, and it would give the bacteria a chance to multiply.
Even if you were to kill those bacteria, you don’t know what byproducts they created, so you don’t know what’s required to denature them.
If you really wanted to try to make use of them a second time, I would recommend immediately boiling them to make a stock, and then straining and refrigerating the stock (discarding the solid matter, which should have given up its flavor).
If you cook it immediately, e.g., as part of the dish it would be fine. If you want to save it for later use, as already answered, it would likely be bad due to cross contamination. In theory, you could flash freeze it, but that is hardly worthwhile.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.066089
| 2023-06-24T14:17:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124546",
"authors": [
"Brian",
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96288",
"wumpus D'00m"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
124608
|
How do baking recipes based on protein powders work?
This is a recent phenomena on Fitness Youtube I noticed: Making foodds using protein powders in baking. What I don't understand is, wouldn't the proteins from protein powder be not good for baking since they are meant for room temperature? When I tried mixing my Whey in hot water once, it started coagulating.
Example recipe by Felu-Fit by cooking
It depends what you mean by 'good for baking' – the proteins in a fried egg are certainly in a different state to the raw egg, but that isn't a problem because it's the desired state.
I've tried to answer in general terms, but if you have a specific recipe in writing I may be able to expand on my answer
I don't understand the question. What do you mean by "not good for baking"? If you throw raw flour in hot water, it will create a clumpy mess, but raw flour is "good for baking" in any sense I can think of. Could you please clarify?
@rumtscho A priori it is not clear that a food designed to be used around room temperature is actually safe to eat after heating to oven temperature. It could be the case that some funny chemistry happens at high temperatures. This is not the case here but that doesn't make the question wrong.
So it's a safety concern? This isn't something I would ever read into the current formulation of the question.
I'd say it's more of a general curiosity than a direct safety concern @rumtscho
Without seeing a specific recipe, I strongly suspect that it hydrates the protein powder cold, then heats it up. You can do this with protein shakes as well, so long as the powder is very well dispersed indeed, and you heat it gently. I sometimes make a protein hot chocolate recovery drink this way.
Also the protein baking recipes I've seen - not made - tend to add other solid ingredients, such as (ground) nuts and seeds. These mix with the whey powder and physically block big clumps from forming.
Finally, while there's normally egg to bind, some degree of coagulation of the whey powder is probably needed to help the final product stay together.
A protein hot chocolate recovery drink sounds excellent and definitely something I will look into for when the weather cools down
@dbmag9 I use vanilla or chocolate whey powder, with plenty of cocoa powder even if starting from fake chocolate flavour. As a recovery rather than a protein drink (after long bike rides) using some instant hot chocolate powder is also good. But do be sure to disperse/hydrate well while cold, then heat or you'll get clumps
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.066308
| 2023-06-29T04:58:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124608",
"authors": [
"Brian",
"Chris H",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96288",
"quarague",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
78591
|
Frozen Asparagus after thawed became extremely soggy and wet, any way to salvage?
So I bought a bunch of asparagus from Costco and because I didn't want to use them immediately, I froze them. This week I decided to take them out to thaw in the fridge so I let it sit overnight.
What ended up happening was the ice melted and the whole bag got soaked so now they are all wet and a little mushy? Is there a way to salvage them? I plan on just baking them but idk if they are okay to eat anymore. Or is it okay if they are wet? After reading how to actually store asparagus, I probably know now I don't need to thaw them.
It probably won't be an appetizing texture to eat whole by itself no matter what you do to it at this point, though you can try draining and cooking - your tolerance for mushiness might be higher than mine!
I'd personally blend it into a soup, so the texture isn't an issue. Things like cream of asparagus just need the flavor, which should still be okay.
Thanks for the suggestion! I ate em and yeah they were a little soggy so I made cream of asparagus as you suggested! Unfortunately my blender sucked but it was fun!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.066552
| 2017-02-21T01:46:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78591",
"authors": [
"aug",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20233"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43561
|
Is it safe to use a tea kettle with black dots on the bottom?
My tea kettle has a bunch of black dots all over the inside bottom part of it. I tried washing it and using a scrub sponge to scrub it off but it won't come off. Is it safe to continue using it or am I drinking stuff that's leaching from the kettle?
To better describe this, the black dots are small dots, like if you used a pen to "dot" a piece of paper. The dots are only on the inside of the kettle, the part that touches the water. It doesn't show up on the outside bottom of the kettle. The dots are all over the bottom, there's no one part where it clusters up.
I highly doubt it's mold. It could be rust but I'd think (but have been wrong many times) it would have scrubbed off with the scrub sponge. Thanks in advance for your help.
EDIT: Newly attached picture below
What's the tea kettle made of? Stainless? Any chance of a picture of the dots?
@derobert, thx for your reply. it's made of 18/10 stainless steel. It's about 5-6 yrs old. I'll try to post a picture of the dots when i get a chance to take one. I'm not Ansel Adams so no guarantees I'll be able to get a good shot. =)
That may just be mineral build up... I'd try cleaning with (distilled white) vinegar or dilute citric acid.
@derobert, just attached the picture. hopefully it shows the problem clearly. thanks again for your comments and help.
Those are so minor, I won't even worry about them.
Those are mineral deposits. You can remove them with either vinegar or citric acid. Personally, I use citric acid:
Fill the kettle with some water.
Heat the water (doesn't need to boil).
Sprinkle a little citric acid in (use food-grade, also sometimes called "sour salt").
Let it sit for a few minutes.
The spots should vanish.
Dump the water out, rinse it a few times.
Works about the same with distilled vinegar, except you'll want some ventilation when you heat the vinegar (again, not to a boil), as the acetic acid vaporizes.
The heating isn't actually required for either approach, it just speeds the process up.
You aren't going to get mold on it unless you've been using your kettle for something other than boiling water. Mold needs something to eat, there's nothing in a kettle for it to feed on.
The dots you see are likely discoloration due to mineral deposits in your water. You'll probably find that the dots are occurring where the air bubbles form as the water heats. I'm not sure what the exact mechanism is but it's a combination of the heat, minerals, and the air bubbles which causes the dots to form. I don't think you can get rid of them although you could try to de-scale it. In any case it's perfectly safe to use the kettle.
Once any microdeposit is formed, it becomes a ... whatever the opposite of a nucleation point is, so bubbles are more likely to form there. Then, when those bubbles do form, their mineral deposit will be left in the same place, and the dot will grow.
I think those are still nucleation sites... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.066692
| 2014-04-17T16:26:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43561",
"authors": [
"716 Pressure Washing spam",
"Classified",
"Deobiff",
"Marsha Dennis",
"NotEvans.",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102094",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102095",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102144",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102145",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"sotn",
"user102112",
"vwiggins"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
125454
|
Larvae in pine nut container, safe to eat?
I bought prepackaged pine nuts and to my suprise, I found bugs in it. The expensive price of the pine nuts make me a bit hesitant to throw it out (about 6 euros for 90 grams ish).
My question is, can i use pine nuts after washing? could it be possible that the bug laid eggs inside the nuts? How would I identify those eggs to remove?
Here is a picture of the bug I found:
Edit:
I went back to the store and complained. They gave me a fresh batch of pine nuts, so problem solved.
Personally I wouldn't eat any bug no matter how much you washed it, but I've heard the larger ones can be somewhat tasty if fried.
I don’t know about washing, but I would suggest moving the pine nuts to the freezer as soon as possible… which should kill the bugs, (and slow the pine nuts from spoiling), so that once there’s an answer, you can then proceed
Are you not able to return them?
It's been a week since I bought... @RichardTingle
The bugs aren't getting any fresher - take it back. The store or supplier have a serious health breach, which must be reported.
@ReineAbstraktion that really shouldn't matter. They are presumably still in date. Take them back
If you had the pack for an extended period (say a few weeks), it may be advisable to do a quick inspection of your carbohydrate-rich food items (think flour, grains, pasta, dried fruit, nuts and seeds). Look not only for larvae, but webbings, feces (very small granules, like sand), pupae and small white/grey moths with or without bands.
Take it straight back to the shop.
They will have to pull the entire product line from sale & have it checked by the health authorities.
If they have any common sense, they will also award you a lot of freebies for not telling the whole world...
OP's profile indicates they are from south India. Health codes or at least penalties could be non-existent.
hmmm… still worth tacking whoever sold it, just in case they actually give a damn. In the UK, that would be enough to shut down the business.
Sorry, I don't believe it. For a single bug? Maybe in a recluse feeble population...
@MonkeyZeus If there's one bug, there are almost certainly more, especially if the bug is alive. And even if the bugs aren't of the type to make food poisonous or are poisonous themselves, the bugs aren't the concern so much as the potential health and safety hazards surrounding the food's production, transportation, and storage that the bugs' presence suggests. Bits and pieces of bug are expected and unavoidable in produce, but whole live bugs means someone either screwed up or is cutting corners they shouldn't be.
@MonkeyZeus I'm sorry, but irrespective of the amount of truth in your statement the fact is that is the rest of the World contains people who visit or trade with Southern India, and who would like to believe that the region takes food hygiene seriously.
@MarkMorganLloyd I think step one should have been to get clarification from OP whether this came from a chain store, street vendor, or other. Good traded often times have higher standards than what's kept in-country.
@MonkeyZeus But OP /does/ say they were expensive, and /does/ suggest that the seller had a fixed location, ("I went back to the store and complained") which suggests it was fairly up-market.
@MarkMorganLloyd 6 euros is trivial to most people. I'm not eating bugs over a 6 euro sunk-cost fallacy. The existence of the "washing" idea strongly influenced my initial assessment about health codes.
@MonkeyZeus - 6 euros is trivial to most people in the West. US average annual salary - between $45k & $78k [Mississippi/Connecticut]. Average annual salary in Kerala, south India… $220.
@Tetsujin Why would someone who earns $220/year spend 6 (2%) of it on pine nuts?
@MonkeyZeus You're deliberately ignoring the point that there is a large spectrum between "trivial amount of money" and "2% of annual salary"
I actually live in Kuwait, but still, even here this is quite expensive in terms of the average cost for how much groceries should cost... especially toe the quantity
It wasn't enough to shut down Kellogg but that's why they stopped making Apple Raisin Crisp. "I actually wrote Kellogg's about this cereal asking them to bring it back. They stated that there was not enough interest in the product." - 'not interested in getting sued or shutting down entire factories' maybe.... https://www.mrbreakfast.com/cereal_detail.asp?id=14
This is the larva of a pantry moth. Safe, normal thing to find in an agricultural product.
I had a pretty bad infestation of them a few years ago (they came in with some rice I think) and can say quite confidently that if they were toxic, I (and probably most of us) would be dead.
Pine nuts are, believe it or not, a biological product. Plants grow in dirt and sometimes an egg or two make it through even rigorous QC. Is it yucky? Sure. You'll want to get some pantry moth pheromone traps to keep the rest of your pantry tidy. Big infestations make a big mess but it's nothing to lose sleep over.
As a general rule, you can eat nearly any insect larva that isn't brightly colored or furry. The yucky fleshy looking ones are usually the best to eat.
Seems so there are four or five different answers with conflicting infromations
@ReineAbstraktion that's not surprising when they're not toxic. This of us that grow some of our own food are used to eating stuff we know has had contact with insects, but not everyone thinks the same
@ReineAbstraktion "Safe, normal thing to find in an agricultural product" can very well be true at the same time as "Take it straight back to the shop".
Everyone eats bug eggs and larvae, they just don't realize they're doing it.
@ReineAbstraktion Many people have a strong aversion to consumption of insects, so for a question like this you’re bound to get mixed answers. For the record, the statement in this answer that they are generally safe is accurate (provided of course that the food source they are feeding on is safe, which it should be in this case), but the sentiment some others express about taking it back to the shop is still reasonable.
There is no contradiction, the larvae per se are harmless. But you want to consider a few not-so nice details. One, the feces. The larvae eat and poop and I am personally not keen on eating that. Second, there’s indicators that they and/or the fences can cause allergies in some people. This is the reason why some health authorities declare infested foods as not suitable for human consumption.
The larvae of some kinds of food moths look very much like this. I'm not a bug expert, but I've been unlucky enough to have had them several times.
If that's what it is, they are not directly dangerous to human health. They are however unpleasant and annoying and will spread to many kinds of dried food (especially seeds, nuts and grains, they love pine kernels) unless it's very tightly sealed. You will not want to eat food that they've been in for any length of time and can end up throwing lots of stuff out.
Freezing should kill them, but I'd put the pine kernels in a tightly sealed jar and take it back to the shop tomorrow.
Yes it reminds me somewhat of what we'd call a pantry moth lava which can be a real pain to get rid of once you have an outbreak.
As I child I once chowed down on some cereal that was full of meal worms. No ill effects but it was disturbing. @DavidWaterworth I purchased some hanging moth sticky traps that were phenomenal and seem to have eliminated a persistent pantry infestation. I initially failed to pull the wax paper off the glue patch and the moths forced their way under it to find their death. They worked even better when properly deployed.
Such worms are larvae, typically of food/pantry moths. The moths are not harmful but some German sources suggest that the feces and other contamination caused by them may cause allergies or digestive issues.
In earlier times, before the blessings of silicone seals and double Ziploc bags, people routinely sieved their flour to remove insects; but then they did all kinds of unhealthy things and didn't have much of a choice anyway.
The yuck factor is a good reason to throw them away or take them back to the shop but I would not expect anybody to get sick if the nuts are heated sufficiently, for example when used for baking.
It is noteworthy that in principle the moth is nutritionally quite valuable; many insects, some moths among them, have been evaluated as beneficial in human nutrition. Essentially, like larger animals, they transform less valuable carbohydrates and fibers to more valuable proteins.
The likes of what you show in the picture are young forms of insects, not yet ready to reproduce. As such, they cannot lay any egg in whatever they are found.
There can be unhatched eggs deposited by the same parent who laid the egg from which the bug you found came out, and there can be the feces and other residuals produced by the bug during its sojourn in the package. Additionally, wherever the bug has eaten there might be some spoiling caused by the eating process. Last but not least, some bug can produce and release defensive means in the environment where they roam.
If I had to choose, I would err on the side of caution and discard the whole package.
Don't discard it. Take the whole pack back to the shop if you're not prepared to use them because they seem to be contaminated.
Washing the bugs out isn't the issue. The issue is they we there at all.
"Bugs are young forms of insects"... I'm sorry, but at best that is locale-specific. In the UK we call them grubs, maggots or- sometimes- worms, and "bug" is rarely used except in the context of biting insects.
@MarkMorganLloyd, what is in the picture is not an adult insect. It doesn't lay eggs
@L.Dutch Not relevant. "Bug" is imprecise, you should call it a larva.
Going further than @MarkMorganLloyd, "bug" should really only refer to the order Hemiptera, but using "bug" to refer to adults of other types of insect is common.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.067010
| 2023-10-05T08:44:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125454",
"authors": [
"Abion47",
"Austin Hemmelgarn",
"Brian",
"Chris H",
"David K",
"David Waterworth",
"JimmyJames",
"Joe",
"L.Dutch",
"Mark Morgan Lloyd",
"Mazura",
"MonkeyZeus",
"Onyz",
"Richard Tingle",
"Stephie",
"Tetsujin",
"barbecue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102154",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36746",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87594",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96288",
"pipe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
122847
|
Usage of butter and flour mixture in cooking
Consider this recipe and this one. In both butter and flour is mixed before cream is added. What is the idea behind mixing flour and butter?
Here are quotes of the relevant parts (in case of link rot):
1.Meanwhile, in a large cast-iron or other heavy skillet, melt butter over medium heat. Stir in flour until smooth; gradually whisk in cream. Bring to a boil, stirring constantly. Cook and stir until thickened, about 2 minutes. Reduce heat; stir in cheese until melted.
In a saucepan, melt butter over medium heat. Stir in the flour and salt until smooth. Gradually add milk. Bring to a boil; cook and stir until thickened, about 2 minutes. Stir in cheese. Pour over meat mixture; mix well. Reduce heat; cook, covered, until heated through. If desired, serve with biscuits.
From first and second recipes respectively
You should edit this question to include the content at the other end of the links that you feel is important. Someday those links will no longer be valid and this question won't be particularly useful then either.
Try adding ground red hot chili peppers when half-ready as they burn even faster than flour.
This is called a roux, a common way to thicken sauces; there is nothing about it that is specific to cast iron pans. By first cooking the flour in butter (or another fat), the taste improves and the grains of flour are coated in fat so that they do not clump together when the rest of the liquid is added.
Additionally, the initial cooking inactivates the gluten precursor proteins, so they can't form gluten once water is added.
The flavor improvement comes in 2 ways: 1 by cooking the flour so it isn't raw, 2) the longer it is cooked the darker the roux gets, and color is flavor.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.067985
| 2022-12-30T10:40:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122847",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Sneftel",
"Vorac",
"gnicko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
122383
|
Spices very powdery when cooking
This is a constant problem I have when cooking chicken dishes with low water content. I add my spices and a bit of water so that everything mixes. The problem exists in the end result. When I taste the curry the taste is very powdery. I could go as far to say that I could possibly taste the individual grains.
Recipe:
Ginger Garlic paste into hot Pan when oil is sizzling. Chicken later. Add spices : Black pepper,salt , Cumin, corrainder power , garam masala and water to dissolve.
Notes: Chicken Breast cooked for 12 minutes
What type of chicken? How long are you cooking it? [& why no onions?]
The recipe in the edit still lacks any idea of whether you cook the spices in the oil or immediately add the water.
And the word 'dissolve' is misplaced. Spices simply don't dissolve. Important tasty compounds are soluble, some in water, others in oil, but the bulk isn't. So the goal is to soften and disperse the solids
@Tetsujin chicken breast, 12 mins, and because of laziness
add water in 2-5 seconds of adding spices @ChrisH
After comments… 12 minutes is nowhere near enough time to cook in the spices, but is long enough to turn chicken breast into small pencil erasers.
'Because of laziness' all you have is some spices in water, not 'a curry'.
The basic gravy/sauce for a curry is onion, ginger & garlic, sautéed down then liquidised/blended/puréed… then simmered with your spices for several hours. For chicken breast curry, you add the chicken right at the end. Thighs you can simmer for hours, but breast is ruined if over-cooked.
The spices will never actually 'dissolve' as such; they'll remain solids, but they'll soften so there's no gritty edge left to them, and at the same time impart their flavours through the oil & water.
You can batch basic curry sauce & keep it in the freezer for months. Then all you need to make your final curry is the chicken.
You can freeze finished curries - but not chicken breast. Lamb, beef, chicken thigh will all improve for long-cooking. Chicken breast, if you ensure it's cooked in the sauce, will be over-cooked by the time the curry is cool enough to freeze, then will get another dose of over-cooking as you re-heat it.
You can even buy ready-prepped onion in the supermarket.
I am a bit confused, should Ijust cook the spices and vegetables together for long?
and 12 minutes is too much for chicken breast??
A curry is the very essence of a 'long cook', as is a chilli or a goulash or a bolognese… anything you could basically call a "stew" will improve over time, between 2 & 4 hours [some even do better if you give them 2 hours one day, refrigerate overnight, then another 2 hours the following day, rendang-style]. A whole chicken breast may take 12 - 15 mins or so, depending on size, but bite-sized pieces will be cooked in 3.
What I am confused is, wouldn't the vegetables in the sauce burn if I cooked for that long?
Only if the heat's too high. Low simmer. Just moving.
Last question, how is it possible that I can keep the curry sauce for so many months when the vegetable themself will expire in much less time?
That's what freezers are for. https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/21068/42066
Also see - https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109263/making-my-chicken-madras-more-savoury?rq=1 - which contains a basic curry sauce method, top to bottom.
There are some very acceptable curry-type dishes that can be cooked from scratch in half an hour or thereabouts, which will be vastly preferable to the OP's current recipe. Recipes using a base sauce (I sometimes make a batch and freeze it) often only cook the spices fairly briefly in the oil - but not the OP's few seconds, and there's some texture for the spices to hide in. Equally, many of the same spices can be used in a quickly stir-fried dish.
@ChrisH - starting with a base sauce doesn't really end up being any different to what I've already said. That's pretty much your BIR basics - pre-made gravy & cooked meats, flashed in a pan with the extra ingredients to make the difference between a Kashmiri & a Madras.
Exactly, I was comparing that to quick recipes to say that being quick is possible (rather than giving the impression that it had to take ages), and also that timing isn't really the problem with the texture of the spices
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.068180
| 2022-11-18T20:17:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122383",
"authors": [
"Brian",
"Chris H",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96288"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
117740
|
How to cook rice outside commercially?
Is there a better alternative to a propane rice cooker for cooking rice outside e.g farmers market, street food environment?
I have found very little options for actual machines in the united states, the only options being a 55cup units with no smaller sizes.
Of the few options for propane rice cookers most are overseas (china) and only available in bulk i.e purchasing over 50 units.
@user141592 If anyone has knowledge here that would be helpful. If you look into propane rice cookers you would see there is very little information on them in the U.S .
You flagged this thinking it was a product recommendation which it is not. But I understand how you would think that if you didn't understand the difference between propane and electric rice cookers. I have removed all product links but now there is even less information on what a propane rice cooker is.
How much rice do you need to cook? Do you have access to electricity?
What I've seen (but never done outside) is just using a propane burner with a big pan on top.
Is steaming the rice using a properly sized propane burner and a big pan with a lid an option?
In Thailand I've often seen outdoor cookpots like the one below. Googling the term Thai charcoal burner will return the bottom part of the device pictured. It's filled it with charcoal and acts like a stove.
The middle and top parts are used when cooking sticky rice. The middle part is a thin metal pot that holds at least a few liters of water. The top part is a bamboo basket which holds the rice. When the water in the pot starts to boil, the rice is steamed. While steaming they typically cover the rice with a lid. Sticky rice is normally pre-soaked but I'm not sure if that's necessary for other types of rice.
Wikipedia provides this picture by Feral Arts under CC-BY 2.0:
I'm not sure if this works with regular rice, but I don't see why it wouldn't. From what I've seen, Thais mostly use electric rice cookers when cooking jasmine rice.
Of course this setup can be adapted to your situation. Bamboo steamer baskets and corresponding pots are probably available at local Asian stores and the steaming can be achieved by any kind of heat source.
The only thing to be mindful of is that the bottom of the bamboo basket does not touch the boiling water because you want it to steam.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.068544
| 2021-11-05T04:12:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117740",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"GdD",
"John Doe",
"Mixed Rice",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96320"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
117933
|
Why does vacuum-sealed fish caution against thawing in the package, but vacuum-sealed meat doesn't?
Whenever I buy frozen vacuum-sealed fish, the package clearly instructs me not to thaw the fish without removing it from the vacuum seal. This makes sense in a hazy intuitive way if I think about anaerobic bacteria like botulinum.
However, the frozen vacuum-sealed meat I buy has no such warning. For example, Omaha Steaks explicitly suggests thawing meat in the vacuum-sealed packaging.
I can't think of any reason why one would be OK if the other isn't. Is this a regulatory quirk, or is there a genuine reason why the correct thawing procedures are different?
I don’t know if it’s significant, but modern fishing boats can actually freeze the fish on the boat. Cows are typically hung for a while (10+ days) for the meat to tenderize before being butchered and packaged
Not a duplicate, but see https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/113868/7180 for the Fish half of this question.
Also see https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/15940/7180
Packaged fish is commonly known to contain Clostridium botulinum, either because its habitat generates the bacteria, or because of exposure somewhere between where the animal dies and your dinner plate.
Clostridium botulinum only causes illness if it can produce the botulinum toxin, and botulinum develops only at specific temperatures and in an anaerobic (there is little to no oxygen present) environment.
Botulism can cause death.
So, to eliminate risk of illness or death, avoid thawing your fish in an intact vacuum package.
This might help with context: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/52646/can-defrosting-vacuum-packed-fish-in-its-packaging-cause-botulism
FAO says C. botulinum is commonly found in fish intestines, gills and oceanic muds.
there is no guarantee that thawing under vacuum will actually cause botulism. however, when fish are filleted there can be cross contamination, so the warnings are used so that people can not claim they didn't know the better procedure to be followed, which could then lead to frivolous litigation (as is the habit in some countries) for not being warned.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.068772
| 2021-11-20T21:06:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117933",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe",
"Mr Shane",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96932",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
118124
|
How to make whipped cream just like in a canister?
I see that people make it with a blender or a whisker, but how to reproduce the texture in canisters? Maybe with a soda maker?
My god. Shows the differences between countries. I expect (or; always get disappointed when it isn't) whipped cream to be like its hand whipped point of origin. Why would you want the bland and overwhisked type?
@Stian Yttervik but whipped with hand it's not going to feel like aerated (foam like substance, having tiny bubble inside). Isn't it?
Whipped cream can be made by mechanically whisking it, such as with a hand whisk, electric beaters or a stand mixer, or it can be made, as in canned whipped creams, by dissolving nitrous oxide in it under high pressure, then releasing it from the pressurised environment. The rapid expansion of the bubbles as the nitrous oxide comes out of solution in the cream whips it, nearly instantaneously.
The manual whipping method does need to be stopped at the right time, before the cream is overwhipped into butter, which is not a risk with the gas method. Both methods typically involve slightly sweetening the cream and possibly flavouring it by mixing in sugar, syrups or other add-ins (I've heard powdered freeze-dried fruit is good) before whipping.
At home, one can use nitrous oxide to whip cream either by buying a premade canister, like the one pictured in the question, or by making their own using a whipping siphon, which is basically a small, screw-top pressure vessel that takes small canisters of nitrous oxide (or carbon dioxide, for other purposes, as it tends to make things it's dissolved into sour or bitter) and has a release nozzle that actually dispenses the whipped cream.
In addition, canned whipped cream usually contains sugar and is likely to contain other ingredients that mean homemade whipped cream will not be exactly the same (in my opinion, homemade is better).
The ingredients on many of the canned whipped creams like that show "heavy cream" as the only thing. When you buy "whipping cream" as opposed to "heavy cream", it often contains carrageenan (which stabilizes the milk/air mixture and is undigestible (it passes right through your digestive system)).
For a representative British example, the ingredients are single cream (94%), sugar (5%), emulsifier (mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids), and stabiliser (carrageenan) https://groceries.asda.com/product/squirty-cream/asda-squirty-cream/910001050370
I always use simple syrup to sweeten the cream, and as a bonus you can use flavored syrups to give the whipped cream a little something extra. I always make a spice infused syrup for my pumpkin pie.
@Flydog57 The carrageenan is there allow UHT pasteurizing which otherwise destroys the proteins needed for the cream to whip. I think the naming difference is less significant (esp. worldwide). Finding cream without carrageenan in it may depend on how close you live to cows.
TL;DR
Unless you are prepared to copy the process of gassing up the cream like the canister does, you don't. Simply because what comes out of those canisters is not whipped cream!
Background
Cream is a suspension of tiny fat droplets in water (plus some other stuff because it's of biological origin, of course). When you whip the cream, you are adding small bubbles to the cream, and the continued whipping action causes the fat droplets to merge with the surfaces of those bubbles. That's because one end of the fat molecules does not like water at all, and will thus stick to the air bubbles. In the end, you have replaced the microscopic fat droplets with much larger fat surrounded bubbles. These bubbles do not merge with one another because of the monomolecular layer of fat. This is what stabilizes whipped cream. The chemists call this an air-in-water emulsion, with the fat acting as the emulgator.
This emulsion process does not happen with the "whipped" cream canisters: They rely on a gas that is dissolved within the water of the cream under high pressure, which immediately gasses out when the pressure is released. The result is again a myriad of tiny air bubbles in water, but there is no / not enough fat surrounding those bubbles to stabilize them. As such, the resulting gassed cream has a much lighter texture in the beginning, and quickly deteriorates back into the liquid from which it came as the air bubbles meet and join together.
The manufacturers of the canned "whipped" creams may add some other agents to the cream to improve the stability of the result, but they cannot reach the original texture and stability of whipped cream, simply because the result cannot be whipped cream. You need actual whipping for that.
Why don't they just add enough fat to allow the air-in-water emulsion, then?
@nick012000 Because that's not sufficient to bind the fat to the bubbles. That only happens because of the mechanical whipping process.
I wonder if there's a way to mix in gas while squeezing through a fine mesh
If you want absolutely the same texture as in the canisters, you have to use a siphon with N2O chargers. Depending on the brand you are used to, you might also need to add sugar and/or vanilla extract to your whipped cream, to get it to taste the same. Basically, these canisters can be viewed as single-use siphons, they use the same technology.
Whipped cream is also possible with a mixer (handheld or stand-mixer) or with a hand whisk and patience. This is in fact the most traditional, prototypical way of making whipped cream. It does have a few small differences though. The resulting texture from traditionally whipped is slightly denser and firmer than from a siphon, it tastes richer, and it keeps in a foamy state for longer (you can e.g. decorate a cake with it and keep it a few days in the fridge, without the decoration going runny).
Since siphons are an expensive plaything useful only for a few niche applications, you might try mixer-whipped cream at first, and only switch to siphons if the differences in texture matter to you, and if the cost of the cream and charge you'd be buying turns out to be lower than the cost of a canister.
You can get a seltzer dispenser for drinks and put a NOS cartridge and make like in some bakeries. You’ll have to look that up. CO2 is bitter because it’s carbonic acid.
I would just use a pastry bag and really good vanilla extract and some really good sugar. (Sugar in the raw) or cane sugar. I use a whisk that spins as you press down on it. Easier to get where you want to be. Otherwise you have whipped butter.
Welcome! I see you have been around the network for a while, but perhaps you want to revisit the [help], especially [answer]? Your original post adds a lot of details that don’t pertain to the question, which is just about texture. Also, the rant about canned stuff is uncalled for and doesn’t sit well with the CoC - belittling those who buy premade food. I have removed all parts that don’t answer the question, you may want to [edit] your post to give it a bit more substance. Your post doesn’t add any new information that wasn’t given in the two previous answers, which is usually frowned upon.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.068996
| 2021-12-07T02:59:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/118124",
"authors": [
"Flydog57",
"LightBender",
"Scott Seidman",
"Stephie",
"Stian",
"Ya Y",
"cmaster - reinstate monica",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84865",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90435",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96083",
"luser droog",
"nick012000"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
119868
|
Why do gelatin sheets have a diamond pattern?
Why do gelatin sheets have a diamond pattern?
Are they perforations?
Are they for measurement?
Are they for brand recognition or marketing or just aesthetics?
I think it is a side effect of the drying process. If you look at about the 5m50s mark, the drying conveyor is a diamond pattern.
YouTube video of the process
this matches with a response on egullet:
"It comes from the wire nets the soft extruded gelatin lies on while it dries"
But is that diamond pattern for any specific purpose? The cheapest to use? Does it indeed make drying the most efficient with that shape? Why is that pattern a diamond?
@BruceWayne The drying belt design is effective and allows fast, efficient drying. An unintended but visually pleasant side effect is its imprinting onto the gelatin sheets.
@BruceWayne A diamond pattern is probably the best design for a mesh that would allow maximum drying (open surface area) that minimizes the area that a sheet could stick on the conveyor. Square patterns would, in my opinion, be prone to sticking where the metal touches on the perpendicular to the sheet movement.
@BruceWayne: I suspect that the diamond pattern for the web is more for stability. I don't know what the rest of this machine looks like, but I expect that the web is quite long. If it were square, there'd be a tendency for sections of it to shift from side to side (and there wouldn't be much you could do about it). By having it in a "diamond", if you keep the web properly tensioned (which is pretty easy to do), it's going to stress the web both along the axis of travel as well as from side to side.
The same reason why toilet paper is quilted. The pattern is there to ensure that the sheets do not stick together.
Small amounts of moisture will always be there during packaging. If the sheets of gelatin stick, they will have a minimal contact surface allowing for separation.
But not all toilet paper is quilted - indeed there's a price premium for quiltedness. And the cheaper stuff doesn't 'stick together'...
since the purpose of quilting its actually to stick the sheets together, its probably not a good analogy. ;)
I don't believe this answer is correct.
AkashM - Sellers will use any BS they can to slap price premiums onto stuff. We cannot affirm the consequent in this case.
Shapes used to "bulk out" or prevent materials from sticking when rolled fall under a branch of mathematics developed by Sir Roger Penrose... called Penrose tiling... Sir Roger was or is in a legal dispute with Kimberly-Clarke-Scott over their use of Penrose tiling... Penrose and Pentaplex licenses it's designs to various companies to prevent materials such as stickers, paper and textiles from sticking together or jamming together because of the designs embossed on them.
That seems a plausible answer. The actual belt of the machine is stamped in a way that when it is stretched out it forms the diamond pattern. The gelatin when drying probably has air passed over it which will cause shrinkage where the mesh is as the air cannot get through the pattern of the mesh wire thus causing the shape. The gelatin would just stick to a flat metal sheet as any chef in a kitchen could tell you. Once the gelatin is moistened it reverts to it’s glue like consistency.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.069601
| 2022-02-16T03:29:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/119868",
"authors": [
"AakashM",
"Adrian Hum",
"BruceWayne",
"E R USA",
"Flydog57",
"Mindwin Remember Monica",
"Mr Shane",
"UnhandledExcepSean",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84865",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96932",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98008"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
119590
|
Can I use an immersion blender instead of a mixer to cream butter?
I have an old box of Koopman's Oud-Hollandse Appelkaneel cake mix.
The recipe calls for you to whip some butter using a mixer before adding the cake mix and eggs. Then it should be beaten some more with the mixer. Presumably, this is to include air into the mix and assist in the leavening process.
However, I don't have a mixer. I do, however, have a handheld immersion blender. Would it be possible to use thus tool for this purpose? If so, should I add a bit of full-cream milk to the butter to help it whip, since it should still blend as long as it has a fat content above 30%?
I recommend doing it by hand instead, with a balloon whisk. You'll also get a workout that way.
@FuzzyChef I don't own any whisks.
Sounds like you need a trip to the kitchen supply store.
I no longer have an immersion blender, but the one I used to have wouldn't do a very good job. It had a whisk attachment (replacing the stick part of the blender) that would have helped, but only with really soft butter.
The problem with immersion blenders and solids that stick themselves back together (like butter) is that very little actually ends up reaching the blade.
But it's worth a go: I'd try it if I had nothing else on hand, starting by softening and chopping the butter. Then I'd beat in the egg (by hand) but not yet the cake mix, and at this point really go for it with the blender. That's your best opportunity for getting some air in there. Then I'd mix in the contents of the packet by hand. As it's got raising agents in there, it's not a purely whisked cake - I'd just fold it into the beaten egg/butter mix, rather than beating.
Would adding a bit of milk help mitigate the "sticking itself back together" problem?
@nick012000 You will not succeed in whipping together milk and butter.
@Sneftel Really? Huh. I guess "Why is it possible to whip together ice cream and milk but not butter and milk" would be worth a question in it's own right.
Keep in mind where butter comes from: You whip cream until it stops being mixed together.
@nick012000 even if I thought it would work, I wouldn't add the extra liquid. That's why I'd mix the egg in early (and perhaps a little at a time. You still won't get much air in but you won't spoil the rise, and using an immersion blender to beat in the flour would end up with a sticky mess with the air knocked out of it. Now I think of it, adding just a little of the flour (etc.) with the egg might be useful
Softening the butter by leaving it out to half-melt really worked to help with the whipping with the immersion blender. I was surprised by how hot it got in my hands, though, especially when I added in the cake mix. I think I might have been pushing the limits of what it was capable of.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.070040
| 2022-01-21T08:14:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/119590",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"FuzzyChef",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"nick012000"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
119567
|
Will my expired cake mix rise?
I have a package of Koopmans Oud-Hollandse Appelkaneel Cake mix that I think my family bought from Aldi a few years back, which is well past its expiration date. I know that baking powder in cake mixes can expire over time as the acidic and basic chemicals slowly react with each other. On the ingredients list on its (Australian) English-language sticker, it states that it contains Raising Agents 450 and 500, and looking online that makes it sound like it has baking soda rather than backing powder, right? The recipe calls for the addition of a chopped apple, which I suppose might contribute the acidity for baking soda to rise; I'm planning on adding frozen mango chunks instead, since those are what I have readily on hand.
If it is baking powder, should I add some baking soda of my own, and if so, how much? A teaspoon?
However, it also calls for the 175g of butter or margarine that is added to be "whisked with a mixer until smooth and creamy", and for the resulting batter to be continued to be mixed after adding the cake mix and eggs are added to the butter. Presumably, this is also another way for air to be added to the batter. However, I don't have a mixer, just an immersion blender. Would this work? Should I add a bit of full-cream milk to the butter to make the whipping easier, since you just need 30% fat content to make it whippable?
Given the resources I have available, and the substitutions I'm planning on making, is making this cake a viable endeavor, or will I just wind up with something that's failed to rise into a proper cake?
The question linked partially answers my own question, but it doesn't address the substitution of an immersion blender for a mixer, or the ingredient substitutions.
OK, I didn't notice that you are actually asking several questions in one. I would say that "can I cream butter with an immersion blender" and "will mango pieces activate baking soda the way apple pieces would" are separably askable. A general question of "will it rise" is not very useful anyway; you'll only get guesses, and have no way of knowing whether they are true or not for your specific case, unless you bake it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.070538
| 2022-01-19T10:11:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/119567",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63870",
"nick012000",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116523
|
Can you freeze food with cream in it?
I have been told that you can't freeze meals with cream in them (soups, etc). Is that true?
Do you have a link to this advice? Basically, cream alone doesn't freeze well, but combined in a finished dish it's just fine. See https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5864/can-you-freeze-bagna-cauda-cream-basically?r=SearchResults&s=4|38.5341 [pddly, the answer doesn't answer the asked question… but it does answer yours ;))
Does this answer your question? Can you freeze bagna cauda? (cream basically)
It's safe to do, it's just a quality issue. The cream or milk may "break" once thawed, which could ruin the textures or cohesiveness of the dish. But it's not such a big deal if the dish is smooth and homogenous to start with, as you can just whisk it back together.
In the winters, we make large batches of soups that call for cream, but we omit the cream and add it back in when it's serving time.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.070725
| 2021-07-22T15:13:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116523",
"authors": [
"Juliana Karasawa Souza",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51551"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
104296
|
Can mold spread to unopened butter?
My daughter left a crockpot of food in the refrigerator for over a month. Mold was crazy bad in the crockpot. 3 packages of unopened butter were in the refrigerator also. Should they be thrown out?
How is the butter sealed? What type of packaging?
Butter is mainly fat - no nitrogen. (It is about 0.8% protein by weight.) So it is not a very nutritive environment. But its principle protection is that it is “dry”. Although it is about 16% water, that water is emulsified and therefore protected from contamination. The original wax paper wrapping, and the surrounding container, as well as the temperature of the fridge, would make it very difficult for microbial contamination or growth to occur.
Mold spores are in the air around us. Having a high concentration of mold nearby in a crockpot could increase the concentration in the fridge but there are other factors that influence whether the butter has spoiled and the butter may be unaffected. If anything concerns you and your health is at risk, when in doubt, throw it out. Here are some factors to consider
Has the manufacturer's suggested sell-by date passed?
Are there discolorations or mold on the surface if the butter?
Has the butter become soft, or hard and difficult to spread?
Does the butter smell stale, cheesy or decomposed?
Is the butter unsalted (salt acts as a preservative)?
If several of these apply in your situation, you may want to throw the butter out as it doesn’t make much sense to risk food-born illnesses.
The crockpot was in the fridge...and your points, while not without merit, are not indicators of mold contamination (with the exception of visible mold). The question is about whether mold can spread to sealed food, rather than if the butter is spoiled.
Certainly mold can spread to unopened butter (as butter is not packaged in an airtight enclosure).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.070835
| 2019-12-23T18:24:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104296",
"authors": [
"Matthew K",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80164",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
104469
|
Are oils from these spices volatile to the point they will evaporate or lose their potency when cooking a curry?
Spices like black pepper have volatile compounds such as piperine which loses potency/is lost during cooking a curry so it’s best to add it at the end.
My question is about cumin, coriander and fennel. These are spices the seeds of which contain volatile oils. It makes me think that when freshly ground and cooked in a curry due to the volatility of the oils they will evaporate or lose their potency.
Is this the case and so can we say a curry typically will have no oil and one must add it fresh at the end if one is to add oil?
There's a certain amount of tenacity apparent in your constant stream of almost identical questions, but I'm not sure there's any learning happening at the end of it. Your addendum about adding oil makes absolutely no sense at all, the rest has been asked before in different ways over the past months.
I'm not sure ‘volatile’ is the best word here. The flavor components of these spices have BPs of 150-250 C - volatile enough for steam distillation, but pretty slow to evaporate out of a pot. Also ‘oil’ is descriptive of the texture of some of the pure liquids but it's confusing in a cooking context, where the word is generally applied to triglycerides, which piperine, cymene, cuminaldehyde, linalool, etc. are not. They're quite different from triglycerides and from each other, and have a wide range of chemical and physical properties.
Also, what style of curry?
In cooking, one must understand how ingredients work, and also have in mind the desired final result. Just like many other ingredients, the form spices take (whole, cracked, ground), when they are added to a dish (beginning, middle, end...in stages), how they are treated before and during the addition (toasted, added to oil, sprinkled on at the end), all impacts the final dish. Yes, spices contain volatiles (as do other ingredients), but you will never loose all perception of them. Therefore the considerations are, do you want the spices to meld together and become the foundation of a dish? Then, add early to warm ghee or oil (which will become flavored and carry the taste and aroma). Do you want to be hit in the face with the aroma/flavor of a particular spice or herb when the plate of food is in front of you? Then add it right before serving. Often it's both, so ingredients are added at different times and in different forms. It's all about the impact you are looking for. Maybe think of ingredients like instruments in an orchestra. They can be drowned out by other things...they can be obnoxiously out of balance...or the conductor can help us make sense of the whole as a unified experience, bringing some to the foreground and keeping others in the background at just the right moments.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.071013
| 2020-01-01T10:49:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104469",
"authors": [
"RalphMudhouse",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79769"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
108406
|
How to make perfect crunchy popcorn?
I always found my popcorn a bit soggy and noticed the microwaved packets aren't. So yesterday I made a little experiment with a friend of mine.
I took popcorn kernels and microwave popcorn sets then conduct these experiments :
Microwaved popcorn (900W, 2'20'')
Air popper machine (the cheap one you find on all Chinese store)
Stovetop without oil
Stovetop with oil
Stovetop with butter
Stovetop with microwave popcorn (at this step I discovered that this kind of popcorn is completely coated with palm oil)
Air Popper machine with microwave popcorn
Here the results :
Crisp perfect
Very soggy and quite small
Burned, they didn't really popped
A bit soggy
same as 4 but with a better taste
Very soggy
Almost same as 6.
Eventually I still don't understand why I can't make popcorn as good as the one I can eat in theaters.
Any idea?
Hm, I've never had soggy popcorn with an air popper. That seems odd, since you're not adding any liquid - I'd think you wouldn't be able to get any less soggy than whatever liquid content is in the kernel itself.
The thing is the popcorn looks soft like an old popcorn you let all the night on the counter. I don't know if soggy is the right term though.
Can you define "crunchy" ? Most theater popcorn is far from being crunchy, that's why I'm asking.
Over the years, I've microwaved, air popped, and tried a pot on the stove...even tried over an open fire. Once I found the Whirley Pop, I never returned to any other method. You can't beat it. Perfect "crunchy" (maybe crisp is a better description?) popcorn every time.
Not truly and answer, but I am trying for an explanation of what likely you are seeing:
Popcorn pops because there is a small amount of water it those try kernels that when heated goes from liquid to gas and because it is contained it does so explosively. Key is getting the proper amount of heat to go boom. Too much, burned. Too fast, incomplete boom. Too little, no boom. Poor corn, be it too dry or too wet, no boom or incomplete.
Now, sogginess? Well, the boom releases that water as steam. If it gets trapped, soggy popcorn. Also, many applications as you noted use oil. Too much and soggy popcorn. Why oil? Because it helps distribute the heat more efficiently and uniformly for a better boom. Some think it also helps trap the water for a more complete explosion, I will just say maybe, but not the prime reason if so. It also flavors and helps any seasoning stick.
Air popper: I have never had soggy from it though those cheap models are notorious for uneven heating, kicking out unpopped kernels, overloading and burning, etc. I could see the soggy issue though if it is not properly exhausting the vapor especially if overloaded, but I find it odd because their claim to "fame" is specifically dry popping os that one if a bit odd.
Dry stove-top, that is usually going to burn due to uneven heat. I have heard of people being able to pop on a stove with little to no oil, but I have never seen it. Normally need oil to have a chance on the stove to get even heat.
Microwave: The pre-packaged stuff has a ton of oil. In addition, the microwave works by vibrating the water molecules, to popping corn in a way is almost what it was designed for. Know, you can also pop corn without the oil quite nicely especially with gadgets to help focus the microwaves well, but the pre-packaged bags are convenient and the companies make more selling those than the gadgets. ;) Note though the bag is vented. It is actually a key thing. Also, you typically will open the bad fairly quickly when done, which lets out the steam. If you fail to do this while still fairly hot you may find the microwave corn can get soggy too.
Key things for stovetop tends to be even heat and venting. Theaters use a larger version of a popper on which the device @moscafj mentioned is designed. Those designs stir the corn which increases the uniformity of the heating, so less chance of scorching, fewer inclomplete pops, but also they have hinged lids. This lets steam escape and is important to your experiment. Tight fitting lids on the stove equal trapped vapor which condenses and dumps water back onto the corn, instant soggy.
On popping in butter, there you are dealing with a lower smoke point so getting the right temp for popping without scorching the oil may be tough, and the butter itself will release some of its water so may produce some good tasting, but soggy mess.
I can't imagine how you made the corn (# 4) oil on stovetop soggy. When I shake mine the lid movement lets steam escape. The oil needs to be hot enough to barely smoke before putting the corn ( too hot for butter).
Alton Brown's recipe (https://youtu.be/byqaZhMTwAs) :
Take a stainless steel mixing bowl (around 6 quart size) and add 3 oz popcorn kernels and 3 tablespoons of peanut oil ( or similar). Toss in some fine salt (you can use kosher, but it's better if you grind it down smaller). Cover tightly with foil and stab the foil with a kitchen knife about 6 times or so. Continuously shake over a medium high gas stove flame until popping stops (no pops for a over 2 seconds). Keep in mind it takes a while of shaking before you'll get the first pop, this is normal. Toss in some melted butter if desired (this will make it less crunchy though).
Gives me perfect crunchy popcorn every time.
Some notes:
You can use a non gas stove but it's a bit harder.
You don't need a mixing bowl but it's better. I've done it with a stock pot however.
The kernels matter. Some brands and colors turn out much crunchier than others. Usually the standard stuff you can find at your local supermarket works fine. I've found the more exotic kernels (like a red mix) are less crunchy.
good quality corn is essential for stove top method (imo)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.071264
| 2020-05-15T18:26:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108406",
"authors": [
"Max",
"Nuclear Hoagie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80205",
"nowox"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
108259
|
Should we start making dough with water or with flour?
We have a recipe and it tells us to put X grams of flour and Y ml of water. And some of this type of recipe tells us to add flour slowly according to the consistency of the dough. Some say add water slowly.
So in the first approach, I put all the water in the bowl at first and add flour until I get the desired consistency.
In the second approach, I put all the flour in the bowl at first and then I try to obtain the desired consistency by adding water slowly.
My question is; Which approach is more correct if we make a mixture with flour and water? Does it differ ?
Thank you for your help
The best thing is to do as your recipe directs it, because there are several considerations that play together here.
First, if you have a very exact recipe where you measure each ingredient and mix together in a mixer, it doesn't matter that much. Just dump it in the mixer and turn on, making sure to scrape or rest as needed until the texture is right.
If you again have an exact recipe but are mixing by hand, I suggest that you do it flour-first, because that reduces lumps.
If you have a recipe where you are starting with one ingredient and are going to add more of the other until the desired consistency is reached, the main constraint is the yeast. If you are starting with the yeast in the flour (as is typical with dry yeast), then you should always start with the measured flour+yeast mixture and add water until ready. If your recipe has you start with the yeast in the water (needed for cake yeast, but some converted recipes also suggest it for dry types of yeast) then you should be adding flour to the water and not the other way round. Here, you can avoid the lumps problem by not dumping flour on top of the water, but using the volcano method where you add the water to a depression in a flour heap and slowly mix in more flour from the crater walls until you have it the way you want it. The volcano method works better on flat surfaces rather than bowls, you can use a baking sheet or a big baking tin to gain some control of the mess.
I was gonna add: if you don't have a bowl -> flour first (volcano method)
I have found adding flour to water results in a softer dough than if I add the same amount of water to same amount of flour. Don't understand why, but an observation.
In bread making, I doubt it matters much. Your initial step is to get the flour hydrated and begin the development of the gluten structure. You are going to be mixing and kneading (or stretching and folding), so dough will smooth out significantly after the initial mix anyway.
I'm reading some German homebaking blogs. The message there is usually to keep a bit of water back and add it gradually if needed.
Reason for this is that the flour-to-leavening-agent-ratio shall be kept constant, therefore no flour should be added.
In case of dough that is kneaded for a longer time, it is better to add all the flour right from the beginning and rather add more water later if needed.
The reason is that through the kneading the gluten structure is developed and when you add flour later in that process, the later-added part of the flour will be in a different state of this development which might lead to non-optimal results.
I don't think it matters which ingredient you add first, assuming you are mixing them thoroughly.
More important for bread making is how long the flour and water mixture sits before you proceed with the recipe. This is called "autolyse" and you add together only the flour and water (no salt, yeast, or other ingredients) and just let it rest. This hydrates the flour and begins the gluten development. Most recipes call for 30-60 minutes, I have read studies and experiments that say that longer than 60 minutes does not make a difference but that first 30-60 minutes does definitely make a difference in the texture and flavor of the resulting bread.
It is certainly easier to get a viable dough when one adds the flour to the water...Keep stirring and when the dough get manageable stop adding water. I find it much quicker and easier.
Do you mean adding water to the flour? your first sentence contradicts the second.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.071732
| 2020-05-10T10:50:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108259",
"authors": [
"Luciano",
"cbeleites",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94138",
"mynk"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
105249
|
Extremely hard layer after cooking the burger on the grill
It was the first time I tried making burgers at home. I did some research on the subject. I just put salt and pepper into the ground beef.
Then I heated the iron grill well and applied a small amount of olive oil on the hamburger patties and baked each side for 7 minutes.
I share the photos of hamburger meatballs before and after cooking.
What do you think is causing this situation?
1- Minced meat is too fat?
2- Cooking time?
3- To put olive oil on it before cooking?
4- Iron Grill?
I will be grateful if you could help me. I don't want my next attempt to end like this.
Thank you.
I am puzzled - what is wrong with your patties? They look perfectly normal, I don't see any mysterious layer.
@rumtscho There is a very hard layer. We could not eat it. It was like frying.
As an aside, seasoning and working your meat beforehand makes them come out with a more sausage-like consistency, which is generally undesirable in burgers. Source
"It was like frying." That's because they cooked in a frying pan that has a 'grill' in it. Not on a grill (AmE).
Some places advertise and sell hamburger that has other things mixed in... cheese, peppers, etc. Did you get one of those by mistake?
That looks rather like Lorne sausage. Cook on a lower temperature and turn more often? I'm not clear if you fried them (in a pan on top of the gas) or baked them (in an oven), but the latter should not have produced anything like that.
You did everything right except you overcooked your burgers. Those are relatively thin patties, they won't take 7 minutes a side on high heat, that is what caused that hard crust. I'd be cooking them 3 minutes a side at most.
A small thing but I'd suggest you replace olive oil with corn, sunflower or another high temperature oil. Olive oil will smoke at a high temperature and add off flavors. This had nothing to do with your thick crust.
Is 3 minutes enough for well cooked burgers ?
Well cooked or well done @mhendek? Well cooked means they are cooked to the satisfaction of the eaters, well done means the burger is cooked until there is no pink inside. It's not 3 minutes but 3 minutes a side, for a total of 6 minutes. For thin burgers like yours 6 minutes should be cooked through, any longer and they are likely to be dry.
@mhendek: If in doubt, use a food probe to read the temperature. Also, this is definitely an overcooked burger. I was once catering for many people on an outdoor flattop stuffed with a huge amount of meant, and all of the oil from all of the other food meant some of my burgers, located near the oil-drain, were basically deep fried. They ended up like in the image. However some people really like them :)
@Pod, I was going to mention that all the fat in the burger probably fat fried them instead of pan frying. I've seen this with fatty sausage patties, but not burgers, but I'm not a cook/chef either. That much fat should be drained off while cooking, IMO.
@Pod Deep-fried burgers don't have to be overcooked. https://firstwefeast.com/features/2016/05/regional-burgers-guide-america/deep-fried
Ground hamburger normally has so much fat in it anyway - I'd never even consider adding oil. Is this common in some areas?
@JPhi1618 I suspect it partially depends on what you buy. I can get beef with anywhere between 4 and 27% fat. OTOH if you're paying a premium for very lean beef and adding fat from somewhere else you're probably doing it wrong.
@JPhi1618, the oil in this case was a small coating on one side to give good conduction. I usually do this when pan frying burgers or steaks. It's not much, just a drip.
The problem with temperature probes when you have such thin burgers is getting an accurate reading @Bilkokuya. Getting the middle can be challenging.
No need @Bilkokuya, it's a fair comment to make and informs the answer.
It is indicated that these were 'baked' on a preheated grill-pan and likely put in a preheated oven so both sides were really cooked for 14 minutes.
I don't think so @byrdzeye, it's just a language thing. By baked I think he meant cooked or fried.
You may be right @GdD. The word grill is also used. In the UK and AUS that means the same as broiled in the US. So if you have a grill pan is it's intended use to go under the broiler? Also I don't see any 'grill' marks. They look like they were in an oven.
There was some more of the same minced meat. I did a few trials yesterday to try the comments here. I used both iron grill and granite pan. And in my experiment with a granite pan, I was able to observe the reason better.
First of all, I did not apply any olive oil to the patties. When I put the hamburger patty in the pan that I had preheated, a serious oil accumulation occurred under the meatball. And with the effect of this oil, I actually seemed to be frying. I baked each side of the hamburger patties for 3 minutes. And the result was almost like 7 minutes in the pictures. After all, my observations were as follows;
1- Minced meat was much more fatty than it should be.
2- 3-4 minutes
is ideal for a thin burger like mine.(It will be medium well or well
done)
3- Since we make hamburgers in the pan, the oil of ground beef
causing frying because it remains in the pan again. If it were made
on the barbecue, all the oil would flow down.
4- The ground beef we buy will be fatty for better taste but not as much as mine. In my
researches, it was called 20%, which is ideal for fat content. I
think my mince was around 50 percent.
Thanks everyone.
Don't put them in the oven. There's no baking supposed to be going on. You're pan-frying the meat.
Heat the grill pan to moderately hot. You'll want to see grill marks in the finished patties.
You're not making meatballs here. Do not put a ball in the grill pan and smash it down into a patty.
You'll want to avoid handling the patties as much as possible to avoid making them tough. Grab a handful of ground meat and gently flatten it out in your hands.
Making the center slightly (.25 in./a few mm) thinner than the periphery will keep the patties from swelling up in the middle.
Don't add any oil. If you use an 80/20% or 85/15% grind, that's a lot of fat to begin with. A higher fat content is not recommended. You could add a pat of butter--mostly for flavor.
You can season the patties before you cook them, but the "usual" way is to add salt/pepper in the pan while the opposite side cooks.
Gently place the patties in the pan and cook over medium-high to high heat for about three or four minutes. Flip the patties over and cook for about 3 more minutes.
That's all. No baking, no oven, no broiling. Just pan-fry on each side for around 3 minutes. The grill ridges on the pan should elevate the meat enough while it's cooking to drain off most of the fat, but you want a little bit to remain for flavor/moisture, etc.
For absolute optimal results use an outdoor grill (barbeque) with good charcoal. Pan-frying is only a "second-best" option.
Here is a very comprehensive tutorial: How To Make Burgers on the Stovetop Check out the pictures for details on making the patty, the color (fat content) of the ground meat, etc.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.072100
| 2020-02-11T07:34:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105249",
"authors": [
"Christian Legge",
"Dan Is Fiddling By Firelight",
"GdD",
"JAB",
"JPhi1618",
"James",
"Mazura",
"Pod",
"byrdzeye",
"computercarguy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37723",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42683",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54421",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75719",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9036",
"mhendek",
"pjc50",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37143
|
Is it possible to make transparent / translucent pastry?
I'm looking for something that works like pastry (malleable before baking, rigid after baking, mild unobtrusive flavour) that is transparent or translucent.
The idea is to use for topping savoury pies, where the base and sides are regular shortcrust pastry and the top is something similar but translucent, so that you can have a selection of different pies of the same size and shape on a sharing plate and people can see which is which - without leaving the top open so not exposing the contents to the elements.
Since things like glass noodles and translucent dough wrappings for Chinese dumplings exist, I'm sure it must be possible - maybe based on corn flour, or pure starch like glass noodles? Apparently translucent rice is also a thing. The closest I've found are recipes like this one for transparent Chinese dumpling dough - but these aren't very transparent and are gooier than would be ideal alongside pastry.
If there's no such thing that has an established name or recipes, it would be great to have a few basic principles on how it might work: for example, how the pure starch that glass noddles are apparently made from could be sourced and adapted to be pastry-like without losing translucency? Perhaps simply making a starch dough, glazing it with oil then baking might be enough to make it work like pastry?
Certainly it could be done with sugar. I couldn't do it, but it could be done. Actually, it could be done several ways with sugar (just don't look at me...ever).
Interesting idea! Sounds very difficult though - I think if I tried it it would turn either black or the colour of flames (most likely both). Maybe starch, oil and a tiny amount of sugar for hardening...
People who are good at it are REALLY, REALLY good at it. I mean fairytale Kingdoms and stuff. It's amazing to watch. Hmm, I somehow missed the savory pie part.
Have you worked at all with dinner plate sized, extra thin rice paper for spring rolls?
With great skill, a true artist could do what you describe with Thai/Vietnamese rice paper, the dinner plate sized, extra thin ones, like for Fresh Spring Rolls.
I will never apply for the job, I promise.
Thanks, I'll try this later and add any tips as comments (e.g. what glazings work if any). p.s. your original wording said something about nearly needing to call 911... is there anything in particular I should be wary of? Sounds like one to watch closely through the oven door... :-)
No, as a matter of fact they're not cooked. They will tangle you up good though; and tear, and stick to themselves, and stick to passing pets....
They're really not that bad, I just don't have the patience. I'm looking at a package of them right now, I wanted to confirm what they were called. Evil, evil, devil spawn things.
They get really sticky as they dry ... if I have to make a bunch of spring rolls up in advance, I set each one on an individual lettuce leaf so it can still be picked up. I'd probably try to find a way to cut them down so they only covered the top up to the crust, so you don't have issues w/ it sticking to the plate or the pies around it. (note that I'm assuming you're sealing them after they've cooked ... I have no idea if they remain transparent if baked)
I respect Jolenealaska's creative thought, but nothing truly resembling pastry is going to be translucent or transparent unless it is exceedingly thin. The structure alone will refract light, making the product opaque in the same way snow is opaque even though individual water crystals are fairly transparent, if they don't have air inclusions.
This is because any real pastry will have a complex structure of starch, fat, protein, and so on.
While I respect the idea of trying to use a very thin noodle (which is only really somewhat translucent because it is thin, much like tissue paper), that is not likely to be delicious, and will be somewhat incongruous in a western style savory pie.
Instead, I suggest you achieve your goal (making it clear which pie is which) by the more traditional means of one or more of:
Different crimping styles at the rim
Using different patterns for the steam vents
Cutting out and baking on crust garnishes in different shapes for different types of filling; you could even cut out letters
Less traditionally, at least for savory pies:
Use a lattice crust, so the filling is visible, but you still have some pastry on top
Use food coloring, or natural ingredients like beet juice or annatto to color the pastry, with different colors for each pie variation
For example, one Caribbean restaurant near me has vegetable patties (a hand pie) with pale crust, and chicken patties with a pale greeny-yellow crust (not sure what they use, probably a touch of their curry mixture), and beef patties with a richer orangish colored crust (they might have used annatto).
If you want the least obtrusive flavor, the best you can go with is thickened water.
While you can probably prepare sheets with the right hydrocolloid and lots of care and plastic foil, I would suggest choosing a thickener which thickens on cooling, and pouring the warm mixture over the pie. Arrowroot starch is frequently used in this role on fruit pies, I don't see a reason why it shouldn't work on savory pies. But if you have meat in the pie, a gelatine texture would probably feel more natural. In both cases, don't add anything to the mixture, just the thickener and water, and process in the usual way.
Rather than a sheet, you could probably just pour a gelatin mixture over it, and let it firm up ... it'd be kinda like a cross between a pie and an aspic.
@joe This is exactly what I was wanted to suggest in my answer. If my wording is unclear, I would be happy if you can edit a better formulation into my answer.
This is frequently how apricot glazes are used on things like Danish. I assume the hydrocolloid in this case would be pectin.
While it wouldn't be a pastry, per se (or at all), using discs of cast sugar might work for what you need. If you poured thin disks of cast sugar into a ring mold the size of the top of your pie, you could probably attach them with marzipan or a starch wash or something after cooking the pie. If they were thin enough, you should be able to cut through them to serve the pie (though they probably wouldn't cut neatly).
I agree with the previous answers on several other points though. You could use something akin to a Korean sweet potato noodle. They are exceptionally clear, but the gummy and chewy texture probably wouldn't do a pie any favors. Anything resembling a more traditional pastry is going to be opaque (even a single layer of phyllo dough is opaque when baked).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.072846
| 2013-09-27T09:29:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37143",
"authors": [
"Belinda Stronach spam",
"D-Cakes",
"Gabrielle Dennis",
"Janet Kidd",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Lois",
"SourDoh",
"Topper Harley",
"Will",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20456",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87269",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87270",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87277",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87281",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87321",
"rumtscho",
"user56reinstatemonica8",
"user87321"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
65652
|
Cooking with papaya seeds - what does heating them do?
I've got a bunch of papaya seeds left over from a ripe fresh papaya and I'm trying to work out what I can do with them.
Pic from Livestrong
Researching this comes up with precisely two types of page:
Hundreds of dubious articles claiming miraculous health benefits (I'm skeptical, but good to know they're edible)
Hundreds of recipes for salad dressing, based on putting them cold in vinegar. I'm not especially interested in salad dressing, but if the vinegar does anything interesting to the seeds that could be used in other ways, that would be good to know about
What effect if any does cooking them have? Are they edible cooked? Are there any particular ways of heating them or ingredients to cook them with that bring out or modify their flavour in any notable way?
Cold, they're kinda tangy, sharp, bitter, not unlike peppercorns but more bitter and maybe slightly citrus-y. They seem to get more bitter the longer they're off the fruit - after two days in the fridge my stash became obscenely bitter, just one seed and I could still taste the bitterness 5 minutes later.
Or any other methods of preparation? Does steeping in vinegar do anything interesting? Or any other liquids? Crushing, freezing? Anything?
I always personally found them inedibly bitter.
They seem to get more bitter the longer they're left - the ones I took straight off the fruit were okay, quite bitter but tolerable, but after a couple of days in the fridge they're awful, I tried one just now and they all went straight in the bin
Are these the black ones from a ripe papaya, or these from an unripe one that look like styrofoam crumbles?
@rackandboneman Ripe - they're black in a greyish moist casing, kinda like frog's eggs except the black part is much bigger. This is the closest pic I can find: http://img.aws.livestrongcdn.com/ls-1200x630/cme/cme_public_images/www_livestrong_com/photos.demandstudios.com/getty/article/217/26/124812552_XS.jpg
I can't answer what heat does to the seeds, but I know that the seeds can be used in cooking. I met a guy in Brazil who told me about drying and grinding the seeds to use as a spice. Apparently, the ground seeds can be used on all sorts of food, sort of like black pepper. The dried and ground seeds can also be used as a meat tenderizer. So, they have uses, but I wouldn't want to simply cook and eat a bunch of papaya seeds.
Wash them to remove all the orange fruit bits, then dry them thoroughly on a cookie sheet in the sun. Store as is, use by grinding to a powder that can be used like black pepper. Key ingredient in Hawaiian papaya seed dressing!
Welcome treefrog - General health and diet issues are off-topic here, so I removed that portion of your answer. If you have time, take the tour https://cooking.stackexchange.com/tour and see what this site is all about.
Link is dead, goes to a spam site. I'm hesitant to try to replace it since I never saw the original.
Clear answer: Nothing interesting food wise. I have lived in Asia between papaya trees for 10 years, and I have never seen them used. I tried drying them, brining, in vinegar, nope. They are inedible. Just like the papaya leaves. The only use is producing more papayas,
First, my 4 papaya trees are grown in volcanic ash fertilizer called AZOMITE. It makes ANY produce taste twice as good, and is fully nutritious.
I simply dried the seeds at 200 degrees for a few hours with the intention of grinding and using on salad. They didn't last that long. we ate them all.
As it’s currently written, your answer is unclear. Please [edit] to add additional details that will help others understand how this addresses the question asked. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.073444
| 2016-01-20T20:47:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65652",
"authors": [
"Arthur Kendall",
"Community",
"Debbie M.",
"Donna Aldridge",
"Gaby Bray",
"Jay",
"Melissa O'Banan",
"Noli Piñera",
"Richard Newcomb",
"Roddy of the Frozen Peas",
"Sam Green",
"Tysa Lazzeri",
"Vivian",
"carl chudley",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/-1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156951",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156952",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156953",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156955",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156960",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158254",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158255",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158282",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158799",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158924",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20456",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"mrog",
"rackandboneman",
"user56reinstatemonica8"
],
"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
}
|
68165
|
How to light this type of basic, old fashioned gas-cylinder-powered gas oven?
My rented apartment has an old rickety gas stove, fuelled by a hose connected to a gas cylinder. No electricity is used at all in any way. This is fine because in this part of West Africa we get constant electricity outages, but I can't figure out how to light the oven part.
Every guide I can find online assumes I'm trying to light a sophisticated gas cooker with a fancy feature like:
A pilot light, or some obvious recess to light first
A self-lighting spark when you push the oven dial
Some kind of electric indicator light or control system
This seems to have none of these things. It's basically just a tin box connected to a gas cylinder.
I can smell a little gas after having the gas on for a while, but no amount of using a plastic lighter near the obvious holes inside the oven actually lights anything, and I can't see any clues as to where the gas is coming from. Obviously I don't want to mess around too much.
Brand is Westpoint, it looks like it might have been made in the 1960s or 1970s, no clue about model. Here's a photo:
If you can get them "gas matches" are useful for this sort of thing. Basically a butane cigarette lighter but the flame comes out 10-20 cm from your fingers.
If you don't have long matches, and don't want to just drop them down the hole ... you can either light a wooden skewer (it helps to crush it or split it a couple of times first) ... or light a piece of strand pasta (spaghetti, linguini, etc). Both also work for gas grills that have a non-functional starter.
Back when we had one of these, we used to turn on the gas, wait for a tiny while (I seem to remember 4-5 seconds), then drop a lit match into the front center hole. That would light up the burners. I'd err on the side of too little gas until you're used to it, and it may take a few attempts
Mom was pretty good at it, but that might have been through years of practice.
This video goes through the whole process, though I could have sworn you didn't need to push down the knob
When you say side vents, do you mean the vents along the side of the base, next to the X? Or on the inside vertical walls?
My memory is of the ones on the horizontal surface along the bottom. The process in the video looks like it would match your oven, and suggests that you need to use the center hole, and a specific position. We've not had a gas oven for something like a decade tho ;p
@JourneymanGeek your mom's may not have a knob to push, but many gas stoves, and fireplaces etc that normally have a pilot light have a safety feature that shuts off the gas if the pilot light goes out. This prevents the oven from slowly filling with gas. You push the knob in while lighting the pilot until the sensor gets hot enough for it to leave the gas gate open.
@Escoce many gas stoves have that safety feature but no pilot.
@Dr.belisarius I am sure many do.
I think that's how mine works, I didn't smell gas until I tried holding the dial in. I doubt mine has anything as sophisticated as a "sensor" (no electricity whatsoever) but it could have some kind of mechanical heat-based shutoff (bimetal valve coverring, maybe?), which would be a relief! Can't test it right now as inconveniently my gas lighter has just broken and nearby shops are out of matches... will do soon!
Success! Unfortunately I lack your mother's skills, and couldn't find a way to get the timing right in the three-hand task of holding down on the dial and striking a match, but I got it lit by removing the base of the oven, lighting the distributor thing in the middle directly while holding the dial, then replacing the base
Is there a "broiler drawer" below the oven? That's the standard gas oven setup I'm familiar with (one burner, used both to heat the oven and for broiling in the drawer below the oven itself), and the pilot light is typically far back (or rarely in front) of that drawer, rather than being accessible from above. Either a "long match" or an arrangement to hold a normal match with a long handle is generally useful in lighting those.
I don't think so, there's a white panel below the door but it seems to be fixed in place, no handle, no obvious opening mechanism. Sounds a bit too sophisticated for my tin box! Good to know about for other such ovens though
Try lifting the floor of your oven, then? The two round holes in the center look like they would be for picking it up with, perhaps.
Under there there's a small area less than 10cm deep, it looks like it's for distributing gas, doesn't look like it's designed to have food in it!
I was thinking it might give better access to the pilot light...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.073882
| 2016-04-10T10:26:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68165",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Dr. belisarius",
"Ecnerwal",
"Escoce",
"Joe",
"Journeyman Geek",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20456",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"user56reinstatemonica8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
119647
|
How is Paneer Melting in Cheena Poda dessert?
In this (16:09) Video the Master Chef Chintan Pandya has made a delicious dessert "Cheena Poda" in which the cheena (Paneer) seems to melt. Which is not possible because while making paneer the whey traps the minerals, Fats and is not included in the aggregated solids which is ceasin or panner. So how paneer melts in the recipe ?
When I was younger my local restaurant made paneer that would melt. Fabulous in sag/palak. I never did ask them how they did it. Wish I had.
Hehe yeah , please ask if him if you had a chance to revisit
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.074328
| 2022-01-26T19:11:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/119647",
"authors": [
"Anand Kadhi",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97556"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
123169
|
Freezing raw pizza
I'm preparing two pizza, one for immediate consumption and the other one I want to freeze so it can be eaten next week.
Is it OK if I freeze raw pizza I.e. raw dough with all the ingredients? Or should I bake the base for a bit? Or even should I bake two pizzas and freezer one, fully baked or half baked? Pizza would be prepared from instant yeast - dry powder.
What kind of pizza are we talking about? My answer would depend on that.
@Stephie I'm preparing pizza from instant yeast 7 grams per 500g of of wheat flour and 300ml of warm water 1 teaspoon of salt 1 teaspoon of sugar to prepare two pizzas
After some teething trouble I freeze my raw (sour-)dough in a flattened ball. I no longer dust it in flour before freezing, and use a rubber spatula to help get it out of the plastic box in which I freeze it. I'd like some smaller boxes so less air goes in, but I'll work with what I've got, and those boxes stack nicely with the other meals in my freezer.
After some experimenting, defrosting in a cold part of the fridge for about 20 hours works best. And not resting the dough for too long before freezing seems to make it less sticky and easier to work.
You need to be quite generous with the flour when rolling the previously-frozen dough. This is all for a moderately thin sourdough pizza, though I have used a similar approach with my bread machine recipe using yeast; that makes quite a fluffy base.
My freezer tends to be too full to freeze pizza bases parbaked, but fitting in a box of dough is much easier.
I think this is just going to be a matter of preference and maybe a little experimentation.
You can't go wrong with partially baking first. Let it bake until just a bit past the point where it's risen and starting to brown - then let it cool - then freeze. It's what I do with bread all the time. To re-bake I would let it thaw first, then continue baking at your original temperature or maybe just a bit lower so the crust doesn't brown too much before the inside is done.
But you'll also notice that many if not most frozen pizzas are raw and go straight to the oven this way. There's no inherent reason you couldn't do this either. However I think it would be more difficult to pack and store. I would suggest using cardboard, or an appropriately sized pizza box, in either case lined with parchment, and then assembling the pizza directly on that surface. Wrap it well and obviously make sure it's flat in the freezer. It's just going to be more delicate work than par-baking because nothing will be set yet. To bake I'd follow similar directions to frozen pizza - place it directly on an oven rack without thawing first. You might have to experiment to find the best temperature and time though.
Personally I'd be surprised if you like the results from freezing it raw better than par-baking, and freezing it raw feels like a bigger pain, but if you see an advantage to it try it!
BTW I'm assuming a thin crust here. For a deep dish, sicilian, etc., you should absolutely par-bake first unless you have some kind of oven-safe disposable pan you can freeze it AND cook it in.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.074427
| 2023-01-28T12:11:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123169",
"authors": [
"Piotr Golacki",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98174"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
120030
|
Sugar-free chewy texture with a starch or hydrocolloid
I would like to create a chewy sugar-free (keto) cookie.
Which ingredient (probably a starch or hydrocolloid) can emulate the chewiness of a cookie made with brown sugar, without sugar?
I don't know the answer, but I would not expect a starch to be the answer in a Keto cookie since starches are treated the same as sugar in most low carb diets
I actually think this could be a good question, but what research have you done? I Googled chewy keto cookies just now and got multiple recipe hits. What have you tried and why were you dissatisfied with those results?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.074709
| 2022-03-04T23:12:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120030",
"authors": [
"UnhandledExcepSean",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"kitukwfyer"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
120738
|
Can one prepare yogurt in sealed glass jars?
I prepare yogurt, which I place in 200 ml jars with lug/twist off caps.
When I prepare the yogurt, the milk is first heated at 145F and cooled to about 108F before adding yogurt inoculant. The content is placed in jars for incubation, but they do not seal in the process (for obvious reasons).
To seal jars properly, they are normally submerged in boiling water with their content. In the case of yogurt though, this would probably cook the yogurt and kill off all the nice bacteria.
Is there any way to achieve sealing yogurt-filled jars without damaging the yogurt content?
What do you mean by "sealed?" Sealed for what purpose?
you're trying to can yogurt?
Right, sealed for the purpose of product integrity. Due to the vacuum, lug caps do not open without effort and there is clear evidence of it happens.
Changed tags. It is more of a packaging question than a food-preservation question.
Short answer: No. More detailed answer: strictly yes, you can seal it, but it is useless for any purpose, and specifically, it won't preserve your yogurt.
Yogurt is not preservable at home, in any way. Industrially, it is possible to produce shelf-stable yogurt-derived products, such as yogurt powder, but not completely shelf-stable yogurt.
To get a misconception out of the way: canned food is not canned only because it is sealed; in fact, your yogurt is probably sealed in the sense that there are no new microorganisms entering the jar after you have closed it. You don't actually need the strong vacuum of properly canned food to avoid this, that vacuum is more of a safety margin, and a marker of fermentation activity.
For preserving canned food, you need the full combination of:
a food that is capable of being preserved by canning. This applies to most fruits and vegetables, and, with some methods, meat.
a packaging which prevents contact of the ambient atmosphere with the food
a method for creating a temperature high enough to kill off whatever microorganisms may be present.
For all dairy, you are already outside of any possibility of home canning. There are no methods which can give you canned dairy, no matter how well you secure your packaging against air ingress.
I kept the answer of the literal question for the end, because it is likely to be uninteresting. But in principle, yes, you can seal yogurt which you are making in canning containers. I am skeptical that this will work with the screw-top jars common in Europe, but it works for certain for the old style weck jars with glass lids with separate rubber gaskets, and possibly with mason-style jars where the screw threads are not built into the actual lid.
To seal one of these glasses without heat, you have to place it into a larger container with a small hole in the lid, and use a home vacuuming device to create a vacuum in the outer container. This will also create a vacuum in the inner container, strong enough to seal it airtight. It is a neat trick to use with things like spices, to prolong their freshness. But it is not a preservation technique.
Thanks. As much as the first part of your answer was very interesting and clarified some points I was missing, it is the second part of the answer I was looking for. In fact, I was not so much interested in the preservation of the yogurt (it being dairy product with active micro-organisms) but really I was interesting in having the jar seal tightly using a method that would not damage the yogurt. So perhaps the vacuum is an option but I doubt about the lugs caps working along this process.
@neydroydrec if what you need is for your yogurt not to leak, then the easiest way is to ferment it in a leak-proof container. I doubt that there is a way to make twist-off glasses leak proof, and if somebody comes up with an idea, it will likely be quite a hassle. Usually, using the right tool for the job is the best way to go.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.074803
| 2022-06-02T12:28:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120738",
"authors": [
"Esther",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98459",
"moscafj",
"neydroydrec",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19160
|
What does "bring to a simmer" mean?
First, a confession: I work in software, so I'm probably paying way too much attention to the state of liquid that is "a simmer". That written, I love to cook, and no recipe direction gives me more confusion, sadness, and googling than "bring to a simmer". Accept no substitute. I find this to be the most vague direction in all of culinary science, and it drives what's left of my organized mind insane.
So here's the setting. I'm making vichyssoise, because I'm intrigued by the possibility of making a dish that has no color at all. I've been instructed to "bring to a boil and simmer the soup for 35 minutes."
The internet is filled with unsatisfying and at times contradictory answers. My research yields a few prototypical examples:
"Simmer" means "low or off position," suggesting basically no heat at all.
To "simmer" is to heat to a temperature point just off boiling, generally acknowledged as somewhere around 95 degrees C or something like 195 degrees F.
"Simmer" is something like a "soft boil," a vague state that appears to be between "not bubbling" and "roiling", but which by definition must boil in some way, since you know, it's bubbling.
Each of these examples mean fundamentally different things. As far as I can tell, a "simmer" is a phase transition whereby the suspension in question, whatever the soup, sauce, or solid (apparently you "simmer" bratwurst, you never boil it) may be, cooks in a way that only years of experience or training can identify. Hence, my question:
What does "simmer" mean? Does it differ per recipe or is it universally defined?
EDIT: Did a bad copy/paste job from another window.
Honestly, this is pretty clearly explained by Wikipedia so I'm not really sure where you looked. It could not possibly be simpler: bring to a boil then turn the temperature down to just above where the bubbles stop.
"Everything you wanted to know about boiling water": http://www.seriouseats.com/2010/08/how-to-boil-water-faster-simmer-temperatures.html
Adding to the perfect link @rumtscho posted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpIrMRBEoLo for moving examples
Personally, I would argue that 2 and 3 are actually the same, and they are your answer.
If you heat a pan of water you'll notice the bubbles forming before the water is actually boiling, hence the talk of between not bubbling and full on roiling.
Also, when you're making your soup, it isn't pure water, so the boiling temp will not be a perfect 100 degrees C in any case.
So, I would say, that simmering is when you keep it just under a full boil. Watch what you're cooking, there should be gentle movement, but not a full roiling pan of whatever it is you're cooking.
To get something simmering away, you need to bring up to a full boil, then reduce the heat until you're getting movement, but not full bubbling.
So, this suggests a fundamental misunderstanding in my definition of "boil". Is not the point at which water bubbles its boiling point? Is it not boiling then? There's a "soft boil" and there's a "roiling boil". I haven't actually broken out the thermometer but I suspect the temperature is effectively the same.
@ChristopherTiwald: See At what point is water considered "at a boil?" which you actually quoted in your question. A few bubbles is not a boil. Boiling means that all of the water is at 100° C (adjusted for altitude/purity/etc.). If you measure the water temperature you'll see that the first bubbles start to form at a much lower temperature than that.
@Alex: When simmering, do you typically have to keep the cover on or not?
@WadihM. - I don't think it matters for the definition, and depends on the disk. eg. rice is cooked lid on at a simmer, whereas if you're reducing a stew you'd leave it open.
Colloquially, simmer means to maintain a liquid at a temperature where relatively few, small vapor bubbles form, while boil means to maintain a liquid at a temperature where relatively many, large vapor bubbles form.
If the liquid is being stirred, the temperature of the liquid will be at its boiling point (100°C for distilled water, depending on atmospheric conditions) regardless of whether it is simmering or boiling. If the liquid is not being stirred, a liquid that appears to be simmering may have reached its boiling point near the heat source, causing vapor bubbles to form, but may not have reached its boiling point distal to the heat source. Thus the average temperature of the liquid may be below the boiling point.
Practically, food in a liquid that is simmering will be cooked at the same temperature or near the same temperature as food in a liquid that is boiling. Adding more heat to a liquid at its boiling point will not increase the liquid's temperature, but will increase the rate of vaporization, and hence the number and size of bubbles (at an extreme, detonating an atomic bomb next to your stove would cause the liquid (among other things) to essentially instantaneously vaporize). This leads to two differences in the cooking methods:
A boiling liquid will reduce at a faster rate than a simmering liquid. If you are trying to reduce the liquid's volume, boiling may be preferred. If not, simmering may be preferred.
The larger and more numerous bubbles of a boiling liquid can physically harm delicate food items. Delicate noodles and vegetables may be more damaged in a boiling liquid than in a simmering liquid. Potatoes are less prone to such damage.
Returning to the three potential definitions that your research found:
"Simmer means low or off position" - This statement is false, but is derived from common labeling on stove ranges. On some ranges, the temperature dials will be labelled 'simmer' at their lowest setting. This should be thought of as 'maintain simmer'. The idea is that after a liquid is brought to an obvious boil, the temperature is at its boiling point. By turning the heat off, energy is lost as the liquid vaporizes and escapes into the atmosphere, causing the temperature of the liquid to gradually fall below its boiling point. By maintaining a minimal amount of heat at the lowest 'simmer' setting, the energy lost through vaporization can be replaced, maintaining the liquid at its boiling point. In my experience, this tends to work well for liquids in a pot with a small surface area. However, for liquids in pots with a large surface area, significant heat is also lost through radiation, and I'll have to turn the dial up to the '1' or '2' setting to maintain the boiling point.
"To simmer is to heat to a temperature point just off boiling, generally acknowledged as somewhere around 95 degrees C or something like 195 degrees F." - This statement is generally true. As noted above, if vapor bubbles are forming in a liquid, at least part of it is at its boiling point. So, it is possible for the bottom of a pot of water to reach 100°C while the top of the pot is only 90°C, and perhaps the average temperature of the entire pot of water is around 95°C. Stirring the water distributes the heat evenly, and a simmering, stirred pot of water will be uniformly at 100°C.
"'Simmer' is something like a 'soft boil', a vague state that appears to be between 'not bubbling' and 'roiling', but which by definition must boil in some way, since you know, it's bubbling." - I think this is mostly in line with how I have described the difference between simmering and boiling above.
I would casually define the two terms as follows:
To simmer is to add the minimal amount of energy to maintain a liquid at its boiling point, resulting in few, relatively small vapor bubbles.
To boil is to add additional energy to a liquid that is already at its boiling point, resulting in many, relatively large vapor bubbles.
To learn about the science behind cooking, I recommend Harold McGee's On Food and Cooking: The Science and Lore of the Kitchen.
Take a look at a phase transition diagram for water:
The important idea contained in the chart is that in order to get water (or any material, really) to switch from one phase to another (e.g. liquid to gas, or gas to liquid) you have to add or remove energy. If you have a beaker of pure water at exactly 100°C, the liquid water doesn't all just explode into water vapor at the same time -- it takes the addition of extra energy just to switch from liquid to gas.
The difference between a simmer and a hard boil is the rate at which the liquid is changing phase from liquid to gas. If you have a pot of liquid at the boiling point (whatever that temperature is for the liquid in question) and you add more heat quickly, such as with a burner set to the highest setting, you'll get lots of bubbles and a "hard boil" because the liquid is changing phase rapidly. If you add heat slowly, as a burner set to low does, then you get just a few bubbles because the liquid changes phase slowly and that's what simmering is. The temperature of the liquid is the same in both cases, it's just the rate of phase change that's different.
I would go with this answer from America's Test Kitchen. (A decent thermometer helps.)
The difference between simmering and boiling water can mean the difference between a chunky vegetable soup and a bowl of mush. Water reaches its boiling point and starts to evaporate at 212 degrees F, while a simmer is generally between 185 and 205 degrees. If bubbles aggressively break the surface of the water, it's boiling; if the bubbles are smaller and gentler, it’s simmering.
It is very simple. A simmer is when the liquid at the very of the bottom of pan boils, but not all the liquid. You get little bubbles, no roil.
I think that the term is usually used like, eg "bring to a boil then simmer for 5 minutes" would be, when you boil something you would normally do it on high heat...but after the ingredients are put in the pot, depending on the food you would sometimes keep the fire burning strong "boil", or "simmer" it at low heat. So the food still cooks but the liquid does not evaporate as speedily. So if you are following a recipe where it says to simmer for 10 minutes, but you keep the pot a full boil, then a lot of the liquid would evaporate resulting in a different then "recipe ideal" flavor, consistency turn out.
More than that, a boil is hotter than a simmer, so you may also wind up with overcooked food. Its also less gentle, so that may destroy delicate items.
@derobert: That's not true. The water temperature while simmering and boiling are both the same at 100°C. Vigorously boiling water is not hotter than a gently simmering water; the only difference between boiling and simmering is the rate at which the water evaporates and the amount of internal movement due to the bubbles. Generally, you won't overcook by boiling instead simmering, but you may end up with incorrect thickness of the soup or the physical movement of the bubbles may destroy soft foods.
Simmering at 195-205 degrees f. Or 95-97 degrees c. That's at sealevel. Increase the temp. by one degree f. for every 1000 ft below sealevel or decrease one degree f. for every 1000 ft. above sealevel. Thats what I've done for 70 years and it works.
I have a brand new Kitchenaid cook top with a simmer function. According to their service department simmer is 110 F.
110°F is on the hot end of lukewarm in my experience -- are you sure they didn't mean °C?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.075264
| 2011-11-27T01:25:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19160",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Alex",
"Christopher",
"Erica",
"Henrique M.",
"Lie Ryan",
"Mol Olsson",
"Silent-Bob",
"Wadih M.",
"Wendy",
"bob0the0mighty",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1761",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2654",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41645",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41648",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41657",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41696",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64821",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8107",
"rumtscho",
"user41649"
],
"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
}
|
121522
|
Likely cause and virulence of black spots inside outwardly unmarked broccoli
This morning, I purchased a bag of “organic,” pre-chopped, pre-washed broccoli. Individual pieces comprised less than an inch of stalk with attached branches and florettes. I tossed the bag and transferred the broccoli to a Tupperware-like storage bowl as soon as I got home (about half an hour after removing the bag from the store’s open-air vegetable cooling section). The broccoli showed no external sign of spotting, yellowing or bruising.
A few hours later, I removed five pieces from the bowl, washed them and cut them up. The inside of the first four pieces looked as pristine as the outside; the fifth, however, showed a few black spots on the inside of the stem and lower part of the branches (see image). The flesh around these spots was not unusually soft, discolored, or mottled. The flip side of this small stalk showed no black spots.
Another post to this forum (Are those black spots on the inside of kaki safe to eat?) asked about a similar situation with kaki (persimmon). Responses suggested that inner discoloration was not unusual for this fruit and did not render it unsafe. (Oxidation was suggested as a possible cause, which seemed a bit odd given the fruit’s moderate acidity.)
There are sufficient differences between broccoli and kaki that I won’t generalize from this response to my situation. In addition, the kaki discoloration shown in an image from the OP was diffuse—-not concentrated into distinct spots.
My best guess is that the spots on the inside of my broccoli reflect mold. But as this is the first time I’ve purchased pre-cut broccoli, I don’t know how likely that is nor whether such spots are commonplace for precut vegetables. I’m also curious about the mechanism by which mold could form on the inside of the plant but not on the outside.
I hope that someone with knowledge about broccoli can weigh in on the likely cause of these interior black spots. If the most likely cause is mold, then knowing whether there’s a strain of mold that’s particularly likely to be the culprit would be helpful. The Holy Grail answer, of course, would include information on the likely virulence and spread of the substance, since I munched on several unblemished pieces of the broccoli before I encountered the piece with spots. Thanks in advance for any input!
That could be mold, or it could be a tunnel left by an insect or slug pest. Can't tell from the picture.
Chance of virulence is very low if it is a plant pathogen. I'd suspect a stem-rot of some sort or perhaps soft rot. You might get a better/quicker answer if you requested migration to the biology SE.
I've seen what looks to be the same on the insides of stems of supermarket, non-organic, not-pre-cut broccoli, generally after it's been in the fridge for a while. That doesn't rule either oxidation or some kind of rotting out, but this isn't some unusual behaviour. I guess you just normally eat your broccoli fast enough that it doesn't develop.
090422 Thanks to everyone who has weighed in. I really wish that I could assign equal scores to all of your answers, as they’ve all been helpful.
That is more likely than not a hole left by a slug or insect.
Densely packed broccoli floral heads (as well as cauliflower) supply a protective environment for slugs and insects that want a little edible home base. As such, it's fairly common to find pest burrows in organic broccoli -- sometimes with pests included!
It's harmless but possibly bad-tasting, just cut out the discolored parts.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.076085
| 2022-08-31T17:42:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121522",
"authors": [
"Cyclone93",
"FuzzyChef",
"bob1",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100664",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
108742
|
When we go to the butcher's shop, which color meat should we choose? Cherry-red or brownish-red?
When we go to the butcher's shop, we see cherry-red and brownish-red meat in the cooler. I know that change in color alone does not mean the product is spoiled. Color changes are normal for fresh product. USDA says "When exposed to air, myoglobin forms the pigment, oxymyoglobin, which gives meat a pleasingly cherry-red color."
The main issues I wonder are these;
1- When you go to the butcher shop and see 2 different colors from the same meat in the cooler, which color meat should we prefer? Cherry-red or brownish-red? Do these meats have any advantage over each other?
2- Can we say that brownish-red meat is better rested than cherry-red meat? Or is this just about oxygen contact?
Thanks
Have a look at "dry aged beef", a technique to break down the connective tissue within the meat, and that change the color as a side effect.
The color of beef and other meats is actually a pretty big topic. It is influenced by the animal's diet, the particular breed, how much the muscle was worked, how much the meat has been exposed to oxygen, and how fresh it is. The USDA and other agencies put out articles about it, and it's widely debated which is "better".
There are some stores that will intentionally keep meet away from oxygen until it is displayed and then introduce oxygen to have the meat "bloom" so it looks particularly red, but this reduces its shelf life. It would actually be better to buy beef that has not bloomed and is more purple in color because it's likely to be fresher.
Another aspect for beef is the fat. Studies have shown that grass-fed and free range beef has higher nutrients (which is why you see so many "grass fed" labels), and this causes the fat to take on a yellow color. This meat can have a much stronger flavor, and is sometimes gamier and a little tougher, even though it is more nutritious. I prefer this kind of meat but some people don't.
I have learned to pick meat based on its appearance and the color is just part of it. You learn to determine what looks fresh and does not, it's the color but also the sheen, how well it "stands up", is it flopping or falling apart, is there any kind of sheen on it. There is a difference between the gray color you get from oxidation and the beginning of spoilage, and naturally darker colors of fresh meat. I will sometimes have the butcher flip it over so I can see both sides, they will of course put it in the case with the best side showing and if it's been sitting a while the underside may show that it is gray and starting to lose its freshness. I hate it when I buy a pre-packaged steak that looks good and bring it home and flip it over and it looks like it's several days old.
As already noted, the "red"/"not red" distinction in and of itself isn't very useful, because high quality beef that has not been exposed to air will be "not red", while old, going-bad beef will also be "not red", as will properly dry-aged beef. Without a lexicon of more fine-grained descriptions of color and other characteristics of appearance, it's not possible to say in any sort of reliable, useful way how a "not red" cut of beef differs from a "red" cut.
As a general rule, I'd prefer "fresh-looking, not-red" beef over beef that has been artificially brightened with exposure to air. But neither seem particularly problematic to me. The freshness is much more important than the exact color.
More to the point: if you are using a butcher where you have any question at all about whether they'd sell you a piece of beef that isn't perfectly fresh, or they aren't willing or able to directly and accurately answer your question about why one piece is bright red while another is not and which one you should prefer (if either), you're probably at the wrong butcher.
In other words, find a good butcher, and they will be infinitely better at answering a question like the one you've asked here than we ever possibly could.
Unfortunately, in this day and age of supermarket meat cases, the concept of having trust in your retailer seems to have been lost. But there still are highly professional, customer-oriented butchers out there; it's even possible to find them at grocery stores, now and then. It's worth seeking those butchers out and giving them all of your meat-purchasing business.
With a butcher you can trust in your corner, you will over time learn first-hand what makes for a good, fresh cut of meat, and will be able to distinguish yourself between the various examples of "not red" and what they mean in terms of the quality of the cut.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.076384
| 2020-05-30T12:01:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108742",
"authors": [
"Candid Moe",
"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
}
|
104397
|
Flour/Instant Dry Yeast Ratio in Thin Pizza Dough
I researched this question before asking, but I could not find a clear information. I'm sorry if I missed it.
I want to make pizza from a leavened dough. I will use instant dry yeast. There are lots of pizza recipes. Is there a ratio for flour / yeast when making pizza dough? Of course, this will vary according to the type of flour. We can talk about bread flour.For example, X grams of instant yeast is used for each cup of flour.
Some sources say that you can use instant yeast up to 0.5% of the amount of flour. Can we make such a generalization?
There are many styles of pizza. Some are thick crusted and would require more yeast, some are thin. Which style are you interested in making? Neapolitan? Sicilian? Chicago-style pan pizza?
@moscafj Classic thin pizza. I do not have detail about pizza types
If you want a consistent recipe, weigh the flour, don't measure it by using cups, whose contents can vary significantly from one time to the next.
Pizza dough is basically a bread. So, like other bread formulas, can be developed and expressed using a bakers percentage. For a Napolitan pizza most pizzaiolos use .1 to .5 percent yeast. This is the percentage as compared to the total amount of flour (usually tipo "OO" for this style). So, your initial research is a good starting point. You will have to adjust for local conditions (and ingredients) from there. This might also help you. He makes use of fresh yeast, so that is likely why his percentage is on the lower end.
I agree that there is a range. It is even wider than what you state - I have seen recipes with up to 2% dry yeast. Yes, I know that the high numbers are frowned upon in some popular sources, but they are nevertheless widespread. So I would say that anything between 0.1% and 2% is normal.
No, you can't make such a generalization. There are many possible ratios, and they interact with the ratio of the other ingredients and with the process used to make the pizza. That's exactly why have recipes: each recipe is a combination of ratios and process that work well together.
If you want to make a pizza, your chances for success are highest if you follow a recipe literally, without trying to second-guess it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.076750
| 2019-12-27T12:28:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104397",
"authors": [
"Ray Butterworth",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80212",
"mhendek",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
126704
|
How is this "bread" puffing up without yeast or baking soda?
I have seen versions of the recipe in this video- the recipe is just flour, water, and fat (looks like a crepe) but it appears to puff up like a tortilla/paratha. See 2:30
I have never been able to make it bubble up like in the video.
I don't want to steal view from the youtuber but I think I should post the ingredients for users who don't want to open a youtube link just mix the following;
✤ Ingredients (makes 6)
200g All-purpose flour
3g (1tsp) Salt
3g (1tsp) Sugar
10g (1Tbsp) Melted unsalted butter
18g (1Tbsp) Minced garlic
25g (2.5Tbsp) Chopped green onion
380ml Water
In my experience it doesn't really matter whether it puffs up like that or not. All that puff disappears as it cools down anyway, and the end product is all that matters. If your bread tastes good then don't worry about that puff.
@JackAidley as a side, yes, but if you want to fill it like pitta, you do want one big bubble
@ChrisH Sure, but the style of bread in that video is not one that you stuff.
@JackAidley it's not the sort you stuff. Others might, if it formed a pocket; I might depending on what I was having with it
@JackAidley I have never been able to make it puff up like in the video but I have seen other videos that managed to make it puff. The bread does taste good- basically a thick crepe. But I was curious why mine never puffed up...
One word: Steam.
This is a rather liquid batter, so during the cooking process, the water evaporates and generates a generous amount of steam. When the pancake/flatbread outside has set, the steam has no way to escape, and thus puffs up the bread and creates first multiple pockets, that the cook then gently taps to join into one or a few large ones.
The “trick” is to get the outside set early on, to trap lots of steam. In the video, the cook starts at medium-low and turns as early as possible (-> closed skin), then increases the heat (-> steam & puffing up).
The trick might well lead to needing a hot pan, to seal the first underside, then an early flip before the middle gets too hot, and possibly a second flip to finish off that first sealed face. You'll need to experiment, but a hotter pan would be a good place to start
I will have to try to experiment with the heat more I guess, but every time I tried to make it, it just turned into a thick crepe. Still quite good, but I never managed to get any layering.
Try it in a hot oven. Either as hot as yours goes, or a hot as you are comfortable making yours go (and beware of using non-stick pans that either won't go that hot, or that set a limit lower than the oven's maximum temp) no flip and both sides get a skin.
Getting this to work can take a bit of practice. The way it puffs up in the video looks very similar to when I make pita bread or tortillas using a cast iron skillet. The technique I use is based on Melissa Guerra's instructions in Dishes from the Wild Horse Desert for tortillas; the full passage is too long to quote here, but the essence is that you get the skillet very hot, then put the flatbread on it for a short period of time to "seal" (e.g. 20 s.), then flip, and when you see brown dots forming on the underside (eg. 2 m.), flip it again. It will poof. Get it good and poofed; done.
@Ecnerwal flatbreads are why I bought one of my enamelled cast iron pans (oven or hob). But in the oven a pizza stone is another option
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.077203
| 2024-02-19T16:19:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/126704",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Ecnerwal",
"Jack Aidley",
"Zoë Sparks",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105653",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52880",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80780",
"ptr64"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113687
|
Are there any health risks when making vegetable stock from kitchen leftovers?
I have seen, that many people use kitchen scraps for making broth (eg. onion root and scraps) or that they just crush garlic, but still keep it in its skin or that people even do not peel carrots.
I am using slow cooking, but when I would be using these 'leftovers', is not there a risk of bacteria (from garlic skin maybe)?
Is it recommended to bring it to boil every time for a while? And even if it is boiled, there can still be toxins, that do not breakdown by boiling.
So is there any advice concerning that?
Is there a procedure, that should always be taken into consideration?
Are you planning on canning the vegetable stock, so it's sitting for a long time at room temperature, or refrigerating it quickly and using it up within a few days?
Simple washing (for carrots, or veg. you might peel) is fine, if you don't want to peel. There is no problem using root vegetables without peeling either. Stocks are typically brought to a simmer. So, you easily mitigate any bacterial concerns. Botulism toxins form in an anaerobic environment. So, you don't really have to worry about using fresh, even unpeeled, root vegetables. Of course, you need to adhere to general food safety, and have an awareness of "the danger zone." So your stock needs to at least cook above 140F (60C), and then be cooled below 40F (4C) with two hours of completion.
Thanks for detailed answer. But is garlic growth environment always considerable as aerobic? I have read, that it can be caused by garlic in oil and that ground usually contains at least some air, but is it then ok to use garlic scraps/skins?
Anaerobic environments lack access to free oxygen. That is why garlic stored in oil, or improperly canned food can be environments that support the development of botulism toxins. Fresh garlic, stored normally, typically is not a problem in this regard.
The safety of what you call "leftovers" is exactly the same as the safety of the vegetables they came from (assuming you store them under equal conditions after the vegetable is cut up into leftovers and main part). If you can eat the one, you can eat the other.
The whole idea that the leftovers are inedible is also strictly untrue. I had to smirk at "people even do not peel carrots" - I don't peel my carrots in general, not for broth and not when eating them raw. People peel vegetables for a variety of reasons, but "the skin is full of bacteria and the inside is pure and untainted" is not one of them.
For the rest of your concerns and ideas, it would be probably good to read our general information on the topic how food safety works: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/tags/food-safety/info. There we have invested some effort to explain the basics of how food safety works (and how it doesn't) and it covers a lot of the information first-time askers don't yet know.
Not quite true ... most people don't eat the skins or roots of onions and garlic.
@Joe indeed they don't - and if they suddenly decide to eat them anyway, they won't keel over from a bacterial infection.
I peel my root vegetables in order to find bruises or rot that might otherwise be hidden by the peel.
OK, I get that there are more reasons for peeling than I mentioned at first. As listing them all seems quite a bit of a tangent, I changed the sentence, hoping that now the connection to the rest of the answer is clearer.
I live in the UK and frequently don't peel a lot of my veg, just take off the outside of things like brussel sprouts and cabbages and cut any bad bits off root vegetables etc.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.077630
| 2021-01-10T17:58:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113687",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Martin Melichar",
"csk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85773",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
105486
|
Why is my dry rub almost tasteless when the meat comes off the smoker?
I have a very good dry rub that imparts an excellent flavor to pork, chicken and fish. It is pungent to the nose when in the bottle and is always made fresh. It is applied liberally, covering the surface of the meat being smoked. The situation is this: I apply the rub approx. an hour prior to cooking. This allows me time to get my charcoal heated and prepare my smoker. The smoker is kept at a constant 200-225 degrees and I use various types of wood (oak, hickory, maple, pecan) depending on the type of meat and flavor desired. When the meat is ready to come off the smoker I always try a small portion at that time and I find that the rub is almost flavorless, however if I allow the meat to cool down considerably the flavor begins to assert itself. My usual method is to cook the day before, put the smoked meats in the fridge in either a plastic storage bag or wrapped in foil, place the meats in foil pans, covered, and reheat the next day for 1.5 to 2 hours at 200 degrees, either in the oven or on the smoker. The flavor is magnificent and the aroma is to die for! I am just curious as to why the rub flavors are absent right out of the smoker. Thanks for your input.
Interesting question! The flavors cannot be absent, otherwise they wouldn't be there later. I suspect this is about smell and not taste, but I don't have an answer.
Hmmm, this is definitely about smell - what most consider taste, is actually part of the sense of smell - the volatiles coming off food working their way to the back of the nasal cavity, where the smell receptors are. I wonder if it is about availability of volatiles - the hot smoked has come off ~6h of having volatiles evaporated, so those outer ones are lost, but the reheat has had only ~2h.
Thanks guys, I appreciate the input. If anyone is interested I will offer to ship a 2 oz. size sample of my rub for you to try if you would be willing to do so if it is ok with the site rules. I can provide my email address so you can contact me or you can reach me on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/john.mcgowan.9883739
Do you just sprinkle the dry rub over the meat and just throw it in the oven straight away? or let it marinate for few minutes?
I let the meat sweat a little and let it take in the spices into it. and surely I make cuts and incisions for the spices to get in the meat.
and there is old saying by my grans you heat the spices too much you lose aroma. so use the rub sparingly few times during cooking.
Thanks Ahmad, I usually apply the rub about an hour prior to cooking. I am going to try an idea I read about in which the rub is applied the day before, the meat is wrapped and refrigerated and allowed to warm up for about 30 min prior to cooking. Perhaps this will make a bit of a difference.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.077963
| 2020-02-24T17:07:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105486",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"John McGowan",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81309"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
33812
|
Why didn't my beer cake cook properly?
I have a beer cake recipe which I've successfully cooked once. Since then, I've had a new oven and just tried to bake it again. It wasn't entirely successful.
It's baked in a 10", round, deep tin. The base and sides were brown and a bit 'bendy'. The edge of the top had foamed up and then crusted off. The topping had crisped off properly. The middle was nearly cooked and as you moved out towards the edge it seemed to get more cooked until about one-and-a-half inches from the edge when it was suddenly quite soggy. So there is a ring of partially cooked cake-mix just before the outer crust. I've done a picture of a cut through the middle of the cake (I'm a marginally better cook than I am an artist):
I cooked it 20°C below the recommended 180°C (350°F) because I was using the fan. I put it on the middle shelf of the oven.
It was supposed to be cooked for 1hr 50 mins but after that long a skewer stuck into the middle was sticky so I stuck it back for another 20 mins. The skewer was still a bit sticky but not as much and, as the outside was looking like it would soon burn, I risked it and took it out. A bit longer might've cooked the middle better but what about the rest?
Next time, should I:
Stick to the recommended temperature? Go lower still, or higher?
Try cooking it on a higher shelf? Or a lower one?
Not use the fan?
Sing to it, shout at it or ignore it and hope it behaves?
Something else?
And, obviosuly, poke the skewer in all over, not just the middle, and trust it.
Just a small tip: if you want to put something longer in the oven, but the surface is becoming too dark, put some aluminium foil on top.
Turning down the temperature by 20C was a good idea because of the fan, however it may be too much in your oven's case as it sounds like the temperature was a bit too low.
What likely happened was that the fan blowing over the center of the bread cooked the center first, but the fan didn't blow on the sides of the bread as much. This has happened to me when I'm using a high sided baking tin where the bread was not up to the top. I find when baking breads and cakes that the fan tends to char the outside of things even if I turn it down, and then the inside doesn't cook so well, so I usually leave the fan off. I suggest you try the recommended temperature with the fan off and see how that works.
Agree with the first paragraph especially. If you do use the fan, try turning it down more like 10 C, not 20.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.078229
| 2013-04-28T19:41:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33812",
"authors": [
"Ian Hoe Yun",
"John Schultz",
"Liz",
"Michael Natkin",
"Mien",
"Mike Arcz Curzlead",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78534"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
33234
|
How long / to what temperature should I let meat rest?
It has been made abundantly clear to me that I should let meat rest after it has been cooked.
Once the meat is resting should I time the duration of the rest or measure the temperature of the cooling meat? And why?
The resting period is not generally done by an absolute temperature—you would have measured for (near) your target temperature before before taking the piece out of the oven or off the griddle or whatever.
Traditionally, it should be proportional to the size of the cut or roast.
5-10 minutes is good for a steak or individual chicken pieces, depending on their thickness
Medium size roasts and smaller poultry, say 10-15 minutes
Large roasts and large poultry (like a turkey), up to 30 minutes.
If you do want to measure by temperature for more precise results, Kenji Alt of Serious Eats recommends based on practical experimentation, for steaks:
Ideally, no matter how well-done you've cooked your meat, you want to
allow it to cool down until the very center has reached 120°F (49°C).
At this stage, the muscle fibers have relaxed enough that you should
have no problem with losing juices.
He also reviews some of the science, and various explanations for why the resting works.
Cook's Illustrated's Americas Test Kitchen performed an experiment with several roasted pork loins, cutting them with no resting, or resting of 10, 20, 30, and 40 minutes. They found that even a 10 minute rest cut down on juices expressed by 60% compared to the unrested roast. They found far less difference in the roasts that were rested for longer periods, although there was continued improvement in the juice retention. They summarize (original emphasis):
So what to do? Curb your enthusiasm and let your meat rest. But not
for too long. The most dramatic decrease in moisture loss for these
pork loins took place during the first 10 minutes of rest. Additional
time helps—but not if that means your dinner will be cold. If you’re
cooking a big roast, you can wait longer—about 30 minutes. Thin steaks
should only wait 5 to 10 minutes before you dig in.
This shows that the traditional advise on resting times is actually fairly effective.
Note: Thanks to Jefromi for sharing this reference.
With respect to what happens if you rest too long or too short, this America's Test Kitchen experiment is pretty cool.
nice reference, @jefromi I may edit that in later when i get a chance, unless you want to add a 2nd answer
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.078472
| 2013-04-04T16:59:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33234",
"authors": [
"April koster",
"Cascabel",
"Genome",
"Gloria Sambito-Gallant",
"Greatcook",
"IronEagle",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"furiex",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76987",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76988",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76989",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76991",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77003"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
105734
|
Placing a steel disk inside a non-ferrous pan using an inductive stove
I have an inductive stove, and some very large pots that don't work on the stove. It seems that the material is invisible to the induction coil, and if I were to place a steel disk inside the pot, then that steel disk would act as a heating element. Would this work?
This would be for liquids, boiling large amounts of mostly water (bone broths, beer, etc.), so the cooking surface isn't really a factor.
edit: The stainless pots I'm using are quite thin. I have tried placing them on a cast iron skillet similar to the adapter idea, but that doesn't work well at all. I am hoping the disk would heat, and being inside the pot, would be much more efficient. I could also test with some generic bits of steel I can find. I thought I'd ask first.
If you have a cast iron pan that will fit the pots you want, put the pot in the pan and use the induction stove. Used this trick in a Tokyo AirBNB to use my aluminum Bialetti coffee maker.
It would not work
As Benjamin Kuykendall stated, you may place magnetic iron or steel under the pan. I will tell you why placing it in the pan won't work.
Induction
As the name states, induction cooking works through induction: The stove runs an alternating current through a coil, producing a changing magnetic field. This changing magnetic field then induces a current in anything conductive placed in it.
Conduction
What happens when you place an aluminium or copper pan on top of the stove? A current will be induced in them, but they are very good conductors, and pans are much thicker than the copper in the coils, so not a whole lot would happen. The stove would likely notice that little energy is being absorbed from the magnetic field, complain and turn the stove off.
Impedance
So what is the difference with iron? Well, iron is not as good a conductor as copper or aluminium, but it's not that bad. The thing is though, iron is magnetic, and resists the magnetic field from the stove. This means that all the current is confined to the very surface of the iron, greatly increasing the current density, and therefore the power dissipated.
You can tell that this is the reason by finding a non-magnetic stainless steel pan and trying it. It won't work. (it's the nickel in the alloy that changes the crystal structure, making it non-ferromagnetic)
So what happens?
When you place the steel under the pan, the steel acts as usual, confining the current and heating up.
When you place the steel in the pan, the entire pan between the steel and the coil will happily conduct the current, and heat up less than the coil under the stovetop.
Other tricks
So, the reason that iron works is that the current is confined to a small thickness of the metal. Can we use this in other ways?
Foil
Aluminium foil is very thin, so it doesn't matter whether the material conducts well. A strategically placed piece of aluminium foil can absorb all that energy, melt, and totally ruin your induction stove. Don't do that.
Possibly you may be able to improvise a pan with glass cookware containing aluminium foil and water, but I wouldn't recommend it
High frequencies
There's another trick that engineers can use. At high frequencies, alternating currents will confine themselves to increasingly thinner thicknesses of metals. This means that if you use a high enough frequency, any conductive metal will work. There are stoves that use this principle, but they are rare and new.
I don't understand your explanation. You agree that the iron disk will heat up as usual when placed under the pan. You agree that the pan itself will not act as a barrier. So why would the disk not heat up when placed inside the pan, just like it heats up when placed on top of some non-pan object?
@rumtscho the pan IS a barrier. A sheet of glass and a sheet of aluminum will not have the same effect on a magnetic field. Don't take my word, try it for yourself.There's some sophisticated engineering involved in inductive cooking, but fundamentally it all comes down to rapidly changing electromagnetic fields generating currents in metal. Ferrous metals are better for generating heat from electrical resistance because their lower conductivity means electricity converts to heat more efficiently. That's why heating elements are made of alloys of iron and its kin, like nichrome.
@rumtscho as barbecue says, the pan is a barrier. If you place the disk under the pan, it will be 'closer' to the coil than the pan, current will be induced in it, and it will heat up. If you place the disk in the pan (that is, on top of the bottom of the pan), it will not, because the current will be induced in the pan itself, and not generate any heat there.
Viewed differently, the magnetic disk is a barrier to the magnetic field, limiting the induced current to the disk. Aluminium will conduct the current, but does not form a barrier, allowing the current to spread out.
@jpa the distance is not much of an issue - you can easily place a cutting board on an induction stove and your pot on top of it and it works (I have tested this empirically, with a cheap consumer grade portable stove, so can vouch for it). It may heat up less at the same energy output, but it does heat up sufficiently. As for the barrier thing, I admit I am a bit confused, the physics of electric fields are not my strong suit. Maybe I should try to dig my old portable induction stove out and simply test.
@jpa: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_cooking#Cookware is pretty good; it explains that skin-depth as well as resistivity is a key property, and that a layer of highly conductive metal below the iron will shield it. Note that you're not shielding against a fixed magnetic field, you're merely shielding against inductive effects from alternating current like the wall of a Faraday cage. A Faraday cage doesn't need to be ferromagnetic.
@PeterCordes excellent analogy. Aluminum is often used for RF shielding because it's both light and inexpensive.
@PeterCordes Hmm, I'm still not convinced! But I posted the question on Physics: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/535951/does-aluminum-in-between-stop-induction-cooktop-from-warming-iron
The usual approach would be to put the steel disk under the pot. Such disks are even produced commercially for this purpose: look for an induction interface disk. The basic mechanism is straight forward. The disk heats due to electromagnetic induction; then heat moves from the disk to the cooking vessel via conduction. As long as your cooking vessel is a good conductor and the bottom of the pan is in direct contact with the disk, it will heat up relatively efficiently.
Putting the disk inside the cooking vessel seems iffy. If your cooking vessel has a thick bottom, then the disk will be further from the stove-top. Because the magnetic field strength decreases with distance, induction would be less efficient. Also, if the disk is inside the vessel, it will come into contact with the food and probably need to be washed. Putting it under the pot leaves one fewer item to wash.
Your answer reads as if there would never be a reason to place it on the inside. But it has one large advantage you are not mentioning: the heat is generated in the disk and is thus in contact with the food, while putting it underneath requires the pot to heat up first, basically making the induction oven work like a resistive oven.
@rumtscho "while putting it underneath requires the pot to heat up first" which is pretty much what happens with a pot that works directly with an inductive 'burner'.
@JimmyJames no, that's not how inductive burners work. There, the current creates heat directly on the surface of the pot, including its inner surface. On a resistive stove, you have a hot burner, which makes imperfect contact with the cold metal pot, and you have to wait for heat conduction through the whole thickness of the bottom until the heat reaches the food. This makes for very different behavior during cooking.
@rumtscho I've used both, it's not that different.
@rumtscho Or rather, I find it pretty dubious that having a plate inside a pot that is heated is going to be more like heating the pot directly than heating it from the outside. If anything, I would expect it to me more different. The pot would be a heat sink, not a heat source. It's an interesting concept though if you extend upon it. I wonder if ball bearings could work.
@JimmyJames The pot is a heat sink regardless, it's not where you're ultimately trying to bring the heat. But if you put the plate on the inside, the heat would be generated where you already want it, and all the outside would be the "sink". If you put it below, you'd still have the heat sink of the pot, but you'd also be directly heating further away from where you actually want the heat to be. You should get better heat transfer with your heater directly in the place you're trying to heat. You would have to weigh that against the decrease in inductive heating due to distance though.
@rumtscho In both conduction and induction cooking, you heat the pot and the pot heats the food. How you heat the pot is different, but how the pot heats the food is the same.
I just tried this for myself. It does not work very well.
@JMac "The pot is a heat sink regardless." In both (normal) induction cooking and conventional, the pot is heated and it's what is heating the food. In order to heat the food, the pot must be warmer than the food. In an immersion situation such as this, you now are heating from the contents and it's heating the pot and the pot will never be warmer than the contents. The only caveat with that is that the plate might be in direct contact in some part of the bottom. Immersion heating is interesting but to suggest that it's more like using an inductive pan doesn't make much sense to me.
Note that some induction tops says that warranty is void when using interface disks, because it makes surface hotter than designed - imperfect transfer from disk to pot means disk is not cooled by the food as efficiently as the induction pot would.
@JimmyJames Yes; the pot heats and it is heating the food; but it's only an intermediary at best. The goal is heating the food. As the pot heats, it loses a lot of that heat to the surroundings instead of heating the food. The pot only has to be warmer than the food if the heat for the food is coming from outside the pot. If the heat is coming from inside the pot, the contents of the pot could be higher temperature than the pot itself; and this would actually help reduce how much heat is lost to surroundings.
@JMac I'm not sure why you are repeating what I wrote back to me.
@JimmyJames I totally misread your comments, my bad. I read back through your comments and I think I do agree with what you are trying to say. That said the whole "source/sink" distinction does get pretty blurry with the pots. With external heating the pot would act as a source and a sink, so there are definitely advantages if you can minimize pot heating by heating the pot internally; for some reason thought you were arguing against that. I see now that it doesn't seem like you were.
@JMac Cool, I'm glad we worked that out. There are definitely advantages to immersion cooking. I'm planning to see if I can get a ball bearing (or some other ferrous object) to heat up water in pyrex with my cheap counter-top induction burner.
@JimmyJames It was re-reading the ball-bearing comment that made me realize that we were probably on the same page. It would be interesting to see if that works/to what extent.
@JMac Being farther away might be an issue. IIRC, my burner won't turn on if there's not a ferrous pan there. It might not 'recognize' or detect it. I'll let you know
@barbecue yes, the pot heats the food. But there is a huge difference in how you heat the pot. In resistive, you need the heat to get transferred from the outside to the outer surface of the bottom, and then get conducted through the pot to the inner surface of the bottom. This is inefficient and reacts very slowly to changes in energy. For induction, you heat the inner surface of the pot bottom, which is very efficient (gives you much more heat per energy amount used) and reacts immediately to changes. Especially the quick reaction makes the cooking experience different.
@rumtscho Everything you just said is true, but it does not affect how the heat transfers from the pot to the food. Electricity->Element->Pot->Food vs Electricity-Pot->Food may be more energy efficient but it does not change the rate at which the heat transfers from the pot to the food, that depends on the heat content of the pot and the food, not how the heat got there. Heat does not remember where it came from.
@barbecue Where it comes from has an effect on where it goes though. Applying the same amount of heat right next to the food is different than applying that same heat below the pot and the food. When it's applied further from the food, more of that heat will go into things that aren't the food (like the pot and the air surrounding the the pot/element). This slows down the rate of cooking and the efficiency, assuming the same amount of net heat is sent via electricity. Finding out if it does send the same amount of heat is what would need to be tested.
@JMac I agree that induction is more efficient at heating the pan than traditional burners, there's no question about that. But the efficiency of converting electricity to heat doesn't affect the cooking. The rest of the room might get hotter, but as long as the pan is hot the food heats the same. That's all I'm saying
@barbecue But if the same amount of energy heats the pan/what's in the pan more, then it does affect the cooking. It takes less heat, and therefore less time, to cook the same thing, if you assume the same amount of heat being used.
@barbecue your statement that it "doesn't change the rate of heat transfer" assumes a constant heated state of the pot. This is not correct (and not desirable) in cooking. The cook changes the heat frequently, on purpose. The inductive stove reacts quickly, while the resistive stove reacts very slowly. This ignores the additional effect (which is not necessarily positive) given by an induction stove using time modulation for reducing its heat output (turning the coil on and off every few seconds) as opposed to the changed amount of current running constantly through resistive.
@rumtscho you seem to be under the mistaken impression that I'm saying something I'm not saying. I've never disputed that induction is more energy efficient.
@barbecue You are arguing the same point as I was earlier but with more detail. The only difference from cooking results perspective is the time to heat the pan. This makes we wonder if I would get better results using my induction burner for searing instead of my gas range.
@JimmyJames I'd say probably yes, your cast iron pan will get hot faster, and recover faster with even a low-power induction hob than with anything but the biggest commercial gas stoves. A heavy duty induction hob of 4000 watts or more will beat anything gas for speed. The biggest limitation of induction is the requirement for ferrous metal. There are induction units that can work with aluminum pans, but they're less efficient and in my experience less reliable.
@barbecue I am making two points, independent of each other. One is the energy efficiency. The other is the speed of reaction. Both are excellent in induction, and both get lost when there is a disk placed under the pot.Your answer reads as if placing the disk underneath is the only right way to go, without mentioning that there are downsides which will be avoided if the "disk inside" solution works. That's why I find it misleading.
@rumtscho That's not what I said. IMO, the only right way to go is to put a ferrous pan directly on the induction cooktop. Disk-in-pot and disk-under-pot are both inferior options. Disk-under-pot basically converts your induction cooktop to a traditional burner. Disk-in-pot either won't work at all (induction cooktop won't "see" the disk through the aluminum) or won't get hot enough. Don't take my word, go try it yourself. If you want the lighter weight and faster heat distribution of aluminum, just use an aluminum pan with a built-in steel base. Greenpan makes some nice ones.
Let me add to the other answers - this is mostly a too long comment trying to clarify some of their points.
We have 3 physical effects that are important for heating the food inside the pot
heat conduction: heat will flow from a hotter material to a colder material - the power (energy per time) depends crucially on the contact surface area.
this contact area is very good between a hot pot and its liquid contents
the contact area of a pot on a hot disc (whether resistive stove or induction disc between pot and induction stove) can be anywhere from basically the whole surface for nicely plane pot & disc to only a few small spots for a pot with warped bottom.
=> conclusion 1: with an induction disc you'll need a good pot like for use with a ceramic or metal top resistive stove. A thin-bottom pot (as e.g. for gas cooking) won't work well because you don't get the heat efficiently from induction disc to pot bottom.
(As induction cooking (with induction pot) avoids this heat transfer, induction pots don't need as plane bottom surfaces.)
induced current having Ohmic losses (aka Joule heating): Here, the pot bottom or induction disc works as receiving antenna of the electromagnetic field "sent" by the induction stove. As @AI0867 explained, the (alternating) magnetic field of the induction stove induces a corresponding (eddy) current in any electrically conducting material. Since the pot is not superconducting, this current has Ohmic losses: electric energy is converted into heat. This works with any pot material that conducts electric current: in the aluminum foil video linked by @AI0867, water in the "pot" (foil) would have been heated, the foil or an alu pot would not melt as long as there's water inside, see also general induction heating.
To clarify: we don't get as much power transfered to copper or aluminum as to a ferromagnetic iron or steel: Ohmic losses are proportional to the resistance (and to the square of the current), and that (AC) resistance (= impedance, see @AI0867's answer and skin effect) is (much) lower in non-ferromagnetric conductors. So we have less dampening (absorption, see below) of the electromagnetic field. But of course for practical cooking purposes, already transfering, say, only 10 % of the power compared to ferromagnetic material (copper or aluminum pot would be below that) means that this is practically useless: It's not only that you'd have to wait 10 times as long to transfer the energy you need - the losses from your heated pot don't get lower, so you may not get it to boiling temperature at all.
Hysteresis losses: when a ferromagnetic (or ferrimagnetic) material is magnetized back and forth, a certain part of the energy becomes heat (this is the area inside the hysteresis curve of the material), the so-called hysteresis loss. This heat is used in induction cooking, according to it amounts to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_heating 1/3 of the heating power.
We miss out on this on "non-induction" metallic pots.
The electric/electronic components in induction stoves are meant to be used with a receiving pot that greatly attenuates the induced field (the attenuation is the tranferred energy). Without this attenuation, the induction stove may be damaged. Such induction stoves therefore have a "pot recognition" that will switch off the induction coil if the field isn't sufficiently attenuated. I.e., if your pot doesn't absorb a sufficiently large part of the induced field, the whole thing may switch off leaving you without any heating.
Also I have to admit that I don't really know how exactly the pot sensors work. If they detect ferromagnetic material, they stove will stay switched off also with electrically conduction pots that could be heated via eddy current.
You can also consider using a glass "pot" and then put your steel disk (or maybe something like an iron fish - here it would help for once...) inside - glassware doesn't disturb the field. Steel is fine as long as it is (ferro)magnetic. The spacing may make the whole setup a bit less efficient, but it may very well be more efficient than an outside induction disc and suboptimal heat conduction.
Some early patents on induction stoves used concepts with glassware and a disc inside, btw.
Please excuse the sources being in German, the English Wiki page on induction stoves doesn't have that information and I did not find an English-language equivalent of the forum explanation of the pot detection.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_cooking#Cookware explains that skin depth and resistivity are key to having enough resistance in the pot to have it dissipate most of the energy as heat: copper and aluminum have a much deeper skin depth (and somewhat lower bulk resistivity) so the induced current doesn't generate enough heat. Aluminum foil may be thin enough, but a pot isn't. Stoves that work with all metals have to run at much higher frequencies than the normal 24kHz, further reducing the skin depth and thus being able to transfer enough power into the pot.
@PeterCordes: yes, there's not so much attenuation since the lower resistance doesn't attenuate the eddy currents. But the part of the EM field that is attenuated does become heat. In practice, the induction stove is probably detecting "insufficient attenuation -> switch off". And efficiency would be abysmal as ohmic losses in the sending coil aren't small compared to the transferred energy any more.
@PeterCordes: for the aluminum foil, also the "show effect" is good because you don't actually need that much energy to melt abit of alu foil - a quick back-of-the-envelope guesstimate indicates that maybe 200 J could melt a 3 cm x 1 cm x 24 μm piece of foil (not counting heat loss due to air convection, ...). So if a nominally 2 kW induction stove gets only 10 % of the power transferred to the aluminum foil (compared to proper induction pot), it would still be done in a second. Heating 50 ml of Water about 1 °C is the same energy, but much less showy...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.078739
| 2020-03-08T20:19:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105734",
"authors": [
"AI0867",
"Chris Cudmore",
"JMac",
"JimmyJames",
"Mołot",
"Peter Cordes",
"barbecue",
"cbeleites",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81605",
"jpa",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
106036
|
Is industrially produced cream made with a gelatine sieve?
I've bought an ice cream bucket with, who would've guessed, cream - as one of its' ingredients. Now of course I've done some research and found out, that cream is usually produced with a centrifuge called "separator". However this website:
https://halalcertification.ie/why-butter-needs-to-be-halal-certified/
states:
Gelatine Sieve :
When cream is first made from milk, the cream needs to be strained from the milk. To do this, a very high-quality strainer with fine pores are needed to separate the two liquids of different densities. The better the sieve used, the better the quality of the skimmed (low/non-fat) milk produced.
[...]. The high-quality strainer in this case, could be the gelatine sieve, made of pig gelatine because it has really fine pores.
Is that true? Thanks in advance!
That site is based on differentiation for religious requirements, not functional requirements. Cream is generally separated by a centrifugal [centripetal] process. Additives may include gelatine.
@Tetsujin 1. So theres no chance for it to have been seperated with a gelatine filter after it has gathered on the surface of the milk? (Or did I get that websites statement wrong?) 2. Additives in the cream or general product? [p.s.: I'm a muslim]
if all fails, just make certain you buy halal ice-cream; it's your only guaranty.
If I understand halal and kosher properly then almost by definition kosher products are also halal. In America tons of stuff are certified kosher (example http://www.walmart.com/ip/Great-Value-Cookies-Cream-Ice-Cream-48-fl-oz/12329735 if you look towards the bottom you’ll see an OU, that tells you it’s certified kosher by the orthodox union and the D tells you it’s dairy)
@mroll kosher allows alcoholic ingredients, though.
You read the site correctly, it's just that the information on the page is incorrect.
Commercial cream production consists of 5 main steps (from here, lots of info about different types of cream there too):
Skimming, centrifugation: separation of fat globules in milk. Milk skimming is done in a centrifugal cream separator.
Fat standardisation: in order to obtain the expected fat content.
Homogenisation: to prevent the creaming phenomenon during storage and to allow an increase in cream viscosity (for low-fat fluid creams)
Heat treatment: the objective is to inactivate microbial lipases and as a result destroy pathogenic germs without damaging the cream organoleptic qualities. Most creams are pasteurised.
Seeding and maturation: pasteurised creams may be matured with acidifying, aromatic or even thickening mesophilic lactic bacteria. Maturation gives more taste to the creams and protects it against lactic acid and bacteriocin production.
Gelatin would make a poor filter for this sort of thing - it is weak structurally and diffusion of the water molecules through the pores is slow - it would take days to dialyze/strain the volumes produced in a commercial system, which increases the risk of bacterial and fungal contaminants growing, and makes the system slow.
Gelatin is added to some creams (thickened cream (UK/AUS/NZ), whipping cream (USA)), to act as a thickener and produce a smooth stabilized foam when whipped. Gelatin can come from a variety of animal sources, but generally pigs and cattle which is why creams need to be certified as halal. Many commercial products contain vegetable derived thickeners (e.g. carrageenan) instead of gelatin
In that case my standard cream (NON thickened cream, NON whipping cream) doesn't get in touch with gelatin (or carrageenan), is that correct to assume?
@lofaji - yes that would be a fairly safe assumption. They would need to be mentioned in the ingredients if they were added.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.080611
| 2020-03-25T18:50:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/106036",
"authors": [
"Max",
"Tetsujin",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81875",
"lofaji",
"mroll"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
124256
|
What's the secret to well-seasoned pulled pork?
When I make pulled pork, the seasoning stays on the outside. I know it's possible to get the seasoning to permeate the whole piece of meat, but I don't know how. I follow this recipe, but cook for one hour in an Instant Pot. Am I supposed to shred the meat before cooking it?
Obviously I could apply a sauce after cooking, but I would like to stick to the ingredients in the aforementioned recipe.
Edit: My real problem was that I thought that the drippings from the pork shoulder were a waste product, when in fact they are an essential part of the recipe. Thank you to everyone who helped me understand.
Are you doing the important third stage, cooking the shredded meat back in its sauce, after [2nd stage] reducing?
Am I supposed to shred the meat before cooking it No, it isn't shreddable until its cooked.
You could add more seasoning after the main cooking; often spices taste different before heating, so it can add complexity. Eg. I often add garlic to the meat of a pasta sauce base while browning, and add more garlic after I add the tomato. The cooked and uncooked portions both contribute to the final taste (good).
If you don’t put the meat back into the liquid after you’ve shredded it, it can steam out and become rather dry. Even if you’re going to reduce the liquid into a sauce, I like to toss a few laddlefuls of liquid into the meat.
Pay attention to whether the recipe specifies HOW MUCH of the drippings to add back to the meat. I had one where there was a good amount of sea salt in the rub, but I was thinking "if X of the drippings makes it better, then 2X drippings will be AWESOME." Nope, 2X made it excessively salty.
The rub in this, and similar recipes, is a surface treatment. The same is true for marinades...all surface treatments. As is mentioned in the comment above, the finishing step in your recipe is to return the shredded pork to the sauce that is also part of the recipe. Steps=rub,cook,shred,sauce.
But after the pork cooks, it is swimming in around half a liter of water+fat+gelatin, which dilutes any sauce or seasonings to the point where they are useless. Am I supposed to have separate seasoning/sauce that does not cook with the pork?
@DanR. “dilutes" seasonings? Do puréed tomatoes dilute the onion, garlic, salt, and basil in a tomato sauce? No they don’t. The water you can and maybe should at least partially boil off, which will concentrate the flavors. The fat and gelatin can thicken the final pulled pork and keep it moist. If it ends up like a semi-congealed mass at the end then you’ve got some legit pork there, whether that’s your goal or not. Some places serve pulled pork with an ice cream scoop. Note when I shred pork or chicken, I don’t even take it out of the pot or turn off the heat. It’s in the juices as I shred.
@DanR. Also, as Tetsujin points out, the recipe you’re using says to both skim fat from the top of the sauce and also reduce the sauce. I consider skimming optional but probably a good idea for pork more than with chicken. Reduction is where the magic happens, though.
The "half of liter of water+fat+gelatin" is the fond, and it's one of the most sought-after and prized liquids in kitchens for the preparation of the tastiest sauces. Some cook once quipped that he'd want three taps in his kitchen - hot water, cold water, and demi-glace, where "demi-glace" is pretty much the reduced version of what you described.
@rumtscho actually, “fond” refers to the browned bits left in the pan after browning a protein and/or veg. The OP is cooking in a pressure cooker/Instapot. Sadly, the recipe does not call for a browning step. I would not be so sure that what is left is liquid gold…maybe good, but not exactly the beginning of a demi…
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.080974
| 2023-05-24T11:17:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124256",
"authors": [
"Dan R.",
"Joe",
"John Gordon",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Tetsujin",
"Todd Wilcox",
"dandavis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72130",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83090",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
107499
|
Is it OK to deglaze your stainless steel pan with a dash of acetic acid?
It's really effective and most of the acetic acid boils off. Sometimes I don't want the vinegar or wine tartness, but I still want to capture the flavors from the pan. Acetic acid is also much cheaper than vinegar.
I don't know it seems to be quite potent, I would just dilute in water to have a vinegar like ratio (4%-8% to water)
Acetic acid is much more potent, cheaper, doesn't add additional flavors and boils off at 118C. You dilute it with boiling water.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.081349
| 2020-04-12T15:55:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107499",
"authors": [
"Emanuel Landeholm",
"Max",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83381"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
121549
|
Why is one steak soft and 1 rock hard
I bought 2 fillet steaks from supermarket and stored them in the fridge. Anyone know why one is soft and the other rock hard right after I remove from packaging and are they both ok to eat? They were both in the same packaging.
Thanks
Maybe not cut from the same beef or the same section of the filet ?
One partially froze and protected the other one from partially freezing?
Pictures would help for this sort of thing (to identify if they’re from different places, or if they have different fat distribution). But as it’s a week later, I suspect you’ve already eaten them by now
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.081419
| 2022-09-02T15:13:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121549",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"Joe",
"Max",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"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
}
|
122308
|
Why do commercial pressure fryers typically operate at 12 PSI?
I’ve been doing a bit of research into pressure frying and I’m curious to hear if anyone has thoughts on why commercial pressure fryers do not typically exceed 12-15 PSI.
According to Henny Penny’s literature, their pressure fryers operate at 12 PSI with an oil temperature of 325 F. At 12 PSI, the boiling point of water is roughly 245 F so there’s an 80 F difference between the oil temperature and water boiling point. Even at this relatively low temperature, pressure fried chicken is roughly 30% faster than atmospheric fried chicken.
Wouldn’t we be able to fry chicken even faster if the pressure and temperatures were increased? Why do you think 12 PSI is industry standard?
An extreme example would be oil temperature at 450 F and pressure of 155 PSI. This would yield a boiling point of 370 F and would maintain the 80 F differential between oil and boiling point. This would likely require extra thin pieces of chicken to fully cook before the breading burnt, but I’d imagine there’s a point somewhere between 12 PSI and 155 PSI that would allow for much faster frying times without burning the breading.
Well, Ecnerwal mentioned the safety issue. Such a pressure cooker would also need a (much, much) more powerful heating element and probably a complex recirculator, since it starts at ambient pressure and needs to hit peak pressure before you're done cooking.
But mostly: The point of pressure frying is not to save time. The point is to produce crispier, juicier food by heating more quickly. That only works up to a certain point, after which the coating burns. It's possible that there's some food which could benefit from being pressure-fried at extremely high pressure/temperature, but fried chicken isn't it.
Accidents and failures.
12-15 lb steam is no joke if things go wrong, but it's a level that has a wide array of adopted practice and engineering for home use and kitchen (home or commercial) use. A boiler operator's license is not required for operating these devices safely.
A steam explosion resulting from 155 PSI (10.5 bar) steam would be far more disastrous - likewise, the pressure vessel to contain it would have to be far sturdier. In most areas, operating such a device would indeed require a boiler operator's license. Early in the age of steam folks who thought like you are thinking were free to implement their high-pressure schemes, and they managed to kill people, and laws resulted in most areas that limit the steam pressure that can be used in devices accessible to unlicensed operators.
For your entertainment, an easy to read overview of the development of steam vessels and "accidents" can be found in the first part of Nancy Levenson's paper (PDF warning): High_Pressure_Steam_Engines_and_Computer_Software. (In the remainder, she draws parallels between the requirements for safe steam engines and the development of safety-critical software.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.081514
| 2022-11-11T00:00:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122308",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54051",
"wumpus D'00m"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
34657
|
how to disarm a potentially pressurized whipping siphon?
My situation is much like spongefile's:
I'm using my iSi cream whipper for the first time, charging it as instructed out of sweat-deserving fear of pressurized items
Nothing is released when I push the lever, regardless of orientation, not even dripping liquid
Some differences:
the contents of the whipper are blended pressure-cooked beans whipped with 35% whipping cream + 3 iSi cartridges
when I charged the cartridges, leakage happened around the charge holder and some of the bean preparation leaked from around the device head
I later discovered that, after cleaning, I didn't reinsert the head gasket (but I'm not certain whether the valve and the perimeter of the head device head are blocked or not due to the potentially-drying bean contents)
I tried shaking it some more as well as the "release pressure" instructions that came with the manual to no avail - nothing comes out regardless of orientation.
Questions
How can I tell whether there's too much pressure or too little pressure? (Now asked as a separate question here.)
How can I safely remove the device head in case there is too much pressure and the valve and device head are blocked? (and, as spongefile asked, hat's the worst thing that can happen?)
Any pointers are enormously appreciated!
beans? It's really easy to clog the dispensor ... my mom did it once with grated nutmeg (vs. store bought ground nutmeg)
I don't know how to tell what the pressure is on a whipper, but from the results of a blocked one, I'm going to make the following suggestion for attempting to safely disarm it:
You need containment. If you open the container too quickly, you're looking at a massive mess to clean up. I'd suggest possibly a cardboard box (disposible) or a large plastic container (cleanable), with a clear plastic trashbag over it, so that only your arms are going in. If you don't have a large clear plastic bag, you'll either need to make a window (we can cut a cardboard box, then tape the bag down) or find something else clear (shower curtain liner?). Containment also reduces the odds that the head will fly off and damage something.
Goggles or other eye protection wouldn't hurt incase something goes wrong.
Place the containment vessel on its side, with the whipper inside, and the opening so that you can see into it.
If you have assistance, tape the bag around your arms, so you have a good seal.
Slowly open the container ... if it's like the case when my mom did this, a little will leak out after a while. Give it another partial turn, and some more will leak out ... go slowly. Suddenly, the whole thing will release, making a complete mess.
If you're like my mom, and insist on attempting to save the whipped cream, you can place a bowl & spoon into the containment with you, and scoop it off as it oozes out the side ... but risk knocking the bowl over when it suddenly pops open on you.
...
That being said, if you're not in a rush to open it, I'd let it sit for a day or two, with the nozzle up, (possibly after rapping it hard on the floor a couple of times) then attempt to spray ... if you get a gas release, you might be able to depressure it some before attempting to open it.
Thanks @Joe! I let it sit for about 10 days (b/c of lack of time) and then followed the steps above for safety. I actually also tried to unclog it with the conic brush that came with the siphon (http://www.creamright.com/product/PRT-WCD-IS3018.html) to see if that was at least possible. It wasn't hard and I didn't hear any gas release, so I went ahead (with protection) and tried to unscrew the head. There did not seem to be any pressure and it came out without too much effort. Thanks again!
I want to accept your answer so I'm thinking of modifying this question to focus on the safe removal and to ask about how to tell about the siphon pressure separately.
@amp : well, there's always the 'open it and find out' method ... but it's not necessarily pretty (unless it's under pressurized). Because there was leakage out the side before the whole thing blew, that might give you a clue as to the situation, once you get it far enough open so that there's no longer a good seal ... but I can't be 100% sure that all whippers are the same in that regard.
I don't know that there is a clear way to tell if the canister is over-pressurized. The typical number of cartridges used depends on the size of the whipper (usually 1-2 for 0.5L and 2-3 for the 1L). While it could likely take more pressure, I wouldn't exceed 3 cartridges in any application.
The mix of beans and whipped cream needs to be SUPER smooth for it to flow well in this application. Any type of chunks can clog the nozzle and become a real pain/mess. I suspect the leakage from the container initially was from not replacing the gasket. The way I think about it is, if you can perceive particulate when the mix is on your tongue, it's still too chunky for the whipper.
I know this was solved a year ago, but the problem was probably that it had no pressure at all. Without the head gasket, they almost always fail to seal and you lose pressure pretty quickly.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.081773
| 2013-06-13T03:56:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34657",
"authors": [
"Alfie Stoppani",
"Jags",
"Joe",
"John Webber",
"Marsha",
"RegularNormalDayGuy",
"Sreek",
"arturomp",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107079",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18726",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80815",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80827",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81604",
"momo",
"pnz1337",
"user47819"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
34996
|
straining methods for liquids to be used in whipping siphon
I'm starting to use a whipping siphon and in a previous question some comments mentioned that "it's really easy to clog the dispenser" and "if you can perceive particulate when the mix is on your tongue, it's still too chunky for the whipper."
Which devices (e.g. "cheesecloth" or "strainer of Brand X/style Y") would be best to use to make sure that the mix is smooth enough to minimize or eliminate the risk of it clogging the whipping siphon?
look up "chinois", this is the finest filter used in pro cooking
For the non-professional coffee filters are the best bet. If you want to go a bit further get some disposable laboratory filters, they can trap smaller particles. You wanna go below 25 microns for the food to be imperceptible in the tongue.
When I make mole sauce, I process it through a food mill to get out all the chili skins. The sauce is very smooth after going through the food mill. Use the finest hole insert it comes with.
Other then that, I use to use a fine strainer and push the mole sauce through, but it took a lot more time and effort.
If you try the food mill approach, you may want to test the resulting sauce by pushing it through cheese cloth to see how fine the sauce (or what ever you are pushing through the syphon) got.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.082202
| 2013-06-29T05:39:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34996",
"authors": [
"Alvaro Cavalcanti",
"Hi there",
"Salvatore J. Ragusa",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81664",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81665",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81666",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
34978
|
how to tell if a whipping cream dispenser is overpressurized or underpressurized?
The question is simple - how to tell if a whipping cream dispenser is overpressurized or underpressurized without the risk of removing the head?
Note: Initially I submitted two questions in another single post (where you can read the background for my question), but only one got a great answer.
There is no pressure gauge on these devices, nor is one available even on the professional line according to iSi's website. I don't think it is possible to determine the pressure inside
There is no pressure gauge on my bicycle tire, but I can tell when it is a bit overpressurized for comfortable riding, and I can certainly tell when it is underpressurized. For a whipping cream dispenser, it is possible that one can judge how the pressure deviates from the optimum by the quality of the cream coming out of it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.082338
| 2013-06-27T14:17:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34978",
"authors": [
"Lori Olenick Miller",
"Lukas Lunow",
"Mateus Costa",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81603",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84036",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
63717
|
What's this yellow plum-like fruit with a spiky stone? West Africa
I recently bought a couple of these from a fruit seller in Sierra Leone. On the right is the stone after eating the fruit. They're small-ish, a similar size to a lime or a kiwi fruit.
I asked the lady what it was called, but she just looked at me as if I was mad in stony silence (I'd already bought and paid for the fruit, despite clearly not knowing what it was, so maybe she had a point).
The skin is thin but strong. The fruit flesh had a texture and flavour similar to an unripe English plum, with maybe a hint of citrus-y melon and pear-like flavour. Quite sharp and slightly sour and/or slightly bitter, very slightly crunchy, slightly sweet (not very sweet). The flesh is very very slightly translucent and slightly whiter that the skin (you can see a little still on the stone).
The spiky root-like fibres are strong, sharp and make it quite hard to eat... It's like eating a very bony fish.
The only thing that came close from my research was a marula, but the stone is very different.
Best guess: June Plum, apparently underripe.
Another page has pictures of june plums that match your photo quite well:
All the photos above are of the same type of fruit at different stages of ripeness.
Scientific name Spondias Dulcis:
Spondias dulcis (syn. Spondias cytherea), known commonly as ambarella, is an equatorial or tropical tree, with edible fruit containing a fibrous pit. It is known by many other names in various regions, including kedondong in Indonesia, buah long long among the Chinese population in Singapore, pomme cythere in Trinidad and Tobago,1 Dominica, Guadeloupe, and Martinique,2 June plum in Bermuda and Jamaica,1 mangotín in Panama, juplon in Costa Rica, golden apple in Barbados and Guyana, golden plum in Belize, jobo indio in Venezuela, cajá-manga and cajarana in Brazil and São Tomé and Príncipe, quả cóc in Vietnam, manzana de oro in Dominican Republic, cas mango in Cameroon. In Republic of Maldives Anbulha.
Spondias dulcis is most commonly used as a food source. In West Java, its young leaves are used as seasoning for pepes. In Costa Rica, the more mature leaves are also eaten as a salad green though they are tart. However, it is most commonly used for its fruit.
The fruit may be eaten raw; the flesh is crunchy and a little sour. According to Boning (2006): "The fruit is best when fully colored, but still somewhat crunchy. At this stage, it has a pineapple-mango flavor. The flesh is golden in color, very juicy, vaguely sweet, but with a hint of tart acidity."5 In Indonesia and Malaysia, it is eaten with shrimp paste, a thick, black, salty-sweet sauce called hayko in the Southern Min dialect of Chinese. It is an ingredient in rujak in Indonesia and rojak in Malaysia. The juice is called kedondong in Indonesia, amra in Malaysia, and balonglong in Singapore.
The fruit is made into preserves and flavorings for sauces, soups, and stews. In Fiji it is made into jam. In Samoa and Tonga it is used to make otai. In Sri Lanka the fruit is soaked in vinegar with chili and other spices to make the snack food acharu. In Vietnam the unripe fruit is eaten with salt, sugar, and chili, or with shrimp paste. Children eat the fruit macerated in artificially sweetened licorice extract. In Jamaica, it is mostly considered a novelty, especially by children. It can be eaten with salt or made into a drink sweetened with sugar and spiced with ginger. In Trinidad and Tobago, it is curried, sweetened, salted, or flavored with pepper sauce and spices. In Cambodia it is made into a salad called nhoum mkak. In Suriname, the fruit is dried and made into a spicy chutney, mixed with garlic and peppers. In Thai cuisine both the fruits and the tender leaves are eaten.
Yes, that's it! There are some large brown patches that are exactly like your brown "ripe" photo, I'd mistaken them for bruises; I'm sure it'll turn like that if I let it ripen. It looked overripe already to my untrained eye, great to know they're likely to improve in flavour! I'd wondered if it could be made into jam, and I'd thought of comparing the flavour to pineapples and mangoes, but I dismissed that as my over-active imagination.
I like the line in your first link "All you need to know about this fruit is you should never just take a bite. It has a big-ass spiky seed that could wreck havoc on tongue and mouth. Beware." - very true!
I am from Sierra Leone and this is called Chook-Chook Plum. Thorns & prickly things are termed chook-chook in Krio, hence the name. However, June Plum is what you will find on the internet.
That fruit is known as the golden apple, June plum or pomme cythere. When ripe it is so sweet juicy and delicious. You probably bought it under ripe but if you had allowed it to ripen to be soft sweet and golden you would have enjoyed it. When ripe it can be juiced to make a drink or boiled with sugar to make jam. Can also be pickled in lime and vinegar and stored in a cool dry place this is called making chow. Some people use it to flavour hot pepper sauce as well. Hope you get to try it again and enjoy it.
In Hawaii, we call it Vee. I have a dwarf tree in my yard with a ton of fruit. I can eat only so much and people I've given it to aren't clamoring for more so they go to waste. Am just now trying to extract juice to try to make into jam. I have pickled it with good result.
This fruit is here in Abia State, Nigeria. It is generally called Plum. You did so well describing the fruit just as it is..taste, texture and structure. I ate some of it about 15minutes ago and I can tell you for a fact that it is quite juicy. I don't need to be a nutritionist or biologist to confirm that it has nutritional benefits. I feel nourished
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.082450
| 2015-11-21T20:39:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63717",
"authors": [
"Denise Martin-Vore",
"Doris McDaniel",
"Lorraine Moore",
"Maria Vienna",
"cfourkays",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151656",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151657",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151658",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151659",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151681",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20456",
"keith rotolo",
"user56reinstatemonica8"
],
"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
}
|
122680
|
Replacing sugar with maple syrup
I have a cake recipe which, among its ingredients, requires using 300 gr of sugar and 120 gr of water.
If I wanted to replace the sugar with maple syrup, would I need to adjust also the amount of water or not? Online I have found that the conversion ratio is one cup of white sugar with 2/3 to 3/4 cup of maple syrup.
The entire recipe requires:
300 gr of flour
300 gr of sugar
3 eggs
120 gr water
100 gr of olive oil
rising agent
My primary goal would be to reduce the glycemic sugar.
Please also check the method - sugar is not just for sweetness, it can be a significant structural component, e.g. when creaming butter and sugar.
Are you trying to get a maple flavor or have a better / lower glycemic sugar? That will make a difference in potential answers, but Stephie is correct that the sugar plays an important role in cakes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.083000
| 2022-12-17T13:10:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122680",
"authors": [
"Brooke",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21513",
"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
}
|
110189
|
Does bread flour (vs AP flour) make a big difference in the density of the dough?
I've been trying to bake a no-knead bread (like everyone else), and I've gone with Binging with Babish's recipe.
In his video, after leaving the dough to rise overnight (or so), and then working it a bit to form a ball, the result is this:
It's a nice and (relatively) taut ball of dough. I've followed his recipe and substituted the bread flour with AP flour, which all indications suggest wouldn't make a lot of difference.
My first batch was very wet, and upon inspection, his recipe is nearly 80% hydration (400g flour for 1+1/3 cup of water, which according to my conversion is about 315g water). So I tried again, and this time I've adjusted for 65(ish)% hydration. While the result was easier to handle, it still felt closer to a thick batter than to anything like his video.
Finally, I've tried the suggestion of J. Kenji López-Alt to put the dough in the fridge for a while since cold makes the dough easier to manage. While it was definitely easier to manage, it was still pretty thin, and when I've proofed the dough, it spread further like the previous ones.
Is bread flour really that different? Is this all the AP flour fault?
I'm asking because I end up with a rather low-rise bread, and I think that is at least in part due to the fact that when the dough is placed into the dutch oven, it's already pretty flat (compared to the picture and the result in the video).
The recipe I've used this time:
400g flour,
1/2 teaspoon of yeast,
67% hydration,
1.5% salt (I've done 2% in the past, and will return to doing so because of the superior flavour).
Mix with a wooden spoon, cover and let sit over night. As per the suggestion of J. Kenji López-Alt, let another day of relaxation in the fridge. Rolled into a round loaf, proofed for an hour while the dutch oven was warming up, baked for 30 minutes with lid, another 15 without, left to cool on a wire rack for a couple of hours.
Could you include the actual recipe, including both ingredients and method, in your question?
@LSchoon: What I ended up doing (each time) or the one from Binging with Babish?
Either. As moscafj's answer states, there are many variables that can influence how the dough comes out. We can help you much better if we know exactly what method you used.
(It's been two days and no additional help was given, I understand why I should have put the recipe at the start, but now I'm not so sure why it was important that I edit it in...)
I asked for a recipe before your question received an answer. The answer you received ended up covering several possible problems, so no additional information seemed necessary. FWIW, I think moscafj's suggestion that your dough needs to be worked more is correct, given that your recipe shows you only mix and shape the dough.
@LSchoon: Well, I will definitely try it next time. But in my defense, Babish didn't really do a lot with it either, and it is a "no kneading" recipe. My mum told me she doesn't even let it ferment overnight, mix high hydration dough, pour into bread pans, let it sit for 20 minutes, and into the oven they go.
Bread flour has a higher protein content than AP flour. That should aid in the development of the gluten structure of your dough. So, bread flour will help, but that might not be your only issue. No-knead, doesn't necessarily mean mix it together and leave it alone. (I did watch the video...I see he doesn't knead, but his dough does not look like it is a high hydration dough). There are many variables that influence water absorption in flours...so often a formula will behave differently in your kitchen and with your ingredients. From your description it sounds like your dough needs more structure, and would benefit from the use of techniques that build that structure. The most obvious is kneading, but slap and fold (or stretch and fold) is often incorporated into high hydration formulas. There is a learning curve, so reducing your hydration is a good way to get a feel for things...but I suspect that you need to work on building the gluten structure.
Thanks for the advice. Do these techniques take place before or after the autolysis process?
@Inkblot generally afterward.
I just tried (wow, it's been a while!) to make this bread again, and this time with bread flour. The difference is uncanny. I started with 65% hydration, but ended up with 72% because it was not fully hydrated.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.083100
| 2020-08-14T15:08:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110189",
"authors": [
"Ink blot",
"LSchoon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84058",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
108277
|
What is the term used for this type of biscuit
What name is given to the type of cookie that has no icing?
Wanted the correct term to find on the internet the type of cookie that receives a mark like the figure:
Welcome to the site. The term you are looking for is cookie stamp or biscuit stamp.
You can also get a cookie press, which is like a big glue-gun for forcing out fancy shapes, but these are not pressed into the top of the biscuit, rather by forcing the cookie batter through a template. If you have kids, you will be familiar with plastic versions of these for use with play-dough.
The poster is asking what the term for the cookie is, not the tool used to make it.
@GdD - yes, asking the name of the type of cookie, but you will notice the following phrase Wanted the correct term to find on the internet the type of cookie that receives a mark like the figure: so my interpretation was that they were looking for the name of how you do this sort of marking, not the name of the actual cookie, because you can use a huge range of different batters for this, and I don't think there is a single name for cookies that are stamped. My personal favourite batter is [Sable].(https://www.joyofbaking.com/Sables.html).
@bob1 on the other hand, the suitable types of cookies to use with a cookie stamp is rather limited - getting the tool and then using it with a random cookie recipe is likely to result in a disappointment. (E.g. due to spreading or rising that causes the pattern to blur or even disappear.)
You would be looking for a sugar cookie recipe to use with a stamp like that. Sugar cookies tend to hold their shape through a bake, so the imprint will still be clearly visible afterwards.
I don't think this answers the question @Johanna, the poster wants to know what they are called, not what type of recipe to use. This would be better as a comment.
@GdD The OP literally asks for the kind of cookie that can get marks like that. Not for the equipment, but for the name of the biscuit/cookie.
iPressed cookies are usually a type of shortbread cookie
The flavors vary, and particular ones may have cinnamon, cardamon, citrus, anything really.
The specific cookie that you show has Portuguese writing on it "sweets form heaven". Maybe the name of a bakery in Brazil or Portugal?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.083442
| 2020-05-11T07:20:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108277",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Stephie",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"user141592"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
108335
|
Printer for applying royal icing
Is there something like a printer that makes it easy to create icing art on cookies?
All the work to create the example below, I believe there is something that can facilitate production
Have you googled icing printer?
I have a 3D printer where I make cookie cutters. I searched Google for a printer for other confectionery purposes.
It might be worth mentioning that this style of 'printer', where there's an arm that moves a pen used to be called a 'plotter', and 'icing plotter' finds a homemade one made out of Lego : https://boingboing.net/2018/01/04/cloggy-nozzles.html
And you might be able to apply the spots with a template, then outline and flood fill the rest to speed things up, even without anything automated
The term I wanted to find is: Cookie Icing Machine domestic
According to Joe's comment I managed to find information I didn't know how to look for ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AJYc3mPvRg
If I were building it, I'd probably go with a large syringe and some sort of linear actuator, so it was more consistent in how much it deposited per motor rotation.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.083666
| 2020-05-13T03:21:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108335",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Joe",
"LCarvalho",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84285"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
108483
|
Why are my croissants heavy?
I have been experimenting with croissants and found that, delicious as they are, they are dense, not light and fluffy. The layers are very close together, not open with vast pockets of air.
I have tried cranking up the oven to 550 when I initially put them in to get that "bloom", but that only adds a little.
One thing I have not tried is reducing the amount of butter and adding water - but I am following the recipes.
Also, what should the bakers' percentages be for a good croissant dough?
I have tried a dozen or more recipes, most from French bakers, but my dough usually turns out very dry, very stiff, nothing like that shown in the videos.
Please edit and add detail on the exact recipe and method you are using.
It may be that you have too many folds - May be worth watch French Guy cooking for some tips! The Perfect Croissant
This is using any of a dozen or so recipes. Depending on the recipe I end up with 27 or 36 layers.
The answer and comments on your previous question about brioche dough may be relevant: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108449/why-is-my-dough-sweaty. What kind of flour are you using? The stronger the better. Also may I ask, do you regularly make less rich breads with success? Jumping straight to croissants without much experience would be very ambitious ...
Are you using an electric oven? They're dryer (as burning hydrocarbons produces water), so you might need to spray some water in the oven so you can get sufficient rise before they've set. I'd actually consider turning down the heat, so the butter melts and steams before the outside is fully cooked. (but I'm not a baking expert, so if someone else contradicts me, go with whatever they say)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.084046
| 2020-05-19T16:45:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108483",
"authors": [
"Gamora",
"GdD",
"Greg",
"Joe",
"Mark Wildon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84460"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
108471
|
Turning a sweet cake into a savoury one: What should I swap in place of sugar?
I am looking to turn the following recipe for pumpkin bread into a savoury one. i.e. I want to get rid of sugar (which in this case is maple syrup). I think that sugar will add to the loafiness of the bread. I have thought of using eggs as this might add the extra moist and structure that sugar seems to facilitate - but I might be wrong, and I am still very confused by the research I have done. It also seems that sugar and eggs complement each other, so I am not sure if eggs alone are the solution.
As per above, I don't care about the cake being vegan (just gluten free). So all suggestions are welcome.
I would imagine that as a plant-based food blogger, Deliciously Ella has used the chia seeds to replace eggs, so if you were looking to include eggs, I'd drop the chia.
I would use melasa or dark beer.
On King Arthur's site, they talk about liquid sweeteners.
One of their comparisons between the different forms is water content/acidity.
Maple syrup's water content/acidity: 34%, mildly acidic (less acidic than honey).
This led me to look up water content and acidity impacts on baking.
The Cake blog did a comparison of cakes based on level of acid used. The no acid cake (what I would assume would happen if you removed the maple syrup because it contains malic acid) still worked, it just wasn't as tall or fluffy as the ones with acid.
My suggestion is that if you want a loaf that is more cake-like, you should add a bit of acid (e.g., lemon juice or vinegar) if you remove the maple syrup. If you want a loaf that's denser, you can leave out the maple syrup and don't add in anything else.
That is an interesting "bread" recipe because it doesn't have any flour. It is more of a... torte?
I don't think the maple syrup and honey in the recipe would add "loafiness" because they are liquid and viscous. Omitting them would reduce the overall water in the recipe so it might just be more dense and dry. The maple syrup especially adds a lot of flavor, to offset that you could add some spices.
You could look up recipes for pumpkin gratin such as this one from Jacques Pepin to get some ideas, he adds eggs, cheese, and cream and bakes it. I have made this and it is delicious, but definitely not bread. If you added eggs to your recipe I bet you would get something that is springy and sliceable.
You don't think the 360g ground oats amounts to 'flour'?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.084215
| 2020-05-19T11:25:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108471",
"authors": [
"SZCZERZO KŁY",
"Spagirl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
108568
|
How to keep squid soft and fluffy?
For preparing squid , with traditonal masala type receipe , it was kept for 1 steam in pressure cooker. But squid got hardened after making the dish. Is there a way to keep it soft with preparation? Squid roast
We are going to keep this question and the link. Should you keep posting content linking to said channel, we may revise the decision. Please see How to not be a spammer.
The recipe in the video appears to cook the squid entirely, then mix it into the rest of the dish, then continue to cook the entire dish. (I suspect the recipe's creator has different expectations regarding the final texture of cooked squid)
Overcooked squid will be tough or rubbery whenever over cooked, whether too hot, too long, or both (which will happen in a pressure cooker, unless cooked so long that it breaks down.)
Sous vide is ideal for precisely cooking proteins, squid included. Most recipes call for around 60c for 1-2 hours.
Pan frying is also effective, as it gives much more visibility and chance to stop cooking at the right time. Many squid recipes call for 2-3 minutes saute.
In any case, cook the squid to preferred doneness in parallel to preparing the masala, then remove both from heat and combine. The intention should be to stop applying additional heat to the squid once it is cooked.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.084432
| 2020-05-22T23:24:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108568",
"authors": [
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
38157
|
What's the name of the black-brown decoration sauce used in French cooking?
When my boyfriend and I visited France a few months ago, I noticed that a lot of savory dishes were drizzled with some black-brown colored sauce on top (see picture I took, which is a plain risotto). The sauce tasted fairly sweet and not salty.
My best amateur guess is that this is some sort of reduced sugary balsamic vinegar sauce, but it does not taste acidic at all. Maybe the vinegar evaporated while reducing?
It is most probably crema di balsamico, a quite popular condiment, even often only used for decorative purposes. It can both be used with savory dishes, but also with sweet dishes, as in e.g. ice cream or gelato.
Traditionally, crema di balsamico is made by reducing grape juice and optionally wine to the point where the sugar in the grape juice starts to caramelise and then deglaze the reduction with balsamic vinegar. Convenience products are often pepped with food colouring and thickening agents.
It is most likely a reduction of some kind. It could be wine or balsamic, or any other dark liquid, really. Most of the acid does cook off in the reduction process, and what is left is mostly drowned out by all the residual sugar.
I know it as balsamic glaze. For example: http://www.prepoils.co.uk/en/prep-premium-speciality-oils/the-range/balsamic-glaze
What you have tasted is most probably "Demi-Glace" sauce. it is delicious and also very expensive and hard to make. Traditionally, it requires beef or veal stock along with so many other ingredients and delicacies and 12 hours of your time. I'm glad you had the opportunity to taste it.
If it tastes fruity it could be a coulis.
I have never seen a coulis so dark, they keep the color of the vegetable itself.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.084571
| 2013-11-04T23:04:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/38157",
"authors": [
"Amy Morris",
"Brian Milne",
"Casey Skinner",
"Ryan Brothers",
"Sahar",
"Tom",
"c b thornton",
"dpcumkourtneyfastandgoo69droid",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89886",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89890",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89916",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91361",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96962",
"musiclvr56",
"notablytipsy",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18451
|
What went wrong with my brownies?
I've read numerous forum posts and mini-articles about substituting applesauce for oil in brownie mix, but for some reason it went horribly wrong:
(Okay, that's actually after trying to salvage it by putting it back in the oven after grabbing some good slivers off the edge)
Can you post the full recipe?
Was it 100% substitution? I've never tried it for brownies, but for muffins I end to still leave about 1/4 to 1/3 of the original oil called for.
@Joe it was 100% substitution.
@mghicks It was just a brownie box mix, so iirc mix + 1 egg + 1/2 cup oil (subbed applesauce) and I think some amount of water.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say...underbaked.
Either you didn't leave it in long enough or your oven wasn 't hot enough. Realize many, many ovens can be significantly off their 'set' temperature. An oven thermometer is a great investment.
(I don't believe applesauce had anything to do with this unless you put like 10x the amount of applesauce in.)
I take it that sticking it back in the oven after it's cooled isn't going to work? That's what I did and it ended up more liquidy than it started.
I think we also had this problem the last time. I think that time we kept it in the oven an extra 10 minutes (so 40 total) at 350F and it still just wasn't solidifying. But that was months ago so my memory could be a bit off.
Yeah, something just looks wrong there! Why are the edges so cooked and yet even an inch from the edge it's still completely wet? I have to imagine it's under-cooked like rfusca. However, from the looks of it, cooking it til the center is done would burn the edges.
My advice: try it again, but make one batch with oil (per the box) and make one batch with your 100% applesauce substitution. Bake them the same amount of time, in the same oven, on the same rack, in similar pans (if possible), and at the same temperature.
When you test for doneness, check about 3-4 inches diagonally in from a corner. A toothpick should come out dry. Don't check directly in the middle... by time that's dry, the rest of the brownies will be overcooked.
By that point, you should have a good understanding of the problem source.
Although substituting 1:1 sounds great, you should start substituting from a ratio of 1c oil to 1/2 cup oil & 1/2 cup applesauce. This is just a beginning point for your recipe; try increasing your ratio to favor the applesauce bit by bit to see how much your recipe can bear. Maybe it can go all the way to 1:1, with many cookies and other cakes this is not always the case.
The other possibility is that you mixed the batter too thoroughly or did not adhere to the rule of adding dry ingredients at the very last moment then mixing gently. Brownies are much like cakes and do not tolerate over mixing too well. Oddly, over-mixing leads to gluten strands, not the molten looking mass above.
@Rfusca may be right that a thermometer may be called for, but if this was an isolated incident with an otherwise happy oven, I would start with a less equivocal substitution, verify that you are adding dry to wet at the last moment, and that you are not over mixing (check youtube for visuals on how to know it's properly mixed).
You don't have to add dry ingredients to wet ingredients! You can mix the dry first. It's easier to mix the dry ingredients when they are dry. I always mix the dry first then add wet. It's easy to see when the dry is mixed also because it will be one color without spots.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.084764
| 2011-10-19T02:01:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18451",
"authors": [
"Chloe",
"David Ly",
"Donna",
"Joe",
"Maximillian Laumeister",
"Neeraj Kumar",
"gem",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2416",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39927",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39928",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4631",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9679",
"mghicks"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109693
|
Best way to make pizza with limited options?
So essentially I have three options since I only have a microwave oven(with convection and a grill) and something called as a "gas tandoor". A gas tandoor is like a grill placed directly on a stove but is covered by a dome shaped metal top.
What I want to know is among the following methods, which will give me the best results?(like fluffiness and crispy bottom)
Baking the pizza in a pan to get a crispy bottom and then transfer it to a microwave oven and baking it further in convection mode.
Baking the pizza in a pan to get a crispy bottom and then transfer it to a microwave oven and baking it further in grill mode.
Placing the pizza in a pizza pan and putting it in the gas tandoor.
I want to make a NYC style pizza or a Neapolitan style pizza, NOT a Chicago style deep dish pizza.
Can you cook naan on a gas tandoor?
@ThePhoton - just that suggestion and I am starving for naan pizza...
If the oven can make naan, just put some tomato sauce and cheese on top and you have pizza. I don't think the convection/microwave will help any. (Microwave will just make the bread soggy, convection oven I don't know much about)
I am for the tandoori pan. Iron Pan pizza on gas stoves was made in small shops and street benches few decades ago. Delicious though not on the crispy side, more soft. Unfortunately it disappeared. Italy.
It's possible to make a good pizza on the stovetop (with a lid), but it won't quite have the same consistency as a New York style pizza.
Serious Eats had a write-up on 'skillet pizza' years ago.
Basically, the idea is that you cook the crust first in the skillet, flipping it twice (so the flat side is on the bottom again), then top it and put a lid on it to melt the cheese ... which should work pretty well in your tandoor.
A few words of advice :
If you like lots of toppings on your pizza, you will want to pre-cook them.
Flip the crust shortly after it sets up on the first side, as you'll be returning it to that side when you're melting the cheese.
A pan with sloped or curved sides makes it much easier to get in there rather than something with steep sides.
I actually use this method even when I have an oven, especially when I'm cooking for a lot of people -- I cook the crusts on both sides on a cast iron skillet or griddle, then move them to a sheet pan and let people add their toppings, then put them in the oven to melt the cheese.
Almost all pizza recipes, like these for Neapolitan or New York style* pizza, require a very hot oven. Crucially, the surface you put your pizza on needs to be very hot to achieve a nice crust. Assuming that you won't be able to fit a pizza stone or pizza steel in your microwave oven, the tandoor is probably better suited for this. Make sure to preheat it well. If the dome does not get hot enough to cook the toppings by the time the base is cooked, you can try to finish the pizza in the microwave oven on grill mode.
Alternatively, you could look for recipes that don't require as hot an oven. This recipe for Chicago deep dish pizza from King Arthur Flour calls for 425°F (just under 220°C) which your microwave oven might just be able to reach. You will definitely want a recipe that calls for the use of some sort of pan if you want any kind of crisp to your crust.
(*) By the way, the first two links are from Kenji's "pizza lab" on Serious Eats, which is worth checking out for some in-depth pizza info.
If you're going to link to Serious Eats / Pizza Lab ... at least link to the one on cooking a pizza without an oven : https://slice.seriouseats.com/2012/03/the-pizza-lab-awesome-pizza-without-an-oven-aka-skillet-pizza.html
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.085176
| 2020-07-15T23:51:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109693",
"authors": [
"Alchimista",
"Joe",
"The Photon",
"Willk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59209",
"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
}
|
123591
|
Is this white stuff in my lemonade bad?
I like to pre-mix Country Time brand pink lemonade and leave it in the fridge. I've noticed this white stuff accumulates at the bottom after a few days and goes away if I shake the container.
I used to pre-mix in a plastic container and noticed the same thing so switching to glass did not solve the issue. I've sterilized this bottle using boiling water before adding the mix but it did not help.
I even switched from tap water to purified bottled water. The tap water is hard and always leaves sediment on the fixtures.
There doesn't seem to be any visible growth and the pre-mix never gets cloudy nor taste funny. Is this just non-sugar ingredients settling at the bottom?
Yes, it's just insoluble particles settling as you suspect. As long as you're following the appropriate guidance for how to store your lemonade this isn't anything to worry about.
Insoluble like microplastics? Or more like ctric acid, magnesium oxide, etc...
Insoluble as in anything that doesn't dissolve – given it's lemonade presumably mostly tiny solids from the lemons or other organic material.
@dbmag9 the OP is not making homemade lemonade, they are dissolving a commercial concentrate in water. There is a good chance that there were never any lemons involved, just sugar, coloring and flavoring agents.
@MonkeyZeus Certainly not microplastic. It's by definition too tiny to be seen, and if it were present in such huge amounts as to form a visible sludge, that would mean that something went hugely wrong at the manufacturing plant. It's the contents of the lemonade that either didn't fully dissolve, or started precipitating out of solution with time.
@rumtscho Thanks but where'd you get your definition from? "Microplastics are small plastic pieces less than five millimeters long which can be harmful to our ocean and aquatic life." I don't disagree that these aren't microplastics but I don't agree with your definition. A simple Google Search reveals they can be quite visible. https://i.sstatic.net/8Kzpf.jpg. Might be time for some glasses =)
@MonkeyZeus the definition you have comes from an environmental context, and isn't relevant for your lemonade. If you had five millimeter pieces of plastic in there, you'd know it!
First of all, relax. It's not going to hurt you.
What it's not:
- Mold
When a food is contaminated with mold, typically the visible portion of mold (but importantly not the only portion that has grown and contaminated your food), is found on the surface. In drinks it often has a spongy texture and would generally not settle to the bottom unless shaken thoroughly. It also will not generally have a sandy or powdery texture, which best as I can tell from that picture, is what you've got above. While there are molds that vary beyond what I've described here, your drink has not molded.
- Microplastics
Microplastics come in two classifications: primary and secondary. Primary are the larger of the two, anything 5mm in size or less, and you would generally be able to discern without much difficulty if plastics of this size were contaminating your drink, certainly they wouldn't have needed time to settle before being noticed. The smaller microplastics, secondary ones, are what happens when sources of primary (or larger) micro/plastics break down, from processes like natural weathering or going for a wash in a laundry machine. These smaller secondary microplastics are not typically visible to the naked eye. I suspect as well that they would be likely to stay suspended, being very small and (most probably) neutrally buoyant. In any case, as Rumtscho mentioned in his comments, it would be a very serious problem if something like this went wrong during manufacturing. Not that it doesn't, but it's likely not this.
What it probably is:
- Insoluble Compounds
As dbmag9's answer mentions, this is a possibility. However I find it unlikely, personally, that there are many insoluble compounds in a powder designed to dissolve readily in water. These would make up a significantly smaller portion of ingredients list. From the ingredients I was able to find online, magnesium oxide is one such insoluble ingredient. I think it's reasonable to say some of the precipitate may be insoluble compounds, but personally it's much more likely to me that a majority of it is...
- Soluble Compounds
The main ingredients in Country Time Lemonade are all readily soluble in water: sugar, fructose, citric acid, ascorbic acid, and sodium citrate all dissolve. I suspect several of the others do as well, though have not bothered to confirm as much for each item listed in the ingredients. If you're not bothered by tasting it, you could attempt to isolate a portion of the lemonade which has fallen out of solution and compare its smell and flavor to that of the original powder and of the completed drink. It should carry a similar, although perhaps not exact, flavor depending on which ingredients precipitated out at what rate.
So why are the soluble ingredients falling out of solution?
There's several possible culprits, and the likeliest is a mix of these and perhaps more things I haven't accounted for:
- Lack of turbulence
When we shake or stir something, we help to suspend the insoluble ingredients, and aid in soluble ingredients dissolving. We're both adding energy to the drink through mechanical action and breaking down the clumps. Any excess of the soluble compounds will join the insoluble ones in solution. As it is left undisturbed, however, it settles back down to the bottom. The solution is one you already employ: shake or stir before you consume it.
- Saturation
It's possible that at the ratio of water to powder that you use, the water is fully or nearly fully saturated. This would make it so that as conditions change to make the water to powder ratio even more extreme the soluble ingredients would begin to precipitate out of solution. This would happen even more quickly if the ratio used is such that there is an excess of soluble ingredients, as there would be no need for the ratio to change for some of the soluble ingredients to precipitate out. A possible solution for this would be to adjust the ratio of water to powder to use somewhat less powder, and see if you still enjoy it equally.
- Evaporation
So why is it that the water to powder ratio is changing? Over time the water will evaporate, especially true in warm settings but it remains true inside of a fridge, and even if covered, so long as the cover isn't air-tight. You're already doing at least some of what you can to account for this: keeping it in the fridge. In addition, ensure it's covered as tightly as is reasonable and, if the problem happens, you could add a little water to dilute it. Overall though, I think this is likely to be one of the smaller factors unless you're making up very small batches and leaving it sitting out somewhere warm and sunny for a few hours.
- Temperature
We can experience a similar effect as with evaporation even if the water to powder ratio stays the same. If the water's ability to hold ingredients in solution goes down, the end result is the same as if we had less water. And temperature is a major factor in water's ability to hold something in solution. When making a simple syrup (sugar and water), for instance, we heat it on the stove to help easily dissolve everything. Same with adding salt to water used to make pasta, if you add it while the water is cold it will take longer for it to dissolve than if you add it while hot. Ingredients generally have an easier time dissolving into water when they are warm. And as those ingredients and the water are chilled in your refrigerator, what once was easily soluble will begin to precipitate out. Stirring should mostly help to dissolve this through introduction of energy, but letting it sit out a little while before you drink it is another way to fix this. You could also make it as needed and chill with ice, instead of in bulk.
Your best option, in my opinion, is to do what you already do: shake or stir the ingredients back into solution/suspension and enjoy. But feel free to play around with any of the other offered ideas to see what you like best.
Good answer - however, both Red 40 Lake and soy lecithin are insoluble in water I think. The Red 40 lake might be soluble in acid, which this will almost certainly be (given the citric acid...), but I'm not enough of a chemist to know for sure. The lecithin will be a whiteish powder, so this could easily be the precipitate seen.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.085486
| 2023-03-10T18:37:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123591",
"authors": [
"MonkeyZeus",
"bob1",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
110204
|
Am I on wrong track or is my Apple Cider gonna waste?
I am new to this forum. I am questions regarding ACV. But for this I am writing the complete scenario for understanding.
Last year, I made ACV (watching some tutorials from YouTube) and ingredients I used were:
Water
Sugar
Apples as whole
During the making of it, I had the smell of something acidic going around in the kitchen and i guess it was fine but even after fermenting and preserving it for a long time, I couldn't see the Mother in it (the cloudy film in it).
Question 1: Did I do something wrong in it? Although I took care of everything even I tasted a bit sour and acidic too. I still have it preserved in a bottle.
Moving ahead, about 2 and a half week back from today, I started to make another batch of ACV and ingredients I used this time were:
Water
Sugar
Apples as whole
Yeast (a lil bit, not much)
Previous batch ACV (just a glass of it in a jar)
Problem is that I am actually worried about is, when I stirred it after one week of starting, I could see some bubbles in it, but after 2nd week when I looked at it to stir, I couldn't see any bubbles in it and majority of the apples were sunken to the bottom, I tried smelling it closely. Okay, it smells a bit of acidic of maybe alcoholic but it's aroma isn't spreading like the previous one in the kitchen.
Question 2: I am worried if this batch is waste, is the yeast in it is dead, if there is less sugar in it, is there something else or if it's going fine? (No, there is no mold or something in it, that's atleast a good sign)
Question 3: I am not clear till day that how long do we have to ferment apples then enclose the liquid to form the Mother?
Please guide me, because I really am worried about it.
Update: I read somewhere that it happens when sugar is in excess. I just added some yeast to it and i can see that bubbling going like right now that made clear that i think i got messed up with yeast since start because i think i made a mistake by adding a lil bit hot water not lukewarm water. Will check it regularly, hopefully I have to keep a strict check on sugar and yeast so that the process could proceed smoothly.
Welcome! As for all new users, you may find the [tour] and the [help] useful to learn more about how the site works.
You're not covering the jar, or using something with a narrow mouth, are you? "The microbial oxidation of ethanol to acetic acid is an aerobic fermentation that has high oxygen requirement." https://www.biotechnologynotes.com/industrial-biotechnology/acetic-acid/acetic-acid-biosynthesis-and-fermentation-process-industries-biotechnology/13778
No just using cleese cloth as every single video suggested but only a thin layer to read room for oxygen and gases to come out. I read somewhere that it happens when sugar is in excess. I just added some yeast to it and i can see that bubbling now that made clear that i think i got messed up with yeast since start because i think i made a mistake by adding a lil bit hot water not lukewarm water. Will check it regularly, hopefully I have to keep a strict check on sugar and yeast so that the process could proceed smoothly. p.s. just checked on it again, it looks fine now...
I just finished two batches of vinegar, one with apples and one with peaches. I use plain quilter’s cotton to cover my jars, as I think cheesecloth lets in too many bugs. At least where I live.
I use only fruit, water, and sugar. I stir it every day for about 3 weeks. You can smell it and tell when it goes through the alcohol stage. And you really should be tasting it every day. You shouldn’t need to add any yeast, or more sugar. Just let it do it’s thing for a while. You won’t always get a mother, either, although for my peach vinegar I ended up with 3. I would give it another week or two, stirring and tasting every day. If you can get your hands on some pH test strips, this can also help you to know when everything has converted to acetic acid.
I also don't use cheesecloth but as in alternative that i have searched, I found that we can use cotton instead, so I use it. Plus, please let me know if it's gonna be fine or not to make without the mother using this method. Because i am kinda excited to see one developing in it. I thought to leave it undisturbed for a week or so then check the changes later on.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.086123
| 2020-08-15T13:36:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110204",
"authors": [
"Moeez Ahmad",
"Stephie",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87168"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
110676
|
What is the difference between kidney beans, navy beans, and black turtle beans?
I want to know the difference between what I think are gastronomically identical bean varieties: kidney beans, navy beans, and black turtle beans. I know that these beans come from the same plant, have almost the same nutritional values, and differ in color and shape.
What I do not seem to find, is what is the difference in terms of cooking and flavor? Are they differently flavored? I have seen some pages saying that kidney beans take longer to cook, but I do not know how the other two compare on that. Is there truly any difference or is just a matter of dish aesthetics?
Here's a chart showing soaking and cooking times for different kinds of beans. Note that your "black turtle beans" are the same as the "black beans" on the chart.
Kidney Beans: soak 6-8 hours, simmer 60 minutes
Navy Beans: soak 6-8 hours, simmer 45-60 minutes
Black (Turtle) Beans: soak 4 hours, simmer 60-90 minutes
In practice, beans can be soaked for longer than the listed times, really as long as is convenient to you. I usually soak mine overnight on the counter if I'm sure I'll cook them the next day. If I'm not sure whether I'll get around to cooking them the next day, I soak them in the fridge and leave them there for up to several days.
Actual bean cook time can vary somewhat depending on how old the beans are. So in practice, you should expect to cook them for at least the minimum recommended time. After they've simmered for that length of time, spoon out a couple of beans and test for doneness. You can test them by biting them (if they're soft, they're cooked; if they're hard they're not). Or blow on the hot beans; the skin on cooked beans will usually crack open and roll back.
Yes, different varieties of beans taste different. Navy beans have a fairly neutral taste. Kidney beans and black turtle beans each have their own distinctive taste.
Are black beans very different from black turtle beans? If so how it compares to the rest?
Also how is the taste of kidney and black turtle beans different from navy beans?
There is one kind of beans that is variously called black beans, turtle beans, or black turtle beans. The only difference is the name.
Kidney beans taste like kidney beans. Black beans taste like black beans. If you've never had them, there's really no effective way to explain what they taste like. They taste like themselves. How would you explain the taste of a banana to someone who had never had one?
I am not asking you all to tell me how a beans taste like, but how flavor properties compare between the three. For example, one could say that one is sweeter, or crunchier, or more bitter, compared to another one.
The taste difference between black turtle beans, white navy beans, and red kidney beans is fairly minor. Black beans have a slightly earthier taste than the other two, and kidney beans are a bit sweeter. These properties would not be noticeable in a heavily seasoned dish.
Red kidney beans, at least the ones I tend to use, are significantly larger than black or navy beans, which gives them a lower skin-to-insides ratio. They (along with navy beans) also have a relatively tender skin. Put together, this makes them creamier and smoother when mashed or allowed to dissolve. Black beans have quite a rustic texture when mashed.
And not to belabor the obvious, but the colors are different. As Apicius put it, "we eat first with our eyes." Black bean soup made with navy beans would look weird, and I think I'd have to work hard to convince myself it didn't also taste weird because of that.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.086472
| 2020-09-13T21:01:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110676",
"authors": [
"Mauricio",
"csk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87632"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
121573
|
What can you do with leftover corn husks?
We made tamales today, and had a lot of corn husks left over. Any suggestions on how they can be used?
To community members: if you consider voting to close, please make sure you are aware of our policy on culinary-uses before making your decision whether to cast a vote.
Corn husk dolls or other "crafty" projects (if the use need not be culinary in nature.)
Options:
Traditional: line the bottom of the tamale steamer basket with them.
Modern: Steam something else in them, like halibut.
Marie Kondo: Compost them.
Do they spark joy @FuzzyChef?
You can use corn husks as a base for smoking. See e.g. Ottolenghi's smoked corn salad.
I like composting things as my compost turns back into food in the veg garden :-) Husks would also seem to make good earthworm bedding if one has a worm farm. Also, the (cooked then cooled) cobs seem to be a good fattening/multiplying food for them. Websearches should return a few more in and out of kitchen uses, e.g. https://www.ruralsprout.com/corn-husks/.
I compost them, even though I'm not much of a Kondo fan. They spark joy in my compost pile.
They could be swapped for banana leaves in many applications, wrapping rice or steaming dim sum for example.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.086774
| 2022-09-05T00:58:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121573",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"GdD",
"Sanchises",
"frIT",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36151",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52555",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
65725
|
"Shelf"-life of frozen Kaffir lime leaves
A scale infection ruined my vision of a constant supply of fresh Kaffir lime leaves. I salvaged the unaffected leaves and now have a baggie full of frozen leaves in my freezer - My local asian food store sells them frozen and I figured I'd take a leaf out of their book.
But how long will they stay fresh?
Of course I could buy a large bag of rice and a crate of coconut milk and put Thai/Vietnamese/... on the menu five days a week, but to prevent domestic mutiny I'd like to stretch that bag of leaves way longer.
I checked our canonical post and the links given there, but couldn't find a conclusive answer. And of course I'm wondering about quality, not food safety.
Is it a frost free freezer?
Your only risk is freezer burn....I would vacuum pack. I'll bet you could get 6 months easy...if not longer.
The ones sold in plastic tubs by asian grocers usually last a year or more (some will develop freezer burn around the edges... so what, you use the ones that are unaffected) ... we cannot know HOW they were frozen, though (might have been flash frozen or pre-cooled in a blast chiller). BTW, Thai/Vietnamese 5 days a week sounds like a great way to PREVENT domestic mutiny to me :)
Answering from personal experience:
Mine are in the freezer now for 5+ months, and don't show any sign of degradation. Not in smell, not in texture, not in color, not in taste. I expect them to be like that for some time to come.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.086913
| 2016-01-22T23:11:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65725",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Connie Calaman",
"Div .J",
"Jane Maddox",
"Jennifer Welsh",
"Jonathon Michel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157153",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157154",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"moscafj",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
125375
|
Make custard firmer
I've been following this recipe for lemon bars by Claire Saffitz. The crust turned out perfect, however the lemon custard was super soft, just short of runny. Cutting the entire thing into pieces / bars was nearly impossible without creating a big mess. I'd like to have a firmer custard, but I'm not experienced enough to know how to adjust the recipe.
The recipe uses 9 egg yolks, 3 whole large eggs, 300g sugar (1.5 cups), 360ml lemon juice (1 cup) and 115g of butter (1 stick). These are stirred together, heated in a pot until slightly thickened, poured over the pre-baked crust and then put in the oven for 25-30 minutes. Can I simply add more eggs/egg yolks? Will more butter create a stiffer custard when cooled? Does the acidity of the lemon juice influence the stiffness? I don't think a longer baking time would have stiffened up the custard any more.
How did you ensure that the custard has fully set? Did you measure the internal temperature, and what was it?
I've had the custard for 5 minutes longer in the oven than recommended. When it cooled I took a small piece and blasted it in the microwave, but it didn't change. @rumtscho
I wish I knew… And a way to recover. I think once decades ago I tried stirring in extra powdered sugar and re-baking, but it was still soupy
Using an accurate food thermometer will be the easiest and most reliable way to troubleshoot this. I suspect you simply didn't get the curd hot enough to thicken it, but there's no way to know for sure.
Is this an american recipe or a european recipe, and where are you based? What size eggs are you using?
This is an American recipe, I'm in Europe (therefore the converted measurements as taken from a comment under the video). I think I was using medium sized eggs @GdD
I haven't watched the video, if it calls for large US eggs then medium european eggs would be the right call @YPOC. If the recipe calls for XL US eggs then EU large would be the equivalent.
As much as it appals me to ask, but have you considered stirring in some instant custard powder? It'll firm up your custard perfectly without really impacting on the flavour or colour.
physics note: custard is mostly water. Water has an incredibly high specific heat (heat input required to raise the temperature.) If your oven is only a little bit too cold, or your custard has just a little too much liquid, the cooking time could go up by a surprisingly large amount. Five extra minutes may not be enough. I once overshot the liquid on a pumpkin pie, in a slightly crappy oven, and the cook time was almosts double the recipe. (This was before I bought a good oven thermometer.)
Saffitz's recipe is unusual in having a large number of eggs in the filling but no starch. Most lemon bar recipes have some starch in the filling to help it set, usually flour, from 1/4 to 1 cup.
So if it wasn't setting firm, the first thing I'd try is adding some flour or cornstarch to the filling.
^^^This ... Most of the recipes I've used have had cornstarch in them. I also make sure that the custard is fairly thick before it is poured on the crust, at the very least I'm able to get a perfectly clean 'stripe' on the spoon or spatula when checking for doneness.
The first place to troubleshoot is the doneness of the custard.
"Time in the oven" is a very bad way to judge when to stop baking. It can be wildly off. The only certain way is to measure the internal temperature.
Make it again, using a digital oven thermometer, and take it out at maybe 85 Celsius. The optimal range for custards is 83-87, but you want to avoid overheating it, and there can be a bit of carryover, so it's best to stay in the middle of the range. Also, make sure it's fully set before cutting, so leave it overnight in the fridge.
Only if the above doesn't work, should you try finding a better-working recipe. You can also tweak on your own, but that's usually more work than trying out a few existing recipes until you find a good one. If you do tweak, the most promising direction is to increase the ratio of egg whites to egg yolks. This will change your taste away from typical lemon curd, but will also give you a firmer custard, yolky custards tend to be smeary. So maybe 5 whole eggs and 6 yolks would be a good place to start. If the egg whites aren't enough for a good tweak, I'd start reducing the sugar.
Can I simply add more eggs/egg yolks
At that high amount of eggs, I wouldn't try adding even more. The ratio of yolks to whites can be a good thing to change though, see above.
Will more butter create a stiffer custard when cooled?
No, it will create a softer custard.
Does the acidity of the lemon juice influence the stiffness?
Potentially yes, but it's complicated. You don't need any acidity to get a firm custard with eggs, they work all on their own. In a lemon curd, the acidity does change the texture, but the larger problem is in reducing its curdling properties, else you'll end up with a grainy mess. So you don't want to go that route, it will be very complicated if it works at all.
If op is going to change the recipe, adding starch is the way to go instead of fiddling with the yolk ratio
@Agos yes, starch-based fillings exist too. It is a different type, that needs more tweaking, but if that's what the OP wants to go for, it will also work.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.087079
| 2023-09-27T09:44:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125375",
"authors": [
"Agos",
"GdD",
"Glenn Willen",
"Joe",
"Richard",
"Sharpenologist",
"Sneftel",
"YPOC",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106292",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91203",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
120819
|
Making rice in a thermos flask
Would mixing white rice grains with boiling water and pouring the mix into a thermos flask and letting it stay there for an hour work (to make edible rice)?
p.s I don't have a thermos flask to try and check but if this technique has chances of working, it would be useful while traveling when boiling water is available but not cooked rice. i.e. use an industrial heat gun to heat up the water and also point that heat gun inside the empty flask for a couple of seconds to heat it as well before pouring the water, add rice and get out of the place in 2 minutes
You should look up ‘thermal cookers’ which are like a thermos, but actually intended to cook in like what you’re asking about.
There are several sources of information on line that illustrate people cooking rice in a thermos flask. It should be easy to google, and it certainly looks possible. They basically do as you suggest, add boiling water to rice and seal. Some use instant rice, others I've seen use brown rice. Time until done (or at least until they used it) seems to vary quite widely. I would think you could read these posts, and then experiment with your own thermos and specific rice.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.087598
| 2022-06-12T15:05:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120819",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115550
|
Scientific results on which oils to use for pan-frying
I am trying to find out which oils are suitable for pan-frying at high temperatures (when frying steaks or pancakes where smoke points are typically reached). Since there seems to be no agreement and a lot of false information about this in non-scientific sources, I want to consider scientific sources only.
I am more interested in home use, i.e., short pan-frying with little oil (no deep-frying) at higher temperatures (around 200 °C), so many papers researching commercial deep-frying applications (below 180 °C but heated/reheated for multiply hours) seem to be less relevant to me.
So far, I have found two sources that seem to be very relevant to me. Unfortunately, they come to very different conclusions.
In [1], different oils were slowly heated to 205 °C and then retained at this heat for another hour. They used Raman spectroscopy to analyze samples before, after, and at specific temperatures in between.
They concluded that sunflower and canola oils present high thermal stability and are therefore recommended for frying.
Coconut and olive oils showed significant degradation starting at 165-175 °C.
In [2] however, olive oil is recommended for frying because “when different oils were compared, olive oil was considered to be the most stable liquid fat” (p. 665). One source for this is another study of one of the authors [3] where sunflower and olive oils were heated to 180 °C for 5-10 hours. There, sunflower oil showed significantly greater degradation than olive oil (if I interpret the results correctly).
What is the current state of research on this topic? Is this a well researched topic and I just couldn't find the majority of relevant sources? If not, is there a proper conclusion summarizing these two studies? Is [2] less relevant to me because they don't use the high heat that occurs in pan-frying? Is the more recent study [1] more relevant because it uses modern techniques to analyze the oils?
Refs:
[1] Alvarenga, B.R., Xavier, F.A.N., Soares, F.L.F. et al. Thermal Stability Assessment of Vegetable Oils by Raman Spectroscopy and Chemometrics. Food Anal. Methods 11, 1969–1976 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12161-018-1160-y
[2] Velasco, Joaquín & Dobarganes, M.. (2002). Oxidative stability of virgin olive oil. European Journal of Lipid Science and Technology. 104. https://doi.org/10.1002/1438-9312(200210)104:9/10%3C661::AID-EJLT661%3E3.0.CO;2-D
[3] Dobarganes, M. C., Marquez-Ruiz, G., & Perez-Camino, M. C. (1993). Thermal stability and frying performance of genetically modified sunflower seed (Helianthus annuus L.) oils. Journal of agricultural and food chemistry, 41(4), 678-681 https://doi.org/10.1021/jf00028a033
I don't have a source, but it really depends on your preference for the flavor of your food. I would say that this statement I made shows no help at all, so I made it a comment.
I agree that dishes like aglio e olio only work with olive oil, but this is only low heat.
For high heat applications like frying a steak, refined oils should be used because they are the most stable, and these don't really have any flavor anyway.
Why would the degredation of oil after hours be your main concern with pan-frying? Most pan-frying is done for a fairly short time, just minutes or seconds. These papers seem irrelevant to your main question.
I have been in your scientific shoes and I have nothing but woeful news.
Unlike most other sciences (or like most other sciences depending on whether or not you work in the industry), cooking is subject to countless variables. I will count the one's that I know of below in regards to dealing with oils. Anyone else, feel free to add to the list.
Quality of the oil (whether or not it is entirely comprised of the ingredient it is supposedly made of, cost cutting, unavailability)
Quality of the cooking vessel (even vs uneven heating, heat retention, heat source to oil quality)
Heat dissipation from source (electric is slow building, wood is slow building, preburnt coal is immediate, natural gas is immediate)
Ambient humidity (More humid environments can effect heat point of oils)
Ambient air pressure (Can affect time to smoke point of oil, permeation of humidity)
Thermometer quality (When dealing with higher temperature oils, I have had 2 high-cost thermometers measure 30 degrees F apart)
That being said, I would like to see more tables of info (and maybe they exist) but unlike baking where the micrograms of flour to yeast are defined so overtly I can not bother, I have not seen a scientific breakdown of all the variables of oils.
I still work by mom's advice. If its bready and you want to feel good, low temp. If you want crisp and a quick fry, high temp.
Hey, PW, welcome to SA! Just wanted to help with some guidance. This answer is a bit of a "me too" answer, rather than answering the question asked. It's unlikely to get upvoted for that reason. Most of the time, if you want to say "yes, this is a pervasive problem", the place to do that is in the comments.
This does not really answer the question. If you have a different question, you can ask it by clicking Ask Question. To get notified when this question gets new answers, you can follow this question. Once you have enough reputation, you can also add a bounty to draw more attention to this question. - From Review
Your first reference seems clear enough.
"...The stability of oils presented high correlation with their smoke points. As expected, the more evident spectral changes were observed in the oils that present lower smoke points. The refined oils, which in general present higher smoke points, presented better stability. ..."
The general consensus (see your first reference) is that you should use an oil (or fat) that has the highest smoking point possible for your application.
See Smoke Point wikipedia article. (bold by me)
"...
The smoke point of an oil correlates with its level of refinement.[7][8] Many cooking oils have smoke points above standard home cooking temperatures:[9]
Pan frying (sauté) on stove top heat: 120 °C (248 °F)
Deep frying: 160–180 °C (320–356 °F)
Oven baking: Average of 180 °C (356 °F)
..."
You are probably over thinking this.
There's no doubt that I'm overthinking this. However, your answer doesn't answer my question. I asked for the current state of research, more sources, and/or a conclusion from these two papers with different results.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.087742
| 2021-05-06T22:35:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115550",
"authors": [
"Derrick Williams",
"Erik",
"FuzzyChef",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43521",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94053",
"mech"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115613
|
Is sour milk, soured milk, and milk that has gone sour, all the exact same thing?
Is sour milk, soured milk, and milk that has gone sour, all the exact same thing?
Related to this question:
Is buttermilk another term for sour milk or some part of sour milk?
and especially this answer to it:
https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/115571/93811
and two of the comments appended to that answer, specifically:
"Is soured milk the same as sour milk as in, 'I kept this milk in the fridge too long after opening, and now it is sour, although it was okay yesterday, and so I need to chuck it out and buy some more'. – Matthew Christopher Bartsh yesterday
@MatthewChristopherBartsh Not exactly. “Kept in the fridge and something grew” is the problem - you don’t know what grew. Way back before commercial milk production, there was a good(-ish) change that something desirable grew - souring meant “let stand, it’ll be thick by tomorrow” or it meant “add some of the existing product and let the microorganisms from that multiply and do their thing”. It’s too complicated for a comment to explain why exactly the former is less likely to work today than back in our (great...)grandparents’ time. – Stephie♦
Yes, it is the same. It refers to milk which has been left out until it has gone sour with whatever wild bacteria it has managed to catch, be they pathogenic, healthy, or neutral. It curdles a bit and changes in smell and taste.
If you find a person or author who makes a difference, then you have discovered either some regionally restricted distinction which is not widespread (maybe even restricted to that one author), or a too-literal translation from some other language.
Update, since you seem to be asking about the exact meaning of Stephie's comment. What she means is that back in the day, when milk went sour, the actual risks were lower than when today's milk goes sour. (not to speak of the perceived risks and of the implicit risks/reward calculations people make by gut feeling). The difference in her comment is not between "sour milk" and "soured milk", but between "milk that was freshly milked from a single healthy cow and left at room temperature until it went sour" and "commercially produced and processed milk which was distributed to me and left in the fridge until it went sour". There are no terms in the English language which make this distinction, both are called "sour milk" or "soured milk" - so the product is probabilistically different, but the words are not.
But, that doesn't make it exactly the same. Like sour cream vs cream that's gone sour - one was intentional & further pasteurised to prevent it going any further; the other was left in the fridge until something random grew in it.
@Tetsujin I have never seen somebody make this distinction by using the word "sour" for milk. Milk which has had some culture added has a different name in English, depending on the culture/process: yogurt, buttermilk, kefir, etc. Other languages do use the term, that's why I mentioned the too-literal translation.
tbh, I've never seen "sour milk" for sale anywhere, but sour cream I can get in any supermarket.
@Tetsujin exactly. The term "sour milk" is not used for any desirable product which we can get, neither is the term "soured milk". Both are used only for what has happened to go sour on its own. It so happens that the English language developed differently for cream than for milk, and one intentionally-cultured variation is called "sour cream". Such divergence in terms is common.
"Yes, it is the same. It refers to milk which has been left out until it has gone sour with whatever wild bacteria it has managed to catch, be they pathogenic, healthy, or neutral. It curdles a bit and changes in smell and taste." , you wrote. How many people think the 'change' in smell and taste is an improvement or is even remotely acceptable? "back in the day, when milk went sour, the actual risks were lower than when today's milk goes sour...", you wrote. Do you mean it was common for people to drink sour milk back then? I think I would throw up if I dared to try that.
Yes, it was absolutely acceptable and common. In fact, my own grandparents' generation did it, and it was widespread. And if it was too-far-gone, it was "hidden" by using it as a baking ingredient instead. It is absolutely normal that tastes and attitudes towards food are part of culture and not absolute - you shouldn't use your own experience to predict other people's preferences and reactions to certain foods.
@MatthewChristopherBartsh see this. If you have only come across commercially processed (e.g. pasteurized or UHT) rotting milk, I can understand your aversion, that’s yuck! But just as sour cream is “off in a good way” (joining ranks with other “off” foods like cheese, sauerkraut, wine, vinegar ...), sour milk can be an appreciated food item and for example be found in German cuisine (sweetened, with breadcrumbs or cinnamon), all over Scandinavia, or rather, everywhere where farmers kept cows. It’s typically not drunk, but spooned, like yogurt.
And note that spontaneously fermented milk products are made from raw milk (relying on the biome in the milk and the environment). For pasteurized milk, you need inoculation with the target bacteria, or the chance of the milk simply rotting is very high. The pasteurization can also be done to “clear the ground”, e.g. in yogurt making before adding the starter or reserved yogurt.
@rumtscho I am not talking about using sour milk as a baking ingredient, something must happen to it when that is done as there is no hint of a taste of sour milk in scones made with sour milk. How on earth could your grandparents generation drink sour milk? Here is someone trying to drink sour milk. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68CYpccOvZY "Spoiled Milk Challenge Fail".
@Stephie The Wikipedia article you linked to has, "Before the invention of refrigeration, raw milk commonly became sour before it could be consumed, and various recipes incorporate such leftover milk as an ingredient." No mention of drinking it.
@Stephie: one of the environmental factors was: people "selected" in favor of good/OK strains. When the milk went sour in a bad way, you'd clean everything thoroughly in order to get rid of that one. Keeping a local good/OK strain around will make the milk go sour faster than having no such strain (and lower bacteria counts), but if it's sufficiently predominant, the result will still be edible - this is a sensible tradeoff if "not going sour" is not a viable option e.g. because of lack of refridgeration, pasteurization or microfiltration.
@cbeleitesunhappywithSX exactly. Like catching wild yeasts for sourdough in a baker’s kitchen or under a flowering shrub (hello, elder!) or stirring the beer with always the same stick (which transferred the yeast from one batch to the next) - or extra cleaning and scrubbing if you had „bad spirits“. A milk farmer once told me that the mandatory equipment cleaning agents and cleaning regimen plus the immediate chilling of the milk is one of the reasons why the spontaneous fermentation goes awry more frequently today than in the past. I guess she had a point there.
@ Matthew: in my native languange Sauermilch = literally sour milk (regionally also Dickmilch, thick milk - possibly what rumtscho was thinking about as too literal translation), you can buy it in the supermarket. It is nowadays a specific product like yoghurt, but fermented with a different species (wikipedia tells me lactococcus lactis vs streptococcus thermophilus + lactobacillus bulgaricus). Of course, the local DIY home strains were likely yet different ones - but they certainly were more carefully selected than "whatever falls in there first in the fridge" for modern spoiling of milk.
@Stephie: Yes. The other point being that spontaneous fermentation doesn't happen as often/as soon - which is the purpose of the cleaning. I seem to have heard of putting leftover milk into the same (possibly wooden) bowl to make such "sour milk". That would provide a proper home for the strain used for inoculation, like the wooden spoon.
@Stephie I read the Wikipedia article called "Soured milk" that you linked to. I also read the talk page. I learned a lot, and reading here also helped. It seems there is a sense of 'sour milk' that I had never heard of, which means fermented milk (yogurt, for example). I don't know how I missed it. Maybe this is a recent addition to the list of senses of 'sour milk'. It seems a lot of people are saying 'spoiled milk' to mean what I mean when I say 'sour milk'. To me 'sour milk' (i.e. milk that had soured) had always been milk that had a foul, sour taste and smell because it had spoiled.
@Stephie I never for a moment thought yogurt was a type of sour milk but rather a type of fermented milk, like cheese. Maybe I will start saying 'spoiled milk' instead of saying 'sour milk'. Language is always changing. "Language is not a lantern slide but a moving picture", someone said once. By searching for "drinking spoiled milk" I found this much better video. This guy tries to drink gallon of (very) sour milk. I found it hard to watch. "Can A Human Drink A Gallon of Spoiled Milk w/o Vomiting into A Washing Machine? | L.A. BEAST" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJ_K960dG4c .
Rule of thumb: if it’s sour because it’s a carton of store-bought milk forgotten in the fridge, forget it. If it’s sour because it’s a batch of raw milk left at room temperature, it’s dubious. If you added the bacteria on purpose, enjoy!
I found this interesting: https://microbenotes.com/spoilage-of-milk-and-milk-products/
@MatthewChristopherBartsh you seem to still be trying to find a term which is universally understood to imply only one sense of souring of milk. This doesn't exist. All three terms (sour, spoiled and fermented) milk can be used interchangeably, and while you will find people who make distinctions between them, not all people make the same kind of distinction. For example, my mother is much more likely to say "the X has fermented" than "the X has spoiled" when she finds some food with signs of unwanted bacterial activity, and shesometimes forgets it also means purposeful fermentation.
@rumtscho The words 'sour', 'soured', and 'fermented' all seem to have way too many meanings for my liking. It seems to me that it has been a long time since I came across a set of words with so many confusing meanings. Maybe it's because there is an element of subjectivity to what milk tastes like. 'Spoiled milk' is fairly unambiguous, and seems to be the word favored by the scientists so I like it, except that it doesn't specify or connote the highly distinctive smell and taste of sour milk. For example, if milk spontaneously turned to some sort of cheese I would maybe not call it sour.
@MatthewChristopherBartsh: All three terms have distinct meanings, and are used with milk very much along the general lines of their meaning: sour is precise in the sense that it describes actually acidity building up and the pH dropping. Spoiled means gone wrong. I'd disagree that it is unambiguous in taste, since different causes that all spoil milk cause different taste (think e.g. moldy vs. bitter) Fermentation refers to microbial or enzymatic processes. These terms "meet" here, since the microbial fermentation produces acid, thus the milk goes sour - and that likely means it's spoiled.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.088213
| 2021-05-11T07:20:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115613",
"authors": [
"Matthew Christopher Bartsh",
"Stephie",
"Tetsujin",
"cbeleites",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93811",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115691
|
Sourdough Starter: Very fast rise (doubles in an hour)
I started a sourdough culture a week back and have some questions about rising time.
I did not add any yeast to the culture.
I am using regular whole wheat flour.
The temperature at my place is 30*C(at 1 pm)
Day 1-6 I used 10 Gram Flour. Day 6 I used 20gram, Day 7 I used 50gram
The progress so far has been as follows with 100% hydration:
Day. Status
Equal parts water and flour.
Equal parts water and flour, No Activity, smells rotten!
Equal parts Fresh Orange Juice and flour, Doubles after a few hours Repeat Same feed after 10 hours.
Equal parts Fresh Orange Juice and flour, Doubles after a few hours Repeat Same feed after 10 hours.
Discard 50%, Equal parts water and flour: Doubles in an hour. Smells Yeasty!
Discard 50%, Equal parts water and flour: Doubles in an hour. Repeat feeding 3 times a day when the dough starts falling.
Discard 50%, Equal parts water and flour: Doubles in less than an hour!
Now most Sourdough bread recipes that I see online are based on an assumption of 8 hours rise time With my dough doubling in an hour or less, I had the following questions:
Is it the "right culture"? Should I be using it for baking?
If it can be used for Baking Is there a modified recipe available for fast acting yeast?
My Starter Jar right now looks like this!
Edit 1: I Made a whole wheat bread with the started.
The hydration was low(70%),
the crumb a bit dense.
There was little or no over spring(Did not use a dutch over, used a pan with boiling water and a tea towel on lower shelf)
...but the bread was tasty :)
Welcome to SA! What's the ambient room temperature where the sourdough is rising? Also, where did you get a recipe that uses orange juice? That's a new one on me, and I'm wondering if it's affecting the sourdough development.
The 24 hrs temperature in my area fluctuated between 25 to 30 degree celsius (Bangalore. India) The starter sits on an open shelf in the room.
There are multiple recipe's which recommend a slightly acidic environment (pineapple/orange juice. Apple Cider etc.) to boost yeast growth over bacterial growth e.g.
https://cooking.nytimes.com/recipes/1013152-sourdough-starter
https://www.thefreshloaf.com/node/233/wild-yeast-sourdough-starter
Anyway, "a bit dense" is pretty common with your first sourdough loaf. It'll improve with time.
Is it the "right culture"? Should I be using it for baking?
This is impossible to say from your description only. The observation of growth is necessary, but not sufficient, to recognize the right culture. So, if it hadn't been growing, you would have had to wait longer for sure. But now that it grows, it may be the right culture growing, or it may be so young (it seems you are at day 8) that the right bacteria have not yet taken over. You have to tell that by smell.
If it can be used for Baking Is there a modified recipe available for fast acting yeast?
You seem to have found not so good recipes, or to have misinterpreted them. You cannot determine proper rising by time. A good recipe should tell you when your bread is risen by terms describing the rise itself, usually "until doubled in volume". So find a recipe of that type and follow it. If it also suggests a possible rising time, but your dough rises in a different time, just disregard the time.
As a side note, there are bread baking recipes which are built around holding times, where you are really expected to wait for that duration by the clock. These times are usually during periods during which the dough isn't supposed to be rising though, such as retardation in a fridge. This type of retardation is kinda redundant in sourdough recipes, and while you can find recipes which do retard sourdough loaves, I would suggest to stay away for them at least for the beginning, until you have mastered the work with your starter in simpler recipes, and have a good base from which to explore more complex methods.
I'm not surprised your starter is very active given that it's being incubated at a cosy 30C. But the only way to know for sure that it has a suitable population of yeasts is to use it to bake a simple loaf. Just take a simple recipe and go for it. Your starter looks healthy so I expected you'll get good results.
For a very quick check, just fry a couple of teaspoons at about 100% hydration: if you can see bubbles forming on the surface there is active yeast.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.088996
| 2021-05-17T08:40:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115691",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93941",
"vijayvithal"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115706
|
Flatbread dough turned red
Today I made some flatbread and while cooking them I noticed a reddish coloring of the dough. I didn't add anything red in particular, so I am very surprised they turned out this way. Why did that happen?
I mixed whole spelt flour and regular wheat flour, yogurt, 2 tablespoons baking soda, some olive oil, flax seeds and sesame seeds, salt, garam masala and turmeric. First I kneaded it with a mixer, the by hand, I left it to rest for 15 minutes, maybe bit more. I rolled it quite thinly with a rolling pin. I fried it on a non-stick pan.
I am actually not sure if this was safe to eat, maybe something reacted in an unexpected way?!
A picture could be helpful in this case, but turmeric and garam masala could add an orange to red tinge. Have you made this recipe before?
was the reddish coloring noticeable in the raw dough, or after cooking?
@rumtscho only after cooking. I forgot to add that I used yogurt. :)
@moscafj I made similar ones, with this kind of flour and so on. New thing here was the mixer and the seeds maybe, I used them only once or twice before.
yogurt would be acidic ... could there be something else in there that's acting like litmus paper?
As Joe mentioned, there was something acting as a litmus paper!
Turmeric placed in an alkaline solution will turn bright red!
quoted from: https://foodcrumbles.com/how-turmeric-gets-its-color/
Most probably there wasn't enough yogurt or it didn't react with baking soda and left the dough alkaline.
I didn't know that tumeric did that. (I was assuming that there might've been something else that wasn't mentioned). Interesting in that it seems to require heat to get it to change, though. Now I just need to think about how best to abuse that knowledge. (like getting something to turn blood red when cooked)
You get something similar trying to remove curry stains from worktops. Yellow stain; spray with generic household cleaner, leave to soak. Come back to dark orange-red floating stain. Rinse & repeat [literally].
A nice infographic showing the same info - see why tumeric turns red.
Red onion can do the litmus thing, too. I discovered that when I added red onion to a seafood chowder and it turned (a rather unappealing shade of) blue.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.089320
| 2021-05-17T19:35:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115706",
"authors": [
"Gord Thompson",
"Joe",
"Tetsujin",
"bobthechemist",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93950",
"mcjlnrtwcz",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
123938
|
My pasta maker roller has warped
My son was making pasta but stuffed a huge dollop into the roller, which has then caused the roller to roll in an oval shape rather than smoothly; so now I get horizontal 'stripes' in the dough from where it rolls thinner in some places than others because the roller gets thick, the thin again in one turn.
Does anyone know how I can get the shape back in the roller, or stop it shifting backwards and forwards on its bar if this is what's happening?
It's a new machine and I'd like to save it if I can!
Depending how new it is, you might want to check with the company, as you might be able to get a replacement under warranty
You probably need to first establish what's bent.
If the roller cylinders are solid steel, then possibly an axle. If they're hollow, then the cylinder itself is more likely.
If the axle is bent, then there's a chance you could bend it back to approximately straight again, depending on what equipment you have access to - though it will always be a weak point. If the cylinder is distorted you can probably forget it.
Time for a new roller.
As stripes were mentioned, I suspect it’s the axle. The roller itself being dented would lead to a bump each rotation instead of stripes, unless it somehow deformed evenly across the whole side
I believe Joe is correct here, an axle defect would apply across the entire roller's surface, whereas a roller defect would not.
Until the OP comes back with further explanation/pictures, all we have is guesswork, hence how this answer was framed.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.089533
| 2023-04-16T08:42:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123938",
"authors": [
"Flater",
"Joe",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67632"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29458
|
What's the science behind making German potato dumplings (Knödel) fluffy but not fall apart?
First off, I'm German, so you would think I know, but it seems traditional cuisine has not been passed down my family tree.
This question really consists of two parts:
What makes potatos dough (or I guess, starchy dough in general, there's all kinds of dumplings, there's pasta, etc) keep its shape when you boil it in water? This may extend to some degree to deep frying.
What properties make balls of dough "fluffy" or "textured", but not "tough", "rubber-like" etc.? I guess this will go somewhere along the lines of what structure the starch granules form with the water, how stable it is, and how dense.
There is about a million recipes online for cooked, raw, and 50-50 knödels. Some have egg, some don't, and just about everywhere there's people asking how to do them right. There's also a question to that here on this site.
However, it's hard to get some actual information on the key aspects (this is a problem I have with recipes in general). I'm pretty sure there ought to be no egg and not a lot of flour in the dumplings. I'm also certain that either all cooked, all raw or half-half are common and widespread varieties, but there it stops.
I would like to find some science based instructions, the kind of articles Kenji runs on The Food Lab. It looks like most recipes have some way of enriching the dough with starch above what's in the potatoes anyway, by draining water from the potatoes and adding starch powder. The father of a friend wraps the potatoes in cloths and puts them through the spin cycle of the washing machine, which (because of the preceding meticulous cleaning of the latter) is a tedious procedure that's only done for Christmas.
Millions of grandmas have reached the proper end result via various routes, using plain ingredients and unsophisticated equipment, so there should be some basic principle at work, which can be analyzed with science, very much like with roasting beef or frying potatoes.
Maybe, we could dig up something about related recipes, like gnocchi, which would be helpful.
I'm pretty sure the "science" is just "get the right balance of potato, additional dry starch, and moisture". There are probably a lot of ways to get there (including washing machines), and for any reliable method, one could explain that it results in the right balance. So this seems a bit like a very specific recipe request.
I'm very interested in the answer to this according to Jefromi's idea of the "science" (ie a ratio). If you don't mind checking back here in a few days (or possibly weeks) I'll do some research and try to get a definitive answer.
Pointing out that an attempt to avoid chemicals in paper is impossible is unhelpfully snarky, but damning a request for technical details of dumpling cookery as "just" a "recipe request" isn't, @Jefromi? An answer that does explain what the right balance is and why it's right would be a fine piece of food writing and a stellar contribution to this site. It'll take a lot of work to write such an answer, but that doesn't make this a recipe search. There's a lot of info required beyond your tart "just get the right balance".
@josh I think the OP has already explained what makes the right balance right - it's the ratio that yields those results. The hard part, and the substance of the question, is reliably getting there (e.g. getting water out of potatoes with a washing machine) and that part is essentially a recipe request. And I point this out because recipe requests are off topic here. I understand that it's difficult to find a reliable recipe, and that it's probably even difficult to follow one, but asking for a really good recipe is still a recipe request.
For what it's worth, I think it sounds like the real trick here is just getting the potatoes dry enough, and asking how to do that (and how to tell when they are) is a great question. Asking explicitly for a whole recipe is where it gets dodgy.
@Jefromi, I'm not looking for a recipe. I don't even like recipes. I edited my question to make my objective a little clearer.
a gold medal to the one who can find a technique/formula for any ol' potato. They could then try turning any ol' grapes into good wine
I've only done some very peripheral research so far and I can see that I have a lot to learn in order to give a good answer. There are a few things that I think are key. A potato with a low percentage water content is needed. For fluffiness, I believe the starch grains should not be allowed to swell so that they burst cell walls; the starch grains should gel in a controlled manner. Dried potato starch (or possibly flour) should be added to bind the mixture. To dry the potato, I'm leaning towards baking and letting the steam escape efficiently by ricing onto a baking tray.
This related question is worth reading too.
My grandfathers technique is a half and half, but he juices the raw half, and boils & mashes the 2nd half. This technique may be easier to reason about the ratios of water than ricing. He also insists the dumplings needs to be simmered gently rather than boiled, so the temperature going through to the middle. Finally, they float when they are finished cooking, so the swelling to a particular density is a factor.
You have to use the most floury potatoes you can find. if you are in Germany ask in the shop/market which ones are best.
Your dealing with a few things here. First is starches in general. The thing to know about starches is how they gelatinize and at what temperatures.
This powerpoint is a nice primer on that topic. www.cfs.purdue.edu/class/f&n630/gelatinization.ppt
Basically your dealing with amylose and amylopectin, together they are what we know as a starch. When they come in contact with water the starch cells begin to swell and when their gelatinization temperature is met they burst and release their contents into the medium they are in. In the case of a dough ball, your dealing with tons and tons of little cells being held together loosely at first by the physical pressure of kneading them into balls and then when the heat causes the starches to gelatinize they adhere to one another kind of like being caught in a net.
Now the fluffiness portion of the question can really depend on how the dough is being cooked. For something like a dumpling being cooked in the boiling water, one would typically want to work the dough as little as possible to avoid making it too dense and if using flour to lessen the gluten formation that can make it very chewy like bread. Some recipes call for leaveners that can create gas bubbles when heated to a certain temperature and then through gelatinization the bubbles are trapped inside the dough and create an airy texture.
Another German here who also tried to make dumplings from potatoes.
From my experience with (almost) all potato dumplings, I found that adding more flour (or starch) makes the dumplings keep their shape in water, but at the same time makes them taste more 'rubber-like'. I just checked in 'Il Cucchiaio d'aregento', they say so, too.
Here are some tricks that helped me to minimize the amount of flour in my dough:
Always use 'mehligkochende' (deepl translates it as floury) potatoes
At first, prepare them in the oven, wrapped in tin foil, this way they turn out a lot less 'watery' and requires less flour for the dough
Never use any sort of blender, just mash the potatoes
Add semolina instead of starch or flour to the dough (I found that in an Austrian recipe for Marillenknödel)
The water in which you boil the dumplings should be just below the boiling point so it does not tear apart the dumplings (You may want to steam them at first)
I hope my techniques will help you to get closer to the desired result as they did for me.
PS: Similar tricks also hold for Gnocchi
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.089812
| 2012-12-25T23:45:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29458",
"authors": [
"Alexander von Wernherr",
"Cascabel",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Dennis",
"HadAnIdea",
"Hanno Fietz",
"Loc Van",
"Pat Sommer",
"RedSonja",
"Rizowski",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21264",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2911",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68497",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68678",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69950",
"jscs",
"stevenrcfox"
],
"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
}
|
123689
|
How do you make homemade tortillas if the masa or corn meal is raw?
In the rescent past, I learned how to make tortillas from pre-cooked corn meal. The already-cooked, already-ground corn meal is also known as, "instant corn meal".
I ground my own corn this time, but I do not know if anything special required because the masa is raw and uncooked
I tried the following:
mix the raw corn meal (masa cruda) with water.
form the dough into balls the size of golf-balls
squished the balls of dough flat in a tortilla press
fry the tortilla in a dry pan with no oil for less than 5 minutes.
It did not work. The tortillas from only coarsley ground corn and water are not flexible. The tortillas snap in half. No tacos can be made. They are crumbly and brittle.
If I am using raw uncooked corn, do you reccomend that I fermet the corn on a bowl of water and yeast for a few hours?
Do you reccomend precooking the corn? I could spread the dry maiz crudo out on a cookie sheet and bake it in an oven for an hour or two at an extreemly low tempurature. Could make dough from pre cooked corn.
I only know how to make tortillas using factory-made instant pre-cooked flour.
Welcome to SA! Thanks for all the photos with your question.
In order for you to make tortillas, the corn needs to be nixtamalized, which you need to do when the corn is in its whole kernel form. Nixtamalization uses lime (cal), not yeast.
Since the corn will be soaked at the end of nixtamalization, when you grind it up it makes a wet masa dough than can be used directly.
Serious Eats documents the whole process.
What does “(cal)” mean? I’m guessing it’s not a reference to small calories. Does it refer to calcium?
From the link, cal is apparently Spanish for lime. I'd never heard the term before either.
Yes, it's Mexican Spanish for the specific variety of lime used for nixtamalization. I threw in the term because the OP included a bunch of Spanish terms in their question.
@JanusBahsJacquet I think that cal is Calcium hydroxide.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.090787
| 2023-03-20T20:23:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123689",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Janus Bahs Jacquet",
"Samuel Muldoon",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22249
|
Do I need to wash my tongs between handling raw meat in pan?
Possible Duplicate:
How can I ensure food safety if my cooking utensils have touched raw meat?
I tend to be over careful when handling raw meat when cooking. However, I think it is simply ignorance about what is safe within reason.
My actual question in this case is one that I've wondered for awhile now—when doing stir fry, I use raw chicken and cook it accordingly. After each time I use the tongs to move around the chicken throughout the cooking, I wash the tongs with soap and water. Is this really necessary or can I use the tongs the entire time as I cook the meal without washing them. I keep thinking that the raw juices are going to stay on the tongs and get on to the parts of the meal near the end before I serve it. Am I just being overly-paranoid?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.090994
| 2012-03-14T02:21:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22249",
"authors": [
"Pascal Olukusi",
"Trey Lewis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49904"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
123710
|
Why: recipe calls for more liquid in electric pressure cooker than stovetop
A recipe written for an 8 quart stovetop pressure cooker calls for 3/4 cup of chicken broth in the pressure cooker. It includes a note that a 6 quart electric pressure cooker must instead use 1 3/4 cup (an entire cup more!) and notes that the dish will need to be simmered for 10 minutes after pressure cooking in order to thicken.
I want to understand why the extra liquid is needed. Surely it isn't because of the smaller size (smaller size suggests less liquid to me). It seems like it must be because of the stovetop vs electric difference.
The recipe is pressure cooked with the following ingredients:
8 bone-in chicken thighs, skinned
salt and pepper
1 onion, chopped fine
3 garlic gloves, minced
1 tablespoon fat (from a previous short searing step)
1/2 cup dry white wine
3/4 cup chicken broth (increases to 1 3/4 cup for a 6 quart electric pressure cooker)
2 pounds small red potatoes, halved
The top Google hit for "stovetop vs electric pressure cooker liquid" on my machine suggests that stovetop pressure cookers might require a little more liquid than an electric (which is the opposite of the change the recipe calls for).
Why does the recipe call for so much more liquid when using a smaller electric pressure cooker?
At first glance it looks like a typo. But what's the recipe for? There's a big difference between getting beans to soften and preserving (which probably shouldn't be in a pressure cooker anyway). Of course simmering for 10 minutes won't reduce the liquid by much. Also: how much other liquid - the absolute 1-cup difference seems like a lot if this is all the liquid, more than double in fact, but what matters is the proportional difference, and if you've got another couple of litres of some other liquid, this becomes a small change
Good point. Besides the chicken broth there is another 1/2 cup of dry white wine. I've edited in the recipe ingredients.
Still 1¼ vs 2¼ is a big difference in a stew. Strange
The book is from 2013. I wondered whether it could be something to do with some kind of inferiority in electric pressure cookers at the time? Maybe the recipe expects to need much more liquid so that the container can come to pressure more quickly (because electric cookers took longer??)? (I have no idea what I'm talking about, hence the question!)
There’s a required amount of liquid for a pressure cooker to work (for it to form a vapor and increase pressure enough). In some cases, you need to add liquid even if you’re expecting the dish to give off liquid (like a roast), but 1 cup is usually enough for locking type. Could the recipe adjustment have been written for jiggling type pressure cookers where there’s more vapor loss?
Electric pressure cookers have been around since the 90s, but some models are less good at maintaining pressure than a stovetop operated with max pressure in mind. That shouldn't make much difference here though
@Joe but aren't jiggling ones generally stovetop? That would suggest the other way round
@ChrisH : typically yes. But there’s also the mention of 8qt vs 6qt that makes me wonder if it’s a case of a recipe written for a specific model of pressure cooker, and then an adjustment for others. I’d be interested in exactly what the recipe said
The recipe makes no mention of a specific pressure cooker. The recipe is Braised Chicken Thighs with Potatoes from the book Pressure Cooker Perfection. The introduction of the book advocates for stovetop pressure cookers over electric and recommends 8 quart over 6 quart because "you can always make less" in a bigger pot. As far as I can tell, each recipe in the book assumes an 8 quart stovetop pressure cooker and almost all have a "how to adjust for a 6 quart electric pressure cooker" section.
The recipe itself has a "troubleshooting" section with this entry:
Do I need to alter the recipe for a 6-quart electric pressure cooker?
Yes, increase the amount of chicken broth to 1 3/4 cups. Quick release the pressure immediately after the pressurized cooking time. Before adding [spices] simmer the sauce for 10 minutes using the browning (not the simmer) setting.
I’m not aware of any fixed differences in liquid requirements between electric and stovetop pressure cookers, but there are some differences that you may need to consider:
Electric pressure cookers typically have sensors to check the temperature in the cooker. If you burn something to the bottom of the pot (typically for very viscous, starchy things, like beans cooked in not enough liquid), it may shut down temporarily to try to let the crust that formed dissolve (Instant Pot will display ‘burn’ on the display). After a few minutes, it will try to heat things up again. If it continues to have problems, it will shut down entirely as a safety precaution.
Stovetop cookers have no such sensors, and so if this situation might happen, but isn’t a big deal, it’s possible that the recipe developer recommended adding extra liquid.
What I believe is more significant is that there are two main types of pressure regulators. I believe that all of the electric cookers will ‘lock’ when they reach pressure (and then have a second release valve if they go too far over pressure). This means that they hold in more moisture, and often require something to thicken sauces when you’re done, but should require only enough liquid to get it to lock immediately.
Stovetop pressure cookers may use a locking mechanism, but they may also use a ‘jiggler’ where the mechanism uses a weight or spring to set a maximum pressure and you need to adjust the stove to keep just a little bit of steam leaking out. This is going to lose more moisture through the cooking process, so will need more liquid, especially for longer cooking times.
I did some checking in the early days, they did have misguided information on electric pcs on the amount of liquid needed some even said there had to be 2 cups of liquid, but that is not the case. It simply depends on the recipe or what you are cooking.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.091111
| 2023-03-22T14:49:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123710",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Eric",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"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
}
|
124989
|
Anyone? Induction cooktop and ferrous metal distances that Will NOT can NOT heat ferrous metal?
1,800w portable induction cooktop. I want to keep my ferrous metal propane tank FAR out of induction range in my tiny DIY RV can’t move stuff with out complete renovation. EMF at 1-ft was 30mG, and 7-ft was 2mG. Does that help identify a distance where induction CAN NOT WILL NOT generate any detectable heat in to ferrous metal (like propane tank)? Note, tanks in interior compartment gasket sealed door, floor ventilated to outside, gas lines exiting to exterior.
Propane tanks should be located OUTSIDE an RV, regardless of RV size.
Reply: Tanks enclosed in steel box 1/16 construction grounded to vehicle frame. But I don't want to count on this to diffuse heating. Reply: Not enough space under van to install exterior gas tank. Even if, still want portable tank for outdoor BBQ. Gas needed for electricity and heating. Gas used outside for generator. No gas cooking inside.
I’m voting to close this question because I think these sorts of electrical/equipment questions are off topic. Mods can decide.
The way I interpret our rules, the question would not be directly closable. The OP did not ask "is this safe" (which would be indeed closable under a rule we instituted in the last few months) but "at which distance will metal not be heated" which is a question about a physical fact whose answer is independent of the context. We do have an "equipment" tag too, which would cover questions about the functioning of induction stoves.
@rumtscho - off topic = "Equipment or electrical safety (e.g. "Is this microwave still safe to use"): instead, please have a qualified professional inspect the appliance." To me, this does not sound like a question on food or cooking. Rather, and electrical/safety question.
@moscafj The literal question is, at what distance will the stove not induce any heat in a ferromagnetic material. The OP did not ask where to put a gas tank in order to be safe. The second is a safety question, the first is not.
First off - you should be aware of the comment from Enercwal. Put your tank outside!
Could you not use some magnetic shielding to isolate the tank? A thin sheet of any ferro-magnetic material such as steel should work fairly well, certainly enough to drop any inductive heating in the tank.
EMF will drop on an inverse squared rule: 1/distance2, so at doubled distance you should have 1/(22) = 1/4 the EMF. For example, at 1' you have EMF = 30 mG, at 2' (doubled distance) you should have 1/22 = 1/4 x 30 = 7.5 mG and at 4' you should have 1/42 = 1/16 x 30 = 1.9 mG etc. Note this doesn't take into account the natural magnetic field of the Earth nor from other electrical appliances.
At what point you won't get any detectable heating I don't know, but I suspect you don't need to be very far away. For some level of comparison, the Earth's magnetic field strength is between 0.25 and 0.65 Gauss (250 - 650 milliGauss (mG)), and you generally wouldn't expect to notice inductive heating from that.
The literature suggests about 2-6 microTesla (1 Gauss = 10-4 T or 100 microT) leakage of magnetic flux from induction stoves at a range of 20 cm and less than this at 50 cm. Since 30 mG = 3 microT, you are in the right range for your measurement. However, lots of every-day appliances put out much more magnetic flux (though typically not at the frequencies used for inductive heating) at these sorts of ranges - See table on pages 34-36 in this PDF from the National Institute of Environmental and Health Sciences, which shows that every-day things like electric shavers and vacuum cleaners produce quite a bit more flux than this at 6" (~15 cm) You generally wouldn't consider that these would cause inductive heating in anything much around them, so you probably shouldn't be too concerned about the distance for your tank, once it is over a couple of feet (1' = ~30 cm) away.
If you wanted to test it empirically, you could make a rig to test how hot a sheet of metal of similar thickness to the tank gets at different distances from your stove. My bet is no effect over about 0.5 m (a bit less than 2') and possibly quite a bit closer.
However, take this advice with a grain of salt - I'm not an electrical engineer nor a gas-fitter, so: consult an expert and don't listen to advice from random strangers on the internet.
An induction cooktop heats because the magnetic field fluctuates. Essentially the magnetic field flip-flops back and forth. The earth's magnetic field is relatively stable, so it won't heat magnetic objects to any noticeable amount.
First of all, as MaxW points out, it's the variation in the magnetic field that induces a current. A static field won't cause heating, but the field in an induction cooker typically oscillates at about 20kHz. The field strength that you measured is almost certainly linked to either the earth's geomagnetic field or some DC current somewhere in the RV.
If you want to measure the relevant fields, you need a high-speed magnetic-field measurement device.
The magnetic field in an induction cooker is complicated, but in the worst case it can probably be approximated to a dipole configuration, which decreases as the square of the distance.
Here is a relevant study, made by the Swiss federal institute of technology. It's a well written report, that also explains how they measured the fields. They're mostly focused on the magnetic fields experienced by the cook, and find that the recommended fields can be exceeded - but only by being very close to the cooker. At 1cm the fields can exceed the regulation 6.25μT at the relevant frequencies (~20kHz, with some higher-level harmonics). When the distance increases to 5cm and 30cm, the field levels decrease a lot, as expected from the theory. (The relevant regulation, EN50366, specifies measuring at 30cm from the device.)
In summary - As long as you don't have your propane tank touching the cooker, you're pretty safe. But you really should have it outside.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.091556
| 2023-08-17T01:24:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124989",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"MaxW",
"daninvan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
125274
|
What is the best practice for cleaning eggs when some in the carton have broken?
Carrying eggs home after purchase some of your eggs break and spill onto the rest. You take them all out carefully but don’t want to store them with exposed white/yolk on the shells lest they get very rotten and smelly.
But washing all of them as I did last week risks removing the bloom and thus shortening the storage life.
What is the best practice here to maximise shelf life?
Note: these are unwashed eggs in England.
We still don't know where you live or if your country's eggs are already washed.
Fair point; They aren’t prewashed, and I’m in England.
For UK unwashed eggs, I'd just wipe them off with some kitchen roll, allow them to dry & put them in the fridge, as normal.
You can't 'fix' it by washing them thoroughly, as then they become 'amateur washed eggs' with less protection than they would have in a country that does wash eggs as a matter of course.
A bit of dried egg really won't be a prime target for going off, compared to a badly-washed one.
Great point. But what do you think I should do now that I’ve washed all of them to be rather squeaky-clean?
Eat them inside a week.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.092012
| 2023-09-20T14:53:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125274",
"authors": [
"Tetsujin",
"TylerDurden",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
126257
|
How can I identify sandwich meats that have minimal nitrate/nitrite content?
The evidence seems fairly good to me that regularly eating food with high nitrite/nitrate content is carcinogenic, and I'd like to reduce the amount I eat in my diet. I'm finding it hard to identify sandwich meats (which I eat often) that I'm confident are low in nitrites/nitrates.
Many say "no nitrates or nitrites added", but Consumer Reports indicates that those likely have similar levels due to including them from natural sources like celery salt.
I've come across a variety of deli meats with various labeling, and I'd love if anyone can give insight on which are likely to be low in nitrates/nitrates. Here are a couple examples:
Boar's Head Oven Roasted Turkey
"No preservatives" (Ingredients: Turkey Breast, Water, Less than 2%
of Vinegar, Salt, Sodium Phosphate, Sugar)
Is "No Preservatives" sufficient? Should I be concerned by the presence of salt or any other ingredient?
Trader Joe's Smoked Turkey Breast
"No nitrites or nitrates added | Except for those naturally occurring in sea salt" (Ingredients: Organic Turkey Breast, Water, Sea Salt)
Sea salt on its own seems to have trivial nitrate/nitrite content, but are producers extracting it in bulk from sea salt?
You can of course make your own food choices but from the very source you linked at the papers linked therein there is no evidence directly linking the nitrite to cancer. The preventable cancer paper links a suboptimal diet in general with increased cancer risk and has 'too much processed meat' as one aspect of a suboptimal diet. It doesn't say anything about the nitrates. It is about the general low fat, low sugar, lots of fruit and vegetables makes an optimal diet and too much processed meat is a negative here.
If you stay away from "cured" meats (ham, salami, anything unnaturally pink including most of the deli-mystery-meat products like bologna and olive loaf) and stick with things like turkey and roast beef that have not been steeped in a "cure" (code word for nitrates) you should be good-to-go.
Excessive salt/sodium content is normal in processed foods including deli meat, but that's different from nitrates/nitrites which you are asking about. Evidently you should look for and reject "uncured" products with celery in the ingredients.
From the Consumer Reports article: "There were 10 "cured" meats in our tests and 21 "uncured." On average, the nitrate and nitrite levels were essentially the same."
I don't think the cured vs uncured is a good heuristic here. I agree uncured with celery salt is a no-go, but the article doesn't provide any insight about uncured with sea salt. Do you have a source or citation to indicate that deli meats with just sea salt have minimal nitrate/nitrite content?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.092152
| 2024-01-03T01:56:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/126257",
"authors": [
"James",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107654",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81322",
"quarague"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
128011
|
Unconventional flatbread recipe/process, concern about food safety RESULTED IN: Speedy's Flatbread recipe (see answer: Adjusted Recipe)
After reading several flat bread recipes, I came up with the following. As mentioned, I'm concerned about proper cooking. Depending on the thickness of bread it can leave the oven and when I tear the layers apart, it's a bit sticky still. Is it done enough?
1 cup WW Flour
[edit, forgot this] 1 egg
1 cup shredded Kale
1/2 tsp baking powder
1/2 tsp salt
1 tsp olive oil
Filtered water to near water consistency
[edit]optional: 1/2 cup sweet corn (no topping necessary w/ this!)
flat skillet on medium heat until solid, about 1 min
cooling rack until I have 4
oven at 350 F for 20 minutes
Crank the oven to 425 or so, put a silpat or parchment on a baking sheet, and skip the skillet. Try it some day...
If it’s “near water consistency” this would be a batter, not a dough. (And likely a pancake or crepe, not a flatbread)
@Ecnerwal I have a slipat arriving on Thur. - will try your suggestions. Thanks!
@Joe "not a dough" Noted, changed tag. "likely a pancake or crepe" I use it as a flatbread so added crepe to title for clarity. Thks
I've rolled back your edit which changed this from a question to a recipe – questions are on topic here, recipes aren't, and significantly changing a post once it's been answered makes the website less usable. Glad you're now happy with the result though!
@dbmag9 Acknowledged and changed to accommodate original post and the resulting recipe. Don't questions with useful(or otherwise) answers deserve results shared with contributors and the forum community? Maybe expanded format options in the summary section? Will have to post that suggestion in Meta.
@Mark_NoBadCake you could always post it as an answer to the question, instead
@fyrepenguin THAT is a good idea. I'll probably leave this the way it is, if ok w/ admin - because it is short. That said, the platform should, imo, better facilitate/encourage the presentation and discussion of results from Q/A. Not doing so fragments information and the sense of interdependence crucial for community. Which is, of course, the source of all cooking related problems and those of human society since ever - which is probably what you were hinting at. : )
"the platform should, imo, better facilitate/encourage the presentation and discussion of results from Q/A." - I mean, generally, self-answers are encouraged around here. Adding the results/answer to the question breaks the separation of Q & A. On another StackExchange site, I ended up coming back and answering my own question over a year later.
@fyrepenguin "Adding the results/answer to the question breaks the separation of Q & A." That's a valid point with the current platform design, yes. I'm suggesting adding an option, called 'Results'(linked but separate forum?) where, OP, having considered provided answers and comments, incorporates some or all into whatever endeavor the question was about in the first place. The thought behind this is how fragmented human knowledge (& society) has become due to how we increasingly have used our minds (Iain McGilchrist). I applaud you for returning to your question a year later!
Raw flour does not need to be cooked to a very high temperature to be made safe. If it had not reached that temperature, you would not be describing it as “sticky” but as “raw dough”. As it is, it is definitely safe to eat.
The recipe you describe will not produce a bread-like consistency. The dough will not have sufficient leavening power to generate a light crumb, nor sufficient structural strength to keep it until it gels. It will be gummy no matter how long you cook it, unless you cook it until it’s entirely dried out.
"As it is, it is definitely safe to eat." THANKS. I've been toying with the amount of water. The goal has been to get an edible, spreadable flatbread as quickly as possible, so as it's not unsafe to eat; success. : )
@Mark_NoBadCake If you substituted eggs and milk for the water, you would have a crêpe (albeit a bit flat as you don't have quite enough baking powder). I think the additional 20 min in the oven are unnecessary to cook it. With the texture you describe, it should be very similar to a crêpe in terms of thickness and will cook with similar rapidity. The oven will crisp it fairly well. You could make something like roti/chapatti in a similar time-frame if you leave out the resting of the dough and something like flatbrød with baking alone.
@bob1 I forgot to mention the egg but will have to try it with milk. As it is, 1 min on med. heat, I get browned underside that can be lifted w/ a spatula but the top is new play-doh consistency. Flipping it doesn't help the inside much so...20 min in the oven. If I get it thin enough it's crispy outside and inside is like hard wet clay to crisp, depending - which is fine for my use. This was the laziest solution w/ the equipment I have on hand!
@Mark_NoBadCake whoops - no baking powder in crepes - I was thinking pancakes/pikelets/drop scones. All the recipes are variants on each-other, so pretty similar generally. Medium heat 2-3 min per side for crepes works well for me.
@bob1 milk isn't necessary for pancakes, they can be made with any liquid, including water. But they will probably need more egg to hold together, especially when there are bulk pieces like shredded kale added. Ruhlman's ratio for pancakes is 2 parts Liquid : 1 part Egg : 1/2 part Fat : 2 parts Flour, or 2 liquid : 1 egg : 2 flour, plus fold-ins, for fritters.
@bob1 "no baking powder", "Medium heat 2-3 min per side for crepes", will try. Thanks! The deal with the oven is I can toss them in and return 20 min later. Done- Wham-bam, but your suggestion would take less time overall so...tradeoff...
[Adjusted recipe, based on comments]
Speedy's Flatbread
A tasty, expedient, versatile, nutritious pastry that can be torn & dipped, topped, used as pizza crust(from skillet, sauce and top) or as a Lembas replacement for a destined hike cross-country.
1 cup whole wheat Flour
1 egg
1/2 cup shredded Kale
1/2 tsp salt
1 tsp olive oil
~1 1/2 cups filtered water to near water consistency
Optional: 1 Tbs ground flax seed
Optional: 1/2 cup sweet corn (no topping necessary w/ this!), drained black beans, [any ingredient w/ some structural integrity(NOT peas)]
Removed:1/2 tsp baking powder(reacts to Kale, so keep separate until mixed)
Mix non-bulky ingredients with spoon; adjust consistency; use egg beater to eliminate lumps; mix in bulky ingredients
With skillet at medium heat, pour in a spiral outward within ~2.5 in. of edge. Move skillet in horizontal, circular motion(gently!) to evenly distribute batter. Remove when solid - after about 1 min.
Load cooling rack until all batter is used.
Toss in oven at 425 **F** for 15 minutes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.092485
| 2024-04-02T19:41:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/128011",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"Joe",
"Mark_NoBadCake",
"bob1",
"dbmag9",
"fyrepenguin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109796",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
36644
|
How do I cook store-bought glutinous rice dumplings?
I bought some pork-filled glutinous rice dumplings from a Chinese supermarket, but I've no idea how to cook them!
Someone told me to drop them into a pan of water to steam for three hours, but that sounds like a very long time and I'd be concerned that they would become too moist and fall apart.
I have access to a pan and hob, a microwave and a microwave rice steamer. The only frying equipment I have access to is a chip pan.
The dumplings look a bit like these:
Does the store's package not have cooking instructions?
Unfortunately, no - just a label for the bakery that made them.
I would not follow the advice of boiling them for three hours, you will likely have nothing left! I would not boil them at all in fact, most dumplings you get from asian supermarkets in western countries are made so that they can be steamed from frozen for 15-30 minutes and then eaten. They are often produced for the catering trade, you see, so quick cooking times are important. The picture you posted looks like they are possibly fried, but it's hard to tell.
I am making the assumption you are not in Asia, and this is a specialist supermarket, so I would simply call up the supermarket and ask. It's pretty likely someone there will be able to speak with you.
If not, the important thing is to make sure that the dumplings are cooked throughout to at least 160F (72C), this will at least make them safe. I'd recommend using a digital instant-read thermometer for the job. The three methods I know of to cook pre-made dumplings are:
Steam: you can use a bamboo steamer if you have one, but any steamer will do really. If you can get banana leaves use them to line the bottom, but if not use something to line the bottom of your steamer because these things stick like glue!
Fry then steam: this is done with a wok, you brown the dumplings in the wok in some oil, then you pour a bit of water in and cover. The dumplings then steam under the cover, and the oil gets vaporized as well giving the dumplings a nice sheen. I've only used this for small wonton-style dumplings, I wouldn't recommend this method for your big ones although there's no reason you couldn't try it. Just remember that pouring water into hot oil causes spurts, a top tip from me to avoid being singed would be to hold the cover over and pour the water in through a small gap. Keeps the mess down as well
Deep frying: I'm sure shallow frying would work as well, however you must thaw these out before frying them. Throwing frozen dumplings straight into a pool of boiling oil is dangerous! I don't have a deep fryer and I don't like the mess of shallow frying so I avoid dumplings that require this. Also, not many dumplings are deep fried
All in all I'd try steaming one of them for 25-30 minutes and then testing it. Vary the steaming time accordingly.
Instead of banana leaves, Cabbage or lettuce also work really well(and is usually cheaper and more accessible). Parchment paper is another option. Also, the ones in the picture are almost certainly fried. That said, there is probably no reason you couldn't use the other suggested cooking methods.
As you can see from the picture, these are the deep-fried type of dim sum made of mochi rice with some type of filling within. I find that the best way to "reconstitute" these is to simply microwave them on high for 30 seconds or so until they start to balloon up. The surrounding mochi has become sufficiently soft at this point and the filling is hot, which is causing the ballooning. Be careful not to let them pop/explode!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.092981
| 2013-09-09T15:38:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36644",
"authors": [
"James",
"KatieK",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
54031
|
Making saucisson sec from salami at home
I bought a peppercorn salami a few days ago.
I would like to make from it what the French call "Saucisson sec" in their world of Charcuterie, essentially cured dry sausage. But I am not sure about the best way to proceed.
What is the right process to get a good cured dry French style sausage at home starting with a salami?
Why would you begin with an already cured product? If you want to produce something like the second picture, you need to start with the correct raw ingredients. There is lots of information online and there are many good books. It is not difficult, but takes some practice and you have to follow several food safety guidelines.
While you might be technically correct if you were to call saucisson sec a salami, you do not make saucisson sec from commercial salami. Without knowing how the salami was produced it could be dangerous to try to do so. The pictures you posted seems to be of a cooked salami, which is significantly more perishable than its uncooked cousins.
Traditionally, both saucisson sec and salami are dry cured sausages, but they can have significant differences in terms of ingredients and process. Saucisson is usually a coarse ground, pork based sausage lightly seasoned with garlic. Salami is usually more finely ground, pork or pork-beef sausage often seasoned with coriander, ginger, and nutmeg. Salami is usually fermented with an added lactobacillus bacteria culture, saucisson sec can be made with or without an added culture. Both can be found with or without a covering of penicillium mold.
See also:
Is there a difference between 'Saucisson Sec' and 'Salami'?
http://www.popsugar.com/food/Difference-Between-Charcuterie-Salumi-Salami-3368740
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.093285
| 2015-01-27T03:47:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54031",
"authors": [
"Chris Coloracci",
"Daniele",
"Electrical Testing Report LTD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127076",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127077",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127078",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"james berry",
"moscafj",
"vanessa batty"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
128072
|
Should skin dissolve completely in bone/skin broth?
I just made my first attempt at bone-and-skin broth in my new Instant Pot pressure cooker. I'm more interested in the broth as a source of amino acids from the collagenous material than as a source of minerals from the bones. I used the skin, bones and fat from half a free-range pig's head. I cooked somewhere around 2kg of solids in about 2L of water for about 2h on high pressure (guided by the chart in this article). I didn't add vinegar, partly because I've read it can cause toxic nickel to leach from the steel, partly because I wanted to see how the broth came out with heat and pressure only. I strained the solids from the liquid and it is currently chilling in my fridge, waiting to be skimmed and tasted tomorrow.
What I'd like to know is this: after cooking, the pieces of skin and connective tissue were very soft but not dissolved; does that mean that much of the collagen has not gone into the broth? Should I use a blender to incorporate the collagenous material into the liquid? Or keep cooking until it dissolves? Or does enough get extracted without them dissolving?
Update
The broth forms a firmish gelatin at fridge temperature, so evidently quite a lot of amino acids were incorporated; but I still wonder if more could/should be.
It would probably completely dissolve eventually (after no more than a few weeks of boiling), but it's not expected with normal broth-boiling durations. Whether you should blend all or some of the remaining skin is up to you, and the texture you're looking for. I've done just that for ramen broth and for souse but it results in an extremely gelatinous broth which may not be what you want.
If blending the remaining skin makes the broth noticeably more gelatinous then I think that means the answer to my question is 'Yes, those pieces of skin retain significant amounts of collagen.'. Thanks.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.093431
| 2024-04-11T22:11:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/128072",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109896",
"mjc"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
128549
|
What exactly is Wok Hei (锅气) (is it just the Maillard reaction, or does it involve combustion of oil?)
I'm trying to understand Wok Hei (锅气), in terms of how to create it, and what is the chemistry that goes into it. From what I understand, it's a complicated thing with many factors going into it, including (a) the high temperature of the wok itself, and also (b) food/oil particles moving into the hot flame, which ignites the oil and adds flavor, and (c) the seasoned wok itself adds flavor.
One aspect, as I understand, is that when water/oil steams, oil particles are sent into the air and the intense fire causes it to ignite, adding flavor. I'm wondering if this is just the Maillard reaction, or otherwise how flavor is added through the fire flare-ups that occur. Is there additional flavor added through the combustion of the oil particles?
The food also ends up being a little charred, adding that nice smoky flavor. Is there something special about "wok hei" here, or is this just the Maillard reaction (i.e., slightly charred things taste better)?
What does the seasoned wok have to do with the flavor?
Can a blowtorch emulate the intense fires that chefs use and also help create Wok Hei?
Thanks for reading! If I were to summarize my questions, I'm mostly wondering (a) what the effect of the seasoned wok is, and (b) whether the main point of Wok Hei is that the external fire helps "grill" food a little, helping generate that nice flavor that a grill has, in addition to flavors added through normal stir frying in a hot wok.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.093589
| 2024-06-13T16:15:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/128549",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45678
|
Why does waffle dough get dark?
Always when I make waffles or pancakes the dough of it gets dark after a few hours. It looks like having black sprinkles.
Why is that and how long can I still use it?
The ingredients I use for waffles are:
250g sugar
250g margarine
500g flour
5 eggs
500g milk
baking powder
a shot of rum
And for pancakes I use almost the same
sugar
flour
eggs
milk
baking powder
It will get darker - it is still pretty fresh.
That's odd. Can you tell us exactly what you put into the batter? A picture would be great too, if possible.
I get this very often when I make Yorkshire Pudding batter (very similar recipes). I seem to recall it's down to oxidisation of the bran, but I can't find a source for that. It's never done any noticeable harm.
I concur with Elendil, there is no reason not to use the batter, it's fine as long as you use safe practices (mind your "danger-zone"). I'm still a bit flummoxed about the color change. What kind of flour are you using?
@Jolenealaska: I use normal wheat flour.
Those just look like air bubbles.
This is strange. I've never made waffles before, but that pancake recipe is almost exactly the one I use, except for the baking powder. If it goes dark soon after preparing the mix, it is most likely a chemical reaction between two or more of the ingredients. It should still be perfectly safe to use, so don't worry about the discolouration. :)
Is this anything more than idle speculation? We're looking for answers that are based on well-known facts or personal experiences. If you've never made waffles, and never experienced this issue yourself when making pancake batter, then this answer isn't helpful.
@Aaronut The fact that this has never happened to me when making pancakes, shows that it can't be a common thing, and I did research this problem and here is one of my sources. I have given a reason why the problem might have occurred and I can't see how else it might have happened. If you can think of a better reason, then why don't you post it.
That's not how it works here, or any other site on this network. Vague, incomplete, or poorly-substantiated answers are supposed to be downvoted and comments are largely a courtesy - no one is obligated to try to post a "better" answer. The biggest problem here is the overt assumption that it's safe, without any clear explanation (or understanding) of what the reaction is. Of course it's a chemical reaction - everything in cooking is a chemical reaction - but what reaction?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.093741
| 2014-07-17T22:34:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45678",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Ben Grant",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Jolenealaska",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11353",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26139",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"juergen d"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
40408
|
Olive wood cooking utensils: Seasoning, care, and maintenance?
I just got my dear one a nice olive wood ladle a week or so ago. It's sitting out still since I would like to know what steps I should take in regard to seasoning (first (few) time(s) of use), care (treatment after each use), and maintenance (what to do down the line).
There's a really great discussion at: What is the best material for a cooking spoon?
However, we've already got the spoon. So, with some questions inspired by the one linked above, and some of my own:
How might I detect varnish? Or is it just assumed to be present? If it is present, how might I diminish its ingestion?
Are there other steps to seasoning this type of spoon?
We use very mild/gentle (and non-toxic) [Planet Brand] dish soap/detergent 99.9% of the time. I'm certainly not going to put this in the dishwasher, but is there anything to watch out for when washing/drying? (i.e. should I not use super hot water, is olive sensitive to sit drying, etc.)
Is there an upper temperature limit or hot surface type that should be avoided in cooking?
Should it be maintained by say rubbing it down with some type of oil once in a while?
Note: This is our first olive wood utensil, and the grain appears not to be ideal, regarding knots and possibly a propensity for cracking at a couple places. This may be normal from reading the linked question above, however it may merit different treatment, I don't know.
I just remembered a related link: Is there something better than mineral oil for cutting boards?. I think I'll try mineral oil on this one, as suggested by SAJ14SAJ
How might I detect varnish?
No utensil intended for real use (other than perhaps as a salad scoop or bowl) should be varnished.
It may be difficult to distinguish a varnish from an polished and oiled surface, but look for a clear shiny type of appearance where the grain of the wood is completely masked.
Are there other steps to seasoning this type of spoon?
Just rub it with mineral oil, as described below, if it is dull and untreated. If it is already seasoned, there is no need.
You may want to repeat the process two or three times, for a brand new utensil.
[I]s there anything to watch out for when washing/drying?
The main thing, as you have already mentioned, is to not use the dishwasher. Don't soak it in water. When you wash it, give it a quick towel dry and then let it air dry.
You don't want water soaking into the grain, which will help raise the grain and may eventually lead to splitting or cracking (at which time the utensil should be discarded).
Is there an upper temperature limit or hot surface type that should be avoided in cooking?
I don't know a specific one; use your good judgement. Wooden tools are often used in scraping up the fond from a pan after deglazing, which is probably the hottest treatment they would normally be exposed to.
As you happen to have a ladle, you are unlikely to be using it on the bottom of scorching hot pans in any case.
Wood is actually quite fire resistant, and while one may show a few scorch marks at the tip from a very, very hot pan, in general, routine use is not going to harm it.
Should it be maintained by say rubbing it down with some type of oil once in a while?
Yes, occasionally you will want to rub it with a little food grade mineral oil (which resists rancidity). This will help prevent liquid from soaking into the spoon.
When you see signs that the last treatment is wearing off, wipe it down with just a bit (maybe a half teaspoon or even less for the whole ladle), let it sit an hour or tow, then rub off the excess.
This will help you get a longer life from the ladle without splitting or cracking.
See also:
WiseGeek How Do I care for Wooden Spoons and Cutting Boards
Food grade Mineral oil, not fragranced baby oil.
@Optionparty Yes, quite. I should probably specify that.
@Optionparty Thanks for the clarification. I've gotta run though and clean my stove top with baby shampoo! j/k Thank you SAJ14SAJ! Your answer is characteristically awesome and extensive.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.093958
| 2013-12-19T17:00:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40408",
"authors": [
"NOTjust -- user4304",
"Optionparty",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"azaniaolivia",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93953",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93954",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93955",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93961",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93988",
"jc cloud",
"kojaks43",
"nur irdina mohd hanafiah",
"w88lives64 spam"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
128679
|
What exactly is beef bone extract, beef extract, beef fat (all powdered form) and where can I find it?
I was looking at the ingredients list of a pack of beef-flavored soup packet I was eating, and saw it used the following to make the broth:
beef bone extract, beef extract, beef fat.
It was all powdered form, so what exactly is that? Can someone clarify the following?
"Mushroom Powder" and "Mushroom Extract Powder" are two different things. Is there the same distinction between "Beef Bone Powder" and "Beef Bone Extract" in powdered form?
Is 'Bone Broth Protein Powder' or 'Bone Broth Powder' the same as 'Beef Bone Extract'? Doing a google search yields these example products here and here. It seems almost all google searches for bone broth powder like these are geared more towards increasing protein count for body building and not for general soup consumption? Is the soup beef bone powder the same as these protein-heavy ones for exercise/performance?
What is 'Beef Extract' powder and why are all my google searches pertaining to scientific research instead of for food/soups? For example, I get this when I search for beef extract powder soup
typically are not suitable for human consumption or therapeutic use.
What is 'Beef Fat' powder? I do not find much use in food literature on this form of beef fat. Most of my google searches turn out to be for pet food like this and this. Do companies not make this for human consumption?
I wanted to make my own healthier version of beef-flavored soup without heart-attack levels of sodium, and without having to spend time cooking the bones and all, where can I buy those three powdered ingredients that's safe for human consumption? I'm terrified of ending up buying scientific powders and eating it.
"without having to spend time cooking the bones and all" -- but that effort (and there's honestly not that much) is oh so worth it! It's not like you have to watch it while it's slowly bubbling along for hours....
Rest assured that most scientific providers (that I know of) won't sell or ship to you, so you are unlikely to be able to actually purchase it in the first place. Foods for animal consumption are not prepared to the same safety standards as human consumption, so should not be used either.
Commercial beef extracts and similar are prepared using commercial techniques with equipment you are unlikely to have in your home, such as centrifugal separators and drum evaporators. This is usually done on powdered/granulated meat, which is then cooked and the water and fat removed. The research organization CSIRO in Australia has a good PDF on the process, with pages 2-4 covering the actual processing steps.
A [ingredient] powder will be the actual ingredient made into a powder. An extract is where something has been removed from [ingredient] and the removed bit is what you are eating. Thus, a bone powder will be a very finely ground bone, possibly (I'm not sure on this) chemically treated to make it soluble. And a bone extract is material that has been extracted from the bone, this might have been done by water extraction (boiling maybe) or by a chemical means and then had the chemical removed.
The good news is that you don't absolutely need the fancy equipment to make your own tasty bone soup powder, but it does take quite a bit of time and probably some experimentation to get it right.
The simplest way for you to prepare your own beef-flavoured soup is to buy some beef bones or meat (use a cheap, lean cut with lots of connective tissue) and boil them in water for an extended period of time. This way you can add as much or as little salt as you want - there will be some salt that comes out of the bone, but this is fairly low and won't be tasty in a large volume of water. This will give you what is known as a stock or broth depending on if you can consider it an ingredient (stock) or a meal by itself (broth). You can add flavourings such as vegetables, herbs, spices, different meats etc. to the pot while making the stock or broth. You can use these as bases to make any number of soups, stews, casseroles and other different meals.
There are numerous ways to make a tasty stock, but usually (IMO) the tastiest are by roasting the bones, then simmer on very low heat overnight in a covered pot, but even raw bones and/or meat boiled for an hour or two will make an adequate stock, especially if you add some vegetables - usebits you might not eat otherwise (celery leaves, leek leaves, carrot peelings) and things like onion skins, garlic, and herbs or spices (if you want). You can play with the ratio of bones to water to suit your needs. However, if you want to make a powder as opposed to a gel, you should minimize the cooking time to reduce extraction of the collagen proteins that make gels in stocks.
However, stocks in this form aren't very portable (lots of liquid) and don't store well without freezing, which is why the commercial instant soups are dry powders, which store very well. Of course you can carry a frozen container of broth/soup around with you and reheat in a microwave or on a stove top no problem, but it isn't as convenient as "just add boiling water"
So, to make these dry powders you basically need to take your stock/broth, remove or blend any chunks (taking out the bones first usually) and then evaporate the water until you have a paste or concentrate and finally dehydrate the paste/concentrate to remove all water, either in an oven at low temp (<100 C/212 F) or in a food dehydrator. You should do this at temperatures that will minimize bacterial growth, which is above 75 C (167 F). Not all food dehydrators will work at this temperature. You should be able to do it by gentle cooking on a stove top too, but this runs the risk of burning the mixture.
This process won't work well if you have anything over a tiny fraction of fat/oil in the stock as the fats will go rancid and won't store at all well. Note that as the water is removed, the salt concentration increases, so the final powder will be very salty to taste, but if resuspended/dissolved in the same initial volume of water as used to make the stock, should go back to its original saltiness.
Thanks for the answer! Gotcha, that's a very nice explanation of the powder / extract difference. What is beef fat powder though? If fat goes rancid fast, why would the soup packet contain beef fat? Does it impart a certain taste that's not found in powdered beef bone extract or beef extract?
@doejoe Sorry, no idea on the fat powder. It might be fat or oil mixed with an antioxidant to prevent it going rancid, but really I have no idea.
I was with you right up to the suggestion for dehydrating the broth at home. Homemade broth is very rich in gelatine. Just concentrating it down to about 1/3 or 1/4 gives you a jelly that's quite thicker than typical jelly desserts. Dehydrating would likely produce something closer to fruit leather than to powder, and rehydration would be very difficult or impossible. But worse, the conditions in a home dehydrator are optimal for bacterial growth, and a gelatinous meat broth is an optimal food medium for bacteria. So freezing the reduced broth is the farthest you can go realistically.
@rumtscho - Indeed, portable soup was a staple for sailors and travellers in the 18th/19th centuries. I don't suppose it tasted very good, but when made in the right conditions it was evidently safe enough for people to go on making and using it.
Fat can be powdered for long-life storage, such as dehydrated suet. Beef fat powder is often sold as a pet food supplement, and appears to be largely dehydrated beef fat with added glucose and ash, though I can't find much in the way of detail on how it's made. I definitely agree that if you want to make your own beef soup you should either boil bones, or buy (low sodium) beef stock and prepare as on the packet. These days low-sodium stock and bouillon are widely available for those trying to cut down on salt.
@rumtscho My food dehydrator (admittedly a fancy one) has settings up to 90 C, which is definitely warm enough to prevent almost all bacterial growth. I agree on the gelatine component of the broth, though you might well be able to get around this by variation in the bone to water ratio and minimize the cooking time to prevent protein extraction in the broth. Evaporation is how the commercial ones are prepared, though it is flash evaporation to start with, followed by pan evaporation. I should make this more clear in the text.
@StuartF I'm used to raw suet as opposed to dehydrated, so wasn;t even aware it was an option. Most commercial soup powders have the fat component added separately as an oil or leave it out.
@KateBunting the Wikipedia article describes dehydrating it on an absorbent surface at low temperatures and ambient humidity. This is very different from using a home dehydrator. I see now bob1 updated to mention safe temperatures, which I find important - I've commonly seen dehydrators work in the 50-60 Celsius range.
@rumtscho I'm just spitballing and have no idea if this will work, but gelatin starts to undergo an irreversible break-down at around 245F/120C, so once you got to the jelly stage, couldn't you simmer it at that temperature until all the gelatin is broken down and then continue the dehydration process?
@Abion47 you cannot simmer a water-with-a-bit-of-dissolved-stuff mixture at 120 C. Simmering is around 80-90, and then you get it to boil at 100. I suppose that, after you've concentrated it enough, you can get a water-and-gelatine mixture to 120, just like you can get a sugar syrup to 120. But at that point, you won't need to dehydrate anymore - and it's unclear how you're gonna get to such a dehydrated state without charring everything first, or whether the result will be tasty afterwards. It certainly won't rehydrate to the same state as soup with non-broken-down gelatin would.
@rumtscho Perhaps simmer was the wrong word to use, and for sure doing this process on a stove top could irreparably destroy the product. But If you were to throw the gelatinized broth into an oven at 250F/125C for a few hours, it would accomplish the desired effect of breaking gelatin down into its component proteins, and I'm seeing anecdotal research that it can still be used as a thickening agent - it just won't form a gel structure anymore. Regardless, this would break the hydrolization of the gelatin which should in theory allow dehydration to finish the process.
@Abion47 it doesn't matter if you do it on the stove or in the oven. The broth won't reach 120 C until long after it has dehydrated. And probably also burnt etc. In fact, the oven will make it more difficult to reach that temperature, because the vapor will have difficulty escaping, and will slow down the evaporation which will allow the reaching of temperature in the first place.
@rumtscho It won't burn at 120C. (It might break down some of the flavor compounds in the broth, I'm not sure, but it won't burn.) Also, remember that at this point, all the liquid water has been dehydrated and the only water left is what is chemically bonded with the gelatin, so the entire point of heating the gelatin to 120C is to break those bonds and evaporate/boil off the water. (And the gelatin will melt before then, so vapor getting trapped in the gel won't really be an issue.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.094276
| 2024-06-26T22:36:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/128679",
"authors": [
"Abion47",
"Dan Mašek",
"Kate Bunting",
"Stuart F",
"bob1",
"doejoe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106741",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79613",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
129042
|
weight ratios, process, etc for homemade "kansui" alkaline solution for making ramen etc, using potassium carbonate and sodium carbonate?
[
So btw: this question is INSANELY over-precise for just making some noodles,
but I want to understand this chemistry stuff better anyway,
and I'm curious to be able to play around later with exact amounts and see if I can get significantly different effects in the finished products.
]
So I can't find pre-made kansui(かん水) / jiǎnshuǐ(碱水 (鹼水)) where I live
However, I of course have baking soda (sodium bicarbonate)
and I was able to get potassium carbonate from Amazon:
https://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/B074D9BXRT/
(
You can indeed decompose
"baking soda" aka sodium bicarbonate
into
"washing soda" aka sodium carbonate
just in the oven / a pan on the stovetop
[see this answer]
)
Since the sodium carbonate will be formed in the oven,
I think we can assume it's pretty much anhydrous, eh?
As for the potassium carbonate,
I didn't find anything on the wikipedia page for it about any heat decomposition it does
(I mean like, not counting anything that happens over 1000 C xD)
so I was planning to also heat it to drive off any moisture before weighing it for the ratios.
(No problem with that, right?)
Now I need to figure out what ratio to mix them...
Like, Wikipedia claims
More commonly a mixture of
20% sodium carbonate, which is also an anti-caking agent,
and 80% potassium carbonate in water is added directly.
but the source it gives is actually just this blog post
which says:
Kansui contains 80% potassium carbonate
and 20% sodium bicarbonate (or baking soda).
which apparently confuses baking soda and washing soda...
although it talks about converting sodium bicarbonate to sodium carbonate further down the page
(so I would guess the author understood but just wrote it ambiguously while trying to simplify things for a popular audience, maybe??).
So I dunno,
but I figure I may as well just take this ratio and use it as my starting point:
80% potassium carbonate
20% sodium carbonate
(I'll be taking that to mean ratio of weight, although of course my sources were technically ambiguous).
That make sense?
Anyway, I need to know the ratio of water to dissolve it in,
because I want to get the strongest solution possible at room temperature
(
in order to minimize the amount of hydration that the kansui adds to the final dough,
useful for making egg noodles etc
if you're trying to get as much of the hydration as possible to come from eggs rather than water
)
[
I'll be washing the glass bottle I store it in very thoroughly,
and using distilled water
-- because the last time I stored a concentrated sodium carbonate solution in a glass bottle,
this feathery black sediment formed at the bottom
]
So how do I find the solubility of potassium carbonate and sodium carbonate at like 21 C?
I mean, I've found some solubility tables by googling around
(although they're a bit inconsistent in a few little ways)
but like, my understanding of chemistry is pretty bad and I'm not sure what effect the mixing has on the total solubility?
So like, concretely, let's say I have 100 g of distilled water
What is the maximum amount of grams of potassium carbonate that I can add to the water,
such that when I add 1/4 that amount grams of sodium carbonate,
nothing precipitates out at 21 C?
(And like, how do I work that kind of question out in general myself?)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.095201
| 2024-08-18T20:01:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/129042",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
128937
|
Alkali: if you use "washing soda" (ie baking soda heated to make it 10-times stronger base), and then dissolve it in water, does it *stay* stronger?
I really don't get how the chemistry works.
Like, I understand that the "baking soda"
(I'm not sure the term "sodium bicarbonate" is actually technically correct, so I'll just use the common term)
[EDIT: this was my first point of confusion]
has water molecules chemically bound inside its crystal structure,
[no]
and that heating it breaks those off and converts it to the anhydrous form, "washing soda"
[no]
("sodium carbonate" apparently?)
which is about 10-times stronger of a base.
(eg of claim (ie "10-times stronger"): youtube Adam Ragusea's "Ramen orecchiette — easy homemade alkaline noodle soup")
The problem is, when I go to make a noodle dough with dry "washing soda",
I find I need to add it to water and heat it first to really get it to dissolve,
which complicates the process of making a dough
(especially if you're using eggs, so you need to be careful to get it cool again before you mix those in).
So I was wondering if I could just pre-dissolve the "washing soda", and just use like a spoonfull of that in each batch of dough, except...
How does that not just convert it back into weaker "baking soda"?
EDIT:
Okay, so what thought I read about "sodium bicarbonate" being a technically incorrect misname was just completely wrong
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_bicarbonate#Thermal_decomposition
That is, the thermal decomposition actually is changing the molecule itself,
and not just converting the crystal structure to the anhydrous form?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_carbonate
EDIT EDIT:
I have no idea what I was thinking, where the heck I thought I read that.
maybe I was vaguely remembering that "sodium bicarbonate" (NaHCO3) doesn't actually have double the CO3, but rather, "sodium carbonate" (Na2CO3) has double the Na relative to "sodium bicarbonate"?
And I somehow got that confused into... the thing about "water of hydration/crystallization"??
Or maybe I should just find some jiǎnshuǐ(碱水 (鹼水)) / kansui(かん水) or something, i dunno...?
[which is I believe something like 80% potassium carbonate and 20% sodium carbonate dissolved in water (not sure what concentration)]
Here's a bit of experimental proof that you can convert NaHCo₃ (baking soda/sodium bicarbonate/sodium hydrogen carbonate) to Na₂Co₃ (washing soda/sodium carbonate). It also indicates that it doesn't convert back in solution, exactly as we would expect.
Last night I put some baking soda in the oven for about an hour as it preheated to make pizza (up to 240°C). I then made a saturated solution of the resulting sodium carbonate , and another of baking soda, by dissolving an excess in hot water an allowing it to cool.
This is where I made a slight mistake. Baking soda starts to undergo thermal decomposition to washing soda at (per Wikipedia) 50°C. The water I used was probably about 80°C, and the baking soda fizzed, indicating thermal decomposition.
Despite that, I still saw a difference in the solubility (qualitative, not measured, as I was aiming for saturated solutions of both). Baking soda dissolved readily leaving a small amount of residue. Sodium carbonate left more residue, forming clumps, and less dissolved in total.
The more interesting difference is in the pH.
On the left, pH about 9, we have the bicarbonate (with some contamination from the carbonate as my water was too hot) and on the right, pH about 10, the carbonate solution.
Notes:
When looking at tables of solubility, we need to consider the hydration state of the carbonate in particular - washing soda is the decahydrate, while straight out of the oven having been made from bicarb, it's presumably anhydrous. This will affect how much we can dissolve in a given quantity of water.
pH papers are cheap - I paid £2.99 (call it $/€4) for 160 strips on eBay, and you can use half strips. That's a lifetime's supply for the curious.
Perhaps not a full answer, but it does address some of the question directly, and needed answer formatting to include the crucial image
So cool, thanks! One thing: I'm still a bit confused about their solubilities (at 20 C)... cuz yeah, I had the same qualitative experience with the "presumably anhydrous sodium carbonate straight out of the oven" being a lot harder to dissolve, and yet the data from the tables I was able to find seem to claim the sodium carbonate is a bit above 200 g/L, while the sodium bicarbonate is lower at a bit under 100 g/L... (again, unless I just got the conversions backwards while trying to put together data from different sources).
... but like, that's grams, not... however the molarity stuff works out (washing soda basically has double the Na while only losing a single H, after all)...
But in practical kitchen terms, knowing the grams/liter solubility of washing soda at 20 C is the really useful bit, because when it comes to using it as an ingredient, keeping a bottle of it pre-dissolved at max-concentration is what you really want (since that way you can add it directly to eg egg noodle dough without needing to worry about heating it to dissolve it then cooling it not to cook the egg, and stuff like that)
Heya, I just posted a new question if you're interested: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/129042/120522
Sort of to the title. The chemistry is quite incorrect though. Washing soda stays as washing soda in water, but you can't convert baking soda (bicarbonate) into washing soda (carbonate) or vice versa easily.
Sodium carbonate (Na2CO3) and sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3) are not hydrated/dehydrated forms of one-another. Both are crystalline substances, the carbonate one of which can contain a water of hydration/crystallization. Washing soda itself is the decahydrate (10 water molecules per molecule of carbonate) of sodium carbonate and is written as Na2CO3.10H2O. This water is incorporated into the crystal structure. Bicarbonate slowly decomposes in the presence of water to release carbon dioxide, so crystals only occur in the anhydrous form (IIRC; chemists feel free to correct me).
There are several other hydrated crystalline forms of sodium carbonate, as well as the dehydrated (anhydrous) form. You can convert the hydrated forms into the anhydrous form by heating (I think; certainly into the monohydrate), but this doesn't change the chemical properties of the carbonate.
You can convert bicarbonate into the carbonate by heating in a process called calcination, but this involves restricting the supply of oxygen, which you can't easily do at home without some specialist equipment.
Thanks, yeah, like I said in my "EDIT", I realized that what I thought I read about "sodium bicarbonate" being a technically incorrect misname was simply completely wrong. I have no idea where the heck I read that "sodium bicarbonate" was technically something more complicated... I coulda sworn I remembered that distinctly, but... I have no idea what I was thinking now. (Like, did I get it confused with some other common household chemical or something???)
... oh wait, no, maybe the fact I was remembering was that "sodium bicarbonate" doesn't actually have double the CO3, but rather, "sodium carbonate" has double the Na relative to "sodium bicarbonate"? And I somehow got that confused into... man I don't know.
@dwawlyn Yes, the bicarbonate name is a bit of a misnomer - twice as much carbonate per Na cf. Na carbonate. Yes, as I said in my answer you can thermally change the bicarbonate into the carbonate, but it requires some finesse to not overdo it and to do it properly you need to limit the O2. Much easier just to go and buy some washing soda rather than use all the electricity or gas to convert the bicarb into carb.
but... okay I don't have a pH meter in the house, but I thought "baked baking soda" (like, just heated in a pan in the oven / on the stovetop) is significantly more basic than normal baking soda? Is that not true? Or is it true but due to something other than https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_bicarbonate#Thermal_decomposition ?
@dwawlyn What's probably happening there is that Bicarb is hygroscopic (absorbs water from air), which decomposes it very slowly into CO2 and H2 - the exact effect that you want to get a rise in your baking. Baking/heating it will dry it out so you have more bicarb per volume and possibly convert some into carbonate. The drying out isn't necessarily removing water of hydration. I don't know if this would make it significantly more basic, but it would increase the pH a bit I think.
There are plenty of sources saying you can convert bicarbonate carbonate in a home oven (no time to find them now), and certainly doing this has the expected effect on solubility
@ChrisH good grief, my simple food question is apparently controversial basic science, ha. I guess I'm gonna have to get a pH meter if I want to satisfy at least part of my curiosity. This agrees with you?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_carbonate#Solvay_process "second step of Solvay process, heating sodium bicarbonate, used on small scale by home cooks and restaurants to make sodium carbonate for culinary purposes (including pretzels, alkali noodles). temperatures required (121 C to 149 C) to convert baking soda to sodium carbonate readily achieved in conventional kitchen ovens"
@dwawlyn also the wikipedia article on the bicarbonate talks about thermal decomposition in cooking (giving both a bit of rise and a soapy mouthfeel). I've done a bit of experimenting with this myself: Interpreting a recipe from Mrs Beeton: "carbonate of soda"; there may be some inaccuracies in my question and the comments under it.
...I wouldn't bother with a pH meter. Having used them a couple of times in work calibration is always going to be an issue. Universal indicator papers are cheap and should be sufficient. I may even be able to try that for you. I have some papers and should have both time and a hot oven tomorrow. Remembering will be the hard part
@ChrisH Thanks a bunch if you can get me a point of direct-from-kitchen-data! Hm, a home pH meter was always one of those little toys I wanted to have, but you find they're too tricky to use accurately enough? btw, the solubility in water at 20 C is really { sodium bicarbonate: 96 g/L } and { sodium carbonate 2.15 g/L } ? The difference is really that big? (Like, I didn't just mess up putting together facts from different sources reported in different units or something?)
@dwawlyn more like 96 and 20 (Wikipedia, which agrees with other sources in a quick search). But certainly measurable with 1g kitchen scales - and I have 0.1g scales.
@ChrisH Really? I found {sodium bicarbonate: 96 g/L at 20 C} from sidebar at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_bicarbonate, vs {sodium carbonate 21.5 g/100mL at 20 C} from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solubility_table (I think, anyway; that table page just says "units given in grams of substance per 100 millilitres of water (g/(100 mL)), unless shown otherwise", and then didn't show otherwise) -- but it does seem to agree with the data in the sidebar at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_carbonate (ie different temperatures, but all consistently fit in between)
@dwawlyn a typo in your previous comment? "sodium carbonate 2.15 g/L" (21.5 g/100ml would be 215g/l) My 20 wasn't meant to be precise. But I also failed to spot that the Wikipedia pages for the 2 substances use different units. Taking both from the same table avoid the confusion.
@ChrisH Oh, I accidentally shifted the wrong decimal / the wrong way, didn't I? Embarassingly durrr. So, sodium carbonate is (very roughly) twice as soluble as as sodium bicarbonate? I feel like that would slot in with my intuitive sense of "sodium carbonate is stronger", I guess? And then each ionic pair has twice the charge floating around too (right?)...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.095477
| 2024-08-04T23:50:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/128937",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"bob1",
"dwawlyn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
128935
|
Requirements for a stand mixer able to handle bringing together really thick noodle dough? Like 40% or even 35% hydration?
My mom had an ancient 375 watt Kitchenaid, but it broke
(it had already worn down and broken a few times even before I tried noodle dough in it!)
Now she's got an even weaker 275 watt one, which she bought used and accidentally got broken,
but she wants to fix it up (mix-and-match parts or something).
I'm thinking I should just get a new one,
but I'm wondering:
What are the requirements for a stand mixer to be able to handle bringing together a really thick noodle dough,
like 40% or even 35% hydration?
(I'm guessing any mixer that can handle that will probably also be able to take a noodle-roller/cutter attachment as well.)
You might want to consider using a food processor with a dough blade (typically a thick plastic non-sharp thing). My mom used to use them for making pasta
This doesn't directly answer the question, but my understanding of ramen making is that you cannot bring the dough together with a mixer. Rather, the mixer should just evenly distribute the water. The resting and sheeting processes will do the remaining work. I'm basing this off of Sho Spaeth's coverage at Serious Eats in 2021.
@Joe interesting thanks, I also asked reddit and got similar info (link). I'm still not sure I have the right concrete intuitive grasp on why the food processor is better for mixing than the... mixer, but I'm guessing that is indeed correct for some reason...
@BenjaminKuykendall Yeah, in my experience you just need to get the hydration evenly mixed in enough that there are no dry patches left, and then you can just leave it to autolyse. Therefore, I'd always just done it by hand, figuring a mixer wouldn't make it significantly easier. But then I actually tried it and was just struck by how much quicker and easier it felt in practice!
@dwawlyn totally agree a stand-mixer is the best way to mix the flour and water. What I'm saying is the power of the machine shouldn't matter... as long as you keep it on low, drizzle the water slowly, and stop the machine just as soon as the ingredients are mixed. Certainly stop before you hit any resistance that may stress the motor.
@dwawlyn the food processor moves so fast that the dough bounces off the blade and is hitting the sides of the work bowl at high energy. The motor isnt getting nearly as much resistance, but you also can’t make as large of batches at a time (as the ball needs to have space to move around, which is also true for the stand mixer, but the work bowl is smaller)
There aren't that many requirements for it, but the problem is that you can't compare mixers for them. So in the end, it's really a matter of relying on reviews, brand reputation, and if possible, demonstrations.
Speed
The mixer should support a low speed. This is the easiest one to shop for - if the mixer is meant for bread dough, then its low speeds should work for noodles too.
Torque
If the motor has insufficient torque, the attachment will strain against the dough instead of moving, or it might work, but the load would be so high that it burns out too soon.
I have never seen a manufacturer specify their motor's torque. They seem to always list energy consumption, which is a pretty much meaningless parameter. For a manufacturer, it's cheaper and easier to build a 600 W mixer with very low torque than a 250 W mixer with very high torque, even though the second will perform much better in the kitchen. So, I really just disregard the watt number when buying a mixer.
The closest you can get to finding out if your preferred mixer will be OK in this parameter is by watching it work, either in person or maybe if you can find a video of it being tested. If you can't see it working with noodle dough, then you have to see how it handles a normal mid-hydration bread dough. If you either notice the attachment slowing down, or the attachment turns but the whole mixing arm moves a bit against the body (my own MUM5 does that with bread dough), then you have a too-weak motor.
Mixers for professional use tend to be better in that respect, but this is not necessarily a good criterion for choosing. First, there is false marketing (where manufacturers just call a product line "professional" when it isn't sturdy enough for that, or manufacturers known for professional-only use start producing home-class equipment), second, they are frequently designed for larger batch sizes (and making a small batch in them can be problematic, see below) and third, they are expensive.
Geometry
Unlike a hand mixer, where you can chase every lump with the dough hooks, a stand mixer is prone to several geometry-related failure types. You can have pockets of dough forming, or you can have the dough climb up the hook, or you can have the dough coming together in a ball and the ball just getting pushed around instead of being kneaded.
There is no single perfect solution for this, it's a matter of engineers spending many years troubleshooting their models. One thing you can look for is planetary motion, but today that's pretty standard anyway, and it's not the only possible solution (I have seen a mixer with an offset hook somewhere). Else, you have to rely on reviews or personally observing the mixer to see if it causes problems or not. But even that isn't sufficient, because the climbing problem depends on dough consistency (and so is recipe-dependent) while the "ball kicked around" problem depends on dough amount.
Thanks, this is a great answer! This key point in particular clarifies so much!: "I have never seen a manufacturer specify their motor's torque. They seem to always list energy consumption, which is a pretty much meaningless parameter." And it's disappointing that the world is such that there isn't a better answer (ie, our society is dominated mostly by advertising marketers and ignorant consumers who don't care, rather than actually sane people (ie autistics), so we don't get to have any nice things like clear consistent databases of crowd-enabled information gathering/organization...)
(Lack of) torque is probably the reason the OPs KitchenAid broke. The older style KitchenAids (not the Pro Models with the brushless motors) get lower speeds by throttling the motor. If you think "lower gear" like with a gearbox, you would assume that lower gear gives you more torque, but in the case of the KitchenAid it will break the nylon safety gear (if you're lucky) or fry the motor, since you do not get any relevant power and tough dough will just stop the motor.
As for "no manufacturer specifices torque", e.g. a Hobart N50 mixer has 350W and three gears with 136, 281, 580 RPM respectively. Google gives the formula for torque as T=60×P/(2×π×rpm), so at least if you have rpm and power you can get to torque reasonably easy.
@EikePierstorff I have never tried calculating the torque, but I have had mixers in my hands which had huge watt numbers on the label, and failed mixing anything moderately stiff. Cynically, all you need for a 600 W mixer is a 100 W motor and 500 W worth of resistors in the circuit :) This obviously isn't what manufacturers do in reality, but they somehow manage to sell bad mixers with the same power rating as good mixers. So, I would assume that there is something more going on in a mixer than a simple proportional formula.
@rumtscho yes, it really only works for machines with a proper gearbox. With most machines, the wattage is a theoretical maximum, not something actually delivered.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.096282
| 2024-08-04T22:17:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/128935",
"authors": [
"Benjamin Kuykendall",
"Eike Pierstorff",
"Joe",
"dwawlyn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72993",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
129310
|
Tawa metal and coating
I just bought a new "traditional" tawa from a small local shop. It's heavy, dark gray, but it some scratches reveal a much lighter gray colour underneath the surface. And after scrubbing it with a scourer, dark dust still comes off on my finger.
I was wondering if it's really cast iron and if it's safe to use.
Edit: found it online. Apparently it's "iron alloy", but that doesn't add much.
Both cast iron and steel (commonly called "carbon steel" in the kitchen line, but steel (unqualified) is specifically an alloy of iron and carbon, so that's redundant. Amusingly, cast iron actually has more carbon than typical steels) are widely considered safe to eat from. Iron is an essential nutrient - it's why your blood is red.
The picture seems to show a thin pan, so likely it's steel.
Follow the common advice for cleaning and seasoning carbon steel or cast iron (mostly the same, some details differ) pans. One does have to beware of "not traditional" teflon coatings but the picture does not appear to show one of those.
Use the search function here, they have been widely and extensively discussed.
Thanks for the insight. It is definitely not teflon. I have seasoned the pan, and it's turned out well, even if the colouring is not uniform. I assume the different surface hues are from different iron oxides coming through.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.097212
| 2024-10-04T00:01:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/129310",
"authors": [
"Dosa Boy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131420"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37160
|
Why does this sunflower butter exude green liquid?
The most recent brand of sunflower butter (Mara Natha) that I've been using left a green tinted liquid inside the glass jar after I attempted to wash it out for recycling with water ~200°F/93°C and left the water in over night.
The liquid was not just floating oil on top, but a consistent transparent green, close to the darker green check of the cooking.se background.
I washed it out again, and the second time I just rinsed with warm tap water and left it again as an experiment this time, and it was a lightly tinged yellow color that one would expect/imagine would be left since that is close to the color of the oil that separates out before you mix it in.
Note, there is a bit of sea salt in the mixture of this one. Also, the sunflower seeds are listed as being roasted beforehand. This is not an organic product.
I thought, just maybe, I could have 'burned' the sunflower oil, so I checked around and found This page, that lists many different smoking points for the same oils and redundant and various stages of 'refinement.' However, the water was no longer boiling, and the lowest listed temp was 225°F/107°C on the various sources cited. I would think that a roasted sunflower seed would qualify as 'more refined' and therefore increase the smoking temperature of the oil crushed from it. Discussion of sunflower oil vs. peanut oil here.
What am I dealing with here?
Silly question warning: what was the jar made of? Glass is heat-safe, plastic isn't, and whatever dissolves in plastic usually dissolves in oil too.
glass, yes… lol that would be scary if I'd poured near boiling water into a plastic container. I would have to delete my .SE account in shame. Question will be updated presently.
Sunflower oil turns green in the presence of bases, such as baking soda. Most tap water in the US is alkaline with a pH value around 8, so that could also turn the sunflower oil green.
I like your answer, I guess I just don't understand why the hot/warm tap water didn't leach out more green. Could it be that boiling the water made it more alkaline? I guess logically it would, since you would be reducing water:mineral ratio?
it's possible that heat factors in to this too, ie. more heat -> more green.
I agree that any oil in containers exposed to high alkaline value will develop a green residue. My vegetable oil container is stainless steel and kept in a cool dry cabinet. It is wiped clean of drips each use and after some time a green tinge will appear on the hinge where tap water has rested. Clean with a very dry rough cloth at room temperature often. It does not contaminate the oil, which should be changed regularly if not used up within a few weeks.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.097352
| 2013-09-27T20:53:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37160",
"authors": [
"Dudd",
"Madara",
"NOTjust -- user4304",
"Sameer M",
"Spammer",
"Yosan Girma",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87316",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87697",
"rumtscho",
"smcg"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.