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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
128040
|
Does potassium sorbate have a pungent odor?
I ordered potassium sorbate powder from Amazon but on opening it, I noticed that the powder has a very repulsive and pungent odor. It is not just me who smells it that way. My friends also confirm that the odor is very pungent.
Chemistry sources online including wikipedia describe is as an odorless compound. So I would be grateful if someone can confirm that the powder smells that way.
I did read another answer here about the diluted product in pastries and wine smelling of geraniums. This is not what I am referring to. I am referring to the smell of the dry powder itself.
UPDATE: To be sure about the odor, I ordered another sample of the potassium sorbate from a Canada based seller on Amazon. That sample is more granular (rather than as an amorphous powder which was the case from the earlier Birch and Meadow dealer) and the Canada-seller's sample does not have ANY odor whatsoever.
Uploaded are the pictures of the potassium sorbate powder from the "Birch and Meadow" company which has a smell. I am also a little concerned because the inner cardboard lining of the lid (as seen in the picture) has a brown stain as if it was previously damp/wet and dried up.
The odor of the powder from Birch and Meadow can be best described as "musty", the sort of smell we have in old cupboards that have been left opened for a very long time.
The PubChem entry does say that the compound has be protected from light and stored at a temperature below 100 degrees Fahrenheit.
So I am concerned that this powder could have possibly undergone at least partial degradation.
I have done the obvious and tried to get in touch with the Amazon seller. I am waiting to hear from him.
Meanwhile I decided to make this post because I really want to use the powder from this dealer if the smell is normal and expected because the price is a lot more economical than other sellers.
Potassium sorbate has what is known as a "characteristic odor". This is a common term in chemistry that doesn't help you much as you have to have smelled it before so that you can recognize it again. However, smells are a bit subjective, so descriptors are difficult. I don't know that I have ever had occasion to smell it myself or remember smelling it.
Wikipedia says that it does have an odor (see table on right-hand side, under the Properties section), as does the more authoritative PubChem entry . Given that it is a compound of potassium and sorbic acid, and that another name for sorbic acid is 2,4-hexadienoic acid, it is likely to smell "organic" (in the chemistry sense) - like solvent at a guess, but smells don't transfer well across groups of organic molecules, so it is hard to say for sure..
Thank you: I have added more details including pictures to my post. I do not have enough rep yet to be able to upvote your answer. Like I said in my edit, another sample (granular rather than an amorphous powder) from another dealer on Amaz does NOT have ANY odor whatsoever. That is why I am perplexed.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.131256
| 2024-04-06T17:07:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/128040",
"authors": [
"Lilyjones",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109842"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
36931
|
Is it safe to eat the white “dots” in peaches?
As you can see there are white "dots" where the seed used to be.
Is it OK to eat them?
What are they, anyway? (I was worried they're some parasite or disease of the fruit)
Frankly, those look like maggot pupal coverings. As in flies. I don't think they are part of the peach.
Meh, How Bad Could it Be?
Been eating peaches with these things for as long as I can remember. I seem perfectly fine and nothing ever happened to ... OMG ALIENS!! AHHH!!!
Harmless Callus Tissue
Anyways, more seriously, they're absolutely harmless and are just extra tissue called callus tissue, as sourced from these:
http://www.hmcfarms.com/what-are-the-white-spots-that-appear-inside-a-peach-pit
http://www.ehow.com/info_8774670_white-stuff-peach-pit.html
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_white_stuff_on_the_inside_of_a_peach
Ok, But What Exactly is that Callus Thing?
Plant callus (plural calluses or calli) is a mass of unorganized parenchyma cells derived from plant tissue (explants) for use in biological research and biotechnology. In plant biology, callus cells are those cells that cover a plant wound. - from Wikipedia's article on Callus (emphasis mine)
Solved by a simple web search, how embarrassing. I'll go stand in the corner of the internet now.
I'm having a look on here, already being a member on the Garden and Landscaping section. My horticultural knowledge tells me those white bits aren't anything to worry about, they're just callus tissue (bits of undifferentiated cells) which are not uncommon in the flesh around peach pits. I'll admit the picture isn't a sufficiently good close up to see entirely clearly, but unless you can see them writhing (!), it's just callus tissue and perfectly safe to eat.
Thanks. As per not being a close enough image, did you notice the full size image link I posted below the image ?
I didn't, sorry, but I've had a look - callus tissue, so no worries.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.131487
| 2013-09-19T12:46:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36931",
"authors": [
"Danny Paulson",
"Ray Griffith",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"bamboo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20302",
"t0x1n"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
36953
|
What is the white swirl in my bread and is it safe?
I just bought a loaf of wheat bread and in an attempt to use it I noticed that there are thick white "swirls" throughout the whole loaf.
I thought it might be that it was not mixed properly but I have not found anything stating what it could be.
I am just wondering what it is and if it is safe to eat?
I would guess it's just poorly mixed dough but the photo isn't high enough resolution to be sure.
@Dyana : Can you please take the bread out of the polythene and then take its pic and provide to us so as to understand it better as white swirls are not exactly visible when the bread is in polythene..
@Sweet72 Yes, I have updated the photo. That is the best I could get it.
I think you're right that it wasn't mixed properly.
Many types of whole wheat bread are actually partially whole wheat flour, partially white flour. That could just be some white flour that didn't get mixed.
Alternatively, it could have been a clump of flour that either didn't get hydrated or didn't get yeast mixed in, so it didn't rise, and thus didn't bake the same.
It could also be some dough conditioners or wheat gluten that didn't mix.
Assuming there isn't some other reason to doubt it (e.g., its old, was stored improperly, tastes or smells weird, etc.) I'd guess it's safe.
Best bet is to call the manufacturer, or just return it and get another...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.131674
| 2013-09-20T00:40:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36953",
"authors": [
"Carey Gregory",
"Kate",
"Sweet72",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20025",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20311",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
122583
|
How to avoid black spots on bread baked in iron tin with baking paper inlay
I am trying to make a sourdough bread with least effort. My receipe is as follows: Add sourdough starter, rye flour, salt and water, mix. Put in a iron tin and wait for 24 Hours for the sourdough to do its work. Bake it.
To avoid that the bread sticks to the iron tin, I lay out the tin with baking paper. I have 2 tins, one with coating and one without. In the tin without coating, the bread gets ugly black spots, and I wonder how to avoid this. I found out that the spots are tasting of metal, so I am pretty sure now that the metal makes the spots, and not burning baking paper.
I especially wonder if the baking paper and tin combination is playing a role here. I know that the sour PH of the dough can corrode baking tins, but I thought that this would not matter when using baking paper.
Here are the black spots
Here is how i prepared the pan
The other bread turned out ok (same oven, same time)
Have you thought about seasoning the tin until it's black (like cast iron pans)? That way it would have a coating that probably wouldn't interact so much with dough/moisture.
I do something similar but use reusable non stick sheet. Mine is rated to 250°C and I use it up to 240°.
My loaf tin is plated steel, and looks very similar to yours. I suspect your baking paper isn't fully waterproof over the rising time, and is allowing the acidic water from the dough to react with the metal.
You might find that simply double lining the tin is enough. You could experiment with foil under the baking paper, or even wiping cooking oil over the inside of the tin before putting the paper in.
It's interesting that the logo is so clear in the black stain on the paper. I wonder if there's some damage to the tin in certain spots
Yup, that's rust. Changing to glass or silicone pans would sort that, at the risk of spending a small amount of money.
@Ecnerwal silicone might be OK, but if you prove in the tin, as both I and the OP do (in my case in the fridge, as I have to prepare one evening and bake the next), glass has too low thermal conductivity and too high specific heat capacity, i.e. it will take ages to come up to temperature, even if it doesn't crack first. I prefer a rigid tin over silicone for anything with a bit of weight, but a baking sheet would get round any handling issues.
I will definitely try putting more baking paper and the tip with seasoning the tin or putting oil between baking paper and tin. I will report if the next batch is sucessfull.
I tried oil before, but it was absorbed during the long rising time.
The oil being absorbed is interesting - the baking paper should block that; the fact that it doesn't means it's porous.
Oh, sorry for the misunderstanding - I used the oil without baking paper.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.131816
| 2022-12-08T05:13:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122583",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Ecnerwal",
"Luciano",
"Paul Weber",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102008",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
128335
|
How to Preventing Cracks in Mutton Seekh Kebabs in tandoor
My mutton seekh kebabs were cracking in the tandoor. How much fat should I use in the seekh mixture? I Googled it and they say 20 to 30 percent fat. I think that amount of fat is high for seekh kebabs.
Howdy! To get a good answer to your question, it would help if you pasted or linked to a recipe similar to the one you're using.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.132052
| 2024-05-14T05:21:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/128335",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"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
}
|
128458
|
Cake falls down after getting out of the oven
The cakes I bake at home consistently fall after getting them out of the oven. The issue is always the same: while baking in the oven the cake does rise (sometimes more than others, but it rises), but after opening the oven and taking it out it deflates slowly, but completely (absolutely no bubbles inside).
The only thing that has worked so far was modifying a recipe to add copious amounts of sunflower oil (like 400 ml - although I have not experimented with less) - the cake did retain some of the rise after. But pretty much all recipes I see do not even use oil.
Currently I trying to rule down causes, so I am repeating the same recipe in multiple ways to try to nail down the problem.
What I have tried so far:
Using well tried recipes from trusted sources. I want to make said recipe has already worked for multiple people
Make sure the oven is pre-heated (180°C, no forced ventilation)
Measure the oven temperature with a thermometer (it matches the dials very well at the centre of the oven)
Only the cake goes into the oven (in the middle of the oven), nothing else
Use fine cake flour pre-mixed with baking powder (bought already mixed), or
Use regular flour (i.e. not fine flour specific for cakes) and pre-mix myself with baking powder in a separate bowl before using it in the recipe. Here I have also tried to use more baking powder than recommended
Sift the flour
Use a ceramic container instead of metallic (supposedly it takes longer to get hot, allowing the batter at the edges to rise better)
Use a whisker to mix the batter (instead of a spoon). I do mix the batter energetically (no flour lumps remain), but I suppose not as much as would be possible with an electric mixer
Mix the stiff egg whites (I turn the egg whites upside down to make sure they are done) by hand with a spatula (to avoid loosing the air). I just found this one out about a week ago, so I have not yet tried it with the fine cake flour.
Use the toothpick test to check if the cake is done before removing it.
Let the cake sit in the oven and gradually decrease its temperature - 5 min after turning off, open the door a few mm and leave it another 10 mins like that. This I tried only once, and since the recipe was the same, I already knew the cooking time and did not need to open the oven beforehand to check if it was done.
Things I am unsure of/would like to explore:
Batter consistency/stiffness: because I mix by hand, it gets hard to whisk everything together if the consistency is hard. My attempts usually end up with rather soft (i.e. easy to whisk) consistency. I am unsure if this is significant, or how important is the consistency of the batter for the end result
(Related to the above): does my recipe have enough flour (read somewhere that this might be a cause for the cake falling).
Is the cake really done (read somewhere that might also be a cause)? My cakes usually bake 40 - 50 min (depending on toothpick results). That sounds enough, but I have not experimented with letting them bake further. I am not sure at what point would they overbake.
The recipe I am currently experimenting with:
125 g potato starch + baking powder
7 eggs
150 g sugar
Separate yolks from whites;
Join suggar with yolks, then mix flour in;
beat the whites stiff and add them carefully;
bake everything 30 - 40 min.
Recipe with wheat flour tried some years ago:
5 eggs
200g sugar
200g cooking chocolate
100g butter (used margerine)
200 ml milk
200g flour + teaspoon baking powder
separate yolks from whites;
melt chocolate + butter in water bath;
join yolks with melted butter + chocolate;
add in milk and flower in small amounts while mixing;
Beat whites stiff and add carefully to the batter ( I likely didn't add carefully back then);
Bake at 180°C for 50 - 60 min (do not remember exact time - likely around 50 min, passed my toothpick test).
What could I be doing wrong/could I try to find and fix this?
Update: after trying again the chocolate cake recipe (with a bit more butter and less milk), I managed to successfully bake a cake! The result was way above my expectations.
I think the issues until now were:
For the first recipe with potato starch, I likely do not have access to the same ingredient as my mother (we live far away), which causes the different outcome. I am also not sure about rise, but I know her cake was fluffy;
For the second recipe, likely I used too little fat (and possibly sugar). I guess I was trying not to make a cake too unhealthy and not following the recipe to the letter. I definitely was screwing up the egg whites.
I now have a proven baseline recipe some theoretical knowledge I can use to further experiment with. Thanks a lot!
What type of cake are you trying to bake? It's totally normal for cakes to deflate some when they come out of the oven, I would only say that you have a problem if the cake is dense. Can you edit and add the recipe?
"Ceramic pan" is, if anything, unusual and will slow the heating of the batter. Never used one for a cake, have no issues with cakes rising, so it seems suspect to me. Major deflation sounds undercooked, but I can't see your toothpick when you're testing... You will need to [edit] in your recipe for anyone to guess if the flour amount looks correct or not.
They deflate completely, become dense, packed, uneatable. I will post a recipe for reference.
I already tried also with the regular metal pans, same result.
The toothpick test has also occurred to me, that I may be evaluating it wrong.
Recipe: yes, please, so that we know what we are talking about. Can we also get a photo or - few, ideally one of the risen, one deflated and one cut to show the inside. And have you ever made a successful cake? How experienced are you with cooking and baking overall?
I do have some experience with baking and cooking (cook on weekends; make sweats sometimes, though mostly something other than cakes due to this)
The cake I baked this previous weekend using potato starch was nice and evenly risen in the oven, a joy to look at. And then slowly but surely deflated completely.
Next weekend will retry the recipe with wheat flour (potato startch is likely too exotic an ingredient to seek advice from the internet) and take pictures.
I do not think I have ever baked a cake that did not deflate (except for the recipe with lots of sunflower oil) on my own - only with my mother many years ago, and using her oven.
@juana Witmore not sure I understand your question? Do you mean for one of the two recipes above (#1: 30-40 min or #2: around 50 min)?
Rising in the oven has nothing to do with the final shape/height of the cake. Pretty much every cake is higher in the oven than afterwards. So, stop watching for rise in the oven when trying to troubleshoot. Also, as commenters said, don't declare the cake problematic just because it deflates when cooling - the way to recognize a wrongly-deflated cake is when, after cooling, the texture isn't properly spongy, no matter how high or low the cake happens to be.
The recipe you're currently making is practically predestined for falling - it's not really a cake recipe. You're using starch, which has no gluten. This makes it impossible for the cake to retain the aeration. Also, it's chock-full of eggs. What you're making is closer to a souffle than a cake, and it falls like a souffle.
I can't say why your second recipe didn't work - it looks quite reasonable, except for the high amount of milk. It does have somewhat complex steps, so maybe you made a mistake in one of them, or maybe even it wasn't that bad a cake, but now that your new non-cake is falling dramatically, you're thinking "hey, back then, it also didn't look as great as when inside the oven".
I'd recommend that you start by using a normal cake recipe. It should have wheat flour, eggs, sugar and fat, possibly some liquid in the form of dairy or a fruit puree. As long as you're having problems rising, it's better to also use a recipe that includes baking powder, as opposed to recipes that rely on egg-foam only, or recipes that combine baking soda with hopefully-the-exact-amount-of-acid-from-other-ingredients.
I don't have my usual baking books close by to give you ratios, but try using recipes that are close to 1:1 by weight for all ingredients, maybe up to 50% difference - so something between 2 and 5 eggs for 150 g flour, not 7 eggs per 150 g flour. Also, don't go for anything exotic like whole-wheat flour, alternative sweeteners, etc., these have a higher chance of not working. If you want to have any add-ins (nuts, chocolate chips, pieces of dried fruit, or similar) try to not exceed 50% of the flour weight, and only choose add-ins which are small in size and don't add much water. For example, some raisins will be OK, but not raw fruit.
To your three specific subquestions:
The batter consistency doesn't matter. One of my favorite cake recipes has such stiff batter, it stays in lumps when I put it into the pan. There are also very nice cakes which happen to have a liquid batter. Just stick to your recipe and don't worry about batter thickness, it's purely accidental to the recipe.
as for flour: there are good cakes with little flour, but when troubleshooting, try staying close to classic ratios. And really use flour - starch is not flour. Flourless cakes exist, but they're more difficult to get right, and not all of them are supposed to rise.
Is the cake really done: yes, the toothpick test is reliable on a normal cake, and 40-50 min is on the long side for a flat cake. A bundt cake may be done in that time, or need a bit longer. You can't recognize an overbaked cake in the oven, as long as you don't char it; it's only noticeable after it has cooled and the texture is all wrong, harder and dryer than the same recipe baked for the proper time.
While your answer was not a direct solution for my problem, it gave me the knowledge to find the solution myself. Thanks a lot!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.132129
| 2024-06-03T09:21:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/128458",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"GdD",
"Stephie",
"calofr",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
129214
|
How to heat large volume of soup without gas
I need to heat a large pot of chicken soup, I'd say around 45L (including the chicken and vegetables inside), without gas (as I need to heat it in an indoor space with no exhaust fan). I was thinking of an immersion heater, but I couldn't find anything made to heat such a a volume. And sous-vide heaters all seem to be for very small amounts of liquid, so I don't know how that would work with a large volume. And all the electrical burners looked like they couldn't heat that volume, nor could they support the weight of the pot. Does anybody have a place to get one of the aforementioned items or another idea how to heat it up? Thanks!
Do you have to do it all in a single pot? Or would separating it into multiple pots be feasible?
@fyrepenguin Sorry accidentally wrote 180 instead of 80. I could do it in smaller pots, but I would need to buy new pots...
@KovyJacob : the limit is really about how much heat each burner can put out. You heat the same relative amount in a small pot refilling it multiple times as a large pot sitting on that same burner... so you start one large pot heating that's only partly full, then your other pots. As the small pots get sufficiently hot, add them to the large, refill and return to the heat
@KovyJacob can you not borrow? Or even hire smaller but liftable catering-sized pans? If you get down to 10 l, stock pots are common and can be quite cheap if you do have to buy
I think the answer to this is the same as the old joke about eating an elephant. :)
@fyrepenguin You think like a 8 inch 1500 watt burner could heat 45ish litres to near boiling over a few hours?
I don't think so. 100% efficiency would be over 3 hours from fridge temp to boiling. It's actually dangerous to heat up food too slowly (as it gives bacteria a chance to multiply) That's why I'd recommend heating up smaller amounts in both parallel (multiple burners) and serial (heat some, pour it into larger pot, then heat up next batch, etc)
If you REALLY have to heat this all in one pot... if you can do this outside, there are propane burners that a meant for frying turkeys, but they also work well for any large pot, or even a wok.
@joe I did some research the other day and it does seem that there are sufficiently sized induction burners available for purchase, but tbh getting one would be more expensive than more appropriately sized ones & pots. Large enough induction burners for the size mentioned seem to be more on the custom/small order/production size commercial offerings.
@fyrepenguin anything big enough would need more current than the typical electrical sockets in most countries could provide. So you'd need to check what's available on site. I'm not aware of anywhere that routinely has sockets providing more than 16A @ 240V for a little under 4kW; domestically, bigger sockets tend to be in kitchens which should already have cookers. The OP is apparently in Canada where high power 240V sockets of course exist - but in the right place?
@ChrisH Canada and the U.S. uses 40 amp sockets/circuits for kitchen ranges/ovens/U.K. hobs. So they are usually handy in the right place.
@crip659 it's not clear to me that there's actually a kitchen here (no exhaust fan, general shortage of equipment). If there's a 40A socket there's probably a cooker plugged into it - just use all of that
Not an uncommon issue in home brewing (though personally I use on a 40L pot and generally only 32-36L in it.)
I use a "canning element" on a regular 240V electric stove (not a 120V hotplate) which is something like 3200W and specially reinforced for large weighty pots.
A commercial kitchen hotplate would be similarly suitable given the commercial kitchen scale of the soup here, and will require similar power levels for reasonable heating speed. Since you are defaulting to liters you likely have 220-240V by default and simply need a hotplate of suitable power & weight rating to compliment your large pot.
Or a big gas burner outside, and carry the hot pot inside when heated (what most home brewers do.)
Some homebrewers do build high power immersion heaters using water heater elements, but that might be a bit more DIY than you have in mind, as well as potentially interacting poorly with chunks of chicken and vegetables in direct contact with the heating element. A GFCI/RCD on the supply is HIGHLY advisable if you do choose that route.
When I've had to heat large (though smaller than that) volumes it's been for serving over a significant period. Heating in smaller pans is good because you can match supply to demand, heating as you go (assuming buffet style or counter service).
This also allows you to serve from a tureen kept topped up (they're better at maintaining heat than at heating) or even use a slow cooker as a tureen.
For many soups you need to be able to stir as you reheat, or it will burn on the bottom. Pans up to around 10 l are easy to stir right the way down with domestic utensils, 20-30 l needs longer handles. Over about 20 l is also a lot of weight to be shifting when hot; it's an awkward lift compared to what you might be used to if you go to the gym.
With realistic power inputs, if you need it all hot at once, you're going to have a problem using one big pan. It will take a few hours to heat up, spending most of that time in the danger zone. Smaller pans can be distributed over multiple burners; you could use one burner to keep a big container hot, adding smaller potfuls to it as they get hot.
Given the time taken to serve what must be at least around 100 portions, you could really do with multiple people serving, working from multiple containers. And warmed bowls, which are going to need some time in a warm oven (but given that empty dishes aren't subject to food safety concerns, you could warm them at home and transport them in a well-insulated container)
If you did reheat the whole lot in one pan, you'd be serving from the stove, from something immovable and rather tall. Being so wide there's a lot left when it's a bit too shallow for a ladle which is also awkward
I need to put it all out at the same time, its going into larger serving bowls and then out to the tables.
You think like a 8 inch 1500 watt burner could heat 45ish litres to near boiling over a few hours?
@KovyJacob Just under 3 hours. The size of the burner doesn't matter except for balancing a pan on it. It takes 4200kJ/kg/K to heat water, and soup is mostly water. To add 80°C (e.g. from fridge cold to 85°) to 45 l therefore takes about 11MJ. With 1500W that's 10000s or 2.8 hours.
Of course you will have losses, so it will take longer, but the losses will be less in a smaller pan, and there are big food safety and practical benefit. If you tried to heat the whole lot in a massive pan it would spend a long time warm, when bacteria can grow, and you'd have to start heating 3 hours before service. Smaller pans can also be done in parallel if you have multiple burners, as I did (a small but complete domestic stove in a village hall).
But seeing your previous comment about serving all at once, multiple stock pots on multiple burners has to be the way to go. Then you can have multiple people filling bowls as well - solo, the first would be getting cold before you'd filled the last (warming bowls is a good idea, if you can use an oven on low)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.132974
| 2024-09-15T02:41:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/129214",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Joe",
"Kovy Jacob",
"Marti",
"crip659",
"fyrepenguin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/121370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48468",
"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
}
|
43062
|
Why or why not beat an egg before adding?
When adding an entire raw egg at the same point in a recipe (not separating the yolk and white), what determines whether it should first be beaten, or dropped in whole? I've seen some recipes call for a beaten egg; others, specifically a meatloaf and a couple of cookie doughs, emphasize to not beat the egg before adding it.
The closest I found in here after an extensive search was this, which addresses why to add a beaten egg after the rest of the ingredients are mixed together, but doesn't explain why or when to beat it.
Why would a recipe say mix all ingredients, then add egg and mix again?
Other than the obvious mixing of yolk and white, how does beating it affect the proteins and other elements, and how do those effects impact other ingredients and cooking processes?
Possible duplicate of What does beating eggs actually do (chemically speaking)?
This previous question (and the accepted answer) are related to the food science raised in the final part of the question. Some of these chemical processes are much easier and/or quicker to accomplish when the egg is beaten by itself than after it may be mixed in and diluted with other ingredients. These changes in the egg protein structure can affect the final texture or cooking properties of the eggs, such as time and temperature for coagulation. Changes to these chemical properties can thus affect the final texture and cooking properties of the thing they are added to.
And in some cases where these effects are undesirable, recipes may specify that eggs not be beaten before adding. As to the specific examples you give:
Meatloaf requires eggs to be used as a binder. Heavily beating them will often make them "thinner" and runnier, as well as perhaps decreasing some of their binding tendencies. (The whites by themselves tend to be a better binder than yolks, so pre-mixing them may inhibit that effect a bit.)
For cookies, the answer may depend on the specific recipe, but often recipes that call for unbeaten eggs involve adding eggs one-at-a-time. If people beat the eggs ahead of time, they are more likely to combine them, which makes it more difficult to then do the staggered additions. (So, it may be as simple as making it easier to follow the recipe, particularly in well-mixed batters where the eggs will be thoroughly mixed anyway.) If I had to speculate on a food-science reason, it could be because egg whites and egg yolks do different things in cookies: whites tend to give rising power, provide water for gluten hydration (which promotes structure) and provide lecithin which also binds and enhances structure, while yolks keep the eggs tender and rich. It may be that beating the eggs together hard before adding them could make it more difficult to achieve some of these effects, for example, trapping moisture and fat together in an emulsion, rather than encouraging the moisture to bind with the gluten for structural reasons, using the white's lecithin as an emulsifier to break up the yolk fats, etc., so the whites can't be as strong structurally and the yolks don't promote as much tenderness. (I don't think these effects will generally be that large, but in some recipes I imagine they can produce noticeable changes in the final cookies.)
As mentioned in other answers, beating also promotes a homogeneous mixture and aerates the eggs, which could be important in some cases for homogeneity or lightness in the final product. However, in some cases that specify "beaten" or "unbeaten," the chemical changes in beating involving denaturing of proteins, emulsifying the various components and binding some of them together, etc. may play a greater role in a decision to beat or not to beat.
If it calls for beating 'until lightened in color', they're looking for denaturing the eggs. (I'm not sure where 'until frothy' stands on the denatured spectrum.
@Joe - agreed. Similarly, "lightly beaten" may just be to mix things together in a batter that won't get enough mixing later.
The main reason TO beat an egg before adding it is that the mixture to which you are adding is not going to be sufficiently mixed afterwards to homogenize the egg. That is, if you are adding the egg and then just "stirring gently", that's not going to be enough to beat the egg.
This would also be the reason NOT to beat the egg. In a few cases (such as some meatloaf/burger recipes) cooks want the yolk and egg to remain mostly separate within the mixture. Again, this would be if you're adding an egg to a mixture which was not going to be stirred a lot afterwards.
Of course, the other reason not to beat the egg would be to avoid dirtying another bowl and a whisk.
Adds air i.e. fluffs them, like you do before scrambling. This can affect the outcome of what you are baking/cooking.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.133558
| 2014-03-26T23:51:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43062",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Joe",
"Rita Pat",
"Rob",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100739",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100740",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100741",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100743",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100744",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126889",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43463
|
What is this seed/fruit from a tree in Greece called?
I picked this up from a tree in Greece, where the landform was plain. It is about 2.5cm (see other objects for scale). I would like ot know its name
where are you located? Did you find this on a random tree or bush, or did you buy it at a food market? Is your question whether it's safe to eat, or do you just want to know its English name so you can find recipes that use it?
I picked it up from a tree.I just want to know its name.
Can you put something else in the picture for scale?
It is 2.5 cm tall if that helps
This may be better asked on Gardening.
Are you even sure it's edible? I think I've seen it, but not used for human consumption.
Regarding @KateGregory initial comment, what was the location of the tree? (country, landform...)
It's from Greece and the landform is plain.
It reminds me vaguely of an olive or caper berry
This might be brier you're talking about.
It's hard to tell based on only that picture... it may be a type of cherry, but when I saw the post, I instantly pictured it to be a type of brier.
Looks clearly like a cherry, but might not be an edible one. The fruit is a bit ambiguous, but the leaf is a perfect match. The stem is also very telling.
A clarification on language: The sweet black cherry sold in the market is not the only fruit called "cherry". There are many types of cherry, and while I am quite sure the picture depicts one of these, I can't promise that it is a tasty, edible cherry. It is certainly not the sweet black type. It may be a chokecherry, as mentioned in the comments; botanically, this would still be a cherry, just like a cantaloupe is still a melon. Or it may be any other of a number of edible and inedible cherries.
could be a chokecherry though
My thought exactly,but its too small for a cherry.
@user24364 : we have nothing to give it scale ... you need a ruler in the picture or a coin or something else of a standard size.
It's 2.5 cm tall.
There are many different types of cherry. I cannot promise that the picture is of one of the types which are normally eaten. A chokecherry is, botanically speaking, as much of a cherry as the ones we eat. Of course, if somebody can make a more differentiated identification than mine, it would be good.
"It's a cherry" might imply to a lot of people that it's an edible one, so I added a bit at the beginning to be safe.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.133998
| 2014-04-12T17:02:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43463",
"authors": [
"Carl Shepard",
"Cascabel",
"Frames Catherine White",
"Joe",
"Kate Gregory",
"Kozmotronik",
"Mien",
"Monica",
"Peoples CHurn spam",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Shopwarren17",
"Spammer",
"angelosburl",
"gion_13",
"hhayf",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101811",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101813",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101815",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101836",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101854",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101927",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21622",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24400",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"mamahotdogchef",
"rumtscho",
"user101927"
],
"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
}
|
40445
|
How to make professional style burger buns?
I've tried everything to try and get soft professional cooking burger buns; Tons of recipes and emulsifiers (lecithin , Vitamin C, Improvers, Vital Wheat gluten etc etc), Stretch and Fold method, but i still cant get them perfect like the stores/fast food chains.
Many people would consider such buns of very low quality. What aspect or property are you trying to emulate?
You may want to look at recipes for brioche buns.
i dont know but this looked simple
check it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdwTmS5hpUw&ab_channel=ChefSpeedy
The stretch and fold method is great for making breads, but most buns like this are made using something closer to the Chorleywood Process (or No Time method). Instead of resting time with stretches and folds and bulk fermentation time, this method relies on combinations of dough conditioners and heavy mechanical mixing. This usually means that the dough is mixed with a relaxer such as l-cysteine and an oxidizer like ascorbic acid. The dough is fully developed mechanically and shaped immediately, then proofed and baked.
This will be very hard to achieve at home primarily due to the conditioners used. L-cysteine and it's precursor, glutathione, are both extremely potent. A batch of hundreds of pounds of dough may require less than an ounce of conditioner, so it would be virtually impossible to scale this at home. You may be able to achieve similar results using a deactivated yeast, such as brewer's yeast, or by deactivating yeast on your own. The results will be slightly different though, as the amino acid profiles will be different.
Equipment used in a professional bakery will also make an identical result harder to obtain. Bakeries use enormous mixers that can provide more power than a home mixer, as well as special pans to help hold the shape of the bun as it proofs. Professional ovens also allow much more precise control of air flow and moisture retention than a home oven.
You may be able to achieve a good enough result with an enriched dough (like challah) and some tweaking, but it will be very hard to make an identical bun.
Thanks for your reply. Really helpful. Will doing the water rouq process make any difference in the texture of the buns? Also could you give us any idea on what recipe to try now?
A water roux or tangzhong can help keep your bread soft, so it certainly wouldn't hurt. for now, I would just try doing an enriched dough like a challah. You could try adding a bit of milk powder to help keep them tender, and without steam I'd definitely use an egg or milk wash to help keep the crust soft. this might be a good jumping off point.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.134260
| 2013-12-20T19:46:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40445",
"authors": [
"Derrick Williams",
"Enoughbeck96",
"Gabriel L S Saraiva",
"RAWOKATO",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SourDoh",
"Steven L.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22048",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94048",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94053",
"kgander42",
"moscafj",
"user22048"
],
"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
}
|
59124
|
What can I use as a substitute for Nori Wrapper on a Chocolate Dessert Sushi?
I'd like to make a chocolate dessert sushi but I'm stuck trying to come up with a substitute for nori or rice paper. I know some people like to use plastic chocolate like in this question.
However I'd like to do something different to compliment the chocolate on the inside of the roll. Nori and ricepaper don't seem like they would work well for a dessert.
So if anyone has an idea, I'd love to hear it.
As a bonus, has anyone tried using something other than coco rice krispies for crunchy? They tend to get soggy and lose their crunch if you wait too long to eat them.
Have you tried actual nori? It could work with the chocolate.
Green fruit leather makes a good substitute for nori in dessert "sushi" rolls, if you're going for something that reminds people of sushi without being creepily realistic. (I recently made a variation of these dessert sliders for Independence Day and they were a little too realistic for people).
Why green? If it's a dessert, surely one could use whatever flavor fits the profile of the dessert.
Sure, but nori (dried seaweed) is what is being replaced and nori is green.
I think most people would say that the nori on sushi is black... or at least a very dark green. Most "green" fruit leather is more like Granny Smith apple green.
Dark green, yes, but even a lighter green reminds us of the nori to a degree, just like the other items in a dessert "sushi" usually remind us of the other sushi ingredients. If you're prioritizing taste above the similarity in appearance to sushi, something else (like the plastic chocolate mentioned by the OP) might be better.
Can fruit leather be made very thin? As to the color, I'm not particular. Strawberry or cherry flavors would work well for instance.
@Maelish I'm guessing the best option for "fruit leather" is the American brand named "Fruit Roll-Ups" or "Fruit By the Foot" (or the similar generic option). They are generally very thin - 1 mm or so - and can easily be used in this application. If you're not in the US, they may have similar products locally.
It can also be made easily at home with a dehydrator. When I was young my mother even made it sun-dried.
I suspect a too-thick leather could be pounded thinner without losing much.
@Maelish : yes, if you make your own. My mom makes it from pumpkin, and it's almost dissolve in your mouth as it's so thin, but I've never tried biting into it to see if it'd be too tough for this use.
Edible cellophane comes to mind - I imagine you can add food colouring for the right shade. Here's a recipe from Heston Blumenthal: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2011/dec/14/salted-butter-caramels-edible-wrappers-recipe
Is it durable enough to withstand the rolling process of making sushi?
Depends, I suppose. I wrapped those caramels with it, and twisted the ends to seal and they didn't break apart.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.134510
| 2015-07-17T15:05:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59124",
"authors": [
"Brett Steele",
"Catija",
"Dionicia Lopez",
"James",
"Joe",
"Kristine joy Collado",
"MARY",
"Maelish",
"Spammer",
"Steven Tiry",
"Tina Ogle",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141213",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141227",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141246",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141277",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141422",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"moscafj",
"user2052413"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41894
|
Vegetable Soup Missing Something Fundamental?
In response to the "on hold", I'll attempt to make the question more clear and specific. Is there an ingredient or ingredients (or technique) that is missing from the below recipe that all or nearly all vegetable soup recipes use and might be considered fundamental? Salt was mentioned. Although it is present, it has been minimized. If that's the only real "fundamental" ingredient, then that's just the price I am paying. Another suggestion was browning the onions, which I will try. Another was adding a spice or spices that are a matter of personal taste. I'm sure I'll try that too, but more to the spirit of the question would be whether there is a spice or spices that is nearly always used in this type of tomato-y vegetable soup.
I've put together a loose vegetable soup recipe that works passably for me and is not too time-consuming every couple of weeks, but it's clearly missing something to "bring it together". Hopefully that something is not the salt that I am intentionally minimizing (for health reasons -- see end of question). I don't add any spices (unless you count the garlic) because I don't know what I'm doing and it seems they can change the soup drastically -- for example too much oregano. I'm hoping that I'm missing something fundamental and that there are some relatively objective fixes. Currently, it's basically "throw in a lot of vegetables that I like and that are convenient, and add some broth", but slightly more refined. It varies frequently, but remains close to what's below.
I hope that my request is specific enough to be appropriate.
Olive Oil, about 2 tablespoons
Onions*, Diced, about 2 Medium
Carrots*, Diced, volume about equal to onions
Celery*, Diced, volume about equal to onions
* supermarket sometimes has fresh diced mirepoix which I use for convenience
Mushrooms, Diced/Minced, 1 Box
Mushrooms, Sliced, 1 Box
Garlic*, Minced, 1 Heaping Tablespoon
* I use a store bought jar made by "Bellino" -- don't hate me
Tomatoes, Petit Cut No Salt Added, 1 Can
Tomato Salsa (mild), Fresh, 1 Box
Wine, Red, 1 "Justin Wilson" Ounce
Corn, 1 Frozen Bag
Beans (Red Kidney, Cannellini, or Soy/Edamame), Low Sodium, 1-2 Cans/Frozen Bags
Chicken Broth, Low Sodium, "enough"
Baby Spinach, Chiffonade, Half Bag to 1 Bag
In a large pot (I use a clad pot that I think is 7 quarts but is not labelled), heat a couple of tablespoons of olive oil. Add either the mushrooms first or the mirepoix (onions, carrots, celery) first -- I've tried both variations. Try to get a little color on the mushrooms and sweat the onions. Note I do NOT add salt to help sweat the onions. Turn down the burner and avoid browning the onions.
Once the mix looks subjectively good, add the garlic and stir it in. Let it heat up, again without browning. Then add the tomatoes and tomato salsa. If there appears to be "enough" liquid, add the wine now. If not, add some broth and then the wine. Cover and simmer/low-boil for "a while" (10 minutes?). My idea here is to extract alcohol soluble flavors from the tomatoes.
Add corn and beans and enough broth to cover everything well. This usually nearly fills the pot. Cover and simmer/low-boil for another "while" (30 minutes?). Now mix in spinach, cover, and simmer/low-boil for another "while" (15 minutes?).
That's it. It's passable and holds me over for maybe a week, but the taste is clearly missing something. Is there a standard step/ingredient in soup-making that I am completely missing? I was planning on experimenting with adding some tomato paste with the garlic. Maybe I need some spices? I would like to keep salt to a minimum. Thanks.
Background: I'm overweight with high cholesterol and moderately high blood pressure. I'm trying to loose weight an be more healthy. Vegetable soup is a perfect fit for me. I enjoy it and don't mind eating it on a (very) regular basis, plus it's a pretty healthy and low-calorie (per unit volume) choice. Unfortunately, I'm not a natural cook and don't have lots of time to cook, and canned choices are generally sub-optimal (particularly the sodium).
This boils down to "use salt" (really), or what goes with this recipe, which is off topic. You have enough rep to join us in [chat]; I suggest coming over and asking there.
Fair enough. I'll give it a little time to see if there are any other opinions. If not, should I delete?
That is up to you; it might get closed anyway.
Why are you avoiding browning? Browning is free flavor.
@KateGregory I used an old vegetable soup recipe as a basis many years ago -- I think it was the weight watchers vegetable/cabbage soup that was 0 points. As I recall it said to sweat the onions but not to brown them and I took it on faith as I know nothing about making soup. In fact, I recall I had to look up what it meant to "sweat onions". If browning the onions is a good idea in vegetable soup I'll gladly give it a try.
I agree with Kate, the browning will really help. Also, if you make your own stock you can get even more flavor out of it (brown the bones and veggies for the stock, add things like mushrooms and kombu to maximize umami, etc).
Personal "choice", but try making it without oil - since you are using chicken broth anyway....
I saw your edit. Maybe I shouldn't have gone with the closing reasons the other ones suggested, because the canned text going with it is somewhat misleading. It is clear what you are asking, the problem is more that it is not clear how we can answer. "Taste missing" is a matter of familiarity and perception, there is nothing without a soup is not "whole" but if you are accustomed to always eating soup with, say, nutmeg, you will miss it if it is not there, while others won't even like soup with nutmeg. You already acknowledged that the salt is missing; we can't know what else you are (cont'd)
(cont'd) personally accustomed to, or even if there is something beyond the salt. Starting to suggest ingredients at random won't help - it is like saying "I lost something from my bag but don't know what" and people at the "lost and found" starting to show you pens, wallets, umbrellas and whatever else they have - the chance that you can get whatever you are missing are very low. We can't reopen the question, because we don't have a chance of giving you a good answer. On the bright side, if it is the salt you are missing, your taste will transition to accept lowered salt with time.
@rumtscho Thanks for your feedback. I'll take the advice I've gotten so far and try to experiment. When I have some time I may also take the advice of SAJ14SAJ and bounce a few ideas around in chat.
I think you have to do some kind of spice to help your soup. What kind should be up to you, basics like bay leaf or parsley are always a good start. You could go with a grouping like basil and oregano or dill might work with the spinach in the soup. That is all up to you, also you might try a couple of drops of low sodium soy sauce to give you some of that salty tang.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.134796
| 2014-02-09T22:27:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41894",
"authors": [
"Biya spam",
"Kate Gregory",
"Pixius",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"bonCodigo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22955",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97755",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97757",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97922",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97943",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97962",
"joeA",
"rumtscho",
"sandra.dearing",
"vinkomlacic"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41887
|
How can I make fluffy chocolate mousse without gelatin?
I'm not a vegetarian but I don't want to use gelatin.
I have seen various recipes for making mousse but they seem to be the gooey type. I'm looking for a recipe which will set so I can make a mousse cake which can be free standing.
This picture is similar to what I'm looking for:
I have a stand mixer and am happy to use eggs, double cream, etc. and to experiment, but don't want to make a massive amount. I can use agar but so far am always lost as most recipes which call for gelatin cannot easily be converted for use with agar.
Look for a recipe that does not need gelatine or agar agar. There are plenty on the internet without. Good luck!
That exact photo has been posted before: How can I make my Chocolate Mousse fluffier? - everybody is pretty sure that it uses gelatin. There is very little chance that agar-agar will give you the same texture, it sets very firmly and it's melting point is extremely high. Maybe that's what you want, but it won't look like the photo at all. I'm not sure why you're against gelatin but carrageenan is the most similar in properties.
Hi! Yes thats the post I found the photo in whilst looking for a good recipe. Im not against geletine in principle (im not a vegetarian), only that I havent found a kosher or halal one which is the actual reason I dont want to use geletine. In fact any recipe which uses geletine causes me the same problem. Not having used agar Ive often thought it COULD be the answer so its good to hear from someone who could tell me why not to think too much down that route. Thank you for your help. :)
Great Lakes bovine gelatin is kosher. It can be found on Amazon.
Thnaks, looked for it but OMG its £31 / $52!! too pricey for me Im afraid. Might be helpful to someone though. Thank you
Gelatine has nothing to do with a mousse. That means it's no problem to find a recipe without ;) .
I'm doing Mousse au Chocolat like that:
melt 200-250gr (more is better for stability) of chocolate (70%+ cacao) in a baine-marie
whip 400gr of cream
whip one egg yolk in a baine-marie until fluffy *
mix the chocolate into the egg yolk
carefully fold the cream under the chocolate
refrigerate for a few hours
This mousse is pretty solid after a few hours in the fridge...without gelantine.
*if you want any flavor like vanilla or some liquor in your mousse it is a good idea to add it now to the egg
see this question, http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5482/how-can-i-make-my-chocolate-mousse-fluffier, there is definitely a difference between mousse with and without gelatine, and I suspect that the OP wants to have mousse like the second one, but without the gelatine
@rumtscho The result will look quite close to the second one.
Now you know why I asked the question, more than the recipe I wanted to hear the opinions of ppl more experienced than myself. I havent made chocolate mousse before and if you make it once with one recipe you tend to stick to it or give up (if it goes wrong) but if there is someone with more experienced to ask youre much more likely to get what you are actually hoping for. Id be happy to try this recipe if its possible it will result in a firm mouse
About two years ago I read about the "ultimate chocolate mousse" from Heston Blumenthal. Interestingly, the recipe only calls for two ingredients: bittersweet chocolate and water. Sugar can be added, but it is optional. It is all in the technique.
You use an approach that is similar to tempering chocolate and then whip.
Place a mixing bowl over a bowl filled with iced. Melt 265g bittersweet chocolate (chopped) with 240 ml water over medium heat. Gently stir to keep the temperature consistent throughout the chocolate. You pour the melted chocolate into the mixing bowl sitting on the bowl with ice in it and start whisking. Here you will need to may need a bit of practice. If you mix too much, it will become grainy. If that happens, then lightly melt again and then pour back into the cooled bowl. Chocolate can be very fluffy even without added ingredients.
I have seen the Blumenthal method in a video, but the two times I tried it, it failed. I certainly got air whipped into the mixture, but at one point, it stopped getting any more air, and just stayed a runny foam. Have you been able to reproduce it?
Im sure any recipe that has Hestons name associated with it is probably too advanced a technique for someone like me (blush) Im intrigued though. would love to hear of anyone's success with it. Thank you for your input
It definitely requires a bit of trial and error. The temperature has to be perfect and length of time that you whip also has to be perfect. Usually Heston has very specific temperatures in every step of his recipe, but I couldn't find any more details.
I've seen the same recipe/technique attributed to Herve This.
If you are able to get hold of it, I have used vegetarian gelatin substitute in the past, and found it to be fine. I'm in the UK, and most supermarkets stock something like Dr. Oetker Vege-Gel or their own brand (often called vetetarian gel, rather than gelatin(e), to avoid confusion).
If you are looking for an agar conversion, Joy of Baking suggests that a 7-gram (1 tbsp.) packet of gelatin granules (or 4 leaves sheet gelatin) = 2 tsp. agar.
Ah yes I have seen the vege-gel. I wonder if the method for using it in chocolate mousse differs from the geletine version? thank you for your input.
Vege gel is the best! you can find it in stores everywhere and its so cheap!!
A very easy variant is simply melted chocolate chips and tofu, which can be adjusted in firmness by using silken to extra firm, drained -blended/processed/whipped and left to set.
Amount of each can be varied to suit as well. Done right, you'd never guess there was tofu in there (so better warn the soy-allergic folks not to touch it.)
The firmer types need more aggressive blending/processing to break the tofu down to where it vanishes in the mix - silken goes pretty well with a whisk. Possibly a two step process (to make it smooth) and then whisk (to get more air in) would get closer to what you are after if having it stand up well is important.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.135688
| 2014-02-09T19:24:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41887",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Anthm",
"Becca Lanyard",
"Elaine ",
"John Grøtting",
"Kilel",
"Marti",
"Mien",
"Private Name",
"Robin Lynn",
"Sam",
"Spammer",
"Stephanie Ferrell",
"dataresult toto spam",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23091",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23116",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97745",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97746",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97820",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97824",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97847",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97850",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97851",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97852",
"rchrd",
"rumtscho",
"tomrip",
"user23116"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
59482
|
Watermelon - picking and managing them during heat
There are a lot of posts and videos on the internet about picking up the correct watermelon. Sure. I get that. My question varies a little different.
I currently live in the UAE and climates here reach around 49c and more. So despite the fact that we pick watermelon we want to know the best way to preserve it. Supermarkets here and the farmers market leave them out.
I take them home and immediately put in the fridge. About a day later I take the melon, cut it up and will leave half in the fridge and other half chopped in a bowl and also can leave that in the fridge and we will consume it with meals taking it in and out over the next few days. Few problems:
The watermelon gets very watery - dark red blotches so it becomes overripe
The sweetness goes quickly
How can we keep it sweet and keep it maintained - what are some tips you guys use for family and preserving it.
Thanks
There may be different varieties of watermelon that behave differently, so I can't guarantee that this will work for you.
The way I've always done it is to only cut up what I'm going to eat.
We cut across the watermelon in the shorter direction, starting at one end, producing circles about 1-1.5 inch (2-3 cm) thick.
Here's an image of what removing the first slice looks like:
You can cut these circles into wedges or remove the rind and cut into pieces.
This leaves the remainder of the watermelon intact with only a single side open to the air, and that end is covered in plastic wrap (cling film) and stored in the refrigerator.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.136195
| 2015-07-30T19:06:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59482",
"authors": [
"Gracie Waltower",
"Mark Chambers",
"Mick Seward",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142111",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142113",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142114",
"segun adegoke"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
47734
|
How can I make fresh burger buns like Hardees?
I am pretty new to baking and having recently just come back from Saudi Arabia I was privileged to visit the Hardees food chain (non in the UK where I live) and fallen in love with their fresh baked buns.
Does anyone know how to copy or come close to there burger bread buns? Can I can other buns and add butter or something close?
Hardees also wrap it in a foil packaging and since I suspect they use butter for that extra soft velvet feel it makes it more better as the bun melts with the cheese and burger inside the packaging.
Here is a clip too
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nvth7WJucQ
Thanks
I've never had Hardees (UK represent!) but they look like a brioche-style bun to me. Happily enough, that ties in with the bun I make for my burgers, for which I use this recipe: http://smittenkitchen.com/blog/2009/07/light-brioche-burger-buns/ Try it now, thank me later. (For the record, mine always come out much darker and more even coloured than Smitten Kitchen's anaemic looking things. They taste awesome - a bit like croissants, thanks to the egg and butter).
I've never heard of Hardees (UK massive) but you might want to get inspiration from Heston's classic burger bun recipe http://www.insearchofheston.com/2014/05/how-to-make-hestons-perfect-cheeseburger-recipe-from-in-search-of-perfection/
As a starter, Hardees lists the ingredients for their Soft Baked Buns on their website.
From there, we can gain that the main ingredients are:
All Purpose White Flour
Water
Sugar
Soybean Oil
Yeast
Additionally, it contains less than 2% of:
Wheat Gluten
Salt
Maltodextrin
Food Starch-Modified
DATEM
Xanthan Gum
Whey
Dextrin
Mixed Triglycerides
Enzymes
Ascorbic Acid
Acesulfame Potassium
Maltitol
Neotame
Turmeric
Annato
And their Egg mixture for Basting:
Whole Eggs
Citric Acid diluted with water
I would probably knock out the following:
Wheat Gluten
Maltodextrin
Food Starch-Modified
DATEM
Dextrin
Mixed Triglycerides
Enzymes
Acesulfame Potassium
Maltitol
Neotame
Which leaves as the "less than 2% of" list:
Salt
Xanthan Gum
Turmeric
Annato
Ascorbic Acid
Whey
Which unfortunately only gives us part of the puzzle - ratios, process, and cooking time are all still a mystery.
Correct @logophobe. I was hoping someone else could chime in with those as I couldn't fit what I wrote in a comment :(
Thank you for the post. So there is no directions of how you would approach this. I do not know what Xanthan Gum is and guess being an amateur would have to get a baking bread machine too?
Yes - my apologies for no directions. I only found the ingredients and posted them in hopes that someone else would be able to post directions. As for Xanthan Gum - its a thickening agent that is plant derived and can be purchased in powder form. As for the directions, I would follow this recipes directions
@TheBlackBenzKid a bread baking machine is probably counterproductive here. Each machine is limited to very few types of bread. If you want to replicate a certain type, doing it by hand is the way to go, unless you have access to the same machine as the original used
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.136375
| 2014-10-07T11:37:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47734",
"authors": [
"Chandrachur Chatterjee",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Gary",
"Hannah Handley",
"Lynn Roll",
"SMILER ESSEXBIKERS",
"TheBlackBenzKid",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115252",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115253",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115254",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"jsanc623",
"logophobe",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
121583
|
"Room temperature" and "cool, dry place" -- are there actual temperatures associated with these canned phrases?
When a product says "refrigerate" or "freeze", the temperature they're asking you to keep it at is not a mystery -- most refrigerators and freezers maintain an expected temperature range.
But other products indicate "room temperature" or that they should be stored in a "cool, dry place". Are there actual temperature ranges associated with these set phrases?
I grew up in North America, in a household where we couldn't afford to overly heat the house in the winter, or cool it in the summer. "Room temperature" was, therefore, 50-55°F (10-12.7°C) in the winter, and 85-90°F (29-32°C) in the summer. My perception of "room" temperature is similarly skewed -- this isn't at all "normal" from a N. American perspective, where most of my peers like to keep their houses at around 77°F/25°C in the winter, and 67°F/19°C in the summer. But I remain confused, at least, from a culinary perspective of what exactly I'm being asked when a product indicates these set phrases.
As a concrete example: I recently bought a tub of ghee. It indicates to me on the labelling that it does not require refrigeration, can be kept at "room temperature", and should be stored in a "cool, dry place". My apartment is 80°F/26.6°C right now -- is this "room temperature"? (It'll cool to ~61°F/16°C overnight.) In the meantime, it's significantly warmer than the store shelf I bought it from, and the ghee has gone from a soft solid to pure liquid. This change of state (solid -> liquid) is what prompted my concern that I'm misinterpreting "room temperature" in terms of food temperature and safety.
Another fat that's definitely storable long term without refrigeration but solidifies in a cold enough room is olive oil. Slightly cooler than for ghee, but I'm mean enough with the heating and unbothered enough by the cold to see it. My kitchen normally only gets cold enough for it to go cloudy and thick (though there have been exceptions) but I don't take it in the camper van in winter in case I can't get it out of the bottle.
I suspect though, that this difference is less important for food safety than for some cooking steps that rely on the behaviour of fats at different temperatures (like you'd soften butter before creaming with sugar) or in baking when yeast works much more slowly colder
I'd always refrigerate ghee, whatever it says on the packaging. It will go rancid in fluctuating temperatures, long before its 'best before' date.
Up until about 2019, the "kilogram" was based on a real, physical object housed in Paris. Now I'm imagining an official "room" from where all "room temperature" is based off of.
@BruceWayne: behold the room temperature room!
I think this is a tricky issue because even though many regions of India didn’t have air conditioning and gets warmer than where I live, I likely don’t go through ghee as fast as they do, so things like container size and how long it’s been sitting at the store might be factors
@Joe - before it's opened it's pretty much sterile. Best before date is just that, best before, not inedible after. As soon as you open it, the clock starts ticking. btw, most of the world doesn't have aircon.
"Cool, dry place" is a remnant of when houses had root cellars. Even then, though, lots of regions didn't have root cellars, and of course apartments have never had them either.
Don't people just make their own ghee as needed?
I'm lazy and also am really bad at clarifying butter. It's also just an example. You can mentally substitute "honey" which has similar storage instructions (and similar observable state changes, liquid -> solid.)
@RoddyoftheFrozenPeas Honey would be more sensitive to storage conditions than ghee - it's a supersaturated sugar solution that's nice and stable when ratios are balanced, but add moisture and that balance is thrown off, it crystallizes, has even more available water for microbial activity, and may begin to ferment -http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2004.09.003
25 degrees sounds just incredibly stuffy to me? Are people really heating their houses that high? Why do they heat to a higher temperature than they cool in sumner?
"Room temperature" as used for testing, analysis, and validation purposes generally falls within the range of 65F-75F (18C-24C). Published research will typically specify temperature ranges used.
Both the FDA Food Code (2017) and Canadian Food Retail and Food Services Code (2016), providing guidelines for inspection activities, take an outcome-based approach and do not reference specific storage temperatures or humidity levels as products stored unopened in these conditions are designed to be safe or are self-evident if spoiled/unsafe - mouldy potatoes, rusted or swollen cans, etc.
In most jurisdictions in North America, refrigerator and freezer temperature conditions are often codified in laws and may be required to be explicitly labelled for consumer protection since pathogen activity is not as readily evident as spoilage - some Listeria, for example, can reproduce in food below 40F/4C, making both maximum storage temperature and duration needed.
A better source for optimum room temperature conditions would be your local building code, though most will specify the same range noted above and humidity <60%. If it's comfortable for humans, it's most likely suitable for products designed for those conditions.
For your ghee example - it originates in India for preserving butterfat at 30C+ temperatures and seasonal relative humidity close to 100%. When properly stored in an airtight container there is no water available for microorganism activity, and the concern is more for long-term quality decline due to oxidative rancidity.
Do you have any source for your first claim? I work in the electronic industry, and room temperature is most definitely 25˚C.
@VladimirCravero there is no reason for "room temperature" as defined for electronics to be the same as defined for food.
@VladimirCravero I think "room temperature" gets used for SATP (Standard Ambient Temperature and Pressure) in some STEM professions, which is indeed 25°C, but other definitions depend on local usage; for example, United States Pharmacopeia indicates "controlled room temperature" as 20-25C°C, European Pharmacopeia 15-25°C, Japanese Pharmacopeia 1-30°C (though "ordinary temperature" is 15-25°C).
@VladimirCravero as others noted above, these room temperature ranges are applicable to food and food safety, and in North America these temperatures are representative for ideal conditions with normal fluctuations. A specific scenario is Health Canada's sanitizer efficacy validation, using 18C-25C - https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/hc-sc/documents/services/drugs-health-products/drug-products/applications-submissions/guidance-documents/disinfectants/disinfectant-drugs/disinfectant-drug-eng.pdf - p.13
@VladimirCravero and even more relevant to the average food premises operator, many (not all) sanitizer test kits specify testing at room temperature for accuracy - Hydrion's QT10/QT40 products explicitly state 65F-75F.
Thanks for your replies - I was just curious about this topic as, apart from electronics, 25 degC is pretty common across the board. To explain why my brain made the connection, I am in the silicon industry and my day to day job is precisely "testing, analysis and validation"... of silicon chips :) hence the dissonance for me in reading 24 degC next to it.
@VladimirCravero that's really warm!!! In my air conditioned North American experience, 70-72˚F (21-22˚C) is the nominal "room temperature".
@VladimirCravero yeah, given that you said "electronic industry" I assumed you were relating with the SATP standard for "room temperature", that's why I called that out specifically (which, as a former chemist, I also usually associate it to :P).
It depends on whether you are talking about food safety, or food quality.
When you are talking about food safety, then "room temperature" is the complete range between 4°C (40°F) and 60°C (140°F). There are upper limits for the time that refrigeration-needing items can spend in this range (anywhere in it). "Cool, dry place" is not defined from the point of view of food safety.
When it comes to food quality, there is no strict definition. There are optimal conditions hiding behind each of these terms, and the farther you go from them, the quicker your food will deteriorate, in noticeable ways like mold, or unnoticeable like the slow loss of aroma in spices. So, it is not a range, it is more of a target with a lot of leeway.
For the target temperature, I would say that it is about 22°C (70°F) for "room temperature" and 15°C (60°F) for "cool, dry place". I don't have references for this, but it is quite compatible with both the conditions at which many foods do well, and with the actually available conditions in many households in the western world (although this is changing - many modern households no longer have a 15°C (60°F) cellar or pantry).
The ideal room T° according to this commercial document is exactly 23°C (73.4°F), but back when I was working in the pharmaceutical industry, it was defined as 10°C-30°C (30°F-86°F) for the companies I worked for...
@Fabby these sources are interesting, but neither of them are about food storage. So there is not a perfect overlap with the culinary sense of the term (nor would would it be expected).
That's why it's a comment and not an answer... @rumtscho
Rumtscho, please don't put me in a room at 60°C! I'll be nice!
@DawoodibnKareem: 60°C? That's kind of chilly for a sauna, can you please turn up the heat a bit? :D (But seriously, humidity and physical activity make a huge difference. Try doing heavy physical exercise at 60°C and 100% RH and you'll pass out in minutes and probably die if not rescued. Sit naked in a dry room at 60°C and you're probably fine indefinitely, as long as you have enough water and electrolytes to drink to replace what you're sweating out.)
If you are reading this in a recipe, as opposed to product packaging, then "room temperature" and "cool" are going to vary according to the writer. That is, those terms mean different things for a Finnish recipe author than they do for a Brazilian one.
As a specific example where this could affect cooking is making dosa batter. Indian recipes often tell you to ferment it at room temperature, but the temperature they mean is 26-30C. If you try to ferment it at American room temperature of 21C, the batter will not ferment properly or will take days instead of hours.
Conversely, on pizza forums I've handled questions from Indians who had problems making pizza dough because room temperature ferments were too warm and the dough overproofed.
So, to answer your question: They do not mean a specific temperature if found in a recipe.
I think they /do/ mean a specific temperature in a recipe, just not the same temp in different recipes :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.136671
| 2022-09-07T03:07:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121583",
"authors": [
"Aaron McMillin",
"BruceWayne",
"Chris H",
"Daevin",
"Dawood ibn Kareem",
"Dennis Williamson",
"Fabby",
"Ilmari Karonen",
"Joe",
"Roddy of the Frozen Peas",
"RonJohn",
"Stephan Kolassa",
"Tetsujin",
"Tim",
"Vladimir Cravero",
"borkymcfood",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100762",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44157",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52058",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99917",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43102
|
Refrigerating cooked, gluten-free waffles
I have a gluten free recipe to make waffles:
2 cups gluten-free all-purpose (plain) flour
2 tbsp sugar
2 tsp baking powder
1/2 tsp baking soda (bicarbonate of soda)
1/2 tsp salt
1 egg
3/4 cup milk
1 tbsp vegetable oil
Since I won't be able to eat them all in one sitting, I would like to make this once and have them last a few days to save time cooking every day. Would it be OK to refrigerate them for up to 2-3 days? Or maybe try to keep the batter?
It is certainly safe to keep them refrigerated for a few days, but you will probably get much better results by freezing them.
The cooked starches will re-crystalize if you refrigerate them, making them hard and unpalatable--this is one of the major modes of staling.
By freezing them, you reduce this effect.
You can then heat them directly from frozen in a warm oven to use the left overs.
Food safety wise, 2-3 days in the fridge will be OK, or even up to 5. Taste wise, they will not be very good. You will get better results if you refrigerate the batter (again, keep for 3-5 days, throw away earlier if it stars bubbling or smelling sour). But the batches after the first one will be rather flat/dense, because the leavening won't work.
For best taste, there is no way to keep the waffles. If you can live with the dense kind, refrigerating the batter is a reasonable compromise.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.137582
| 2014-03-27T20:45:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43102",
"authors": [
"Jamestown Cycle Spam",
"Linny",
"Randal Spaulding",
"Vladislav Gladkikh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100833",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100835",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100840",
"user100834"
],
"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
}
|
56628
|
What is my pizza cutter's handle made from, and how do I stop it from staining everything it touches?
A while back, I bought an ordinary-looking pizza cutter with a dull grey handle. However, I soon found out the hard way that the handle is made from some weird metal or alloy that reacts with water, staining everything it touches black:
"Water" here includes even slightly moist or sweaty hands, making this a real pain to use. What is this stuff and how do I stop it from staining? And for extra credit, why on earth would you make a hand-held kitchen utensil from it?!
Is it heavy enough to be cast iron? Cast iron teapots do that, it's highly annoying.
I don't think so: it's pretty heavy, but not that heavy? Also, the original color was a dull medium grey (see eg. the light patch on the left side near the bottom of the handle), whereas all the cast iron I've ever seen is black or close to it.
If it's that big of an issue, I recommend trashing it and buying a new one... they aren't that expensive and the ATK top rated one from OXO is $13.
Spray painting the handle should solve the problem, but it would probably be cheaper to just to get a new cutter like Catija suggested.
Looks like molded plastic to me. Likely degrading from too many trips thru the dishwashwer. The plasticizer's been leeched and the handle is crumbling. Get a new one.
@WayfaringStranger No, it's a metal of some kind, not plastic. And the staining started almost immediately, after the first or second wash.
Do you remember the brand? Knowing that is the most likely way of finding out what it's made out of. I did an image search for these cutters and couldn't find anything identical to it in the images or on Amazon. Brand and/or the country it was purchased in will help.
Mystery solved! At Catija's prompting, I managed to dig up the cutter on the website of the shop I bought it from, the Chef's Hat in Melbourne, Australia:
CUTTER PIZZA W/ALUM HANDLE 95MM S/ST ($6.60)
So turns out the handle is aluminum (aluminium), which can be discolored black if the alloy is not dishwasher-safe, which this clearly wasn't. Time to ask a new question about what, if anything, I can do to fix it!
So can you polish it and stop putting it in the DW?
I'd see if you can take the blade off, then scower with steel wool, spray with a metal spray primer, and some new color/top coat. A clear coat would probably make it dishwasher safe.
The three cans of spray paint, and a spray can trigger probably cost more than a replacement.
Independently of the alloy used, cutting implements don't go into the dishwasher, it blunts them in no time. Anything except for a butter knife should be washed by hand. I would guess that this is why the manufacturer didn't care to choose a dishwasher safe alloy for a pizza wheel.
for $6.60...buy a new one...May I recommend this pizza cutter from Amazon I have one and it is great. [IMHO]
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.137731
| 2015-04-12T21:08:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56628",
"authors": [
"Bethany Naykalyk",
"Catija",
"Cos Callis",
"Josh Mitchum",
"Rachel Namuli Mugisha",
"Robert Plain",
"Ross Ridge",
"Shana Potvin",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"Yamikuronue",
"fontophilic",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134647",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134648",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134665",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24962",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"lambshaanxy",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
61846
|
Spring onion (green onion/scallion) in coq au vin?
I recently ran into an Australian recipe for coq au vin that called for "spring onions", which (in Australia) refers unambiguously to what the French call cébette:
Oddly, the recipe calls for 800g of them (spring onions are sold by bunch, not weight), says you should "trim green ends, leaving about 4cm of stem attached; trim roots" (not a whole lot of spring onion left if you follow this!), and then continues with "cook onion, stirring, until browned all over", which doesn't seem like the kind of thing you'd usually do to spring onions.
So is spring onion for coq au vin an actual thing in France? Or did a clueless editor somewhere along the way confuse shallot/échalote in the original (below) with spring onions, which are also known as "eschalots" in Australia?
When faced with a recipe that seems just wrong, I tend to either fix it or find one I agree with. Having in the past ridden a few through the "but this is what the recipe says, yet it comes out wrong" I'm prone to assume errors and blindly copying without cooking as far too common in recipe sources. Also, shallots beat most other alliums on the taste front! Of course, it could be that someone had far too many green onions and opted to trim and caramelize to use some up...
Australian and keen Coq au Vin maker here; I am in Sydney so my response may be subject to regional variations; Australia is a big place.
There is yet another possibility. These
Coq au Vin requires onions twice; at the start, chopped, and later on, where the recipe I use (Mastering the Art of French Cooking) calls for small onions browned and braised in stock. In Australia it isn't easy to get onions of the right size for the latter dish - even the smallish onions sold as pickling onions are IMHO too big. The bulbs of the spring onions behind the link are the right size, about an inch in diameter.
As you can see from the other products on the page, yes, we have no standard naming convention. I'm British by birth, so I'll always refer to French Shallots as Shallots, and the OP's cebette as Spring Onions.
As an aside, http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/wordofmouth/2011/mar/24/how-perfect-coq-au-vin is well worth consulting. In fact the whole series is well worth consulting.
Extra credit for the awesome link at the end!
@JonHayward I have never come across the iconic Coq au Vin dish in France using the bulbs of spring onions for the onion-ingredient that should remain "whole" in the served dish. The correct ones compare in size with jarred cocktail onions. However, jarred cocktail onions should never be used in a classic Coq au Vin. Perish the thought!
As I said this is Australia - I have never seen onions the size of cocktail onions outside a jar since I emigrated from the UK nearly 30 years ago. My post was pointing out another thing that gets called Spring Onions in Australia, and that is what the author of the recipe might have thought was a reasonable compromise given the absence of really tiny onions here.
I generally use pickling onions, and if they're a little big peel an outer layer or two off. I have also used shallots as in echalotes, French shallots, the proper ones, for this and for Boeuf Bourgignonne. Yum.
The intent could be to indeed use just the "not whole lot left" - the white part and 4cm of the stem, and discard (or use otherwise) the rest. Using just this part is also common in building the aromatics set for wok dishes - just that the green parts tend to be used as garnish later.
Specifying by weight is actually more precise here, since bunch sizes can vary, and there are varieties with a straight white part (a true scallion) and others having a bulbous part almost like a white onion (a true spring onion)...
Since the white part is by far the heaviest part, it would be easiest to shop for them by laying bunches on the produce scale until you get approximately two pounds together (prices for spring onions could be very variable across the world - in some European countries they are rather cheap, eg usually around 30-40 cents a bunch in Germany).
According to "How to cook everything" by Mark Bitman, it is "two medium onions chopped". Normal onions. They are added to the mushrooms while making the sauce. With this, I will say it is not a thing in French cuisine.
But I think your Australian recipe really want spring onion because of the technique described. It is really what I'm used to and doesn't apply to shallot nor onion.
Also, here in Québec, Canada, we call "spring onion" «échalote» and "shallot" «échalote française». Happy to not be the only one confused !
From the book, I also got the actual name of the recipe : Chicken in Red Wine Sauce.
Sorry, I'm not sure I follow your logic. Are you saying that, because one American book uses standard onions, it is impossible that there is a common recipe in France which uses spring onions?
Not the best reference to find a trend in France, I admint. But just found one of the most famous french chef working in Quebec City, Jean Soulard, is making his Coq au Vin with «small onions». Could be pearl onions. It is also the tendency I can see on many french recipe website.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.138015
| 2015-09-19T13:57:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/61846",
"authors": [
"Alex",
"Ben Hutt",
"Denis Spriggs",
"Ecnerwal",
"JonHayward",
"Karla Olaski",
"Katie Roche",
"Leo S",
"Peter Point",
"Terry Rodriguez",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146824",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146825",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146892",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147077",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147193",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21382",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24955",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49585",
"lambshaanxy",
"muhammad luqman hakim elias lu",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41989
|
Stovetop Flank Steak
Let me start with some background info:
99% of the steaks I cook are strip skirt steaks because they are delicious and thin. This makes them ideal for stovetop cooking. I usually use a non-stick pan on high heat to brown each side, then medium for 5 minutes to cook the insides. This works well enough for me, but isn't going to win me any medals.
The Problem:
I'm planning on making steaks for that special someone tomorrow and went to my local butcher today to pick up the skirts. Unfortunately, they were unavailable, so I picked up a monster flank instead (~2.5 lbs). I've had incredible flank steaks before, so I like the cut, but I've never cooked it. The problem is two fold:
1) I assume I cannot cook it the same way as skirt
2) I'd like to aim a little higher on the culinary totem pole
So my question to you is what is the proper way to cook a Flank Steak on my stove or in my oven? Specifically, what are the differences I need to watch out for when preparing a thicker, larger steak.
Some Extra Info:
I have a 12 in non-stick pan and 12 in flat cast iron pan at my disposal
By "proper" I mean the method which will result in the most tenderness. I've read through this very helpful question and this one as well and certainly plan to take the advice provided.
I have a wonderful dry rub that I plan on using (so no marinades as a mechanism for tenderizing)
Thanks in advance!
You mention strip and skirt in the first paragraph. These are very different cuts. Do you really mean skirt steak?
@SAJ14SAJ whiips, thanks for pointing that out, I meant skirt, I'll update
The best way, imho, is to use your basic broiling pan...Put a little water in the bottom before you start, or the pan may warp. Put the rack in your oven as high as it will go (while still allowing the broiling pan with steak to fit), then turn the oven on "Broil".
Leave the oven door cracked (you don't want it to pre-heat, and turn the element off), and cook it like you would on the grill, flipping it halfway through. The radiant heat from the element will give you a little char, though no grill lines, obviously.
Anything over medium rare is going to be a bit chewy. Let it rest, then cut it into strips across the grain of the meat. Flank steak responds well to marinades (my favourite: 1 tbps soy sauce, 1 tbsp sherry, 1 tbsp dijon mustard, 1 tbsp lemon juice, 1 tsp ground ginger.)
You could try to cook it on the stovetop, but that much meat will be too much for most pans.
Are dry rubs and broiling compatible?
@wnnmaw: It's pretty much the same as putting it on a grill. If you'd need to cook it at a lower temperature to keep your rub from going flambe then the same would apply in the oven.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.138440
| 2014-02-13T20:09:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41989",
"authors": [
"Redoubt Nodoubt",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Spammer",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22720",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98019",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98025",
"user67105",
"wnnmaw"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43757
|
How can I make proper sandwich slices of home-made bread?
I like baking my own bread and do it quite often, yet to fill our family lunch boxes we still resort to professional baked bread. The main and maybe the only reason is that we can't seem to slice our own baked bread as thin as you like to fit in a lunchbox.
We could of course buy an electric bread slicer similar as the one you'll find in your local supermarket, but that is quite some overkill.
source
I have tried it many times, even with very sharp knives, but I never managed to get a slices smaller then 1 cm in thickness.
Is there some technique or device that enables proper slices of home-made bread?
What defines a proper sandwich? If it's sticky stuff (jam, marmite etc.) to smear on the bread, just put it on a fat hand made slice, and fold in half. If "filling", put it in a reusable zipper bag, and pour onto one fat hand made slice before eating
@TFD Sure, it's a personal preference, but the OP seems to have fairly clearly specified what they're looking for: thin (<1cm), even slices.
You can buy a home bread slicer - and you can also make one.
"My little invention works on the same principle as a carpenter's miter
box (as a matter of fact, I got the idea while watching a carpenter
friend cut some miter joints). The only difference is that my device
was made specifically for slicing homemade bread. Just slide a loaf
into place, position the blade of a long, sharp knife in the slots,
and you can't help but cut straight and true." - John Shell, Mother Earth News March/April 1978
It has slots every 1/2 inch ... so they'd be 1.28cm/slice.
Got the drvice through amazon, it works, great answer
I find that a rediculously sharp serrated blade is the key -- I have a Wüstof bread knife with what they call a 'wavy edge' -- it looks more like a scalloped edge. I find it goes through bread much cleaner than a standard serrated knife. (if it has a soft crumb, it don't end up with the surface of the cut looking chewed up).
You also want a knife that's fairly long -- you want to take nice, long strokes with very little downward pressure; if you can, just blade slowly fall through the bread as you push it back and forth. Short strokes will end up with more of the 'chewed up' look.
I also find that the type of bread, and how you store it can be significant -- if the crust is too hard (eg, non-enriched breads), I find it more difficult to make a sandwich from it. I keep loaves that I know I'm going to be slicing thinly in a plastic bag, so the crust doesn't overly dry out (eg home-baked or those from the farmer's market they sell in paper bags or perforated plastic bags, I throw 'em in a plastic grocery bag when I get home, so it doesn't dry out in 24-48 hrs). If you have a bread box, that would work, too.
... and if none of those tips help, there are knives with 'slicing guides' available in a range of prices that have a parallel bar to help give you a reference so you'll slice more uniformly. To use them, you need a slightly different technique; as the guide protrudes past the blade, you need to make the last pass with only the tip of the blade.
You may find that an electric knife (not a full electric slicer) makes it much easier to slice bread thinly, as the back and forth action saws through cleanly and you don't have the tearing or pulling that may happen with a regular knife if it is not perfectly sharp or used with perfect technique.
If find that using mine makes it easy to make small croutons every year for thanksgiving stuffing.
Something like this:
Tried it, but doesn't really work well with crusty bread.
I am quite surprised; usually they are quite good at that.
This works well for me: http://www.amazon.com/EdgeCraft-610-Choice-Premium-Electric/dp/B0002AKCOC
and I can slice meat and cheese too!
My wife suggested using our electric meat slicer. I did and it worked great.
this is an inadequate answer because, it does not help facilitate the curvature of the cut itself (keep the slice straight). It only helps with the actual slicing of the bread, which doesn't guarantee width of each slice or continual identical results. If you disagree, you need to state this in you answer.
Actually, it does if the blade is sharp, IME.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.138702
| 2014-04-28T14:20:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43757",
"authors": [
"Andra",
"Cascabel",
"Chef_Code",
"Eddie Keller",
"Jim Kavanagh",
"Joe",
"Jorge",
"LadyBlue Robinson",
"PhotoRob",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"Stephie",
"Suzann Wilcox",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102628",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102629",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102631",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102633",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102663",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134419",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
76070
|
Expiration dates vs. "Best before" dates?
This has been discussed briefly elsewhere (e.g. here), but it doesn't seem to have been asked generally.
In the USA, there are a variety of dates printed on foods. Unfortunately, there seems to be little convention. The list includes at least the following (feel free to add more!):
Best by [DATE]
Best if used by [DATE]
Best before [DATE]
Expiry date: [DATE]
Expiration date: [DATE]
Expires by [DATE]
Use by [DATE]
Use before [DATE]
Freeze by [DATE]
Eat fresh or freeze by [DATE]
What meaning is implied/conveyed by each of those?
For example:
What do each of those mean in terms of taste, quality, safety, etc?
Are any of them firmer deadlines than another, and are any intended to be mere guidelines?
Common sense tells us that "expires on [DATE]" means it's assumed to be unsafe after [DATE]), but does it say anything more -- or less -- than that, and what of the others?
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/40964/67 ; there are also a ton of questions on here asking about specific items. (soda, soy milk, soy sauce, gelatin sheets, cheeses, "parmesan cheese" in a green tube, chocolate, etc.)
And one of the more important dates (as it's a risk of microbial activity: use within [DAYS] days of opening)
FWIW here in Norway dairy cartons are marked with "Best before: [DATE], often good after" as a way to discourage waste. Probably other products, too.
Here is a fairly extensive and generally accepted write-up http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/features/do-food-expiration-dates-matter
The only federally mandated expiration date in the US is infant formula, but some states do have others especially on dairy. Most of the labeling in the US is through voluntary programs, while some are strictly marketing gimmicks like beer "born on" dates. In general, most of the regulations are metered out by state, not federal rules and can mean slightly different things in different states. For example, milk is generally considered still usable for 5 to 7 days after the labeled date. But that date may be different in different states. In most places, sell by date is in the 21 to 28 day range from pasteurization. Montana though, the rule it 12 days, which would mean on the surface that milk should last an additional week or two past the label date in Montana. Not necessarily though, as in Montana the milk may be allowed to sit in storage for longer before it is pasteurized. Eggs in some states may get a 21 day sell by date while other states are 28 days or more and different states have very different rules on how those eggs are handled. Having been licensed in one state for eggs myself, I can tell you their rules included any egg collected in that state had to be labeled for 28 days from collection, but if the egg was from out of state no labeling laws were applied at all, the egg could be of any age. Yeah, how crazy was that rule? It allowed old eggs from other states to be blindly dumped into that state.
In most states, as long as it has been correctly stored, most food is still fine beyond the label dates, though quality will be dropping more rapidly after that date. Many states do however have regulations stating that items beyond those dates cannot be sold or even donated after the date in some categories of foods even if the food would still be considered good.
The link in the first paragraph answered all my questions. Thanks.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.139051
| 2016-12-02T05:12:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76070",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Tomáš Fejfar",
"htmlcoderexe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10309",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55633",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
61767
|
Does soaking dry beans before cooking prevent flatulence?
There are all kinds of opinions on whether or not soaking beans helps decrease flatulence.
Some say adding things like baking soda, lemon juice, salt, or other things to the bath helps the effect. Some say soaking them in a warm-water bath is more effective than a cold-water bath. Others say there is no effect whatsoever. Opinions of food-column editors and bloggers (and even users of Seasoned Advice!) seem to diverge considerably.
This tells me there might be little consensus in the general public. But what do the scientists who study this say?
It makes sense that this could be difficult to study, since flatulence production depends on the type of bean/legume, other food ingredients (e.g. cinnamon, garlic, ginger, sulfur-rich foods, etc.), diet, the person's individual GI response to chemicals and fiber, and probably other factors.
I've collected a number of sources:
Sources claiming soaking has little/no effect on flatulence
http://www.latimes.com/food/dailydish/la-dd-dont-soak-dried-beans-20140911-story.html (cites several experts)
Sources claiming warm-water soaking helps prevent flatulence
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1992.tb08093.x/abstract
http://jacknorrisrd.com/part-2-soaking-beans/
Sources claiming that flatulence shouldn't be a big deal
http://nutritionfacts.org/2011/12/05/beans-and-gas-clearing-the-air/
Sources claiming soaking with additives helps prevent flatulence
An article from the Pakistan Journal of Nutrition (PDF) (cited from https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/32385/24698)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1980.tb07571.x/abstract
Other Soaking Sources
What can I do to help prevent flatulence from beans?
http://www.vegfamily.com/dietician/0806b.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16478251
http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/why-you-must-soak-your-beans/
Is there a scientific consensus on how to reduce flatulence from beans and/or legumes in general (if possible), and if so, what is it?
Please include multiple sources to peer-reviewed articles in your answer!
I don't understand what the question means. What is "a scientific consensus"? The whole point of science is that it consists of different theories. When would you say that a consensus exists? What does evidence for a consensus look like for you?
@rumtscho: The whole point of science is that the many different ideas about something converge to a single idea through observation and/or experimentation. Experimental or observational evidence supports or refutes certain ideas, narrowing the pool of ideas until usually only one idea remains, and this stands the test of time.
Given the number of sources you've provided yourself, I think the answer to your question about a scientific consensus is a simple "no". I'm not sure I get what you're asking either. Your own question states near the beginning that there appears to be little consensus. I doubt that there's been any more than a handful of peer-reviewed studies that have managed to account for all the possible factors on this topic.
Well, hopefully this happens someday, although it is usually only about very big and clear-cut issues, at least in nutrition (classic theory of science tends to be based on physics, which is easier). Does it mean that you only see it as a consensus when nobody in the community defends the opposite theory? This is one of the common criteria, but we obviously don't have that here.
@rumtscho: When have scientists reached a consensus? That's hard to say. :-) I would expect a few of the following to be clues that scientists have agreed on a topic. 1) Their writing changes from "Others have proposed that [hypothesis]" or "It is thought that [hypothesis]" to "So-and-so has demonstrated that [hypothesis]" or "It is now well understood that [hypothesis]". 2) Authoritative institutions (e.g. the IPCC for climate change) occasionally issue summaries about a given topic which are intended to inform the general public of scientists' progress.
We are not finding a definition of Scientific Consensus here :). Please answer the OP.
Love this question. I was vegetarian for a few years, so I too thoroughly researched this question, and I guess you could say I spent many hours "running experiments" as well...
I see you posing two questions:
Does soaking beans (possibly with added bases, acids, salts, etc) reduce flatulence?
What are other ways to reduce flatulence?
Some background on my method:
When I cook beans, I always soak them for over 24 hours, and sometimes as long as 3 days. I always soak them in the fridge - just because they will start getting funky if left on the counter for over 24 hours - and I usually change the water once a day. I only ever salt them after they are finished cooking, because I am a believer in the old wives tale that salt breaks apart bean skins.
Does it work?
Because I always soak my beans, I don't have a control to compare my experience to. So I cannot confidently say whether soaking reduces flatulence. The scientific articles you cite would probably better answer this question.
That being said, a method of reducing flatulence which I am fairly confident works, is to just eat more beans! Back when I was a vegetarian, I could easily go through over 2lbs of (dry) beans a week. This did not prevent me from having a social life, and I didn't notice any difference in amount (or is it technically volume?) of gas compared to when I didn't eat beans. I remember reading somewhere this is a result of how our stomachs adapt to what we eat over the long term.
And in the end, maybe flatulence isn't something we should be trying to avoid. As the old ditty goes,
Beans beans, the magical fruit
The more you eat, the more you toot
The more you toot, the better you feel
So let's have beans with every meal!
Words to live by indeed!
You are forgetting one step of science: theory. It is bad science to jump to experiments without theory. If you know what causes flatulence: oligosaccharides: raffinose and one I cant remember, that we cant digest but our bacteria can. I think these are water soluble, so soaking should work. BUT: only if you destroy the cells where they are stored. But then you would destroy the bean as well, i guess (i think this is where the soda comes in, it is a base, so it helps the pectinases breaking up the pectin of the cells walls). So i guess the choice is between soggy tasteless beans or farts.
NOT soaking your beans at all gives the nicest taste, I think. And soaking without soda wont do much, is my theory (see above). Hope this helps?
You're right: theory is important. What I'm asking, however, is for some scientific, peer-reviewed literature that would support one theory or another, and whether the scientific community has decided a particular theory is better-supported than its competitors.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.139334
| 2015-09-16T01:41:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/61767",
"authors": [
"Ann Langley",
"Colin Porter",
"Daniel Nowacki",
"LauraLee853",
"Pete Biondi",
"Valyrie Laedlein",
"banavalikar",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146617",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146618",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146619",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146663",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159396",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24698",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"jvriesem",
"logophobe",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43875
|
What style of icing is this please?
I want to make this cake with this style of icing and I can't find anything on it. Can someone please tell me what style it is or give me a link to a tutorial? I'm more interested in the icing on the cake, it is a dripping effect that I like. I'm unsure of what icing was used and how to get that look.
If you are talking about the sculptural elements, the icing used to create those is called fondant.
The name fondant comes from the french for melting. It has a consistency somewhere between play dough and tootsie rolls.
Here is a good tutorial on making fondant. It can also be purchased. You can find millions of tutorials on how to work with fondant. The tutorials tend to focus and what is being sculpted. If you are looking for a very simple how-to for working with fondant this is a good tutorial
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fondant_icing
The frosting on the cake itself looks to me like Seven Minute Frosting, also known as a Swiss Meringue. Here's a highly rated recipe from a reliable site.
It also could be Marshmallow Icing, which is kind of a "cheater" method to get similar results to the Seven Minute Frosting. Here's a recipe from the same site.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.139961
| 2014-05-04T03:44:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43875",
"authors": [
"Cynthia",
"Lee Rutter",
"Lina Luice",
"Rob",
"Ron Avila",
"Ron Newcomb",
"Spammer",
"Will Westrop",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102940",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102941",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102951",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102952",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102990",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102995",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102996",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103044",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"julien ergan",
"t3__rry"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43118
|
Which of these Ingredients/additives assist in the longevity of frozen, microwavable foods?
My last question was closed due to egregious subjectivity so I'll be very objective with this post.
Premise: Frozen, microwavable foods are "usually fully cooked during preparation, and only need to be reheated". Microwavable dinners are "formulated to remain edible after long periods of storage".
If I cook some fettuccine Alfredo, mix the pasta together, store it in the refrigerator, and microwave it the next day (or next week), the sauce will objectively separate, and (I guess this is subjective but who would argue) the left overs have a taste and feel which are degraded compared to that which came right off the stove.
If frozen foods are formulated to remain edible after long periods of storage, then the ingredients used to formulate such foods are responsible for this longevity. Therefor, which of the following ingredients in Stouffer's Fettuccine Alfredo are responsible?
I am particularly interested in ingredients that I as a consumer can have control over to experiment with. For example, from my other question I learned that the food technologists at these companies have altered their starch (called "modified starch"), which I am unable to do.
Here are the main ingredients as far as I can tell:
blanched fettuccine (water, semolina, wheat gluten)
cream
skim milk
soybean oil
Parmesan cheese (cultured milk, salt,enzymes)
2% or less of water
asiago cheese (cultured milk, salt , enzymes)
modified cornstarch, Romano cheese (pasteurized milk, cheese culture, salt, enzymes)
salt
enzyme modified Parmesan cheese (cultured milk, water, salt, enzymes)
whey protein concentrate
Here are the non-main ingredients as far as I can tell:
lactose
datem
xanthan gum
lactic acid
calcium lactate
seasoning (maltodextrin, flavor, enzyme modified butterfat)
seasoning (wheat starch, extracts of annatola and tumeric color, natural flavor)
From my question that got closed, I learned that xanthan gum was very useful as an emulsifier and making the sauce thicker. Emusifiers should prevent the sauce from coming apart in the microwave.
Datem = derived from tartaric acid, lowers pH, and is an emulsifier
Lactose "may be used to sweeten stout beer; the resulting beer is usually called a milk stout or a cream stout."
Lactic acid "Lactic acid is used as a food preservative, curing agent, and flavoring agent. It is an ingredient in processed foods..." It is also used to lower pH in beer.
Calcium lactate, I couldn't find too much on. From this interesting site it appears to be used in a lot of cheese products.
Maltodextrin " improves the mouthfeel of the beer, increases head retention and reduces the dryness of the drink. Maltodextrin has no flavor and is not fermented by the yeast, so it does not increase the alcohol content of the brew. It is also used in snacks such as Sun Chips. It is used in "light" peanut butter to reduce the fat content but keep the texture"
Annatto appears to be a food coloring
The main thing that contributes to the longevity of frozen foods is the freezing. Once you actually freeze something well, sealed in an airtight container, it's going to stay that way for a while. Are you maybe trying to ask "how do I make an alfredo sauce that holds up to freezing" and "what's the best way to freeze pasta?"
@Jefromi Yep I got that feedback in my previous question. I will definitely try freezing and comparing that to refrigerating. Nope, I'm not trying to ask specifically about alfredo; my previous post was closed and it was suggested that I ask about specific ingredients, so I chose my favorite frozen meal.
@MatthewMoisen, you are assuming that your alfredo sauce will separate if frozen and then re-heated, and that you need extra ingredients to prevent the separation. I would suggest that if you freeze quickly after cooking it will remain stable. If the freezing in this case that does the work for you, not additives.
@MatthewMoisen Then... I don't understand your question. If you're aware that freezing is what does the preserving, why are you asking about preservative ingredients?
@Jefromi I figured that the freezing contributed to the longetivity but that perhaps the ingredients did as well. What I mean by longevity is both the retention of flavor (as compared to refrigerated leftovers) and other cooking components that I'm not aware of as I'm new this. As an example, the emulsion properties of xanthan gum. I'll definitely try freezing though and reformulate this question as required.
I see. If you're curious about all of these additives, you're welcome to ask about them separately, but if you're trying to find out "what makes frozen food stay good?" you'd really have better luck just asking that. See also XY problems. A possibly relevant question: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/657/why-does-frozen-food-seem-to-have-lost-its-original-taste-and-texture-after-rehe
@Jefromi: Well, the previous question was about "what makes frozen convenience food taste so great" which was the "Y" problem and was logically closed, so we suggested asking about which ingredients in a specific food were being used for flavouring (as opposed to preservatives, emulsifiers, etc.). Although the focus seems to have changed from flavour to preservation here...
None of them.
The list you gave us doesn't contain any preservatives. As freezing by itself is a method of preserving food, they don't need any, and the list shows they don't put any into the food.
There is a problem with your assumption
If frozen foods are formulated to remain edible after long periods of storage
No, they aren't. They are formulated normally, and then frozen. That's all there is to it. They would be terrible if you tried to store them without freezing.
Well, they're formulated to hold up to freezing when necessary. But yes, nothing special for preserving.
They're also flash frozen (typically with liquid nitrogen as far as I know).
We should probably also add: they are well-packaged (airtight) so that they don't lose flavor or moisture.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.140123
| 2014-03-28T06:27:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43118",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Cascabel",
"GdD",
"Joan",
"Maria Winter",
"Matthew Moisen",
"Mykaelos",
"Spammer",
"User1000547",
"cidercookies",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100872",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100895",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100914",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23984",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43079
|
What specifically makes microwavable frozen food taste so delicious?
Update: Here is an objective and non-opinion based question.
I recently asked another question on how I could make a weeks worth of pasta on a Sunday night and have it still taste good throughought the week. I've been advised to store the sauce separately from the pasta and use hot water instead of the microwave to heat it up, in addition to cooking the pasta less al dente than normal.
However, when I buy frozen pasta, notably fettuccine Alfredo, I cannot believe how good it is. I'm referring to the boxed frozen food that you throw in a microwave as opposed to cooking on a stove or heating up with boiling water.
What precisely enables these cheap ($2.50 plus tax) frozen meals taste so good, and more importantly, how can I replicate it? I overdose my pasta with salt anyways, so that can't be it.
What enables these cheap foods to have any taste at all? Additives, flavours, chemicals, nothing natural. Why would you even aspire to replicate completely unnatural behaviours. It is possible to cook a tasty, wholesome and healthy meal in the same time that it takes to defrost and reheat a microwave meal. So why go for the junk if you can have the good stuff?
You might find the accepted answer here of interest: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8775/how-can-i-reheat-a-roux-based-alfredo-sauce-in-the-microwave-without-separatio?rq=1
@teylyn if the "additives, flavors, chemicls, and nothing natural" make it taste good, than I am interested in their precise nature. Please share if you know :). But really this is about convenience. I am unable to cook a decent meal in the 5 minutes it takes to microwave a frozen meal, with no clean up time required.
@teylyn : fats, sugars and salt are perfectly natural! Not good for you in large amounts, but perfectly natural.
What @Joe said. Usually, adding salt or butter add/enhance flavor to a dish, the issue is really the health thing.
I seriously doubt that everybody considers these foods to taste "so delicious". Maybe if you pointed to a specific list of ingredients, we might be able tell you which ones are there for flavour and which ones are not. That's as close as I think we could get to not having a primarily opinion-based question.
@Aaronut would it be OK if I edited the question to ask which ingredients are used in frozen, microwavable foods with the intention of increasing the taste or other desirable characteristics?
It would probably help to list exactly which characteristics you find so desirable. What flavors, textures, etc do these frozen products have that you want to replicate?
You were advised to not cook your pasta at once, because we assumed that you are going to keep it in the fridge. With liquid water, your pasta will grow mushy or dry, depending on how wet you store it. If you freeze it, these processes will not happen, and the pasta will not degrade.
The pasta in the supermarket frozen packages tastes good for other reasons beyond just not being mushy. It has exactly the right proportions of fat, flavoring agents and the like which will make it both cheap and tasty. Nobody can tell you the exact recipe, it is the company's secret. Their food technologists have created it after years of empirical research backed by theoretical knowledge and the availability of industrial ingredients and instruments. (If they list "modified starch", then something was done to the starch to ensure it has some characteristic; we never know what exactly was done, or what characteristic was created).
You can try to make it for yourself, by making a sauce you like, freezing it together with the pasta and see if you like the result when defrosted. If you like it well enough, you've won. If you don't, it depends on your skill of analysing food shortcomings whether you will be able to improve it substantially. You are welcome to ask us concrete questions about concrete faults once you've done the experiment.
I will freeze my next batch and report back. Thanks for the input on the modified starch, I see it all over my collection.
There are components in food that change texture when frozen normally. You might have seen warnings like "Do Not Refreeze once thawed." The reason supermarket frozen food will taste better than home frozen food (in most cases) is the freezing technique. Most industries utilize equipment that bring down the temperature of food well below the freezing point in a matter of a few seconds, thus not giving food the time to degrade. I haven't seen home-grade blast chillers replicate that speed.
Also, one example of freezer degradation is when the temperature is lowered gradually, since the food is not homogeneous, different components will freeze separately. The water will form separate crystals(try cutting through meat frozen in your freezer) as will the starch and the fat. This causes separation of these components when thawed, changing the texture, and the taste.
Based on limited personal experience I suggest trying Crisco shortening (the diglycerides?) or vine ripe tomatoes with iodized salt.
Use Crisco in what way? Do you mean as a substitute for oil or butter? That's a strange thing to do with pasta. And why would it matter if salt is iodized?
I don't know how to apply the Crisco to pasta because i only every used it to bake beyond 100*C. I was answering pretty much just the "cheap frozen meal" part. To me iodized salt and sea/kosher salt taste very different.
"What specifically makes microwavable frozen food taste so delicious? "
"I overdose my pasta with salt anyways, so that can't be it." I can't just comment yet.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.140590
| 2014-03-27T08:05:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43079",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Carey Gregory",
"Cheryl Creasman",
"Curtis Harris",
"Jochen Lutz",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Jon",
"JoséNunoFerreira",
"Matthew Moisen",
"Richard",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100771",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100856",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100861",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100875",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23984",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24048",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4985",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"jackStinger",
"ran8",
"teapuppets",
"teylyn"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
69268
|
What is this double-serrated knife good for?
I was recently given an unused knife from an elderly relative who downsized her home. It is stainless steel with a sort of "double serrated" edge.
Out of curiosity I gave it a try and it more "shredded" than cut my meat and almost destroyed my plastic cutting board. It is also a pain in the proverbial to clean because food particles cling to the tiny spikes and it catches on the cloth and towel.
I don't really need it - my kitchen is fully equipped for my needs - but before I delegate it to "garden duty" (makes a good impromptu saw), I'm asking for your input:
Am I missing something here? Does it have a special use or advantage I just don't see?
You are not missing anything, that is a cheap serrated "no sharpening" knife from a set. The only possible advantage to it would be when cutting soft tomatoes, where having a bit of serration helps. For that I use a bread knife anyway, so I'd say you have no use for that knife at all in the kitchen.
Thanks for the confirmation - off to the garden/toolshed it goes. My tomatoes are taken care of with a small bread knife.
The garden is a good place for these types of knives, they make short work of thick stalks.
We have two (a coincidentially matching pair) of these at home. They have a few uses:
Ours are similar proportions to steak knives, and they work very well for that (or pizza).
I sometimes call them "cheese sandwich knives", because they cut both bread and cheese (and tomatoes if that's your thing). This means they're good for taking on picnics or for eating picnic-like food in the garden.
Otherwise they're last resort knives if the preferred ones are in the wash. They've got a good bite for tough skins, but they're not really stiff enough for hard things (so you wouldn't use them for butternut squash - yours may be stiffer, it's certainly chunkier).
As a student (when we got ours) they were handy -- there's no point having decent knives in a shared house.
You may not put your good knives through the dishwasher (if you have one) but don't worry about it for these (which are stainless in every case I've seen). Some of these knives are complete junk -- blunt as sold and can't be sharpened -- but I would expect a Fiskars to be one of the better examples of the type.
It's sharp as h*ll, and somewhat solid. Yet I don't see it gaining a permanent spot in my kitchen - I have knives for all "serrated jobs" already.
I have one that's similar that I got at a dollar store back when I was a college student, and it's great for cutting medium-firm cheeses (eg, cheddar). Something about how it cuts keeps it from sticking to the blade too much.
Edges like that are also common on specialty knives for cutting (sawing up) frozen foods - and that is another possible good use for this example.
You have a wonderful knife there. It is a bread knife. It is only used on the hard crusts of artisan breads. It will cut easily cut through with a clean cut and then it cuts the softer inside cleanly. Just use a sawing motion with hardly any downward pressure. You will be amazed.
While I agree that cutting bread is probably one of the best uses of that knife, I wouldn't say it's the best knife for that. In my experience, knives like this tear the bread up even if you don't use much pressure. You get pretty clean-looking slices, but you get a lot more crumbs than you would from a simple, sharp bread knife, and it's not as easy and quick to cut.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.141017
| 2016-05-26T10:14:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/69268",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44556
|
How long will fermented/brined pickles last?
I've been interested in making some pickles, and a lot of the places I've found say that salt brined or fermented pickles generally taste better than acid-brined pickles. That is, pickles pickled in a saltwater brine taste better those pickled in vinegar. While that's subjective, it's still gotten me intrigued in saltwater brining some vegetables.
However, each of the sources I find give me a different estimate for how long they last in the fridge. Some say 1 week (too short, surely?) and some say up to 1 year (that seems too long...). So my question is, how long will a pickle last in its brine after being put into the fridge?
Edit: After some thinking, I guess it would depend on a lot of factors, but mostly the salinity of the water and the temperature of the fridge. Given that these are the most important factors (but I could be wrong!) if the temperature is 35 deg F in the ideal fridge, how will salt content change how long the pickle will last?
Overall cleanliness of the vessels, the target food, and how well you keep them sealed are likely to be major factors too. Whenever we get a decent answer, would suggest adding that information here: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21068/how-long-can-i-store-a-food-in-the-pantry-refrigerator-or-freezer
Old style brined pickles (10% salt) will last a year unrefrigerated. Beyond that, they'll start to get soggy. I've eaten them at two years, and they're not nearly as good as when fresher. Pickling is an old preservation method. It's fairly robust, but you need to be aware that newer recipes may be for "summer dills" rather than "winter dills." The former are not nearly so long lasting.
The short answer is 1-2 years for traditional pickles, assuming a good recipe with adequate salt content and fermentation time (traditionally anywhere from a month to a few months). For modern quick fermented homemade recipes, where the pickles are fermented in a week or so instead of months, I'd recommend using them up within a month or two.
Some representative sources (note the bolded bits about fermentation time):
"Fermented or processed pickles also have a very long shelf-life, about two years." (source)
"FERMENTED PICKLES: The oldest method of pickling, when a naturally occurring bacteria transforms the sugars present in the ingredient into an acid, preserving the food. These are called 'processed' pickles, and though they take as many as five weeks to cure, they last up to 2 years." (source)
"The product is completely fermented in 3-6 weeks.... In contrast to salt stock brining procedures [i.e., pickles removed from their liquid after fermentation and stored in a very heavily salted tank for future processing], genuine dill pickles do not require desalting and are often sold with the filtered fermentation liquor that is produced during the process. The product must be consumed within 12 months." (source)
While these are common estimates, many books on the subject won't even give such shelf-life estimates (e.g., Sandor Katz's The Art of Fermentation), because there is so much variability depending on recipe and storage conditions during and after fermentation.
The other issue is that fermented brined pickles are "alive" in the sense that they continue to have microbial activity even after refrigerated. Unless you "process" the pickles after fermentation by heating to a high temperature and canning, you should expect that pickles will change their taste and texture continuously. You might like pickles that are "just finished," but dislike their flavor or texture after a month or two in the fridge (or the reverse).
Traditional pickle-makers often take advantage of these changes, for example by selling "half sours" which taste like something between a fresh cucumber and a pickle and have only been partially fermented. "Half sours" and other pickles that have not completed fermentation before refrigeration have a much shorter shelf-life (usually a few weeks), because the lack of full acidity in the liquid and remaining sugars and other nutrients in the cucumbers may still allow other things to grow and for spoilage to occur.
Even after a longer fermentation, expect pickles to gradually get more sour and to soften in texture as the months go by. However, with adequate salt content and full fermentation, and as long as you are not contaminating the storage container, there's no reason to expect they will actually "go bad" at refrigerator temperatures for at least a few months and potentially much longer.
Traditionally, long-storage pickled cucumbers were fermented in (and subsequently stored in) a cool place, like a root cellar or other underground compartment, which probably stayed around 50-55 degrees Fahrenheit most of the year. At these cooler temperatures, pickles usually needed to ferment for at least a month and sometimes a few months before achieving full flavor. Since the root cellar temperatures were often above refrigerator temperatures, they would then continue to get even more sour and gradually begin to break down as the months went by. However, the purpose of storage was to have cucumbers available throughout the year, so last year's batch would be used up and then be replaced by the new harvest.
Today, most people tend to ferment homemade pickles faster (often at room temperature) and often with less salt than the season-long ferments of the past would use. This produces pickles more quickly, sometimes in as little as a week or so, with pickles that are not as extreme in their sourness and saltiness as the long-storage pickling of the past. The flavor profile can also be somewhat different, due to greater activity of some microorganisms at room temperature. Depending on the recipe, they are often not as stable and should probably be consumed within a few weeks or months. (For example, Alton Brown's relatively fast pickle recipe recommends storing the pickles no longer than two months in the refrigerator.)
The more thinly sliced pickles should be eaten sooner -- just because they'll become complete mush after a while. (so when you find that jar of pickles hidding in the back of your pantry ... you'll be horribly disapointed, even if it doesn't kill you)
@Joe - absolutely true. Most long-term pickle fermentations use whole cucumbers at least partly for this reason. Generally, if you want to do a long traditional (month or more) fermentation, but want jars containing slices or chips, it's better to ferment the pickles whole. Then slice them (and process for canning or add other spices as desired). Pre-sliced cucumbers generally ferment much more quickly and won't hold up as well for long storage.
You can pretty much count on anything that's brined or in an acid lasting AT LEAST 3 months in the refrigerator. I imagine something that's heated and sealed lasting indefinitely on the shelf. But acid, salt, and sugar all have preservative effects, so anything packed in acid, salt, or sugar will last you a while.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.141627
| 2014-05-30T19:40:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44556",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Doug",
"Ethan Klitz",
"Glenn Willen",
"Joe",
"Rishikesh Yog Nirvana",
"Spammer",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"fkplumbing451",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104771",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104865",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104990",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106292",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"logophobe",
"wiryatedja Digital"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
71001
|
What kind of nonstick coating is this?
I recently bought a Good Cook brand sheet cake pan, not realizing that it was nonstick. I'm was wondering what kind of nonstick coating it had, since the only coatings I know of are ceramic and teflon, and I usually expect to see a darker color on teflon pans.
What kind of nonstick coating does this pan have?
The "brand" seems remarkably shy - no website could be found for them, and no vendor admits what the non-stick coating actually is in this case.
It appears (via internet picture) visually similar to the coating on "Bakers Secret" which is a silicone coating on steel. That works for a while, longer if you are careful to wash it promptly. But without a vendor site admitting to the actual construction, there's no way to tell what it is.
It is simply teflon. It can be colored in any color, but the lighter colors will darken with overheating, so it is convenient to coat a pan in an "overheated" color from the beginning. The manufacturer here chose to use a different color.
That's really interesting, but I guess it explains why teflon is almost always black. Do you have any source that suggests that it's used in this type of pan, or are you inferring?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.142242
| 2016-06-28T06:07:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71001",
"authors": [
"Tablesalt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25619"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44586
|
How to prepare dried tortellini?
I bought some tortellini with meat at a local mall.
The problem is I didn't buy prepackaged, but just some 200g out of a big bin, at a stand where you just load as much as you need, and get the barcode with the right weight printed - so the simple "follow directions on the package" (as advised by all recipes involving such tortellini when searching for the answer online) doesn't really help.
How do I prepare such tortellini for eating - boiling time? Drop into hot water or bring to boil with water? Add salt to water or salt later? Anything else to remember?
Unfortunately, the above answers would probably be good for fresh tortellini, or frozen or something like that. Following the advice, I had the dried tortellini floating on the surface within a minute or two, puffed a little too. I fished one out, and it was definitely hard. I let them boil for another five minutes and they were barely edible, some even a little crunchy in places.
Last week I managed to hunt down the bulk package at the market (used to fill the bin), and there were directions on it: Boiling time: 15-18 minutes. And yes, since the boiling water cooled down to simmer as I added them. In 15 minutes they were still a little al dente but after another 4 minutes they were entirely soft, and just right.
Dried "tortellini alla carne" (with meat) should be cooked in broth/stock or boiling salted water for 15 - 18 mins. My Sicilian brother in law recommends stock.
With all pastas, you'll want to bring your water to a boil and then back off to a relative simmer before adding your pasta. I generally salt the water for pasta, but this is primarily for seasoning and won't overly affect how it cooks. Tortellini and other stuffed pastas are easy to check for doneness because they'll puff up slightly and float to the top when done. No need to stick to a specific time, just keep am eye on them.
I picked them out when they floated to the surface, and they were still crunchy...
I'll add a note to logophobe's excellent answer - if you prefer them al dente (as I do), you'll want to keep a close eye on them to watch for the very slight puffiness that is the sign of the beginning of the 'puffing' process that ends with them floating. Generally I stab them with a fork, and if it goes through to the core without undue effort, for me, they are done.
I also cook with a small amount of olive oil in the saucepan as well, to encourage non-sticking and for seasoning.
My practically foolproof way to cook dried cheese tortellini: bring about 2 quarts of olive-oiled, salted, water to a boil. Stir in up to 1 lb of dried tortellini. (For me, 9 dry ounces was about 2 cups.) Put the lid on, and TURN OFF the heat. Set the timer for 20 minutes. The hot water cooks the pasta, rehydrates the cheese, and because it's not bouncing around in bubbling water, the tortellini stays in perfect shape without falling apart! (My 9 ounces rehydrated to 23 ounces. I live at high altitude above 5000 feet, so your results may vary.)
I have been using the dried tortellini for a couple of years. Mainly because of being shelf stable and just because I bought the fresh version didn't mean I was able to use it right away. Living 25 miles from the nearest store that sells fresh makes the dry version a much better choice for me. I discovered much by accident that soaking in the refrigerator in broth to rehydrate works very well and diminishes the taste of "dried" cheese. Also in the past year I have used the pressure cooker to cook them. 15 minutes on high in broth works. But you can still taste the "dried" flavor of the cheese. In a pinch it is handy.
I've found, with dried tortellini or ravioli (the sort dried shelf-stable, not fresh or frozen pastas) that it's best to soak first before cooking, just let it sit in water for maybe for an hour or two (or even overnight, it doesn't hurt the pasta). This would give time for the pasta to rehydrate, and lets it cook quicker, maybe within 8-10 minutes (or just keep an eye on it).
Of course, it is also possible to cook straight from dried, it just takes longer - but I've found the pasta is more likely to crack or open when just cooked longer, because the filling and dough rehydrate at different rates, and because there can be more agitation (from boiling or stirring). The 15-20 minutes that other answers cite seems right for cooking the pasta without soaking first.
We found dried tortellini on sale for .50 a bag.. so of course took them all... however .. even after cooking for 30 min still crunchy inside and had a fishy taste... soooooooo .. I was determined to use these.. I cooked in stock... let cool a bit.. and stuck entire pot in fridge... next day... drained brought fresh pot of water to boil and re-thermalized... ta daaaaaa .. perfect!.. made a lovely antipasto dish... ( not bad for .50 cents a bag lol)
Hi Kimmer, thank you for your contribution. I think that it might be received better if you use a less conversational style, yours is currently a bit difficult to read. I declined not-an-answer flags though, because I would say that soaking the cooked tortellinis overnight certainly offers a technique that addresses the question.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.142384
| 2014-06-01T15:28:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44586",
"authors": [
"BuildMax spam",
"ESD",
"Gokhan",
"Rev lee",
"SF.",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104847",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104848",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105015",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107375",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho",
"Ирина "
],
"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
}
|
54161
|
Difference between instant cocoa and drinking chocolate
There's a question with answers detailing the difference between pure cocoa powder and chocolate; it boils down to the 'raw' cocoa powder being a very ungrateful, bitter substance difficult to use without making the results taste terrible. It takes quite a bit of processing to be turned into chocolate; the difference is obvious.
Still, there are nice friendly and tasty 'instant' cocoa granulates that make quite delicious drinks very easily, "Just add hot milk".
And then there's instant drinking chocolate, "Just add hot milk".
What's the difference between the two? Is it just naming/branding technicality or are they two different drinks?
They are technically different... but it seems that the producers do not always follow the correct terminology in an attempt to sound fancy.
Instant Cocoa is made with cocoa powder, as you stated in your question. It's made from leftovers from the chocolate making process and contains little cocoa butter. Hot beverages made with it are called "Hot Cocoa".
Drinking Chocolate is actually made with actual chocolate, either in disks, pellets or shavings. This means it contains lots of the rich, buttery cocoa butter. Adding it to hot milk causes the chocolate to melt and turn into the delicious beverage "Hot Chocolate".
The terms above are as found on several sites, including the one below... That being said, the "Drinking Chocolate" pictured above, Divine Drinking Chocolate, is not actually drinking chocolate. It is a sweetened cocoa powder mixture. Divine Site
So, when you're looking for a true drinking chocolate be sure to read the ingredients label.
More in-depth info on the source link.
Source: The Nibble
I have a different observation from Catija. I've seen tons of "Hot chocolate" drinks which are indeed just mixtures of precooked cocoa powder, sugar and starch.
You have to read the ingredients to know what you have in front of you. Maybe there are jurisdictions where the name is preserved for real chocolate, but if this is not the case here in the EU, known for overly strict labeling, I doubt you will find such a protection elsewhere.
The question isn't about "hot chocolate" it's about "Drinking Chocolate". You are correct that many people conflate the terms "hot cocoa" and "hot chocolate" but I don't think that anyone would sell an instant cocoa powder drink under the name "Drinking Chocolate", plus, other than rebutting my answer, I don't see your answer as actually being an answer.
Though, to be completely correct, the image above, should actually be classified as a cocoa powder drink, so I guess people do incorrectly label things. So... Buyer be aware. Check the labels.
@Catija They certainly do sell instant cocoa as "drinking chocolate". I've had it often enough. La Festa is a brand which instantly springs to mind, it does have a good taste, but it's mostly dextrose and fat free cocoa powder, and is sold everywhere as "drinking chocolate".
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.142827
| 2015-01-29T20:33:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54161",
"authors": [
"Angelo Burton",
"Catija",
"Pizzino Jill",
"Robert Turner",
"Tassi Moreschi",
"Zach Dennington",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127382",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127414",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"lesley peters",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
40108
|
Liquefying through long boiling
It seems my questions at ELL hit a dead end, that's not learner's level English...\
Is there a name in English for the process of turning ingredients of a dish into liquid through boiling them long enough?
Usually this happens as a cook's error, but at times it's the desired effect, e.g. you may create an excellent, smooth, creamy sauce by simmering the ingredients for a very long time.
Judging by what Google Images show, it seems that "overcooking" usually means burnt or nearing burnt fried/grilled food, which is definitely not the same thing. Someone suggested "overboiling" but my grasp of English doesn't allow me to decide whether that's correct or not.
Can you give a specific case?
@SAJ14SAJ: I add fried onion to my goulash in the beginning. I simmer it for ~4h and in the end you'd have to look hard to find a single piece of onion in it, but the sauce carries the taste.
I can tell you with certainty that "overboiling" is not the word you're looking for, neither is overcooking. That concept you describe is not uncommon, so there probably is a descriptive single word for it but for life of me I can't think of what it could be. The process you describe is usually described with a phrase in recipes. Funny thing, if there is a good word for it, it's probably French.
I don't think that the word exists at all. "Overboiling" and "overcooking" always implies an undesirable result. Else, you have to exactly describe what you are doing, which depends on the dish. Update: native speakers tell me that overboiling is not a real word in English. But I would have liked it to be :)
"Simmer for hours on low flame" is the term I would use for making things like katak, which are essentially an evaporation process, or just a generic term when you don't have a better description. Your goulash example will be probably called "cook until the onion disintegrates". The word "reduction" which somebody used in a comment at ELL is also restricted to evaporation-only techniques, where you start with liquids and let them sit until they lose some predetermined amount of their water (but normally does not also include curdling and/or fermenting the way katak making would). But reduction is a special case, because if it is not clear from the context that it means just evaporation, it is mostly used for the combination of deglazing and subsequent reduction, which involves pouring an acidic liquid (wine, vinegar or fruit juice) into the hot fat left after preparing meat in the pan, and then letting most of it evaporate (which happens in under a minute).
So, unless you have a very specific word for the technique you are using, you have to stay descriptive. There is no single word which encompasses all kinds of long boiling.
I don't think there is any specific phrase for that phenomenon... technique is probably too strong a word. The closest I can think of is "to cook down", as in:
I cooked the onion down until it vanished in the sauce.
Still, simply cooking or simmering or boiling would work just as well.
Take the case of split pea soup, where the entire idea is to cook the peas down until they vanish into the porridge. Most recipe simply say to simmer or cook.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.143089
| 2013-12-09T20:21:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40108",
"authors": [
"Algebruh",
"Jolenealaska",
"Mary Troia Tangney",
"RLH",
"Roman",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SF.",
"cderekw4224",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93133",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93135",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93136",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93137",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93230",
"steve"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
49542
|
Getting over the taste of chili pepper
I'm planning a chili pepper degustation together with some friends who are likewise interested in cooking.
We're planning to taste a number of different peppers both to better understand when to prefer one over the other and simply because it's a fun idea.
We'll be working our way up in hotness and inevitably everyone will reach their limit of acceptable hotness.
Is there any food or beverage that can be consumed to lessen the effects of chili pepper once someone has reached their limits?
As a counter example I've heard drinking water is a bad idea, as it helps break down remaining pieces of pepper which will in turn make you feel the taste more.
Not to be confused with this question that asks how to reduce chili pepper hotness prior to eating, I'm looking for a remedy for after eating the pepper.
I hope this falls within the scope of this SE site, if it doesn't, pardon if I didn't understand the intent correctly from your help center.
To be fair, basically every answer on the other question would help you. For example, adding dairy (especially full-fat) to the dish helps, so drinking milk or eating, say, sour cream afterwards also does.
I agree that the question you pointed out is not a duplicate. However, we have at least one other question which asks what to do after the eating. I found one very old one and closing as a duplicate of it; there used to be another one which I can't find, maybe somebody will help so we can merge.
The active ingredient in chilies dissolves in fat, so any oil based foodstuff should also be good. Bread dipped in olive oil should work or maybe fresh Naan smothered generously in warm ghee.
Milk or milk-based products generally help lessen the hotness after eating chili peppers. At least it works for me.
Some people go for plain bread, I didn't try it yet so I can't say for sure if it helps.
With the milk, you want to rinse and spit ... the capsicum binds to the fat in the milk, and if you actually drink it, you're just washing it down.
Bread works with chilli oil (so the oil is chilli hot) because it absorbs the oil. It doesn't work with dry chilli, because there's no oil to absorb .. that's when you take dairy, or coconut juice and coconut milk also help.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.143382
| 2014-11-05T17:06:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49542",
"authors": [
"AM PM",
"Cascabel",
"Daniel Easthope",
"Etheryte",
"Francis K Teng",
"Irene G",
"Joe",
"Mary Jones",
"Ming",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118338",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118340",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25400",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"norine rodenkirch",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29792
|
Frying potato with little oil
When I fry potatoes with only a small amount of oil, one side gets brown but the other side stays yellow.
How can I make my fried potatoes with a reduced amount of oil but get them to be uniformly fried?
My problem is turning the potatoes over after they are fried on one side. Is there a simpler way, which will consume less oil without burning the potatoes?
Do you turn the potatoes over after they are fried on one side?
There are many types of fried potato.... what kind are you asking about? By "few oil" do you mean little absorbed oil, or a small amount of cooking oil? The tag "french-fries" (what the British call chips) implies a deep frying method which would not count as "few oil" by most standards, so you would be asking for an alternate cooking method in that case, since deep frying is inherently not a low volume of cooking oil, although it can be a small amount of oil in the product when done properly.
@AnishaKaul turn potatoes over late compare to when im use much more oil
@SAJ14SAJ thanks i add image . I am not familiar to another tags. i don't find anything else.
Those do look like true French fries, or as the British say, chips.
While I was writing the answer I put below, you updated the question again. Your picture is french fries, but "turning over" implies pan frying. You cannot make proper french fries by shallow pan frying--you can make wonderful fried potatoes of different sorts that way, but the won't be like the fries made famous by certain fast food chains.
thanks alot but if you help me to cook better i have a bigger thanks
Have you tried turning them faster (or perhaps keep turning them quite often)? You might get more breakage, and little scruffy bits, but in general the potatoes should be more evenly fired in the end
French fried potatoes (or as the British say, chips) are a deep fried food. In fact, the US term "to french fry" orignally simply meant to deep fry, although simply "french fry" has now come to mean the dish of french fried potatoes.
As such, they inherently are not a low fat or small-oil-volume food.
If you are asking how you can create these with less volume of oil than required for deep frying, the answer is simply: you cannot. There are appliances that claim to "air fry" but I am skeptical of their outcomes.
You can make alternate dishes, which may be very similar, but they will be different. Oven fries are one close alternative--here is a recipe from Tyler Florence of the food network.
You can minimize the amount of oil that penetrates the actual fries by cooking them properly:
Use a large volume of oil (counter-intuitively) so that when the potatoes are added, the temperature drop is minimized.
Use a deep-fry or candy thermometer, to ensure the oil is at the proper temperature. This will reduce the amount of oil that penetrates the fry. When proper deep frying is happening, the rapidly vaporizing water expressing from the potato prevents the oil from entering. This is by far the most important factor.
Make sure the potatoes are dry before putting them into the oil.
Immediately upon removing the fries from the oil, put them on a wire rack to drain. Paper towels are good, but they leave the fries in contact with the oil, and as they cool, some will enter the fries.
With proper technique, only a small amount of oil from the deep frying will actually remain in the final product.
This answer cannot be possibly improved upon. Great job, SAJ14SAJ. Try oven fries, @sabertabatabaeeyazdi. They can be quite wonderful, better even than deep fried ones. Oven-fried sweet potatoes are magnificent.
Nearly all of the oil gets absorbed by the fries after the frying.
When you put the raw potatoes into enough hot oil, the water starts to boil off and keeps the oil from soaking the fries. Once you take them out of the oil, the boiling stops, the water vapor bubbles in the fries condense. This creates a vacuum that sucks the oil into the fries. You would need to wash of the oil with some hot solvent while the steam is still coming out.
Maybe dump the fries into boiling diesel fuel and then gasoline directly from the deep frier (joke).
There is a tremendous interest by the industry to stop the fat absorption process, but as far as I am aware of, no one found a solution. The low calorie deep fried products use some strange synthetic fats that humans can't metabolize. I don't know if chips soaked with some synthetic oil are healthy.
If you want to deep fry, the best solution is still to use as much fat as possible and drain them, like SAJ14SAJ said. Still, they will absorb a huge amount of fat.
Everything else is probably worse, in a pan you repeatedly heat and cool the surfaces, each time soaking them with more fat.
One thing you could try if you are frying in a pan is to use a non-stick surface and spray
on the oil. The potatoes tend to suck in all the oil available anyway, so maybe just coating the surface with an oil sprayer might help.
Brush potatoes (already nearly cooked by boiling) with oil then put them in a preheated shallow
dish which has been brushed with oil into the pre heated halogen oven and roast - brushing
with oil from time to time using M&S Maris Piper potatoes produces fab roast potatoes using
very little oil - I use rapeseed oil.
Are you saying these will come out like fries?
We have a low-oil chips or steak fries recipe. In our house, we cut up potatoes and put them in a big bowl. Then, add a tablespoon of oil, sprinkle some salt and pepper. Optionally, you can add some sprinkles of rosemary. Using my hands or a spoon, stir them so that the potatoes are covered with the oil. Put it in a pan at 425 F and then bake for 30 minutes. Flip them after 15 minutes. If you want them to not brown on the bottom, you can flip them more frequently, say every 8 minutes. They're done if you can stick a fork easily through them, or use a taste test.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.143629
| 2013-01-06T08:34:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29792",
"authors": [
"Alexander Sjöholm",
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Cascabel",
"D. Grem",
"Daria Morozov",
"Ess Kay",
"Fern",
"Fitzroy Ugorji",
"Genevieve Entsminger",
"Megha",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Thomas",
"home dad",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106503",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141828",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14960",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69346",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69347",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69349",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69353",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69354",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69382",
"iainH",
"ricke fahrenbruch",
"saber tabatabaee yazdi",
"user316834"
],
"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
}
|
58472
|
How can I ensure that scrambled eggs will be fully cooked?
I have some sort of digestive intolerance towards eggs that are not fully cooked, although I can handle some softness in egg yolks. In the case of fried or boiled eggs, this means that the whites are set, and that there is not an overtly liquid component to the yolk. It is difficult to map this to scrambled eggs, but at the very least, I would want the eggs to be completely set (at least in the case where nothing in liquid form has been added to them).
I generally only fry my eggs, and then I can ensure that my eggs are fine by only turning them in the pan once the majority of the eggs have been set (as per this). Even when my eggs are split into a few different non-uniformly thick pieces, it's not too hard: from experience I know that waiting for the sides of the eggs to set and for a little browning usually does the trick. The techniques here also can apply to scrambled eggs. Something like this is fine for me:
However, sometimes I have to eat scrambled eggs cooked by other people, and that are less chunkier than what I usually cook. Sometimes, it is not obvious if the eggs are fully done to me, for instance, here:
Occasionally, if the eggs are still too raw for me, I'm told that I can cook them for longer, if I'm simply eating at someone's home. Either way though, I'm still left not knowing how to tell if my eggs are actually done:
I've eaten properly cooked eggs in cafeteria settings before, and while some signs (a lack of liquid) is generally helpful, the eggs are rarely as brown or tough as what I would cook. Dryness appears to be a good measure of done-ness, but in some settings, I've had "dry" looking eggs that still tasted suspiciously soft.
When I recook such eggs, it is difficult to judge when the eggs are fully cooked, since the pieces are far too small for setting and browning to really work well.
Softness or wetness is, I suspect, a poor indicator of whether or not my eggs are done if additional "wet" ingredients (e.g. tomatoes, or perhaps milk) are added.
Given this, is there a general rule for these?
What should fully cooked, "overly scrambled" eggs look like? (Should they just be completely dry? I think this should be the case, but would appreciate confirmation.) How can I distinguish "fluffy" eggs from eggs that aren't fully cooked? (I don't want to unnecessarily throw out restaurant eggs that are too soft, but actually are cooked.)
If liquid has been added to the eggs, what is a reasonable cooking time, after which I can assume that my eggs will be done?
Perhaps this is a really "basic" question, but I rather not risk incurring any more instances of feeling sick for a few hours on the rare occasion in which I haven't been able to avoid eating scrambled eggs.
Could you perhaps add your personal definition of "fully cooked"?
@Stephie: does this help? Thinking of it, I might delete my question if this ends up a bit too trivial / subjective for my taste.
I guess that means you should avoid Heston Blumenthal's slimy-scrambled-egg-pudding disasters.
Temperature is the only foolproof way to determine doneness. Unfortunately it's not very practical to carry a thermometer over to your friend's house for brunch.
There are other indicators, of course, and you have mentioned the good ones for eggs.
I will add, however, that some indicators can be deceiving. For example, eggs releasing a pool of liquid is actually a sign of over-cooked eggs. The protein matrix is tightening to the point that it's actually expelling water. This is different than runny, uncooked egg.
Similarly, browning isn't necessary for the cooking of an egg (frankly, it's often detrimental). So while browned egg is likely more cooked than not-browned egg, it may also be less done on the inside.
They are clues you can use to identify doneness but none of them are guarantees.
I'd suggest sticking to fried eggs if that's what you enjoy and are more comfortable with.
So to answer your enumerated questions directly:
1) Scrambled eggs cooked to a typical doneness are moist, not-browned, and not expelling excessive liquids on to the plate. If the eggs are not done, they will not be "set" into curds and will be noticeably slimy.
That said, cook them how you like them.
2) Cooking time is dependent on cooking temperature. It's really not a good way to judge doneness. It works better for large cuts of meat or something that will take a lot of cooking time. An individual egg cooking time will vary. Yes, adding additional ingredients (mass) will slow it down.
Overall it will take just a couple of minutes tops. If you start with a hot pan, you can scramble an egg in just a few seconds.
Note: I'm talking about the scrambled eggs you typically see in American diners that look similar to the photos you posted. French style scrambled eggs are creamy in consistency and lack the large curds. Doneness is a little more difficult to judge in that dish.
I will just add just a few observations beyond Preston Fitzgerald's excellent answer.
If I understand the question, it seems to imply a preference for dry, firmly-cooked ("tough"), and somewhat browned scrambled eggs, which is what some people would refer to as "well-done" (and others might consider "overcooked"). The person asking the question also implies that there were previous bad experiences with restaurant eggs or eggs cooked by others which seemed "moist" and/or "soft" and "fluffy."
But these texture differences aren't about "doneness." As long as the eggs are coagulated (without streaks of raw egg which could appear gooey or creamy depending on how close they are to set), they are likely cooked thoroughly, even if they are "moist" or "soft" or "fluffy." The differences are caused by cooking technique. In any case, this may not matter: I know someone who is sensitive to raw egg whites, and she finds any hint of unusual texture to be revolting, which aggravates the issue (seemingly even in eggs that are completely cooked, according to normal standards). If you really don't like soft or moist eggs, I'd perhaps just suggest avoiding them.
I don't know where the original question is coming from geographically, but in the U.S. it's very rare to be served "American diner style" scrambled eggs at a restaurant that were not fully coagulated (i.e., "cooked"). Restaurants are generally pretty careful about their scrambled egg mixtures to make sure they are fully cooked. Sometimes they're soft and moist (or even overcooked and "weepy" leaving moisture on the plate); sometimes they're dry and more firm. I've occasionally heard people special order scrambled eggs as "runny" or "wet" (i.e., undercooked), and some restaurants will do that, but that's a special order. Similarly, if you want eggs that are definitely firmly cooked, I would suggest ordering them "scrambled hard" or "well-done" or perhaps even "well-done and a little browned." Most cooks could accommodate such a request easily enough -- you're not the only one who likes scrambled eggs that way.
That's a good point. Even when I've had eggs that I specified to be well-done and that were completely fine for my stomach, some of them have been "fluffy" and moist (which I'm perhaps simply unused to in egg dishes). The real thing to look out for is probably something like this, where there's visible excess, eggy liquid (that clearly isn't from additives like, say, tomatoes, which tend to "weep").
As this seems to be a history, I'd take this to be sensitivity to a particular protein as opposed to Salmonella, though being safe in both regards is very similar. As mentioned, one of the most important factors is heat, though time is also a major factor. Heat will denature proteins as well as kill bacteria (also due to denaturing). As a note, this denaturing is what causes all of the textural (and color) changes when cooking eggs. The time is as important as the heat - things don't just magically or instantaneously cook.
You mention that smaller pieces make you less certain, but smaller (thinner) pieces are actually a good sign. If the scrambled eggs are closer to one big mass, there's more likely an uncooked region towards the center. Cooking is based on the ratio of surface area to volume and always cook from outside to inside. I'm sure you've encountered a hamburger before that's burnt on the outside but raw on the inside? It's a similar issue (in the case of the burgers, we're talking high heat for less time).
In eggs scrambled on a stovetop, I've never run into thoroughly cooked eggs having any liquid, including water. Expulsion of water, or syneresis, will be most evident if you're cooking your eggs too quickly (and thus leaving the inside undercooked) or for a very long time (and thus not reaching sufficient heat - or alternatively, being burnt).
For yourself or with friends who cook for you, you might could try what I do, using two cooking stages. The first stage is lower heat (med or so) to reach a solid texture without burning and then to break up the egg. The second stage is higher heat to make sure they're cooked. I normally use this stage for adding any veggies or meat, and I cook the eggs to get just a slight golden brown.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.144152
| 2015-06-23T18:36:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58472",
"authors": [
"David",
"Deanna Martinez",
"Derick Alexander",
"Duncan Maponya",
"Elizabeth O Brien",
"Gary Strickland",
"H M",
"Lizzy Rob",
"Maroon",
"R G",
"Sobachatina",
"Stephie",
"Vanessa Alcorta",
"gsloan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139361",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139368",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139384",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139444",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
9863
|
Why do my caramels turn out hard in the center?
I have made several batches of homemade caramels, and they have all turned out the same - soft around the edge of the 9x13 pan I use to cool them and hard as a rock in the center of the pan. Seriously, the caramels at the sides are soft and chewy, but the ones in the center are so hard that if they're bent at all, they crack (with a cracking noise).
I have noted that the part that is hard is also the part over the area on that pan where the caramels are first poured out. Coupled with this, the top of the entire pan of caramels is slightly crunchy. There is no discernible grain to them and they look and taste like they should (except for the center caramels, which is like a really grainy toffee). Of course, the recipe is from my mom, who manages to make them without any problems -sigh-
Anyone have any ideas about what I'm doing wrong?? Thanks for your help!
Here's the recipe I use: (I do not deviate from this, at all)
2 c. superfine sugar
3/4 c. light corn syrup
1/2 c. butter
2 c. whipping cream
Boil all ingredients except for 1 c. of cream over medium-high heat, stirring constantly. Stir in remaining cream. Reduce heat and stir occasionally, until candy reaches 240°. Take off heat, stir well, and pour into buttered pan. Cool completely before cutting.
The higher the temperature, the harder the caramel. That is basically the whole story. So I think what is happening to you is that the caramel in the middle is still going up in temperature due to residual heat, while the stuff at the sides cools down quickly because it can vent heat through the pan to the outside world. Have you checked the calibration on your thermometer? In any case, I think the things you can try are (1) cook to a slightly lower final temperature (back down a couple degrees at a time) and (2) set the pan over a tray of ice to cool it more evenly. Also, be sure to do a really good job of that final stir before pouring into the tray.
I think that proper cooling is the key; most "sensitive" items I bake have to be cooled in an ice-water bath in order to set properly. Ambient and surfaces temperatures as well as oven hot spots would also help to explain the difference in results between two people following the same recipe (a difference which rapid cooling would probably eliminate).
As others have said, temperature is the key to the firmness of caramels, but not to the texture of caramels. You mentioned the inside is grainy. If that's the case, you might be getting incorrectly crystalized sugar in the center of the pan. One of the tricks to making caramels is to never scrape the pan. Let as much of the caramel flow out of the pan as possible, but don't scrape down the sides into the cooling dish. If you do, part of the caramel will turn grainy in about a day.
As far as temperature, forgot the thermometer. Temperatures vary by your altitude and the exact ingredients you are using among other things. Unless the recipe was written by someone who lived in the same house, used the same pans, and bought the same brands of ingredients, the temperatures should be considered a very rough estimate. Get a bowl of ice water and keep it nearby while the caramel is on the stove. Periodically drop a small amount of the caramel into the ice water and give it a few seconds to cool. Pick up the drop of caramel and see if it is the texture you want.
Summary:
Don't scrape the sides of the bowl. Throw that part of the caramel out (or eat it straight from the bowl).
Drop bits of the caramel in ice water to check the firmness while cooking. This method is far more reliable than a thermometer. (But don't burn yourself!)
Don't scrape out the pan. Stir it as you remove it from the heat and pour. DON'T scrape. The residual caramel is still cooking and will be harder than the rest.
I would think if an area of the product is harder than the rest then it will be due to cooling issues.
If the external areas are softer, then it should be the case that they did not reach as high a temperature as the centre or have cooled at a different rate. Central bottom areas of the pan are liable to cool more slowly, as they have are insulated by the other material and have less ability to diffuse the heat. Perhaps putting the pan on something heat conductive, to draw away heat underneath may help.
The other major issue is the cooking itself. If your pan is too wide, or too thin based (it needs to be thick, or the heat will not be even), then it is normal to have widely different heats within the pan. Some areas may be much hotter than others. Make sure your sugar thermometer is accurate (you can do that roughly by placing it in rapidly boiling water and ensuring the temperature is about 100C), and ensure that it is reasonably deep in to the mixture.
Points to examine:
Are you checking your temperatures right up to the moment you take them off the heat?
Are you arresting the heating process, via cold water submersion of the pan or other method?
Are you over/under stirring, particularly near the end (have you watched your mum make these?)
Is the pan you use very differ to that which your mum uses? (As this will effect cooling rates, particularly if the dimensions are different which effects the depth or surface area - the base thickness is very important).
Where does she cool hers?
Is your thermometer accurate?
If it makes you feel any better. Chewy caramels are really hard in my opinion, the recipe is simple, but experience counts for a lot. I totally burnt a few batches initially when trying to cook them.
Thanks for the tips! I'm going to try the ice bath and see what happens.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.144975
| 2010-12-07T23:18:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9863",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Amit Vaghela",
"Daniel S",
"Joanne",
"Kate",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3711",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"mommyoftwinz",
"swe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43692
|
Using a French press with finely ground coffee
I usually make two grinds for my coffee - a fine grind for my Moka and a coarse grind to take to work so I can put it in a French press.
Today I zoned out and ground everything finely, and I don't have beans left for another batch. I've tried using my Moka grind in a french press before, but it always tastes burnt or extremely bitter.
Is there a way to make coffee using a French press with finely ground beans, without it becoming bitter?
This question seems quite similar, though the answers deal more with the sediment than the taste of the coffee itself.
If you use immersion brewing (which is what a French press does) with more finely ground coffee, you will want to reduce the time as extraction is faster. I wish I could give you an exact time, but I have not experimented with this; I would start with approximately 2 minutes.
You are also likely to ge ta muddier, grittier cup as the mesh in the press will not catch all of the more finely ground coffee.
You could also try a lower water temperature.
You can play around with any of the factors below
Extraction time (shorter = less bitter)
Coffee:water ratio (less coffee / more water = less bitter)
Temperature (colder = less bitter)
Roast type (lighter = less bitter)
Type of coffee (arabica = less bitter compared to robusta)
I'd try to reduce each one in that order. Typically, I change extraction time (and coffee:water ratio if needed). I don't usually change the temperature so that I have fewer factors to deal with. I rarely change roast and bean type since I usually just have one bag of beans.
My tip is to change one factor first and observe the effects instead of changing multiple factors at once. This will give you a better grasp how each affects the final cup.
* It's more complex and not 100% accurate in some cases. I just simplified it and these should apply in most cases.
** And cheers to having both a french press and a moka pot!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.145500
| 2014-04-25T10:32:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43692",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Spammer",
"TFM Law",
"Teresa Matjazic",
"Whiggie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102462",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102463",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102464",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17989
|
Only the seeds of the habaneros I bought are hot - low quality, or simply the nature of chili?
I'm a newbie when it comes to any type of chili. I'm alright at eating food with chili, but don't really have any experience with using it.
I bought the one I used at a local supermarket. I first tried eating a small slice to measure its hotness, but couldn't really feel much heat at all. Pleasant flavor though.
Then I tried to eat a small slice with one (1) seed on it, and this time, it was pretty damn strong, I'll admit. But the "flesh" itself was not strong. The food I made (ground beef, crushed tomatoes, onion) was about ~1.5kg total and filled my pan, but when I added half the chopped habanero with ~6 seeds there was not noticeable hotness at all. I didn't notice this until I served since my tastebuds were giving me false readings from the first tasting I did.
So, this lack of hotness, is it because
That's how habaneros work (surprised me that I didn't get any hotness though)
The type I bought was not very strong.
I prepared it all wrong. Extract flavor using oil first?
My supermarket sells non-fresh / low quality habaneros?
Or something else?
Most of the capsaicin (the hot stuff) in hot peppers is in the membrane that holds the seeds. The flesh is much milder. You can remove the membrane if you want habanero flavor without the heat.
@Fambida So, to use half a habanero you need to cut it lengthwise? (for half the heat, so to speak). Also, you could post that as an answer...
possible duplicate of What is the hottest part of a chili/chilli/chile pepper?
@Max - FYI: the experience you describe eating a slice of habanero is certainly not typical. Yes, the seeds are hotter, but usually the flesh is still VERY hot when you get into chiles with this level of SHU. I may have run into a habanero here or there that's "only" 75k SHU, but many are well over 100k and reportedly can exceed 300k. So: how sure are you that this was a habanero, and not some other chile varietal?
I've experimented with growing different varieties of peppers over last decade and found by surrounding one with other types of peppers (sweet, medium or hot) and increasing or reducing water near harvest time you can completely change the heat and flavor of the peppers from that plant. If planted in a pot you can move it around your garden to get different tasting peppers from the same plant throughout the season.
A friend that did a doctorate on this topic says that soil amendments as stress agents are the next most important trick after water deprivation.
Grocery store hot peppers can definitely be hit-or-miss, I have the most experience with jalapenos. The seeds/membranes do have the most heat, but the spicyness of the pepper does vary from one to another.
Peppers from my farmer's market are always hot, the ones from the grocery store is always hard to say; sometimes they are super-hot and other times they are bland. I always buy more than I need and go by taste. If you do cook them in oil first, it does leech out the spicy flavor which would make it hotter, but this shouldn't be necessary.
Yes, but I've never used any good (orange) habaneros that had "no heat" in the flash of the fruit. I'm almost thinking the varietal the OP is talking about was bred to be more mild. The SHU of a typical habanero is such that even 1/4 of it's flesh without seeds should add as much heat to a dish as one or even two fairly hot jalapeños.
I was talking to my friend last night and he says he remembers a friends garden had habeneros that for some reason were as mild as sweet peppers, they thought that it might have been due to something in the soil.
Remember that peppers are a fruit, i.e. the result of a flower being pollinated. Usually, the pollinator is also a hot pepper, but sometimes, you get the odd wandering bee, and/or a genetic anomaly, or something, and the result is a fruit where the "hotness gene" goes recessive.
@Marti the fruit is produced by the parent plant, not the fertilised seed.
Peppers are highly impacted by the environment they are grown in. Amount of water, altitude, nutrients in the soil and "design". Case in point, Hatch New Mexico is famous for the quality of green chile peppers grown there. Hatch is located in an old bend/delta of the Rio Grande that moved a 1000 years ago or so. That is one of the attributes many consider to be what makes them so special. There is also a "designed" species called "Big Jim's" that are very flavorful but the heat is hit and miss. Two Big Jim's from the same field can be exceedingly hot to exceedingly mild. So I would imagine the same is true for habanero. Try a different source.
I can't offer you an explanation but I can tell you this. Whenever I buy Habaneros I get a mixed bag of red and orange. The flesh of the orange ones are always mild with zero heat, but the flesh of the red ones are particularly hot. The seeds from both are always hot.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.145690
| 2011-09-25T10:13:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17989",
"authors": [
"Fambida",
"Jay Finley",
"Manako",
"Marti",
"Max",
"OrangeDog",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7377",
"rumtscho",
"ymbirtt",
"zanlok"
],
"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
}
|
42125
|
The inside of my grill lid is rusting
I've seen lot's of questions in regards to the grate on a grill rusting (like this one: Can I still cook on my propane grill with rust?) but my situation is a tad different in regards to the lid. When I rub my finger on the inside top of the grill lid, small amounts of rust particles/shavings are falling down.
I have a 5 burner Kenmore grill and the inside top of the grill lid is rusting. It appears there is actually a heat shield of sorts attached to the inside of the lid that is the part rusting. The bolts appear to be rivets or something that I can't remove. The lid is not made anymore so replacing it is out of the question. Actually the thing is only 3.5 years old and a lot of the parts aren't made which has been a frustration to this issue.
I can't remember the color and metal type of that inside lid cover shield when new but I thought it was stainless steel, however I suppose I was wrong. I'm thinking about taking the pressure washer to the inside of the lid, followed by a wire brush, repeat of the pressure washer, and then dry as a remedy. I'm assuming painting is a really bad idea because of fumes, food, etc.
Is it time to pitch the grill because of that lid rusting, or does some type of maintenance to it seem like a good idea? At the end of the day I don't want rusty burgers and steaks!
How much do you use this grill? I'm a little surprised that anything, even bare cast iron, would rust inside a grill. Mine is pretty quickly coated with cooking residue that prevents rust. Do you clean this grill really thoroughly after use?
@CareyGregory - I clean the stainless steel grate every time after cooking. I brush it and it stays almost pristine. I do not however clean the underside of the lid or under the grate where the burners are all that often.
hey @atconway how did you make out? I have the same problem on masterforge 3218 - love the grill and replaced all burners shields and drip pan recently but the lids heat shield isn't doing well - thanks.
@Tom - LOL yeah this post is 8 years old. I ended up just buying another grill. My current one has a similar issue.
@atconway thanks for the reply - I am attempting to remove the heat shield and continue use, its an expensive grill. everything is crap these days.
Use a can of oven cleaner (see can for precautions). It will neutralise the rust somewhat, and clean off the burnt on BBQ grease
If it was stainless steel it would be a silvery colour, any other colour would be just painted steel
Rivets can be carefully drilled out, and your local steel fabricator can make a replacement piece if it's worth it? Or try it without the heat shield and see how it works
Good idea with the oven cleaner. I'll add that into the mix of cleaning.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.146151
| 2014-02-18T02:24:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42125",
"authors": [
"Carey Gregory",
"Felix Xu",
"MissDD",
"Spammer",
"Tom",
"atconway",
"hkthi SGP spam",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98331",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98332",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98335",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98336",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99478",
"royjames11"
],
"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
}
|
116616
|
Can I season a wok on an induction cooktop?
I just got a new wok and realized that I have no idea how to go about seasoning it on my induction cooktop. It's a flat-bottom, carbon steel wok, so I don't have to worry about contact on the bottom, but my concern is how do I get the sides?
The one idea I had was to season the bottom of the pan as normal, and then heat a neutral oil and something like sliced onions until they caramelize or char and push them up the sides to distribute the seasoned oil, then discarding the oil/onions and repeating. I'm not sure how effective this would be, and it seems like it would take a lot of repetitions (5+) and waste a lot of oil (and onions; but oil is harder to dispose of.)
My old wok I seasoned on a gas stove, but where I currently live I don't know anyone who has a gas stove -- most everyone has electric. I don't think seasoning it in the oven like cast iron is an option; I'm pretty sure at least one of the wooden elements isn't detachable.
The oven is absolutely an option - your best, by the sounds of it.
Yeah I'm trying to figure out if possibly i can wrap the wooden elements in tin foil or something to protect them in the oven.
Ah… you didn't mention wooden bits. Are they not removable?
I can remove the long handle, and the knob on the lid; but there's a wooden grip opposite the handle which isn't removable.
Then maybe see if someone has a good idea for protecting that at 250°C because pushing onoins round it with only the flat base heated isn't going to do the job.
Another option is to get a cheap handheld propane blowtorch.
I just realised, a day later, that you already mentioned the wooden bits… maybe I'm getting old. Either that or not enough coffee. My bad ;)
The idea with the onions is unlikely to work as intended, and you'd be off just as well if you simply kept basting the sides instead.
Your best bet is to season the wok upside down in the oven for the most even seasoning result. The way to protect your wooden handle is to wrap it thoroughly in a wet towel, and wrap that in tin foil. The towel will dissapate the heat and keep your wood from burning, and the tin foil will keep the moisture from escaping for long enough to complete the process (about 20 minutes). Just make sure not to use your fancy new towels!
Also, you should note that a baked wooden handle might look a bit worse, but is still perfectly useable (sometimes even unavoidable in more used woks). Something to keep in mind if you're not bothered about aesthetics too much.
Further reading
I disagree a bit about protecting wooden handle. The best way, and possible in almost all woks with wooden handles sold in my area, would be to unscrew the handle, season wok in the oven with handle removed, and only when it's done attach it again.
@Mołot yes, this is obviously the best way to go about it, but in the comments on the question OP mentioned one of the two handles is not detachable.
I encourage you to add this option for completeness, because answers are as much for future readers as they are for OP, and it is something OP should do for the one that happens to be detachable.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.146421
| 2021-07-29T14:52:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116616",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Mołot",
"Plutian",
"Roddy of the Frozen Peas",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94917"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
76825
|
Pandan extract in small quantities
I've just returned from a year-long trip abroad, and now have some interesting recipes to try. I was thinking of making Indonesian kelopon but I'm having a hard time finding one ingredient.
The ingredient I'm having trouble with is pandan extract. It's an extract of the pandan leaf. While cooking in Indonesia and Malaysia, I was able to get small squeeze bottles of it -- between the sizes of a squeeze bottle of food coloring and a small bottle of vanilla extract, up to maybe 2 or 3 fluid ounces. This is what I'm trying to get my hands on.
Back in the states (I'm in Baltimore for a month), I'm having a difficult time finding this. I've found that McCormick sells a correctly sized bottle that the front claims is pandan extract, but the ingredients label indicates it's primarily propylene glycol, water, and sugar, with some imitation pandan and food coloring. This is the only thing I can find in brick-and-mortar stores.
On the internet (Amazon, really), all the small bottles of extract turn out to be imitation with similar ingredients as the McCormick. They do have real extract: but only in 14.4 ounce cans. Since the ingredients are only water and pandan (and sometimes sugar), it's not shelf stable. It's also more extract than I'd use in 10 years.
So. Is it possible to buy small quantities of real, non-imitation pandan extract (preferably without added sugar but I can live with it, definitely with no propylene glycol) in the US or on the internet to be shipped to the US? Do they even sell such small quantities?
Or, alternatively, is it possible to convert the pandan paste or dried pandan leaves to extract form without overly-specialized equipment?
From the recipes I've seen, it looks like the pandan extract tends to be made from fresh leaf and water - essentially it's a juice. This might make it easier to substitute rather than if it had required other ingredients or preparation, use of alcohol or other solvents.
So, it looks like the pandan paste is the nearest substitute - the recipes look like it can be made from pandan leaf and water, it is just blended and kept - simple straining should make the extract. Of course, commercial processed paste may have preservatives and stabilizers and such, but it might be workable anyway... or perhaps you can find a good product with few of the extra additives.
Another alternative is to pick up pandan leaves - frozen ones are available, even online, though it might take some looking, extra charges in shipping, or something like that. Fresh might be available somewhere, but it's likely harder to depend on and will perhaps take more work. Frozen will work for most applications - especially since freezing usually helps with extracting juice (extract, recall), will store better, and will perhaps be easier to find.
If you're using the dried leaves, you can soak them, boil, essentially make tea. The flavor is weaker, and you will need more to get the same flavor, but since the dried leaves are just pandan - you should be able to reconstitute the leaves and extract the flavor the same way. Dried pandan is available as a tea, it just takes a bit of looking.
As for the pandan extract, the advice I found was to buy the large cans of good, pure extract, and portion it off (like ice cubes) and freeze. It will store well - at least as well as frozen leaves - and it will have just the pure flavor, so more flavor for the same amount of freezer space.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.146710
| 2016-12-25T11:13:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76825",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
42225
|
How would I quickly defrost chicken if it's going to be cooked in a crock pot?
I've read that it is O.K. to defrost chicken via the microwave or in a sink of cold water, but only if you're planning to cook the chicken right away. (How to quickly and safely defrost chicken?)
I'm putting my chicken in a crock pot to cook it, would these methods still be safe, or is there another method to which I would go about this?
Thanks in advance for all suggestions! :)
Either microwave or the running water method should be perfectly acceptable, since you are going to begin cooking right away. Modern slow cookers should come up to temperature within no more than an hour or so, so you aren't leaving the food at ambient temperature for very long.
Note that for the water method, the water should be running--it doesn't have to be fast, just a thin stream--but this makes sure there is enough circulation in the water to substantially reduce the defrosting time.
Your best, safest bet, if you have the time is always to defrost in the refrigerator. The other methods are for when you don't have time to do that.
Thanks you! I wasn't sure if cooking it in a crock pot was still considered cooking it "right away" or "immediately" since it would be cooked over a 4-5 hour period. I guess what is meant by that is to not thaw it then leave it in the fridge for an extended amount of time?
The idea is not to thaw and leave in the so-called danger zone for an extended period. And since these methods are less controlled than refrigerator thawing, returning to the refrigerator is maybe not the best practice; instead, cooking right away is a better idea. Remember, the guidelines are very, very, very conservative.
@JohnGaughan We have found conflicting indications on cooking from frozen in slow cookers although for other methods of cooking thawing as part of the cooking process is acceptable
If I am going to cook chicken in the crock pot, I usually put the chicken in frozen and cook on high for the first hours or two. Then I turn back to low to finish cooking.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.147098
| 2014-02-21T17:07:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42225",
"authors": [
"Chikita Isaac",
"Kudo",
"Nicole Rae",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sandy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98576",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98577",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98578",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98692",
"kglive cambodia spam",
"kglive sydney spam"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46364
|
Why has my honeycomb toffee set in layers?
I made honeycomb toffee today, but it's set in 'layers'. The top is crispy and bubbly, as it should be, but there's a layer on the bottom of chewy sticky toffee without bubbles. Can anyone tell me why this is and how I can stop it happening in the future? Google has turned up nothing.
You can see the definite layering in this photo:
It's normal for some layering in home made foamed sugar (hokey pokey, honeycomb etc.)
The problem is that you can't stir it quick enough to get an even distribution of acid to alkaline (the bubble making process) throughout the mixture before it cools to the point you can't stir it
Factories use fancy heated augur style stirrers to avoid this, and they don't make domestic sized machines like that
Mixing in the alkaline while the pan is still on the heat. Mix fast and carefully with a rubber spatula so you can get into the corners on the pan, and then scrape out with the same tool. Time is very short
Make sure you acidify the sugar (a tsp of white vinegar will do). Carefully sift the alkaline powder a few times, and make sure you add it to the pot evenly, not in one big lump
Also, adjust the recipe acid and alkaline quantities, you may have insufficient to fully react with the quantity of melted sugar?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.147305
| 2014-08-13T16:55:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46364",
"authors": [
"Ashley Laub",
"Chris",
"Jason Beck",
"Qarth",
"Thomas Schmitt",
"Yasser Saad",
"february waheed",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110709",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110716",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110718",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110719",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110884"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
75160
|
Substituting canned pumpkin for fresh pumpkin?
This question is essentially the reverse of this older one. Can I safely substitute canned pumpkin for fresh pumpkin in a pumpkin soup recipe? If so, should I expect any side effects in taste or consistency, and, if so, are there any corrections I should make to offset this?
Do you know if the pumpkin soup recipe was expecting a particular kind of fresh pumpkin?
To build on Jefromi's clarification -- does the pumpkin soup recipe specify how to prepare the fresh pumpkin (if at all) before adding it as an ingredient?
The recipe (NYTimes: Potage au Potiron) seems to just say "scoop it out of the pumpkin and add it to the pot."
There is more information there: 8-10 inches in diameter. (and given that it was published for an American audience, presumably the usual round orange kind, since they didn't say otherwise)
As André Soltner is basing his recipe from recollections of growing up in Alsace, it may be that it was not the garden pumpkin, as it's known and which resembles the large US variety most familiar as decoration.
Several of the many grown in the Alsation region might be better suited to soups and other recipes.
The Hokkaido, similar to Hubbard, has a very hard outer skin, and very dark orange flesh (image courtesy of Wikipedia).
The Muskat-kürbis has bright orange flesh, and is used as a vegetable and for soups, in desserts, as well as being made into jam (image from Kostenlose).
As canned pumpkin is denser, it may give you the result you're looking for in the NYTimes recipe.
In my experience, canned pumpkin is usually better than fresh in a pureed recipe.
The only thing you might experience is that you will want to thin the soup more because the flavor is more concentrated.
My experience as well. Something about canning makes canned pumpkin more flavorful.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.147460
| 2016-11-01T01:37:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75160",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Cascabel",
"Paulb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26636",
"templatetypedef"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
56637
|
What's this discoloration in my saucepan?
I've noticed this discoloration on or near the bottom of my saucepan, which stays even after cleaning. When dry, parts of the pan will appear slightly pinkish or greenish. Furthermore, there is often some white staining.
Is this a cleaning issue (given that I haven't entirely been good with cleaning the pan out promptly)? Or is this perhaps related to something lile my water supply? The saucepan appears to be made of stainless steel.
I think we have even more questions regarding stains, if somebody finds more (old) duplicates, please vote to close so we can concentrate the information in one place
If Your Sauce Pan is Stainless Steel
All grades of stainless steels are iron-based alloys with significant percentages of chromium. Typically, stainless steels contain less than 30% chromium and more than 50% iron. Their stainless characteristics stem from the formation of an invisible, adherent, protective and self-healing chromium-rich oxide (Cr2O3) surface film. While stainless steels are resistant to rusting at room temperatures, they're prone to discoloration by oxidation at elevated temperatures due to the presence of chromium and other alloying elements such as titanium and molybdenum.
Factors that contribute to increased oxidation include high dew points, high oxygen and oxides of lead, boron and nitrides on the surface. For bright stainless steels, process them in a highly reducing atmosphere with a dew point lower than –40oF and a minimum of 25% hydrogen.
How to treat Heat Stains
A quick dip in an HCl solution followed by a thorough rinse should remove the oxide "stain", providing it only has a slight "heat" discoloration.
Hard Water Stains
Hard water stains. These result on metal surfaces like sinks and faucets and come about when those areas have been exposed to a large amount of affected water. Read on for some tips on removing hard water stains from metal surfaces in your home.
What I'd love to know that I don't think you've covered is whether the heat stains matter... other than wanting your pan to remain pretty, does it matter if you don't clean it off?
@Catija I think over time the pan will develop hot spots (places in your pan where food is more likely burn or over caramelize if your an...), but I'm not completely sure. I will look into that.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.147638
| 2015-04-13T02:31:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56637",
"authors": [
"Andrew G",
"Ashwini Kamath",
"Catija",
"Chef_Code",
"Dr Jim Schwartz",
"Gail Oswald",
"Jocelyn Park",
"Stephen Cordero",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134667",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134668",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134696",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45516
|
What are these used for
These metal tubes are open on one side and hang from the handle suggesting a frying use?
Could it be for frying a wrapped dough and pulling it out of the oil?
It does look like it could be a cannoli form, but I can't find any with a handle like that (although it would make perfect sense).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.147865
| 2014-07-13T04:37:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45516",
"authors": [
"Jolenealaska",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
57645
|
Ginger starting to sprout - can I still use it?
I have two beautiful ginger roots (rhizomes) which I had planned to turn into gari (pickled ginger). But I also have two children and the ever-changing schedule that goes with this. So the ginger sat in a bowl for a while, waiting.
While Wikipedia states that the rhizome
...it is immediately scalded, or washed and scraped, to kill it and prevent sprouting.
mine obviously weren't and appear to have gotten spring fever and started to sprout:
Now, I could put them in a planter, let them grow and harvest in fall when they start to wither, but before I sneakingly sell them to hubby as the latest addition of our ever-growing collection of plants I'm wondering:
Can I use sprouting ginger? Just like regular/dormant ginger? Or is there something to keep in mind?
My main focus is on the culinary aspect: While sprouted ginger isn't toxic, I'm wondering whether it requires special or different preparation, how to handle the sprouts, and do sprouting ("growing") and mature ("dormant") ginger taste differently in dishes.
(Should I decide to plant my ginger, I will ask the guys over at Gardening SE for advice, if required...)
Did you end up planting some of this, or just wasting/discarding? I have some that is sprouting, and wondering whether it's worth my time to try planting it!
@Erica this one went into my pan, but both my mum & I have planted "leftovers". It was surprisingly simple and content in a rather shallow but wide pot (4 / 8 in). The rhizome grew well, and when the greens whithered, it was nice, large and plump. So definetively an alternative to discarding it.
From a culinary perspective, I find that when sprouted, the ginger just loses a bit of flavour, that's all. If you let it grow for a very long time and it becomes all shriveled, then you are talking about a flavourless piece of ginger. I've even used such shriveled and even moldy (cut the mold off, though) pieces... no flavour at all!
You can eat ginger sprout: http://homeguides.sfgate.com/part-ginger-plant-eat-74002.html
So my advice is to cut that part of, experiment with it (on a salad, as a garnish on a lemon grass soup...) and proceed with the rest of the rhizome as planned.
I know that it's safe (I googeled before posting here), I was wondering whether there is something to keep in mind from a culinary point. Perhaps I should clarify my question... As ist stands, it's a good and valid answer, thanks! (+1)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.147933
| 2015-05-20T18:29:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57645",
"authors": [
"Blagovest NIkolov",
"Erica",
"Ken Wing",
"Neil Harrison",
"Stephie",
"The Unhinged Bohemian",
"Toni Mullins",
"Traian Tipisca",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137175",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137176",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137182",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139740",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"stewart golding"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
60121
|
Yeast dough won't go "stretchy"
I am getting the feeling yeast-dough just hates me...
I have been using a basic pizza recipe:
500g flour
1/2 cube of fresh yeast
1 1/2 teaspoons of salt.
4 tablespoons of olive oil
250ml water
make well in flour
add crumbled yeast and some water
mix up a bit, dust with flour, rest 10 to 15 minutes
add salt to remaining flour, then bit by bit add the water and mix up.
knead for 10 to 20 minutes till it is stretchy....
It does not go stretchy, it keeps tearing.
I found advice that I don't have enough water -> so I added water.
The dough after kneading keeps returning to the previous state... but doesn't get stretchy!
How do I get the gluten freed to get the stretchy consistency it should eventually have?
It is resting (and rising) now - will kneading again after some rest and rising get me the stretchyness I would like? Have I overkneaded?
Or did SOMEthing mess up the gluten already?
PS: I am using German 405-flour, wich seems to translate to pastry flour in American types, or (the already mentioned in an answer) 00-flour in Italian types. (source)
PPS: Here are some pictures: The one on the left is the ball I get from the dough. The one on the right is what happens when I pull it apart. Click on them for full size close-up.
It should not get this tearing if kneaded properly, I believe, but stretch. Or am I misinterpreting what I see?
PPPS: as requested, more details on kneading and water:
I started out with 250 ml. Looking at my measuring cup I have by now added somewhere between 50 and 100 ml more. Strangely it does seem to make NO difference to the texture... the dough happily absorbed the additional water with some kneading.
I have been kneading by hand (embarassingly, I lost the kneading-hooks for my machine...).
What I did after getting the answer below:
Added a bit if 1050 flour (about 2 spoonfuls)
Used only about 1/4 of a cube of yeast (10g)
350ml of water (and ignore the feeling that is HAS to be too much)
Mixed up, let rest for about 10 minutes.
10 minutes kneading.
30 minutes rest and rising.
A bit more kneading.
-> Put it in the fridge for 6 hours, flattening it once.
And now I used it not to make pizza but little cinnamon-rolls (already had lunch ^^).
And they turned out GREAT, and while my dough may not have the expert-stretchyness yet, it FINALLY beats the store-bought stuff :).
You might want to check out this question and answers: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/400/what-is-the-best-flour-to-use-for-pizza-dough
@DebbieM. Yes and no. OP uses German flour, so apart from Italian Tipo 00, American flour based combinations won't help much. Good find nevertheless.
@Stephie I did say answers, several of which mention types of flour based on protein content (which is important in pizza dough) as well as milling fineness numbers (which have no correlation to protein).
@Stephie: edited the post, handkneadign and somewhere between 50 and 100 ml of additional water which weirdly refuse to make much of a difference...
I would "push" (or sometimes "beat" or even "punch") more than "pull" in flattening dough, and I wonder if that is also playing a role in the tendency to tear, though I'm a confirmed "many ways work" baker.
So glad it has finally worked for you :-))) - yeast dough can be daunting (scares the hell out of my mom and she makes breathtaking cakes and "Torte"), but once you get the hang of it it's more like a reliable, trusted friend than any other dough IMHO. Thanks for the update, it will certainly be useful for future readers.
Ok, this is going to be long. And you just wanted to fire up your oven and slap the sauce on the dough...but bear with me.
Gluten
The Holy Grail of elastic dough that can trap all these nice bubbles: CO2 from the yeast and steam from evaporating water. Fact is, gluten is basically a protein (ok, scientifically speaking not exactly, but close enough). If you use a low-protein flour, there simply isn't much gluten that could develop. So American cake flour isn't a good choice, but German 405 not necessarily either. Unlike the mineral content, protein content is not fixed for 405, it largely depends on the used wheat. Some mills have a higher content, some a lower. Apart from explicitly asking the manufacturer or simply trying out brands, there is no surefire way to tell. The reason the Italian tipo 00 contains more protein (and it does) is that most Italian wheats are high-protein breeds. So yes, using Italian flour can help. But so can changing the flour brand, switching to a slightly higher type (550 or adding a few spoons of 1050) or simply adding some gluten. The latter is available over the Internet or at your trusted local mill. No need to go "super-high" though. Patience and good technique are essential.
Humidity
Gluten needs water to develop. (Apart from the kneading etc., but more on that later.) A higher hydration dough1 means more water is available and the gluten strands form more easily. The math: with 500g flour and 250g water, you have a hydration of only 50%. Another 50g bump it up to 60%, 100g to 80%. As a ballpark figure, that's a good range for 405 or 550 flour. The second secret of the Italian tipo 00 comes into play here: it's milled somewhat finer than 405; due to the smaller particle size the dough can absorb even more water, following the old adage of "wetter is better" (not set in stone, but still...). You might want to check out the "stretch and fold" technique, which makes softer doughs easier to handle.
Time
Gluten develops over time. So a good, long kneading helps. But there is a another factor: resting (or proofing) time. Even with very little kneading gluten will develop over time, given sufficient humidity. You can do some light kneading, then let the dough rest for a long time at a rather low temperature with the occasional "fold".
So what can you do? Looking at your dough, yes, it is a tad dry and flaky and it tears a bit. But while you perhaps won't get an award-winning pizza crust, you'll probably be ok this time. But even while your recipe is pretty mainstream, a few tweaks might be advisable:
Ensure sufficient protein content. (See 1.)
Aim for a hydration of 65% or higher (way higher, if you dare), especially if using tipo 00. (See 2.)
Significantly lower your yeast content. This reduces the "yeasty" taste your recipe should have. Yes, this means that your dough won't mature in half an hour, but the dough for the pizza you had today at your favourite pizza place probably was made yesterday, too. Simply let it rest and rise in your fridge. A handy side effect is that the enzymes in your flour get activated and the gluten develops, too. Good for texture and flavour. Bad for an impromptu pizza party, though. (See 3.)
1 Water-to-flour-ratio. See baker's percentage. In Germany "Teigausbeute"/"TA" (all-ingredients-to-flour-ratio) is more common.
Wow, thanks a LOT :). I am beginngin to actually undertsand what I am doing! And yes, I did have issues with yeastyness, too... someonje actually put me on a WHOLE cube of yeast to 500g, wich seemed way too much to me. Awesome, thank you for taking all this time! I hope I will reach that perfect stretchy dough eventually now!
@Layna You are welcome. If you want to read a bit more about low-yeast techniques, you could start at Plötzblog (in German), for example. (no affiliation)
Another "time" factor - resting while forming. If you make a ball, and try to flatten it right after making it, it will tear sooner than if you make a ball, wait 5 minutes, and then start flattening it. When it does not want to flatten more, stop, cover, wait 5-10 minutes and start again. The gluten relaxes, you can form it more without tearing.
It's the flour that will make the dough stretchy than anything else. Try the same process with double zero or doppio zero flour. All the commercial pizza brands use this extra fine quality flour. You will be pleasantly surprised by the results.
You can usually get the double zero flour in a super market or Google if you prefer ordering online.
After translating 00 to 405 flour type... I am using the german equivalent of 00flour, it seems...
But thanks, I just learned a LOT about flour types by googling :)
Sorry, but this is factually untrue. Many countries make good dough with nothing but mid gluten flour, including Balkan countries where the phyllo dough is stretched by hand into sheets thin enough to be transparent and wider than most pizzas. Well worked mid gluten dough is smoother and stretchier than badly made high gluten one. There is no need to change the flour here.
Please think before down voting. Layna had not mentioned which flour she was using in the original question. Coarse flours will not be as stretchy.
"If your dough does not stretch, switch to Italian 00 flour or another high gluten flour" is bad advice, no matter what flour she is using currently. So I think the answer deserves a downvote.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.148446
| 2015-08-21T17:19:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/60121",
"authors": [
"B Mac",
"Daniel Markosky",
"Debbie M.",
"Donald E Willis",
"Ecnerwal",
"Howard Knight",
"Jill Laidlaw",
"Julie Mason",
"Karen Champion",
"Kelsang Gyaltsen",
"Layna",
"Linda Boyett",
"Marian Hamilton",
"Mark Brower",
"Melissa Falcigno",
"MrPhiltheflute",
"Richard Shaffer",
"Stephie",
"Sylvia Lorelli",
"banavalikar",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143843",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143844",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143845",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143847",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143849",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143851",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143864",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143865",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143871",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143872",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144002",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144011",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"john novak",
"rumtscho",
"user143843"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
77010
|
How to cook waffles intended for freezer-then-toaster?
I intend to cook a bunch of waffles to be stored in the freezer and later retrieved for warming in a toaster or on the racks of a hot oven. I want a homemade version of an Eggo.
Should I initially cook the waffles thoroughly, all the way to crispy as evidenced by steam ceasing to escape? Or should they be less cooked, intentionally undercooked?
And how long to let them cool before bagging into the freezer?
I want to to end up with a crisp/crunch to the waffles but without them getting dried out like cardboard.
We always make extra waffles for later use. For short term storage (1 - 2 days) I put them in the fridge. For anything longer I freeze them.
You definitely do not want to fully cook the waffles as they will become hard when you reheat them. (Especially if you like them crispy.) So to your point, intentionally undercook them. I usually cook them to about 2/3 - 3/4 of the way done.
Re cooling them, you want them completely cooled before bagging them. Otherwise you risk condensation inside your bag. You can use a cooling rack or, as I do sometimes, put them on the oven racks in a cold oven. (You would only put them on a hot oven rack if you wanted to keep them warm.)
When your waffles are completely cooled either bag them individually or, if you want to put more than one in a bag, make sure you have a sheet of parchment, wax paper, or foil between them.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.149151
| 2017-01-02T01:47:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77010",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
67537
|
How do I cook food in this square stone oven?
I've recently become the owner of this outdoor stone oven.
However, I am at loss how to cook in it.
It continues up into a rather large chimney. The bottom has two furrows about a thumbs length in it. There are about 6 bricks made out of clay (I think) that I guess are supposed to be used in the bottom.
I've tried using coals - that didn't work very well.
It's a barbecue. The firebricks in the bottom can be used to contain the charcoal in a smaller region, and/or be stacked to raise the grill. I recommend raising the grill as going by the picture, it looks like the food would be too close to the coals and burn before it cooks through.
The chimney takes the smoke away from you quite nicely and is well worth having.
im a little sceptical to this, as the air inflow kinda sucks, especially when I tried to use charcoals?
I've used this type in Spain and they take a little while to get going but then cook nicely. Starting the fire near the front of the cooking area may help. Do check the chimney isn't blocked or covered as well.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.149298
| 2016-03-18T12:43:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67537",
"authors": [
"Bruce kerr",
"Chris H",
"Gowthami Vijayaraj",
"Pat Andre",
"Perry Davidson",
"Thorst",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162132",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162133",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162150",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23870"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
62467
|
Can I save time by baking banana bread using the convection setting of my oven?
I am following a banana bread recipe that calls for you to heat a conventional oven to 350 degrees Fahrenheit and cook the banana bread batter for one hour.
I want the bread to be done sooner then one hour. Is it possible to cook the bread faster using a convection oven, and achieve the same or better results then with a conventional oven?
Some websites (here and here) seem to imply that you should cook cakes/cookies/bread for the same amount of time as you would with a conventional oven. I believe the idea is that you can not shorten the amount of time it takes for the bread to rise.
Other websites (such as here and another website I had open but cant find now) seem to imply that you can shorten the amount of time it takes for the bread to cook.
So which is it? Can I save time, by using convection setting to bake my banana bread, or am I asking for somehow lesser quality bread if I do so?
*Note, the batter is recessed within the bread pan so the whole "wind blowing your batter over" is not an issue or concern.
As a note, banana bread is a "quick bread", not a true bread, made with yeast.
When you heat something in the oven, a thin layer of vaporized water will settle around the good where it is exposed to air. This thin layer acts as a (minor) insulation. In a convection oven this thin layer will not form.
The contradicting statements result from the fact that the answer depends on how much the baked good is actually exposed to environment.
Cookies on the baking tray will need less time.
Bread on the baking tray will need less time.
Bread in a bread pan will not need (much) less time, as the pan is rather high compared to the top surface - the volume compared to the surface is too high for the convection to work efficiently.
The convection will heat the top surface better though, so you will end up with an uneven result, top done, bottom not done. You can get rid of this problem by protecting the surface with aluminum foil or by lowering the temperature. Obviously, lowering the temperature is the most widely employed solution.
Bread in a closed clay pot will need the very same time.
So, to sum it up:
A banana bread in a bread pan will only slightly benefit from the convection oven regarding baking time. I would assume the effect to be around 5-10 minutes. The more time you save though, the harder your top surface will be - so there is no way you can save time and get the same or a better result.
Generally, you can either reduce the time by about 15-25% and cook at the same temperature OR reduce the temperature by about 25-50F/12-25C and cook the same amount of time if you are converting a "regular" recipe to use in a convection oven. Make sure you have plenty of air flow around the pan(s) because that's what makes it faster, the consistent heat from the air flowing around the pans.
The results should be essentially the same (texture, flavor, inner color) except that the outside will probably not brown as much. It also might rise more in the convection oven (I find this is more noticeable in lighter cakes).
If this is the first time you've made this adjustment for this recipe or made such an adjustment for your oven, you will still need to check and make sure the bread is actually done at that time. It might still need a few minutes more.
Another way to make it cook faster is to use smaller pans. I invested in a number of mini loaf pans and now use those more often than the full size pans. Smaller loaves are more convenient in many situations. Or you can use the same banana bread batter to make muffins.
Some references with more details about converting from conventional to convection (which all say about the same thing -- for long-baking recipes, reduce time or temperature):
http://www.gourmetsleuth.com/articles/detail/convection-cooking-adjustments
http://www.epicurious.com/archive/kitchenequipment/expertadvice/convectionovencooking
http://www.bhg.com/recipes/how-to/cooking-basics/convection-ovens-converting-recipes/
Edit:
Further info/discussion points on the effect of temperature in baking.
There is a great, if brief, explanation of a few things that happen if you increase or decrease temperatures for baked goods using a conventional oven here, but from the point of view of "why 350?".
Essentially, if you decrease your oven temperature too much, your baked goods will tend to dry out and harden before they finish cooking, or if it is too cool but not as dramatically cool, the effects of steam or baking powder will not happen as suddenly so the result is less height, more density.
With a higher temperature, you get more quick-rise action, but of course if you raise the temperature too much, you can burn the outside while the inside is still uncooked.
Fortunately there is quite a bit of wiggle room in most recipes for cakes, quick breads, brownies, pies and even yeast breads. You could very easily increase or decrease the temperature for most of these things by about 25 degrees without a very significant change in the end result, if you managed the time correctly.
There are certainly exceptions, such as trying for a specific texture of a chewy cookie, or a more delicate, fluffy cake like angel cake (if it rises too much, it will tend to collapse).
Thank you for your answer, but this does not answer the question. If all other elements are equal, is it possible to cook the bread faster using a convection oven, and achieve the same or better results then with a conventional oven? Its clear that you can do so with other foods (such as meats) but unclear if you can cook breads faster with the same or better results. The websites I posted seem to imply it is not possible. Your response in essence simply describes guidelines for cooking with convection
It works the same for breads, pies, dinner rolls, etc. The links I gave give more examples than the general guidelines I gave, along with my answer that yes, you can do it. The first link you gave talked only about meat but didn't say you can't do anything with bread. Your second link suggests that changing the temperature is preferable to changing the time, and there may be some breads or cakes where that would make a difference, but quick breads are very forgiving. I won't comment on whether it will be "better" but it should be essentially the same with any of the conversion methods.
Keep in mind that some ovens automatically compensate, so you'd set the same temperature either way.
@james yes, that is a good point. It is important to know how your particular oven behaves.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.149444
| 2015-10-12T01:38:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62467",
"authors": [
"Beth Thompson",
"Bob Ludwig",
"Catija",
"David Thompson",
"Donna Pelt Drews",
"Fran Rodgers",
"Frank Cutolo",
"Green Spammer",
"Irene Ramirez",
"James",
"Kent Miller",
"Leo Villarreal",
"Linda Reinstein",
"Melanie Lynn",
"NadjaCS",
"Patsy Page",
"Rivafilia Estoque",
"Terrie Anderson",
"brenda frantz",
"cliff shirley",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148472",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148473",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148480",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148484",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148547",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148609",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148618",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37179",
"kevin alderman",
"n00b"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20225
|
What is a close alternative to Graeffe brown sugar?
Maybe it's because I'm Belgian and grew up with the Graeffe brown sugar, but I've always found it superior to the hard/crystalline brown sugar you find in stores in the US. Is there a brand close to the Graeffe one that comes close or do I have to order it from Europe?
Here you can find a picture of said sugar (on the left; the right is granulated sugar, for comparison).
Is it a soft, dense sugar?
@ElendilTheTall it's soft indeed. It has rather small crystals/particles (or whatever is the right term). There are also a few larger darker brown crystals in.
After a bit research, my hunch was right: the few larger crystals are molasses. (I didn't know they aren't always liquid)
Where the heck do you shop in the US? Everywhere I've lived, "brown sugar" has by default meant the soft stuff, which is regular old refined (white) granulated sugar with molasses mixed back in. You have to go to specialty stores to buy granulated brown sugar, i.e. crystalline sugar that's brown because it's less refined.
Normal cassonade is cane or candy sugar with added molasses (I don't know what the exact difference is with brown sugar, I think cassonade is just a type of brown sugar.), however this cassonade is from sugar beets.
My best guess to replicate it is to put some regular granulated sugar for a couple of seconds in a blender, so the size of the particles is smaller. Then add some molasses and if you can find it, a drop of inverted sugar syrup. I've also found that there is caramel added in Cassonade Graeffe, but I don't know whether they add that flavour or they caramelize the sugar for a short amount of time. If I find the time, I will try to find out more, but it's not a product with a lot of information about.
If you just want a close alternative, I would advise you to just buy different kinds of brands of brown sugar. Perhaps, one will be softer than the other (I don't live in the US, I can't speak to that). Try to find brown sugar from beets, not from cane sugar (not sure if this is available).
Or if you're willing to pay the taxes and shipping costs, I can send you a package.
It sounds a little like demerara sugar which is softer than some.
I've found out that it's not cane sugar.
I'm not familiar with the brand you mention, however given it's description perhaps you could look for the following brand (which can be ordered through Amazon and no doubt other places):
http://www.billingtons.co.uk/
I use this brand regularly and it is relatively soft. I also came across the following article which may help with substitutions:
http://www.davidlebovitz.com/2009/11/french-sugars/
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.150076
| 2012-01-06T20:29:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20225",
"authors": [
"Adam",
"Brenn",
"ElendilTheTall",
"GJohnson",
"MThew",
"Marti",
"Mien",
"dogwoodtree-dot-net",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44977",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45280",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45463",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"maininformer",
"steamingramen"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
14845
|
What causes a tomato sauce to have a bitterness and getting rid of it?
My tomato sauce is coming out great, lots of flavor, especially after I was able to reduce it following the tips here
However, it is still slightly bitter.
What causes a tomato sauce to have a (in my case, slight) bitterness and how do you get rid of it?
Is there an anti-bitter technique that is commonly used.
Do you start with fresh tomatoes?
No, canned (Italian) diced tomatoes
I find canned tomatoes do have an off taste, more bitter than anything else. Maybe you should change the brand. My teacher recommends plum tomatoes. A colleague recommends whole canned tomatoes. I recommend investigating a lot of different brands... Go with fresh mature tomatoes if you can, canned whole plum tomatoes if you can't.
I agree: splurge on your canned tomatoes, as it makes a huge difference. The cheaper tomatoes are usually less sweet (and less flavourful overall). Plum tomatoes are nice and sweet, I often mix them 50:50 with whole canned tomatoes and fresh ones from the farmer's market.
@TimNordenfur - Yeah I fried garlic at the bottom of the pot with the onions as my first step. I've read that caramelizing the onions can also help here. Can't wait for next batch next week.
I have always used chopped tinned tomatoes. If using the tomato sauce as a base for pasta and meat dishes i.e. a simple bolognese or lasagne, many authentic italian recipes opt for finely chopped carrot within the ingredients. The addition of something naturally sweet brings out the flavour of the the tomato.
A few things can cause tomato sauces to become bitter:
Overcooked spices. Both basil and oregano can become bitter with long simmers. Add them near the end of the process.
Under-ripe tomatos. Store bought tomatoes are often picked green and ripened in the store. These tomatoes make less sweet sauces (which may be contributing).
Cooking in an aluminium pan. Aluminium reacts with the acid in the tomatoes and adds an off-putting flavour.
Seeds/skin in the sauce. Both seeds and skins can be bitter.
You can improve a bitter sauce by adding a small amount of baking soda (or salt), and something sweet (but not too much).
Thank you: I love tomato sauces, they're versatile, tasty, and healthy too.
If you have a machine to separate skins and seeds from fresh tomatoes, and you hae discovered that you can put the skins/seeds through again and get another jolt of sauce (thicker than what you get the first time through), do not put them through a third time - that will bring the bitterness from the seeds into the sauce.
Maybe one should also add "undersalted"?
Skin the tomatoes but keep them whole in the sauce 'til cooked. They will break down when they're ready. Seeds are bitter. Also I add a couple of sweet bay leaves.
In the same vein as Bruce's answer, try using plain diced tomatoes and adding the spices yourself instead of using the "italian" variety. Also, If you use garlic in your sauce too that might sweeten it a little and counteract the bitterness without adding sugar.
Also consider roasting some garlic for your sauce: I often will use roasted, lightly fried, and granulated garlic in the same sauce (for extra garlicy dimensions). The oven-roasted garlic is sweet, and adds incredible depth.
I've found the following to make tomato sauces bitter:
Tomato seeds
Underripe tomatoes
Burnt garlic
Usually, adding sweetness helps somewhat, although letting the garlic get too brown, let alone burn it, can hardly be corrected for. Some things I've found to help:
Extra carrot
Brown sugar
You can add half a carrot to the sauce and remove at the end. The carrot absorbs the acidity :)
It's not so much absorbing anything as the sweetness from the carrots help to mask it. Personally, I add a fair bit of carrot to my tomato sauce, but you need to cook them down before adding the tomatoes as the acid will preserve their firmness. You can also add a little bit of sugar to help balance things out if you don't have the time to finely chop (or grate) carrots and cook them down first.
Just grate half a carrot into the onion and garlic that you saute, prior to adding canned San Marzano tomatoes. There is no extra time involved and the sugar from the carrot balances the acid from the tomato nicely.
I can’t answer the first part of the question: why tomatoes are bitter (and it looks like a few people already have anyway).
I use three methods for sweetening tomato sauce. The first two you can use with anything: red current jelly and port (port is my favourite cooking ingredient because you can use it in place of red wine in most cases, too).
The third I came across online (can’t find the source), but basically, put your tinned tomatoes (or whatever) on the hob and then cut a brown onion in half and drop that in the sauce. Then cook it for a long time (maybe two hours). At the end, just take the onion out and chuck it.
I find the seeds of fresh tomatoes to be the cause of the bitterness. Try to remove as many seeds as possible by squeezing tomatoes after blanching and peeling. Its hard to get them all but that is okay. Then a bit of cane sugar. This will balance the flavors a bit but some bitterness is good as it is a flavor of fresh tomatoes.
For being more precise:
Tomatos are acid! This is the characteristic of tomatos. And this is also the reason of tomato success.
Thanks to this quality tomato makes edible all other acidless food.
Acidity produces a strong salivation that makes easiest the first approach with food you eat, clean palate and give the wish to eat again at once.
But also acidity makes bite fairly bound in mouth up to bottom.
In fact before tomato, acidity was taken from citrus and fruits.
Of course acidity makes food bitter. This is the only reason of bitterness of tomato sauce.
There are two main ways we use in Italy to remove that bitterness:
a pinch of sugar in the sauce while
cooking it. This is the main and
traditional one!
a pinch of bicarbonate of soda.
The garlic and also triturated carrot are other ways but alter the sauce. I don't advice those for genuine tomato sauce.
I hope you have a better understanding of bitterness and I could help you validating what Bruce said about how to remove it.
The Italian cooker ;)
About garlic I said that because if your tomato sauce has started with garlic you're at middle way to reach your target for sure but what if your tomato sauce is made from onions?
That's why I raise objections to garlic solution. ;)
Sourness is based on acidity. Bitterness involves completely different taste receptors and compounds which are common in plants and herbs.
@Aaronut well I missed understand the taste topic. But they are confuse as well.
Because the baking soda and something sweet react with sourness, not react with bitterness! ;)
Baking soda would reduce acidity, sugar would add sweetness (that masks sourness and bitterness). None of those will "react" with bitterness or sourness. If you have burnt garlic in the sauce you still have it, no matter how much sugar you add.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.150342
| 2011-05-16T20:10:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14845",
"authors": [
"0x5C91",
"Aaronut",
"BaffledCook",
"Barbara Godwin-Chulick",
"Bruce Alderson",
"Cranberry",
"Fausto Vezzaro",
"Jacqueline",
"Jillian",
"Joe",
"Kate Gregory",
"Leonard Francis",
"Lynette Laubser",
"Mark foura",
"Matt",
"Soheil SH",
"Terry",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147648",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31292",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31394",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41858",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87249",
"kathryn",
"moscafj",
"nico",
"rackandboneman",
"soneangel"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
10011
|
Separated, grainy ganache (Dark and Stormies from Grewelings's book)
I tried making "Dark and Stormies" out of Greweling's book (Chocolate and Confections). The center is a white chocolate ganache infused with vanilla and ginger and with rum. Both times I tried it, the ganache came out grainy or almost spongy in appearance.
I've never had this problem with ganache (although I'm aware that it is very common). I've also never used Greweling's technique for ganache. It has two primary differences:
The chocolate has to be tempered prior to using it for the ganache.
The chocolate is melted at 86 F (for white chocolate) before the cream is added.
Normally, I would use chopped up unmelted chocolate and pour hot cream over it. I wanted to try Geweling's method, though.
Attempt 1:
I know the chocolate was over heated (probably to around 130-140) during tempering, but the chocolate didn't show any signs of burning.
Attempt 2:
This time the chocolate was kept at the right temperature. I also stirred the ganache slightly less. The result seems to be better, but still separated.
Thanks!
I've always done the chop up (or grate) chocolate and pour over hot cream (and never tried white chocolate, either) ... but I thought I'd ask -- are you using 'white coating chocolate' as opposed to 'white chocolate' ... the coating stuff has a different melting point and some additives to it that might cause adverse reactions like what you're seeing.
Me too. I think I'm going to try the recipe again using my normal technique for making the ganache and see how it goes. I'm using Callebuat white chocolate. I won't touch that "candy coating" crap. I don't use much white chocolate, so the chocolate I'm using is probably almost a year old, but it has been sealed and stored in a cool dry place, so it should be fine.
I don't know the details of this particular recipe, so you'll have to excuse me if this comes across as a bit of a shot in the dark, but here are a few things that could have gone wrong:
Grainy chocolate is usually a sign of seizing. White chocolate still contains cocoa butter and can still seize. Therefore it's important not to let any liquid touch the melting chocolate and to not let the temperature get too high.
130-140° F is definitely way too high. White chocolate will normally burn or seize at temperatures higher than around 110° F. You mentioned that the second time you used the right temperature, but it's worth pointing out anyway: Be very careful with the temperature, don't use direct heat preferably, use a double boiler or a stainless steel bowl placed over a steaming pot, and stir frequently to keep the temperature even.
Don't dump hot cream into the chocolate. It's strange that almost every recipe tells you to do this; water causes melted chocolate to seize, period. The only way to avoid this is to use a very large amount of liquid for a very small amount of chocolate, so what you have to do is go the other way; incorporate the chocolate into the cream, a small amount at a time. This is especially important with tempered chocolate because you've essentially raised the melting point!
Also be careful not to let any water get into the chocolate as it's melting; use dry utensils and make sure you don't have any steam condensing over top (use a large bowl over a small pot if you don't have a double boiler).
Finally, as Joe commented, make sure you're using the right kind of white chocolate. I've never seen baker's white chocolate, so when I need white chocolate for melting I generally use the white chocolate chips. If yours didn't burn at temperatures as high as 130° F then you might have been using coating chocolate instead.
Follow all those precautions and you should end up with a very smooth mixture. I've done this for ganaches and even foams and it's never a problem if you're careful about both the temperature and moisture.
I'm quite careful about water in the chocolate. I use a double-boiler and low heat, keep all counters dry, use a silicone spatula (the wood ones trap moisture), and I do my best to keep the kitchen as low humidity as possible. I'm using Callebaut white chocolate from Chocosphere. I'm curious about your third point. I've read about the techniques of many chocolate pros and every one is some variation of pouring cream over chocolate. What basis do you have for adding the chocolate to the cream?
I thought I explained the basis, @Computerish, but I'll try again. Chocolate is an emulsion, and adding a small amount of liquid will break that emulsion and cause seizing. A very large amount of liquid won't have that effect because then solubility comes into play. Dumping water (which cream mostly is) into melted chocolate is almost a surefire way to make it seize, because you have no control over how much of the liquid comes into contact with any specific part of the chocolate. Do the reverse, and that problem goes away.
Now, @Computerish, if you melt the chocolate with the liquid, i.e. by pouring hot cream over solid chocolate, that's another story, and that will often be fine if you're careful because again, you don't have a chance to break the emulsion. But pouring liquid into already melted chocolate will be a disaster. If the chocolate is already melted then you should incorporate the melted chocolate into the liquid, not vice versa.
I disagree that pouring hot cream over chopped chocolate always causes it to seize. This is the only way that I make ganache, and it always turns out smooth. The trick is to start an emulsion in the center by pouring some in, rapidly whisking the very center of the mixture until the emulsion is formed, then pouring the rest in and gradually widening the concentric circles that you use to whisk the emulsion. This is the technique recommended by Greweling himself, and it works. It's a way to suspend the fat properly in the water for an emulsion.
I use this method quite regularly for making slabbed ganache. I have the book you mention too and have made the dark and stormies. The temperatures of both the chocolate and the cream really need to be spot on or it goes a little wonky. Especially when working with white chocolate which tends to burn faster.
Another issue could be with the white chocolate itself. It tends to go off quicker than others and get very crumbly. It doesn't like to melt let alone emulsify into the cream. Also it can be a little harder to spot bloom on white chocolate. Sugar bloom will cause grainy chocolate.
As far as separating, if the fat ratio is off it will cause the emulsion to break and look oily. You can rewarm it, slowly whisking in a bit of whole milk or cream which can help to rectify things.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.150924
| 2010-12-11T23:35:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10011",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Computerish",
"Janet",
"Jjp",
"Joe",
"Marie",
"Owen",
"Steven Sheeley",
"Thihara",
"Vivek Bajpai",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20496",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20497",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20521",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20542",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4145",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83700",
"rxmnnxfpvg"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28715
|
Do some breeds of chicken have particularly red meat when cooked?
Tonight, my friend and I ordered a fried chicken special at a restaurant with a local food theme. It was a great dish.
Both of us got very pink chicken. I am pretty sure that my plate had three drumsticks. Upon noticing the color, my colleague returned the dish to be more thoroughly cooked. I did not return mine, since last week I read the USDA fact sheet on poultry preparation. It says that temperature and not color should be used to test for safety, and that cooked poultry can be pink - especially when young. As I kept eating, I came across meat that was quite dark red - this was probably the pinkest chicken I have ever eaten. Other than the color, the texture and color of the meat did not seem raw.
I have a few questions:
Might the exceptional color be due in part to the breed (e.g. are there heritage breeds that have exceptionally red meat)?
Should I have been concerned (since I did not have a thermometer) (and should I have sent my chicken back?)
Is undercooked (pink) chicken more likely to be unsafe than undercooked (pink) beef? (Answers to previous questions seem to provide give conflicting answers: "no" as discussed in Why isn't it safe to eat raw chicken?; "yes" as discussed in Is it safe to prepare Chicken Tartare?)
this phenomena was covered in this question: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27796/color-change-in-duck-meat
For your third point: salmonella is a bacterium which needs rather high temperatures to die, unlike other harmful bacteria present in meat. Chicken is commonly contaminated with salmonella, while beef isn't. That's why food safety rules prescribe higher temps for chicken. So yes, undercooked chicken is less safe than beef. The answers to the first question you linked reflect the fact that some people consider the "less safe" part to still be safe enough for their level of risk aversion.
I'd certainly have asked if the chicken is supposed to be pink—restaurants do sometimes make mistakes... Oh, and also, you can prepare your own "wow, that's pink" chicken in a 57°C water bath. Its weird.
@Kristina I don't think it was covered - if this has the same cause, the presentation is different and requires the assumption that heritage chickens are more like ducks than commercial chickens. And my question is about chickens.
@rumtscho is there evidence that enough salmonella live inside rather than only on the surface of the meat to cause ill health effects?
Yes, I read your question. Chicken, like duck, has dark meat in its drumstick. Since we can only use the info you provided to try and help you, not everything may be 100% on-target. :-)
@abe There are people who have gotten salmonella from chickens, see for example http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3127710/ which starts with the words "Fresh and processed poultry have been frequently implicated in cases of human salmonellosis". I have never heard of salmonellas on beef, and there is no official prescription to cook beef to salmonella-killing temps, unlike chicken. I regard this as enough evidence to state that when it comes to salmonella, beef is safer than chicken. I have never looked into the details of the bacteria being inside vs. outside.
Puffin meat is bright red. Duck meat can be rather red as well.
I have seen some cooking process that can make chicken red or pink, Jidori chickens for example cooked at low temperatures for long periods of time.
also any kind of smoking can add a pink layer around the surface of the meat
@underarock- That is a truly beautiful thing.
You did not mention whether the restaurant was committed to serving meat from free-range chickens. The living conditions can have a major effect on the meat produced.
I raise my own chickens, and I discovered that there is almost no "white meat" on a very active chicken. White meat is a product of inactivity. The more the muscles are used, the more blood flow is needed, so the more blood vessel development is needed, and thus, the darker the meat is.
I have not encountered chicken with pink or dark red meat when cooked among my own, but I have seen it in chickens that were not properly hung and "bled out" after slaughter. If I ever do encounter pink or red in chicken meat, I recook it if possible or discard it if not.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.151427
| 2012-11-28T06:31:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28715",
"authors": [
"Abe",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Lolita ",
"Nicholas Kemp",
"Oliver Schöning",
"Sobachatina",
"costy.petrisor",
"derobert",
"howard",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14506",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3945",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66427",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66431",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66492",
"rumtscho",
"underarock",
"user143143"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
65342
|
Where to buy football/quenelle/shell-like scoop/mold/mould [food presentation]?
Some places serve rice in a football/quenelle/shell-like shaped scoop/mold/mould for food presentation. It's consistent at many teriyaki places so I suspect it's something you can purchase.
I've searched for the following terms: football, shell, prolate spheroid, oval, quenelle, in conjunction with scoop, mold/mould but haven't had any luck.
(Click images for larger view)
The closest I've found is a "Deep Boat Petit Four Mould", but the bottom is flat instead of a dome.
Edit: This is used to mold sticky rice, ideally they would have the 'shell like' ridges running longitudinally/lengthwise). All of these teriyaki pictures are from the Seattle area.
Update (2016-06-19): Found the mold in use in Japan. It's commonly used in omurice.
(From this video)
@clcto I'd upvote that if you made it an answer.
There is a technique called quenelling where you form this shape using two spoons. It appears to be usually used for ice cream and other items of similar consistency but I don't see why it wouldn't work for steamed rice (although those would have to be large spoons).
i tried this before posting my question, sticky rice doesn't roll very well. in addition, this would be too slow for a high volume shop
There seem to be a good few available on Amazon. I just searched for "quenelle mould".
yep, found those but the one i'm looking for has 'shell' indentations and is about 125mm x 75mm (L x W)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.151911
| 2016-01-12T23:23:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65342",
"authors": [
"AVM Creatives",
"Andrew C.",
"Carlene Rowson",
"Jane Stanger",
"Juan Genesini",
"Lam Chau",
"Steve Young",
"TammyK",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156193",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156239",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156280",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156302",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3954",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
34063
|
Adding baking powder as a final step
Being someone that bakes infrequently I prefer to have plain flour on hand and add baking powder rather than purchase self-raising flour. Something I've noticed recently by experimentation and further research is that the faster I work the more success I've have with the rising process. The following question and answer explains that perfectly because I've confirmed my baking powder is double-acting:
Will double-action baking powder lose potency if not baked immediately?
Most baking recipes seem to specify preparing the dry and wet ingredients seperately and combining as the final step. I wondered in cases where that is somewhat time consuming or I am preparing other dishes in parallel if there would be any merit in mixing through the baking powder last? It seems like a reasonable approach to me but I've seen reputable recipes that recommend the wet / dry approach even when baking power is listed as a seperate ingredient.
The main problem with adding the baking powder last would be getting it evenly incorporated throughout the dough or batter.
In the traditional methods where it is in the dry ingredients, it can be sifted or whisked evenly throughout the dry mixture which facilitates having it evenly distributed in the final batter.
If you tried adding the powder to a batter that was prepared except for it, even sprinkling it across the surface, it would be more difficult to evenly distribute throughout the entire batter. Also, you would then have to mix or beat the batter again to distribute the baking powder, which would develop additional gluten and lead to a tougher end product.
Remember, baking powder requires liquid in order to react (in dry form, the acid and sodium bicarbonate don't interact with each other). When you think about it, in the major baking methods where baking powder is used, the baking powder is activated as late as possible right before baking—the wet and dry parts of the batter don't meet up until the last step:
Muffin method. The wet and dry ingredients are mixed separately, and can be held. They are combined, mixed gently, then portioned into molds or pans and baked immediately.
Creaming method, common for cakes. Typically, the ingredients will be divided into the three groups: an emulsification of creamed butter and sugar, eggs, and perhaps vanilla; a liquid ingredient or mixture (such as sour cream or milk), and the dry flour mixture. Each of these stages again can be set up in advance. They are combined (usually alternating the liquid and dry in two or three stages to maintain the butter/liquid emulsion and to minimize lumping) as the last step in developing the batter.
So even if you need to try to fit baking in with other preparations, you can stage your prep, up to the final combination at your leisure.
If I want muffins for a brunch party (or cornbread on Thanksgiving, when my oven is scheduled down to the minute), I prepare a wet mix and a dry mix the night before (remember, wet mix in the fridge for safety). When I am ready to bake, I just mix the two together, scoop into the muffin tins, and bake.
If you mix in the baking powder as a final step, you will have already added the flour, right? So you will end up mixing more (once for the flour, once for the baking powder) and this could possibly result in overmixing and thus in a tough baked dish.
Another reason why adding the baking powder at last is not as good as you'd think, is that the baking powder could clump together if you throw it in as it is. If you premix it in with the flour, it will be distributed more evenly.
It is possible that your approach is indeed better for the baking powder itself (less contact with the moist ingredients). However, I think this difference is very small and would not make a real difference towards the leavening, if you work quickly.
I added baking powder to a small amount of additional meal with some water to make it more liquid than solid, then I poured it into/onto the dough and remixed everything together. Thus I had a brand new dough with the baking powder.
In Denmark we don't get self raising flour, so we always add it in the end - sort of. The basic cake procedure is to whip eggs and sugar, add and whip in butter, and then mix the dry things flour and baking powder in the most basic recipes, or flavours like cocoa powder.
I just add the flour on top of the egg/butter mixture, and then stir in the baking powder in the top part of the flour (so I only have one bowl to clean). Then we pour milk/coffee/rum whatever/fruit puree liquid on top and whip on slow speed until uniform. It always turns out perfectly fluffy for me this way.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.152088
| 2013-05-11T09:25:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34063",
"authors": [
"Cook",
"Doval",
"Geoff",
"JBGreen",
"Jeroen",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"acpgee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79213",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79222",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79225"
],
"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
}
|
56859
|
Cooking rhubarb with soda
On a different question on rhubarb, a link to the wikipedia-page was posted. It is stated there that cooking rhubarb leaves with soda can make them more poisonous.
Does the same hold true for cooking the rhubarb stem and adding soda? Up until know, I thought it was a nice and easy way to reduce the sour taste a bit.
I think the same caveat from the other question applies here. The leaves aren't strictly poisonous - they're toxic in large quantities. The stems aren't completely safe - they're also toxic in much larger quantities. Soda will increase the toxicity of both, but the starting point is a lot lower if you're cooking the stems. If you've been doing this already and you haven't gotten sick, that's a good sign, but the exact risk is difficult to quantify. Probably best to avoid for infants, elderly, and pregnant eaters just in case.
If you'd convert your answer to an answer, I could upvote it. On topic: No, I don't remember getting sick of it. But then, maybe I got sick and just don't know anymore if I ate rhubarb beforehands...
My vote goes to @rumtscho, whose answer covers the same points - if anything I might propose a couple of edits.
There's more than one answer I can upvote...
The whole quote is
Cooking the leaves with soda can make them more poisonous by producing soluble oxalates
I can't tell you if the claim as a whole is true. But if it is true for the leaves, it is true for the stems too.
Rhubarb contains oxalic acid and its salts which are created by the acid reacting with different metal ions such as calcium and magnesium. It's true that these salts have different solubility and bioavailability. And both the leaves and the stems contain oxalic acid and salts, just in different concentration.
So, if cooking the leaves in soda turns the insoluble oxalates in them to soluble ones, then the same will happen when cooking the stems. For the metal ions, it's irrelevant if they are reacting with an oxalate ion which used to "live" in the leaf or in the stem. Anything which makes the leaves worse will also make the stems worse.
So... Is it safe to cook rhubarb with soda or am I better off not doing it?
I have no idea. Wikipedia lists an Australian book from 1974 as the source of their claim, I doubt that we can find a copy and look at the reference in detail. And this sentence is too little for further research. Especially, they don't say which oxalates are the old (insoluble) ones and which ones are created when cooking with soda.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.152466
| 2015-04-22T14:06:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56859",
"authors": [
"Cheryl Roth",
"Jim Koutou",
"Karen Fonticoba",
"Thaoden",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135253",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135254",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135255",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135256",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28693",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"logophobe",
"rumtscho",
"sandra noblett"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45834
|
How to make Coconut/Chili Sauce (based on Photos)
This is a Vietnamese dish described in the menu as "Scampi with Coconut/Chili Sauce". Can anyone tell me what ingredients I would need to make this sauce at home?
I enclose two different variants from two related restaurants, where the sauce varies slightly. The one above which is thicker tastes better.
Is it sweet at all? How spicy is it?
The photographs are useful, but you should be trying to give us more information on what you're trying to recreate, as per our guidelines on these types of questions. Otherwise you're likely to get wild guesses as answers, as indicated by the totally different answers submitted so far. For example, in what way did the first one taste "better" than the second? And have you tried just mixing chili sauce and coconut milk or cream and comparing?
I agree with Aaronut and probably should not have answered with such a thorough recipe. I only did it because the pictures looked good to me and I wanted to give it a shot. I think we'll probably get away with it this time, but restaurant mimicry questions should be much more specific about problems you have had trying to do it yourself.
I'm closing this - it's old, hadn't seen it, but it's clearly more a recipe request than an actual restaurant mimicry question. Any recipe for a coconut chili sauce would suffice here (thus it's a broad recipe request of the sort we like to avoid), while restaurant mimicry is intended to be used for duplicating a restaurant's recipe based on substantial detail (so that it's not terribly broad, because there's really only one recipe that works).
UPDATE:
OK, I made my version of the sauce twice, I learned a little bit from my first attempt, so I'm going to walk you through my second. Although the ingredients in the stir-fry are vastly different (I had some left over chicken and I have a thing for frozen peas), I think the ingredients and technique I'm demonstrating here will work fine for you as far as copying the sauce. In the technique, I borrowed heavily from the traditions of other cultures, but the ingredients are all Vietnamese staples.
Weapons of Destruction
Notice what you don't see here? There is no soy sauce here. The Vietnamese do not use a lot of what westerners think of as soy sauce.
From Wiki:
In Vietnam, Chinese-style soy sauce is called xì dầu (derived from the Cantonese name 豉油) or nước tương. The term "soy sauce" could also imply other condiments and soy bean paste with thick consistency known as tương. Both are used mostly as a seasoning or dipping sauce for a number of dishes. Vietnamese cuisine itself favors fish sauce in cooking but nước tương has a clear presence in vegetarian cooking.
Fish Sauce
This is a very highly regarded brand of Vietnamese style fish sauce (nuoc mam). Even though it is made in Hong Kong, it is authentically Vietnamese and easily found in the US. It's commonly referred to as Three Crabs. It is the preferred brand of one of my favorite food bloggers, the one who taught me everything I know about Vietnamese cuisine, so I'll take her advice and I do very much like the sauce.
Coconut Milk
I highly recommend this brand. It won the America's Test Kitchen tasting of coconut milk, and it separates readily. That will become important later. Whatever brand you choose be sure that it contains no added emulsifiers, and that it is a full-fat (not light) version.
Chili Sauce
These are all the same brand. They're made in the US in the Vietnamese way; the founder of the company got his start in Vietnam selling hot sauces. This brand is ubiquitous in the US. The sriracha can be added at the end if you think the sauce still needs more punch. The chili sauce and the Sambal Oelek are identical products except that the Sambal Oelek does not contain garlic, the chili sauce does. So choose one or the other. I used Sambal Oelek simply because I have a lot of garlic that needs to be used.
The Broth
The broth in the lower right is just low sodium chicken broth I kept at the ready in case I felt that the sauce needed to be thinned. I didn't use it, but I did mix it with the sauce I had left over to make a soup for another day.
The other broth is a flavor bomb! This particular one has a chicken broth base. If you're making the recipe with shrimp, making the broth is a good way to use use the shells. You could also add some clam juice or even bonito flakes (yes, wrong culture) to amp up the seafood flavor. A key to the success of this sauce is that this broth should be very potent, and deliciously addictive on it's own. I started with 2 cups of low sodium chicken broth (use seafood broth if making it with shrimp), threw in the bones from the leftover chicken I used, a golf ball sized piece of ginger (roughly chopped), the zest of an entire lemon, a couple of cloves of garlic, and a healthy shot of fish sauce. If I had been able to get lemongrass and/or kaffir lime leaf, this is where I would have used them (and I would have skipped the lemon zest). I reduced the broth down to half the original volume, and strained.
Even though I used ginger, fish sauce and garlic later in the recipe, I used them here too because these ingredients are all subtly different after long cooking. It's a fancy-pants flavor layering thing.
The Stir-Fry
Whatever floats your boat will work here; get the ingredients just to your preferred level of doneness. Since mushrooms are such flavor sponges I sauteed some garlic and ginger before I started them, and stir fried them with little slices of red jalapeno (that's the red in the picture). Since I prefer mushrooms fairly well-done, I sauteed for a while before I added onions. The onions went for a while, then the zucchini and leftover chicken only briefly. I only added the thawed peas after taking the pan off the heat. The whole thing will be just heated through in the sauce when it's done.
The Seasonings
Minced Garlic
Ginger (it's micro-planed, so it looks like less than it is, plus there is a lot of ginger in the broth)
Dark Brown Sugar
Cilantro (this is just how I keep cilantro in my fridge, I make an all-purpose condiment when I bring it home fresh.
Missing I wish I could have gotten my hands on some Thai Basil. I would have chiffonaded 3 or 4 leaves and added them with the cilantro.
PUTTING IT TOGETHER
Cracking the Cream
This is actually a technique seen often in Thai curries. I don't know if it's seen often in Vietnamese cuisine, but it makes for a thicker sauce which I know you want.
Hopefully you've allowed your coconut milk to stand undisturbed in the can for at least several days, it contains no emulsifiers, and it is a full-fat (not light) variety. If so, when you open the can, the top portion of the milk should be significantly thicker than the bottom. It's very much like how dairy milk separates if it hasn't been homogenized. Like dairy milk, the fat rises to the top. That's what we're taking advantage of here.
Scoop out the thick "cream" (the top third or so of the can) and put it in your skillet, cook over medium heat, stirring occasionally until you start to see the oil separate out. That's pure coconut oil. It may take several minutes for the oil to separate out. If it just looks like it isn't going to happen, add a teaspoon of neutral oil (or better yet, coconut oil) to the pan and pretend that it worked.
Saute your garlic, ginger, and chile paste or Sambal Oelek in that oil.
That's half the jar of Sambal Oelek, BTW. This is not for the weak of heart.
Reduce, Thicken and Simmer
In goes the brown sugar.
Cook it down over medium heat, stirring frequently, until you're left with an almost dry, thick paste.
Add your rich broth and the rest of the can of coconut milk.
Simmer that (stirring frequently) until it is as thick as you want. Taste for fish sauce, add as much more as you care too.
Add your stir-fry and fresh herbs and heat through. Taste for seasonings, I added sriracha. Now you're ready to plate.
EDIT: It bugged me that my sauce looked chunkier and less silky than the one in your picture, so the next day I strained the leftover sauce that had a little extra broth. That required just a bit of thickening with a cornstarch slurry to be thick enough, but now it looks just right. Both versions of the sauce are equally delicious.
Here's one more shot. The picture had been briefly lost. This is my first attempt at the sauce. It was delicious, but like my second attempt, perhaps it would have benefited from a bit more broth, possibly straining (if you really don't like chunks), and a touch of cornstarch slurry. It's less red because I wasn't in such a hot and spicy mood:
Just a couple of final notes:
If you make this with shrimp, I recommend that you don't stir-fry it. Velvet it instead. Velveting is discussed here: How does velveting work? and it makes for a lovely piece of tender, flavorful shrimp, perfect for this recipe.
This shrimp has been velveted. If you treat slices of chicken breast the same way, you can see a hint of a batter. You can't see that with shrimp, but the technique still "works".
If you follow the instructions in the link provided on that question, the shrimp will end up just shy of perfectly done, so they'll be perfect after being heated in the sauce.
As a matter of fact, I would recommend velveting any meat that you might use in this sauce.
Velveting is a Chinese technique, but I won't tell anyone if you don't.
Lastly, the formed mound of rice on the side is definitely the way to plate this instead of with the stir-fry over rice. There was something very nice about getting a bite with some just pure white rice and some stir-fry with sauce.
That's it. Let me know how it goes.
I think you nailed it with Thai basil. That'd be a pretty underwhelming amount of cilantro, and a couple of those strips look a little more leafy to me. Also, yes, that's definitely some kind of summer squash in the second picture. If it's not zucchini it's close enough to make no difference.
I should have added in my first comment that a little corn starch might have been used to thicken the first sauce - that's a common technique in Asian cooking. You could give that a try too if you want more variables in your experiment. Happy cooking!
@logophobe You know what else it could be? Kaffir Lime Leaf.
The pieces don't look like quite the right size to me. Those are usually either left whole and not eaten, or cut into very fine chiffonade; the leaves are kind of tough, like fresh bay leaf. So I think that's less likely than basil or cilantro (although it would be a pretty tasty addition).
I tried the Chili-Garlic sauce with Coconut Milk, adding Thai Basil plus vegetables. The result was OK, but rather tame compared to the restaurant. Did you mean I should add ginger, lime, fish sauce, lemon grass, etc? Also, how do I make the sauce thick like the first picture? Do you just have to cook the coconut milk long enough, or do they use corn starch or something?
@forthrin Yes, I mean to include those seasoning in the sauce. I actually made a stab at the dish a couple of days ago, and I thought it was great. My first attempt was actually too thick. I plan to write up my findings later today.
Wow! I can't believe you went through all this. I will try recreating this with a friend some day soon. If you nailed it, I will be singing "Jolene" and thinking well of the cold north the rest of the week!
@forthrin Sing all you want, an "accept" is even better. :) I'll hear your singing when I see the green check-mark!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.152722
| 2014-07-24T10:04:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45834",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Cascabel",
"Dindo Afable",
"Harleigh Warren",
"Jason S",
"Joey bag of donuts",
"Jolenealaska",
"Melton Classics",
"Movical spam",
"OzarkAlchemist",
"Pete Dixon",
"Spammer",
"Syon Associates",
"forthrin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109935",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110003",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110008",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110009",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156099",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"liamauthor",
"logophobe",
"strong leon",
"user110122"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
51988
|
What is a good technique for making candy floss (cotton candy)?
I have a candy floss machine, but I'm struggling to get the floss all together. It just flies around and makes a mess of the bowl.
It looks like this:
What is a good technique for making a stick of candy floss?
What machine do you have? Do you have a manual?
@Jolenealaska I have added a picture - it is the "gourmet gadgetry candy floss maker".
I found this video on YouTube that happens to be exactly your product. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIMQ5moX37A. It just shows her using the machine, there is no explanation, but you might find it helpful. One thing I see right off the bat is that your little machine takes a lot longer than professional ones I've seen, but it seems to do the trick.
It's been decades since I've done it, and it was with a full size professional machine (from a party rental store). From what I remember:
Wait for it to accumulate on the sides
Reach in with a stick or a paper cone, down to the bottom of the spun sugar
Pull up while scraping the stick along the side of the machine.
There was spinning involved, too. I want to say that you spun the stick after you had the candy clear of the machine, not while it was in the machine, but my memory of that part is a bit hazy.
Never put your hand into the machine. I don't know if it was the hot sugar getting flung off, or some sort of a straw nozzle flailing about, but whatever it is, it hurts. (that much I remember).
It's possible that the procedure is different for smaller, personal machines. For one, they don't tend to have as much space to accumulate the floss to make a full cone in one pass.
I run the cotton candy machines for our Shriner Circus. What we do is wait for the floss to start forming on the sides, take a paper cone or stick and touch it to the floss. Then we start rotating it around the bowl opposite the direction it is being spun. You can also spin the stick or cone which may work better for you. Ours produces a lot of floss and it works better to circle the bowl.
That model is considered a toy basically asking how to make a wedding cake in your EZ bake.
First let machine warm up for at least 3-5 minutes.
Second turn machine off and add sugar. Preferably gold medals Floss sugar as it works the easiest. Turn machine back on.
Now the toy aspect of the machine starts. The spinner is small and the Floss holes are very few the bowl is also plastic. It will come out very wispy and stick to the sides like glue.
Best you can hope for is a 1/4 to 1/2 size cone in around 2 minutes. By spinning and small circles.
You give little information on the technique for making it. Most of this is a rant about the machine...
@Tim Pointing out that the results may not be as good as expected due to the quality of the machine explains why your results are so poor... Perhaps the wording could be better but it's still valid to point out... Other than the first sentence, the entire rest of the post seems to explain how to actually use it, though... Regardless, doesn't seem like that much of a "rant", merely a note that the results may not be as good as a professional machine.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.153654
| 2014-12-26T15:52:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/51988",
"authors": [
"ALXS SKN GYM",
"Catija",
"Donna Reisner",
"Fodil BZ",
"Gabriella Nye",
"Jim Barron",
"Jolenealaska",
"Leslie Weaver",
"Michael Kerr",
"Neil Clark",
"See Yong Wong",
"Spammer",
"Tim",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123311",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123326",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123327",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123366",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123371",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123378",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"joanne mendies"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
71445
|
Scraping Caramel for Flan
America's Test Kitchen proposes the following recipe as their "Perfect Latin Flan" (pg. 785, The Complete America's Test Kitchen Cookbook 2001-2016):
This recipe should be made at least 1 day before serving. We recommend
an 8.5 x 4.5 inch loaf plan for this recipe.
4 2/3 oz sugar
1/4 cup water + 2 tablespoons warm tap water
2 large eggs + 5 large yolks
14 oz sweetened condensed milk
12 oz evaporated milk
1/2 cup whole milk
1 1/2 tablespoons vanilla extract
1/2 teaspoon salt
Stir together sugar and 1/4 cup water in medium heavy saucepan until sugar is completely moistened. Bring to boil over medium-high
heat, 3-5 minutes and cook without stirring until mixture begins to
turn golden, another 1 to 2 minutes. Gently swirling pan, continue to
cook until sugar is the color of peanut butter, 1 to 2 minutes. Remove
from heat and swirl pan until sugar is reddish-amber and fragnant,
15-20 seconds. Carefully swirl in 2 tablespoons warm tap water until
incorporated; mixture will bubble and steam. Pour caramel into 8.5 x
4.5 inch loaf pan; do not scrape out saucepan. Set loaf pan aside.
Adjust oven rack to middle position and heat oven to 300 degrees. Line bottom of 13 x 9 baking pan with dish towel, folding towel to fit
smoothly and set aside. Bring 2 quarts water to boil.
Whisk eggs and yolks until combined. Add sweetened condensed milk, evaporated milk, whole milk, vanilla, and salt, and whisk until
incorporated. Strain mixture through fine-mesh strainer into prepared
loaf pan.
Cover loaf pan tightly with aluminum foil and place in prepared baking pan. Place baking pan in oven and carefully pour boiling water
into pan. Bake until center of custard jiggles slightly when shaken
and custard registers 180 degrees, 1.25 to 1.5 hours. Remove foil and
leave custard in water bath until loaf pan has cooled to room
temperature. Wrap loaf pan tightly with plastic wrap and chill
overnight or up to 4 days.
To unmold, slide paring knife around edges of pan. Invert serving platter on top of pan and turn pan and platter over. When flan is
released, remove loaf pan. Use rubber spatula to scrape residual
caramel onto flan. Slice and serve. Leftover flan may be covered
loosely and refrigerated for up to 4 days.
It would seem like the amount of caramel left in the pan if you don't scrape would vary based on the size of the saucepan you use. Why would you not scrape the remaining caramel into the pan? Would it affect the texture/flavor?
(note : I'd have posted this as a comment because I don't have personal experience w/ this, but people keep complaining when I do as this might have enough information to be considered an answer)
I don't know about this case, but in other times when you're cooking down sugar there's always a fear of 'seed crystals' getting into the sugar (causing it to become grainy).
A little searching seems to support that theory. There were many websites talking about seed crystals, but I'm going to quote the one from Fine Cooking (The Science of Caramel), as they specifically mention problems with the sides of the pan:
http://www.finecooking.com/item/60729/the-science-of-caramel :
What can go wrong when making caramel?
The caramel turns grainy
The biggest drawback to the wet method is that the sugar tends to recrystallize more easily than it does with the dry method. When the sugar and water boil, sugar syrup may splash onto the wall of the pot, where it evaporates quickly and forms back into sugar crystals. If even one of these crystals falls back into the syrup, it can seed a chain reaction, turning the clear syrup opaque and grainy. Should this happen, you can remove it from the heat, add a few tablespoons of water, return it to the heat, and stir until the crystals dissolve before continuing on. That said, it's better to keep recrystallization from occurring in the first place, so here are a few ways to prevent it: ...
See the article at Fine Cooking for advice on how to prevent seed crystals and other information on caramel.
Yeah, that makes sense. I suppose the bottom scraping could seed it.
@Batman : I think it's actually the sides that are the problem -- "sugar syrup may splash onto the wall of the pot, where it evaporates quickly and forms back into sugar crystals". It'd be interesting to scrape the remaining into another container, so you can test what happens. (although it may be a 'risk mitigation' and not guaranteed to happen)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.153993
| 2016-07-16T03:06:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71445",
"authors": [
"Batman",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
70691
|
Best way to store tomato paste/puree?
What is the best way to store tomato paste or tomato purée? Just to be clear, I'm talking about this stuff
At home we buy metal cans of the stuff (500g or 1Kg), but once opened, within about 5 to 6 days, mould starts to grow, and within 2 weeks, you have a thick layer of green/blue mould on top.
If you scope that top layer off, the you're back to the good stuff underneath.
What is the best way to store this so that I can avoid this mould growth?
Any help and advice would be greatly appreciated.
I've sometimes had it remain free from mould for a long time, when the top dried out. So an experimental technique could be to dry out the top more quickly using in the oven, but I haven't tried this myself. Maybe even under the grill...
We buy large cans at home just like you do. We prevent it from spoiling by freezing it. Stored in the freezer the paste stays good for months, it's just a matter of correct storage.
What we do is the following: spoon a portion into a plastic bag -> twist the bag around several times -> tie off with a tierib (we use the thingies you get in the package with the bags themselves) and then repeat until done.
Every time you want to use the paste, just cut off a portion from the sausage-like string you will have.
Other options include using icecube trays, but we don't prefer that due to the small size of the cubes and the fact that the trays don't have a lid.
The idea of the ice cube trays is after it freezes, you dump it out of the tray and in to a freezer bag (etc.). Not to permanently store it in the tray.
That is a brilliant addition to above answer, thank you both.
I do this as well. I put the tomato paste in a zip bag and break off a hunk as I need it. While it freezes, it never gets solid enough to be difficult to break off pieces.
There is no way to stop it. The storage lifetime of opened tomato paste is 5-7 days (you can check storage lifetime at StillTasty).
You have to buy smaller packages of the paste.
Tomato paste is very concentrated, you often don't need more than a spoon. 500g or 1kg cans are really for commercial purposes where you will go through it quickly. The only way to store it long term is to freeze it, so you could parcel it up in single use bags I suppose.
I'd suggest getting smaller cans you will get through, or buy it in a tube. Tubed paste lasts for months in the fridge.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.154436
| 2016-06-14T08:07:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/70691",
"authors": [
"Cerberus",
"J86",
"LMAshton",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5376"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
56818
|
Can cheap vodka be used for cooking (with good results)?
A friend left about half of a bottle of some questionable, admittedly very cheap plastic-bottle of 80-proof grain vodka at my house. I should have remembered the name, but I'll edit it in when I get home if need be. Anyway, I don't drink very often, but have a few recipes in mind, so I just want to know if A) low-quality vodka will lead to the same culinary results as, say, a low-quality wine, and B) is there anything I can try to see whether or not this particular bottle is suitable? In case you're wondering, I'm looking to make my grandfather's borscht recipe and some hazelnut liqueur (for baking and occasionally adding to coffee).
Also, I did read this answer, and like the... ah... answerer, I suspect that any differences in this vodka have something to do with it being at the very bottom of the price range.
EDIT : Both the borscht and liqueur came out great. At first I thought the liqueur was far too harsh, but it seems that letting it sit for a few days after filtering let it smooth out.
You could always run it through a carbon filter to get rid of the nasty congeners.
Just FWIW... My grandmother who was fresh off the boat from France 60 yrs ago, (not a professional chef), always told me to never cook with an alcohol you wouldn't drink. She was referring to cooking wines when she mentioned this, but I personally would apply it here as well.
Many of my family, friends, and random people online have expressed similar sentiment, which is a large part of why I asked. However, I think that applies more strongly to things that people would never even think of drinking- the generic "cooking wine" found in grocery stores, for example.
Cheaper spirits can certainly be used in culinary applications. The results won't be identical, but inexpensive liquors are a lot more cost-effective since the subtle differences in flavor between middling and quality spirits tend to get masked by other flavors. This is especially true when you're applying heat, which will burn off much of the alcohol (though not all) and change some of the volatile flavor compounds in the spirit. For things like a tomato sauce made with wine, a pan sauce deglazed with brandy, or a dessert flambeed with rum, the difference between bottom-shelf and high-end product will be evident only in the cost.
Poor-quality vodka will have some "rough" flavors if you're drinking it straight, and those might carry over into the liqueur in particular. Chilling will help, so you probably won't notice much difference in your borscht, and once you bake the liqueur into something I doubt any flavor difference will be noticeable in the final product. As a rule of thumb, the more you manipulate the spirit, the less you'll notice its provenance.
I can say confidently that using free, leftover plonk in a culinary application will be a much better use than drinking it!
you couldn't pay me to drink Jim Beam but flambeing mushrooms used it up. Cheap vodka however I would use as kitchen disinfectant
I make liqueurs and always buy the cheap stuff, makes no difference at all in the final product.
I make homemade Kahlua using a cheaper vodka (a step or two above the $5/gallon one) and with everything else it in, you can't taste the difference. Nor are there the cheap alcohol side effects with it.
You can also use a charcoal/carbon filter and remove some of the harsh impurities in the cheap neutral spirits such as your vodka. Here is a link if you would like to read more. Here a second article that discusses same approach, just different insight.
I actually saw Mythbusters do this ages ago, so I know it works- I just don't have the filter!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.154914
| 2015-04-20T14:48:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56818",
"authors": [
"Brian Thompson",
"Brooke",
"Darius Hamilton",
"Lionel Cable",
"MegaMark",
"Michael Faulkner Sr.",
"Michael Peel",
"Pat Sommer",
"RICK",
"Rebecca Emmanuel",
"RoseMarie Pollock",
"angela Vanossome",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135130",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24724",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35029",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"zwol"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
47190
|
Runny Cookie Dough
Roasted Peanut Cookies
It is raining outside and the water drops are pelting my window.Warmed some milk and gathered some pots to bake some cookies
Flour (1 1/2 cups)
White & Brown Sugar (1/2 cups)
Eggs (2)
Milk (1/4 cups)
Vegetable Oil (3 1/3 oz)
Roasted Peanuts (3 1/3 oz)
Baking Powder (1 teaspoon)
So I preheated the oven to 150o. Mixed the flour, sugar, egg, milk, oil and baking powder in a pot. To the brown mixture, I added the grounded peanuts and mixed them evenly. The dough appeared runny and wouldn't dry up even with the addition of more flour. I placed medium sized blobs of this "paste" on the baking tray and cut them in to circles. I placed them in the freezer for about fifteen minutes and baked them in the preheated oven for about twenty five minutes.
Turns out, today was a lucky day; they turned out quite fine... or maybe flat.
But, what about the runny batter? How could I avoid that in the future. I wasn't able to roll them in hands since it was sticky and gooey.
I already went through some posts here on stackexchange and they were quite informative.
What kind of cookies can be shaped?
What determines the shape-holding ability of cookies?
Typically, if adding flour doesn't help immediately, you can let the dough (batter?) sit covered, in the fridge for a while.
The chill will help to firm the dough up, and the extra time will allow the flour to fully hydrate.
If it's still not workable after that point, put it onto either plastic wrap or waxed paper, and roll it into a log, twisting the ends, then freeze the log. You can then unwrap the log, and slice cookies off to be baked.
I said 'batter' because of the liquid like consistency that I got while making these.
You need to skip the milk in the cookie recipe.
If you want to add dairy, you can put dry milk or cream cheese. Milk isn't for cookies.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.155248
| 2014-09-16T21:49:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47190",
"authors": [
"Azadeh",
"Cheryl Slayton",
"Jadine Dewitt",
"Mike Roth",
"Renae Lider",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113894",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113895",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113899",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24756",
"scott duncan"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
64401
|
What is the difference between making French baguettes and US style baguettes?
I have noticed that there is a large difference between French baguettes with chewy crust and consistent airy and chewy inside.
Baguettes in the US are a different type. I am referring to the ones I find in serious bakeries (not mass production ones). They're often fluffy inside like a sandwich loaf, and the crust is either crispy or totally soft.
What are the differences in the production process which determine that a baguette will be of the French type as opposed to the US type? How are French baguettes made?
I have found authentic baguettes, but only at a small independent bakery, not a chain supermarket. I think it's more a cultural preference for a less crispy/tough crust, so most stores sell what most people prefer...
@Erica - Well I haven't found that. I have talked to smaller bakeries and they tried to do a special batch to mimic the baguette... they were often good but not baguette.
I've only found one really good baguette bakery in the four states I've lived in -- they are definitely not common!
Cleaning up comments. If you think you can answer the question, post an answer. If you want to discuss your preferences for various types of baguettes, please find a place besides this page.
@blankip Of course, please weigh in if you're actually talking about the radically different baguette-shaped bread often sold in supermarkets (basically a plain somewhat crusty American white bread in baguette shape) rather than the good but not French breads from actual bakeries. It does seem that perhaps Joe wasn't the only one who thought you might be asking about mass-produced supermarket bread.
Hi blankip, I'm sorry I had to edit your question quite heavy-handed. Even after the last edit, there is evidence that people understand it like an invitation to start either bashing or defending the business decisions made by US bakers. I made the language more neutral, while keeping the part which, according to you in a now-deleted comment, was the main point.
If you buy a French baguette in the morning, you can use it as weapon or vehicle jack in the evening. It is no surprise that a Frenchman, Jean-Baptiste Boussingault, tried 1852 to prevent this by hermetically sealing the bread, as he thought the problem is merely the loss of moisture - and who then learned, that his lovely baguette would still go stale hermetically sealed and so discovered starch retrogradation at the same time.
Anyway, bread that is stale the very same day is not what the average customer wants. They want their bread to last for a week - the tradition of buying fresh bread every single day these days can be mostly seen in France and Italy, not even in Germany any longer. And in France it is easy to maintain this tradition, as the next boulangerie is just around the corner. And they usually bake in two shifts, a morning and an evening shift.
It is rather easy for a real baker to choose how the baguette has to be (if he makes the dough), all the processes are well-known since more than 50 years, but there is always a trade-off and that is the problem. The biggest trade-off is the shelf/kitchen life. You get the best shelf life without traditional yeast, without much leavening and with emulsifiers that delay the staleness. This will produce bread with a soft, cake-like interior, an uncrusty crust and uncharacteristic flavor.
Here you can see the difference in comparison:
(The lack of natural yeast and traditional rising leads to this huge difference of the inner texture, the color difference is due to the flour. Note that bleached flour is an US invention. I don't think you can get bleached flour anywhere in France or Germany.)
This is how a lot of industrial doughs are still optimized. The more shelf life you are willing to sacrifice, the closer you get to the French baguette. This is the core problem. Of course, it is possible that one bakery uses a more appropriate flour than the other bakery, but there is no magic involved that only a handful of French bakers know - if the US baker would want to mimic the French baguette perfectly, it would take him less than a week to adjust the recipe to the local circumstances. But then again, how many US bakers ever flew to France to get a baguette for comparison? And how many US bakers actually make their own dough instead of buying the French baguette dough?
It is not possible to determine afterwards why the bread is different as customer. You can make a non-industrial baguette with a terrible crust but great shelf life f.e. by incorporating buttermilk or egg yolks, but it could also have be an artificial industrial emulsifier or an industrial dough in the first place.
Let's come to the ingredients and techniques:
French baguette is flour, water, yeast and salt. That's it. The very moment you add anything else, so it lasts longer or can be better kneaded by machines, you lose.
The most important technique is time - from ingredient to baguette takes at least 3 hours and the best result is obtained by kneading it as human, because what is desirable for bread, a consistent interior by kneading over and over, is not desirable for baguette. So the big difference between the US and France is:
Regarding the steam:
The steam prevents the building of the crust as it prevents the drying out. With steam you get a larger and lighter loaf, with a thinner, but nicely glossy crust. Here you can see the glossy crust of a baguette with steam:
This is not a particular trait of French baguettes.
Hey everybody, please don't do such long discussions in comments. Chat is always an option, although this matter was probably too small for it.
This is a great answer and should have marked it much earlier.
I'm no expert but my understanding is that to get a good crust on the baguette is to have plenty of steam in the oven. I believe that industrial baguette ovens have steam injectors, but at home you can place a tray in the bottom of the oven and put boiling water in the tray to create the steam (as they do in this recipe).
I suspect that the bakeries in the US just don't use ovens with steam injectors, which is why they don't have crusty baguettes.
Ovens with steam injectors produce a much thinner crust. I have eaten many standard, cheap baguettes with obviously-steamed crust, and many traditional French style baguettes - and real French baguettes from small boulangeries in France itself - which have a more rustic, less steamed crust. While this makes for a difference between bread recipes, it does not correlate with the "French" vs "US" style baguette division.
I would say that true French baguettes have a medium thickness on the crust. It is definitely not thin but it also isn't extraordinarily thick. It may seem thick because baguettes are generally much skinnier than the US variety - so the crust is a big part of the bite.
Hmm, I believe the ovens in typical present-day bakeries in French towns, do not feature steam injection.
The flour may take some part in it. In the US most flours found in stores seem to be bleached, which may alter the bread quality. It's not easy to know for sure which quality/flavour has been used in the final product.
Absolutely. Apart from anything else, it's a fact that french boulangeries use INCREDIBLY good flour.
I'm not sure this is true for bakeries. You can easily buy unbleached flour in the store, and tons of home bakers use it pretty much exclusively, so I wouldn't just assume that real bakeries are using bleached flour.
But as it is more expensive, unbleached flour usage is not guaranteed.
"Unbleached flour usage is not guaranteed" is a pretty far cry from "most flours seem to be bleached" as your answer says.
These are two different main types of Baguette sold in France (if not globally):-
(standard) Baguette - Baguette sold globally
Baguette de Tradition - aka French Baguette
There is alot of information available on how these are made, especially on youtube. The video should show you the difference between the two and tally with your OP.
French Baguette Comparison
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.155460
| 2015-12-14T23:21:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64401",
"authors": [
"Angel",
"Cascabel",
"Dennis Anderson",
"Erica",
"Fattie",
"Fiona Montgomery",
"Glen Macdonald",
"Gloria Aguirre",
"Iliescu Codruta",
"Jeff Longo",
"John ONeill",
"John Semon",
"Linda Thomas",
"Lisa Baber",
"Madison Williams",
"William Musindo",
"Xavier Nicollet",
"aka Marina Moore",
"blankip",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153559",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153586",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153744",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153745",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153907",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153932",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40731",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"ken wolford",
"ron day",
"rose curran",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
57885
|
What is the difference in flavour between the zest of an orange vs lemon vs lime
I am anosmic (do not have a sense of smell) and therefore am reduced in my perception of flavours to the flavours my tongue can detect, every time I zest a citrus fruit I always hear everyone talk of the smells released and how full of lovely flavours they are, however when I asked them what the distinct flavour each zest gives off I am generally given vague answers that don't help me much, such as
"Orange is generally a full flavour with sweetness, lemons is sharp and lime is sharp and sour"
The reason for asking this question is as a follow up from my previous question on homemade lemonade flavour enhancing, I would like to know what (if any) is the difference in flavour released by the essential oils within the zest of different citrus fruits (lemon, lime and orange). So maybe phrasing it in terms of what flavours they enhance within a lemonade may help hone your answer to my goal of balancing my lemonade even further; though I will probably find it super useful for the rest of my cooking.
If you can't taste it, but others can, chemical composition of the essential oils might prove a useful guide for you.
Ingredients of Orange, Lemon and Lime oils:
First line shows components common to two or more of the fruits. Second line shows components unique to each fruit.
lemon oil
a-pinene, b-pinene, myrcene, limonene, linalool, sabinene, neral
camphene, a-terpinene, b-bisabolene, trans-a-bergamotene, nerol
–––––––––––––––––––––––
Lime oil
a-pinene, b-pinene, myrcene, limonene, linalool,
terpinolene, 1,8-ceneole, borneol, citral and traces of neral acetate and geranyl acetate.
––––––––––––––––––––––––
orange oil
a-pinene, myrcene, limonene, linalool, sabinene, neral
citronellal, gerania
–––––––––––––––––––––––
Looking up the flavors of the unique ingredients should provide a better, more useful answer than
"full flavour with sweetness" or "sharp and sour". Looks like the Handbook of Fruit and Vegetable Flavors would be a good place to find this information, but it's a bit on the pricey side.
I like how many answers on Seasoned Advice go in to chemical depth, and I sometimes wonder if I just suck at chemistry or everybody else is a chemist. The problem I have with these answers is that they refer to an outside source for some chemical compound to avoid using words like "full of flavor with sweetness" and "sharp and sour", only to find that the description found in the links to those compounds uses more or less the same words to describe it. For "terpinolene" in the example above: "Carrot top, terpene like, green, earthy, fruity, citrus-like, spicy, woody, sweet".
"trans-a-bergamotene": kind of like Earl grey tea.... In this particular question, we'd have come up with such descriptions for 13 different compounds. I think the resulting answer would be unwieldy, and pretty tough for most to read. That's why I went for the general ref. As you suspect most people are not chemists, but that doesn't stop anyone from asking questions that have answers involving chemistry.
True, very true. And I tend to like the answers, if only to increase knowledge :)
Hi all and thank you for your contribution @WayfaringStranger, I was hoping to go down the chemistry road and you have given me the information to jump start my investigation down that path. Being a scientist I always like to stop and consider chemistry, though often many aspects are beyond my current field of knowledge upon discovery. I will definitely have a read of that handbook as I get really into why flavours taste the way they do if treated a certain way rather than another. Are you a food scientist perchance? Just curious :)
@Fiztban: 25 years doing protein and steroid Biochemistry. The techniques creep into your approach to cooking.
I don't see anything wrong with that @WayfaringStranger food is after all the process of sanitising and preparing food in order to release chemical compounds for the body to process :)
Unfortunately, flavor is extremely difficult to describe; generally making comparisons is about the best we can do. Your quote is pretty good at describing the differences, certainly better than I could do.
Of course, if you're making lemonade for yourself the only person you have to please is yourself. If you're making lemonade to share, then I recommend the scientific approach. Accuracy in this kind of thing requires a gram scale. You can get an excellent gram scale on Amazon, reasonably accurate to the .01 gram, for under $20. A tube of disposable 2 ounce portion cups can be found on Amazon, Sam's Club, or any restaurant supply place. Those or a box of Dixie cups can hold identical product for as many people as are tasting. Conveniently, you can use a Sharpie to keep track of what cup has what lemonade.
Be sure that you're only including the colored part of the peel, the pith of all citrus fruits is bitter - beyond what most people can enjoy.
Consider various sweeteners, extracts, flavor oils and salt as well,
to achieve your ultimate lemonade.
Hi and thanks for your answer, I am a scientist by profession so that was going to be my next step :), it's a shame that for me to miss a sense seems that I miss out on so much info that is even hard to put in words. It is true that ultimately I am the only judge of my own product when its for myself, but I also like to cook for others, and though I use spices and aromas that I know work together the taste enhancement i benefit from is often very small while for friends who eat it I often get told of the depth of flavour i can produce. I just want to learn what equates to what result really.
@Fiztban This is related, it's pretty much a description of how I did a very similar thing. In this case there was no sensory challenge, just one person with an experienced palate and one without. http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7346/how-can-i-train-myself-to-identify-flavors-better/37849#37849. Another answer to the same question recommends the book Taste What You're Missing
Sorry for the delay in replying, thank you for your suggestion, the book looks like an interesting read and worth checking out, something to read once my thesis is out the way. I guess the approach of taste comparison between lemonades is something worth doing, though it requires a bit more planning as some lemons taste different from each other (to me) I am very sensitive to taste having been my only flavour detecting sense since birth. I will most likely try to work on a way of extracting the flavour out of comparable masses of clean zest, it's the root rather than the final flavour I want.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.156129
| 2015-05-31T09:43:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57885",
"authors": [
"Beatrice Broadway",
"Farook Shirazi",
"Fiztban",
"Hamptons Wine tours",
"Jolenealaska",
"Ky Clark",
"Mansuk Bhogaita",
"Sammy Benipal",
"Siobhan de Little",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"beverly hamrick",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137835",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137836",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137837",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137840",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137854",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137904",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
49874
|
Why did my idli looked cooked from outside but was still mushy inside?
I sometimes try using Homemade batter for making idlis and dosas as I live in the perfect temperate climate which is required for fermenting the batter properly and wish to cut down on the preservatives which are found in ready to use batter packets.
Usually it comes nice and fluffy, sometimes a little hard due to more urad in it. But this time when I thought the batter was all perfect, my idlis totally disappointed me. In the steamer it looked as if it had cooked perfectly although it did not rise much, but to my disbelief when I removed it from the steamer's plate, and opened it up it was uncooked inside.
Can anyone suggest what am I doing wrong here? I ferment the batter overnight. Is it less? Will it not become rotten if I keep it outside for 24 hours? I know its like a rocket science which either one gets it or not, but I am looking for a desi method here which will not disappoint me everytime!
P.S. I just realised that I also changed my steaming process. Do you think that could have changed something?
Earlier I was using a pot like this over the flame:
Now I use an electric steamer and keep the idli plate in the steamer section, something like this:
"uncooked" caught my attention - did you notice anything different about the steaming?
Yes..I changed the way I steam recently. While earlier I used to steam idlis in a pot with water over the stove flame, now I have started using an electric steamer where the water stays below and the steamer section is kept above just like in the usual pot. Could that be a reason? Different ways of steaming can produce different results??
@neels I'm not sure I understand your description. "Used to steam idlis in a pot with water" vs. "steamer where the water stays below" - do you mean that earlier, your idlis were submerged in the water?
No, even in the pot water stayed below and idli plate at a distance! The only thing changed is, instead of stove flame and steel pot now I use an electric cooker cum steamer! Sorry for the confusion!
Yeah. My new steamer does have a hole in it however the old one did not have. I haven't tried the pressure cooker though. I guess I should get back to my old steamer and dump the new one! :)
When you say that usually it comes out fine, this suggests that you have a method and that this method has proven itself a reliable one. This reconciles well with the remainder of what you describe, which posits your current predicament as something of a one-off experience. In short, there's clearly in this go round some unaccounted for factor, (and probably beyond what can be apprehended though some may wish to venture a guess), which caused your batter to respond poorly to otherwise familiar conditions. More likely an issue of quality control here or there. Rather than labor further over the same batch or, for that matter, dread its recurrence, it is perhaps best to rely with confidence on what usually occurs, as this is plainly the best predictor of future events.
It sounds like there was a very specific failure this time, and figuring out what caused it would help avoid it in the future, rather than having another batch randomly fail. I'm not sure if "something unknown changed" is really a helpful answer.
I am sorry to say, but your answer looks so generic and makes me wonder whether you have any idea about idli's or not!!!
I am so sorry, Neels, that my answer came across as reductive or even overly clinical. I didn't mean it that way. Now going back over it however, I can certainly see where it comes across as "Why worry over it?" or the like. I hope someone is able to provide you with an answer which suits what you have in mind rather than which attempts to have you rethink the question or its merits.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.156769
| 2014-11-18T07:09:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49874",
"authors": [
"Alex Hancock",
"Amber Todd-Osborne",
"Cascabel",
"Catherine Wenzel",
"Julie Stolz",
"Lê Sỹ Hoàng",
"Neels",
"Thomas Raywood",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119205",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119250",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28723",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho",
"user14913400"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15156
|
Is pressed tofu what I want?
I have been using extra firm tofu to make meals, recently. When I go out to restaurants and get, for example, Thai food, I see a much more thinly sliced form of what I assume it is tofu that is like 0.5 inches x 0.5 inches x 1 inch, and has a red coloration along the side, almost like a skin.
Is this pressed tofu, or is it something different? If so, where can I get it?
This link says "Asian markets," but I have checked a few and I have not been able to find it. Maybe it is in a different section than the "regular" tofu.
EDIT
Here is a picture:
The piece on the left is a "regular" piece of extra firm tofu (even when I press that tofu myself, which I do when I make tofu). The piece on the fork is what I am talking about. It is much more firm than even extra firm tofu and has a different bite to it.
You've probably long ago moved on from this issue (pressing issue :-) but there's a significant difference between pressed-at-home firm tofu and store-bought "pressed tofu". It sure looks to me like that thing on the fork is the latter.
You've probably seen fried, marinated tofu in those Thai dishes (my best guess without seeing a photo). The red colour would be from a short soak in either chili/garlic oil, or sweet chili sauce. Many asian markets sell tofu packaged in a marinade or breading for convenience.
I have added a picture above. The one on the left is fried, but the one on the right is not, I do not believe.
The one on the left is battered + fried, the one on the right is marinaded and likely added to the stir fry. If the one on the right was spicy, it's probably chili oil (and if it was sweet, assume it's one of the sweet chili sauces).
Oh, and more firm may mean more cooking time (so it could be baked first). I often bake (or long fry) tofu to get something with more chew to it.
But you don't believe it to be "Pressed Tofu", which seems to be a totally different type of tofu altogether?
Pressed tofu is just firm tofu that's been "pressed" in towels to remove the extra water, done to aid in browning (when frying) and to allow the tofu to take on extra marinade flavour. This simple process does firm up the texture, as does cooking longer, and the acids in many marinades. I've never purchased a different tofu to make pressed tofu however, as I just press it myself.
Pressed tofu is in fact a different product from ordinary packed-in-water "firm" tofu, and I know of now household process by which one could turn firm tofu into pressed tofu.
Are you doing any pressing of your own when you use extra firm tofu?
If you plan a little ahead you can take the tofu out and slice it into blocks, half a block or a quarter block, then wrap in paper towel and leave on a cutting board with some sort of weight on it. I usually balance a plate and another cutting board on top. Make sure you put it in the center of the counter or back toward a wall so when the weight unbalances and falls off it won't crash onto the floor.
Remove and wring out the paper towel about every five minutes for half an hour.
Once all this moisture is removed the tofu will pick up other flavors much more easily.
Yes, I press the tofu myself using this method, but It is still different. Please see my edit above.
The tofu on your fork is a commercially pressed and seasoned tofu, most likely seasoned with a 5 spice Chinese blend. The coloration of the "skin" will vary from manufacturer but look for a "5 spice pressed tofu" the next time you go grocery shopping and you will find it.
In this particular case the tofu you're looking for is likely not pressed tofu as sold in the store, but is just cooked longer as Bruce says.
You can buy pressed tofu at an Asian market. It is sold already pressed (and is not in water) and is firmer than extra firm tofu (even after pressing).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.157100
| 2011-05-31T17:47:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15156",
"authors": [
"Bruce Alderson",
"Gordon Rodgers",
"Pointy",
"astrid",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110087",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70201",
"skaz"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
36775
|
Advice on use and care of Le Creuset cast iron skillet
Below is a picture of my current cast iron skillet from Le Creuset. As a relative cooking novice, could someone let me know if I have possibly damaged my pan, or if this is normal? I have a Le Creuset dutch oven, and have always cleaned with soap/water and it is perfect, I thought I would do the same here (since both are enameled), but it looks like it may be in need of special treatment.
If this isn't normal, what is the recommended process of keeping this pan clean (daily use and/or the occasional deep clean).
Is the interior of that pan enameled? It looks like either bare cast iron or possibly a non-stick coating (which I didn't think Le Creuset does).
Assuming that's just cast iron on the inside (it looks like it), this is probably a duplicate of How do you clean a cast iron skillet?
From Le Creuset's product description: "Over time, the matte black interior enamel develops a natural patina that is ideal for searing and frying." So though that "patina" kinda sounds like seasoning, there does seem to be enamel, so maybe not a duplicate after all.
We have one that looks just like it and it is indeed enamel coated.
I am still devastated that I killed mine by answering the telephone while roasting sunflower seeds in it. The enamel cracked off.
The above pan is not a typical Teflon coated non-stick item. It is a cast iron skillet with red exterior enamel and an interior "Satin Black" enamel. It is not identical to a Lodge cast iron pan, but for care and maintenance, it can be treated similarly. A patina can form on the interior "Satin Black" enamel, which is desirable. The brownish looking area on the surface of the pan is from caramelization, which occurs during the cooking process. Le Creuset says seasoning is not required (unlike other cast iron pans like Lodge), but seasoning the pan will form a better patina, which does improve the natural non-stick properties. As you said, the patina develops naturally, but if you don’t want to wait, then you can help it along by seasoning it. Check Le Creuset's website (someone else linked it) for other details. I usually just use hot water and paper towel to clean with periodic seasoning.
This pan should be cleaned only with a wet cloth and little bit of soap. No scrubbing is required as it can damage the pan. This link may be more useful.
I've got the matching milk pan and the only really important thing I'd add to this is only use wooden or plastic tools, metal will scratch the lining too.
From the visual appearance of the pan in the picture, would you say that this one has been damaged or that this is normal wear?
It's difficult to tell in the picture exactly what is going on. There are a few possibilities:
The coating has flaked off, and the non-shiny portions are the bare metal underneath.
You've developed a bit of a coating on top of the pan.
We're looking at the coating, but it's lost its shine.
In the case of #1, it's likely a ruined pan. It might be possible to re-enamel, and if it's non-stick, it might be possible to torch off the non-stick and season it as a non-enameled cast iron pan, but this will give off poisonous gas in the process.
For #2 & 3, it shouldn't be a big deal, you just won't have as much of a non-stick process. If it's #3 and a non-stick pan, be careful, as this is a sign that you've been over-heating the pan, and will likely start flaking off in the future.
I have a Le Cruset enamaled skillet. It was left overnight with some food in it. Could not get it clean. I finally put the pan on the stove with some soapy H2O. Added several tablespoons of baking soda, and brought it to about 208-210 degrees. I used a dishwashing brush from Amazon with a scraper built into the handle. Just gently, back and forth. I added more hot H2O as the soapy H2O in the pan began to evaporate. Don't use steel wool, and don't use anything metal on the enamel. Scrapers like Lodge's polycarbonate are ideal.
As the pan began to boil flecks of oil and carbon were visible in the soap bubbles. after about 30 minutes I dumped the pan and rinsed it with hot H2O.
It came out looking brand new. It was a bit of work, but well worth it. Clean as new, no scratches.
That was my experience. I have cast iron plain and enameled. I have cleaned the raw cast iron and reseasoned it, but its more work than cleaning the enameled pans, IMHO.
RMC
Just soak it and scrub it with a plastic scrubber. Then coat with lard or oil and heat it up and wipe off the excess with a paper towel. Le Creuset is enameled and tough stuff, it never peels. I recommend never using soap.
I'm going to answer this based on my experience with my Staub, enamel over cast iron pans. The best way to get burnt on food off of enamel over cast iron is to do this: heat water in the pan/pot til really hot but not boiling, drop in Tbsp. fulls of baking soda into it, especially over the burnt on areas... wait 5 minutes, turn off heat and if it's really bad the thick burnt on areas will just bubble up.
If it's a little bad you can push that burnt on stuff off with a wooden spoon or spatula. Drain water, clean as usual and for my Staub it returned it to "brand new" finish. I had totally burnt a cream based soup when I was first using my 4 Qt. pot and thought I had ruined it. This hot water, baking soda trick has worked many times to get surface back to like new.
Don't get worried with a white cast from baking soda, it washes right off. Granted mine are black enamel interiors over cast iron, but I can tell when the surface is back to brand new. Good luck!!
The skillet in the picture may not be authentic LeCreuset since it has what looks to be a non finished(enameled) cast iron cooking service. My skillet is enameled cast iron and it says that on the box. Therefore it does not require any scrubbing with anything more than a nylon scrub pad and some light dish soap at most.
I would consider returning the skillet if the cooking service got that funky from just cooking and cleaning. I have other LeCreuset pieces and none of them have ever gotten this bad.
Le Creuset also sells stainless steel non-stick pans. As far as I can see all their cast-iron is indeed enamelled.
I've been on a VERY similar journey and put a lot of research into this in the past couple months. There is a LOT of misconception to sort through, which I'm also seeing in comments here. Please see the before and after shots of my pan- it was in way worse shape than yours, all because I was following bad advice that didn't acknowledge the enamel. Namely that I wasn't really washing it and I was "seasoning" it. The result was years of carbon (burnt food) build up.
Care instructions from the skillet's own Le Creuest sales page say "Dishwasher safe!" You can go nuts on cleaning this thing; that's the top advantage of the enamel. ABSOLUTELY use soap. https://www.lecreuset.ca/en_CA/iron-handle-skillet/CA-LS2024-307D.html
To fix my pan, I graduated through gentle instructions (boiling laundry soap, gentle scrubbing) until I noticed scrubbing worked best and I went to town with STEEL WOOL. For THREE HOURS.
The result is a totally fixed, totally functional, not chipped anywhere enamel pan. It is smooth to the touch and the remaining black flecks of carbon don't affect the performance of the pan. (Le Creuset congratulated me and suggested wiping it with distilled vinegar as a final step.)
Yours will probably just need a good overnight soak with soap and some scrubbing.
Besides trouble-free washing, the other advantage of this pan over reg cast iron is that you can cook acidic sauces without damaging the pan.
Next question- how did your food get on there in the first place? Be advised that unlike seasoned regular cast iron, these pans are not ideal for frying, and not non-stick. If you want to fry with this pan, use lots of oil and never heat it above medium. Do not move or turn your food until it is done on the bottom- a crisped brown. It will release easily when it's ready to turn which is actually kind of cool- it tells you when it's ready.
Although some people talk about seasoning or patina, it's very different than the process for normal cast iron. The patina happens over years naturally WITH washing. Best to just put it out of your mind, wash the pan and make sure you cook things best suited for it!
Link to google photos album of pics: https://photos.app.goo.gl/NDgKh8TaDKuUxuh38
About my pics:
Black pan- how it looked to the bare eye; I thought it was a normal cast iron pan
How it ACTUALLY looked once I took a picture with flash to send to Le Creuset for customer service. THAT'S when I realized something was built up on the pan!
End result after restoration
Care instructions off Le Creuset website. I also suggest emailing THEM your pics, as I did. They were very friendly and helpful and know the product best.
Good Luck!
It is not ruined! I have two of these and I wash them by hand with hot water and Dawn dish liquid. I first let them soak for a little while in Dawn and then scrub (not too hard) with a nylon scrub pad. Yours is just somewhat discolored. Try this and then maybe a little veg oil, although I have never oiled mine. If you preheat on medium heat, food will not stick.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.157437
| 2013-09-13T20:03:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36775",
"authors": [
"Adam Starrh",
"Brenda Flood",
"Cascabel",
"Ekani Ella",
"Jerimae Balangue",
"Kyle B.",
"Mark Wildon",
"Oasis Patios spam",
"RedSonja",
"SourDoh",
"ggiv",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107851",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154709",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154739",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4454",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69341",
"vwiggins"
],
"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
}
|
12742
|
white sauce / bechamel - without lumps
Possible Duplicate:
How not to mess up bechamel scauce
So you melt the butter and mix the flour in = easy
Adding the first bit of milk and making a paste = easy
Now getting from that to a sauce without lumps = tricky.
Other than cheating and just using a power whisk or putting the resulting mess through a sieve are there any other tips?
Hey, the linked duplicate should answer your question. It's better if we don't split the answers up between multiple threads so I am closing this as a duplicate.
Sorry I did a search, white sauce showed nothing and I misspelled bechamel. The search on here is pretty poor if it can't match bechEmel/bechAmel
In my experience, you want to add as little milk as possible at first, whisking well, then very gradually add more milk as you whisk vigorously the entire time. From your second line, I think you've got the "small amount" part covered. If you're not already doing this, whisk as you pour - once you start adding milk, I recommend to not stop whisking until the milk is incorporated.
I was also told that you should use warm/hot milk (I give it a quick hit with the microwave) instead of cold. That might be the difference that's causing yours to lump if you're already whisking very well. I don't always heat my milk and still get a good consistency, but I also whisk like a madman. I would recommend trying to the milk and see it if helps.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.158172
| 2011-03-03T05:41:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12742",
"authors": [
"Andrew Miner",
"Martin Beckett",
"Max",
"Mustafa Celik",
"Pharap",
"ada91",
"duney",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26307",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26308",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26309",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26311",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26314",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26315",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"jamiethepiper",
"munish",
"user26310"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
47218
|
How often should knives be sharpened?
I've a Wusthof classic ikon knife which i've had for about 5 months, it seems to be losing it's edge. It's regularly honed with a grooved honing rod, but I'm unsure if I'm doing it correctly.
I've watched several videos on how to do this, keeping the blade at a constant angle of around 20 degrees. So, what is the norm for sharpening knives? Have I been doing it incorrectly which has resulted in the knife losing its edge, or is this normal?
Parts of the knife seem sharper than others, for instance the heel, whereas the tip seems pretty dull
Do you have a shop nearby that specializes in knives? If you do, it would be worth a visit. Have your knife professionally sharpened, and get a lesson while you are there.
I know of a couple of cooking shops, but none that I know offer knife sharpening. They sell many ranges of knives but suggest using a pull through sharpener, which I've heard isn't too great for the knife. Someone did suggest going to a butcher to have them sharpened
There ya go, a real butcher is going to be a knife expert too, or least he's going to know one. I use a pull through sharpener, but on knives I bought at Sam's club. I wouldn't want to use one on a Wusthof Classic.
If you need to get your knives sharpened, as a home cook, more than once once a year, something's wrong. Are you using a stone, glass or other hard-surfaced cutting board?
For a home cook: Honing should be done before or after heavy use or once every couple of weeks, depending on how finicky you are about the blade itself. Proper honing can stave off the need for an actual grind/sharpen for years.
-Honing realigns the existing edge. Just a few strops on each side of the honing steel. It doesn't take much.
-Sharpening grinds it down, takes away steel, and makes an entirely new edge. It's not something to be done often, or even routinely. I get mine professionally done at a kitchen shop.
If you're a pro, you want to hone any and all serious knives before each shift.
I'd actually recommend stropping in addition to steeling. Small chips can form along the edge, which are almost invisible to the eye. Also steeling can only do so much for rolling edges. Even then the edge wears slightly and deforms in ways that a steel simply can't fix. Stropping will remove a very very small amount of metal, which will fix any small chips and rolls and also bring your knife's edge back to what it used to be. This will preserve the knife for longer if you do light stropping every week or so, if you do it as needed you may not even need to grind the knife.
When I say stropping I mean using some rubbing or stropping compound on a piece of leather.
Given that the question is "how often", I want to actually answer that question, even though some of the answers above supply more complete advice.
Stainless steel knives normally want honing with a steel every 2-4
uses. This will keep them sharp.
Carbon steel knives should be honed
after each use.
If you have been honing, you should need to sharpen your
knives no more than once per 1-2 years.
There are definite exceptions to this. For example, knives used for cutting joints and bone will need sharpening and honing more frequently. Knives used only for "soft duty" (e.g. on fruit) will need honing and sharpening much less frequently. And serrated knives are their own special case.
The above is based on my own experience caring for 18 knives from multiple manufacturers, including both stainless and carbon steel. Some of my knives are 25 years old and still sharp despite regular use.
So, the fact that your Wustof is getting dull despite regular honing after only 5 months indicates that something is wrong. Possibilities include:
improper honing technique (but you seem to have made an effort there, and it's not that difficult)
not honing frequently enough
bad honing rod (is it a Wustof too?)
bad cutting board (glass, stone and bamboo are all knife-eaters)
heavy usage, like lots of boning or hard chopping
Note that honing keeps knives sharp, it doesn't sharpen them. So if you waited 3 months to start honing, the dullness would have already set in. If that's the case, then you'll want to get the knife sharpened, and then get into a routine of honing it every 3 times you use it.
I'd like to add poor storage as a potential culprit on your list as well. If the poor knife is banging around in a drawer it will lose edge very quickly.
If you lightly (and safely) draw your thumb from the side of the blade down towards and over the side of the knife edge, do you feel a burr? (Do this on each side, at the tip, edge and heel - do NOT drag your finger towards or parallel to the edge, drag down the side, across and away).
The "burr" is caused by the very fine edge of the blade bending. If you feel a burr, then a honing steel can usually be used to true it up.
Grab the honing steel and rest the tip on the counter. Start with the edge of the knife that has the burr. Rest the tip of the knife edge (burr side) on the steel at an angle and with a little pressure drag it up (spine of knife moving away from you) - the full knife edge should travel across the honing steel from tip to heel. Do this a couple times and then check for the burr on both sides.
If the burr still exists, repeat. If it has diminished or slightly moved to the other side, then use the honing steel as usual - alternating each side of the edge. There are various techniques, I use alternating up stroke on one side, down stroke on the other.
If there is no burr and the knife is just dull, get it professionally sharpened if you've never sharpened knives before. A butcher's referral is a great idea.
With my blades (Wusthof Ikon and Victorinox Swiss Classic) I’ll angle the blade almost parallel with my thumbnail, and very lightly and slowly drag the length of the edge on the nail. It’s not enough to cut or nick, but any roughness in the blade is easy to feel. Doing it that way lessens the chance that those freakin’ sharp Ikons have an opportunity to bite me.
It depends, but here's how you can tell...
It's good practice to hone knives often (I recommend once a day or before you use the knife for a session).
Honing helps center the edge of the knife, prevent edge folding and nicking, and provides structural support for the edge.
Despite regular honing, a knife blade will eventually wear through a variety of dynamics: folding, nicking, crystal deterioration, and oxidation. At this point, the knife will need to be sharpened.
An easy way to tell if your knife needs sharpening is:
If, despite regular honing, your knife still doesn't feel sharp, then the blade is worn and should be sent for professional sharpening
Unless you are very skilled, I don't recommend sharpening at home. You are unlikely to be able to remove the right amount of material and restore a consistent edge bevel to the blade....as a result the knife edge will not be properly aligned and the knife will go dull quickly again.
The period between sharpening varies a lot depending on what kind of steel your knife uses, its blade geometry, your cutting technique, the food products cut, how often you use the blade, and of course how often it's honed.
Every 6-12 months is a usually quoted figure for mean-time-between professional sharpenings, this varies greatly depending on usage, and as others have pointed-out, what your cutting-board is made of. (Glass or stone is a No-No.) It sounds like you're a little ahead of the curve, but I wouldn't worry about too much.
To find a knife-shop, I'd recommend Angie's List, or just spend a little time googling in your area. Sharpening is a highly-technical skill, so it's worth finding a shop with a decent reputation. I usually pay 2-4 USD per knife.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.158360
| 2014-09-17T22:55:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47218",
"authors": [
"Claudette Michaud",
"Crystal Ssebyoto",
"David Probert",
"David Rose",
"Dylan Hill",
"Graham Warrender",
"Greg",
"Jake",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kat And NayNay",
"Preston",
"Sandy Haddock",
"Steve Bond",
"Vicky Gordon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113969",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113970",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113971",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113987",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113988",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114009",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114232",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3162",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"kevin petasek",
"tsturzl"
],
"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
}
|
63331
|
What are the advantages of serving fries in a metal cone?
We ate at BURGR a few weeks ago. And we had a burger and fries. The burgers were good - 7 out of 10. The fries were served in a cone.
Now when my wife and I were eating the (truffle) fries we both thought they were dramatically under-seasoned. Now I can eat salt straight so I felt like maybe I shouldn't complain but the wife doesn't like much salt on anything. Of course we ate the fries (because we paid for them - BURGR just gives you a burger). As I got to the bottom of the cone I got a surprise. Little fry piece, garlic salt, salt, truffle powder, pepper, and other deliciousness (that should have been on my fries).
Me having no manners just ate the bottom part. The wife didn't partake. So my question is - is there any taste benefit in serving fries like this? I strongly get the feeling if someone on Ramsey's show served him fries like this he would say something like, "You dumb cow. You don't understand how gravity works. Where in the bloody hell do you think your salt will fall?"
Note: There are some pretty good comments about it being normal for fries to be served inside a paper wrapped cone in some parts of the world. Yes. But this is different. First the seasoning is not a dressing/liquid, second with a paper wrapper you can shake the fries around, and third the paper cone can be sat on its side more or less. The configuration here cannot be adjusted without spilling condiments and people looking at you funny.
Fries are often served in a paper cup of some sort. Those cones look like a variation on this. A far I know paper cups don't serve any purpose other than to make it easier to pick out fries one by one and eat. However, I can't say if the restaurant didn't had some other reason for using a cone. You'll probably have to ask them to find out.
These cones in stands are becoming increasingly popular "displays" for fries in trendy restaurants. There may be a reason for it but I'm tempted to chock it up to a trend.
The question as stated was completely subjective. We have no idea why Gordon Ramsey chose it - maybe his astrologist dreamed of the shape and told him it will be successful? It is not a question anybody but G.R. can answer. I considered closing it, but it can in fact be made into an objective question, so I reworded the title instead. It is possible that the answers can stand a bit of rewording to fit.
I also removed the "what is the optimal vessel for serving fries" - it is a good question, but a separate one. @blankip, my suggestion is that you simply ask it as a separate question. It was being overlooked here anyway.
@rumtscho - I agree with the vessel comment. When I asked why did GR choose this you could just reword "why would any successful/smart chef do this?" It was his restaurant, we were told he chose that explicitly, so figured to use his name.
@blankip "why would any successful/smart chef choose this" is not a cooking question at all. A restaurant owner chooses whatever his intuition tells him will make money for him. This can be really different depending on context, and moreover, it rarely has something to do with culinary qualities.
In a traditional British chip shop, you would have got your chips (fries for Americans) in yesterday's newspaper, wrapped into a cone shape. These days of course, it's food grade greaseproof paper, but it's still in the same shape.
I suspect the reason for serving chips in a cone is that simple tradition. Also, there may be thermal reasons, that it allows the chips on the top to get cool enough to eat, without the chips at the bottom getting too cold by the time you get to them.
I can't speak about the seasonings. Traditional chips would just have salt and vinegar poured n from the top by the customer himself.
The reason for serving them in a cone is that you can carry it and eat while walking.
A traditional British "chippie" cone of chips would add vinegar before the salt, which would help the salt crystals stick to the chips as they bounce down the cone, stopping them all bouncing down to the bottom. Gordon's mistake here seems to be using only dry condiments. Also, rolled paper cones pack tighter and catch condiments better than metal or polystyrene cones. For best results, some chippies add the salt and vinegar before rolling the cone.
Could the cone also have something to do with being a better shape for venting the steam that would after a time render the chips soggy?
If you want salt sticking to fries, grind it to powder. And it will be deliciously intense.
Marking this as correct. It is GR's fault he doesn't understand the difference between a large cone for fries made out of paper and his smaller harder version. In this version a customer cannot spread the seasoning and it is just not as good as it could be. I am sure presentation is better but what you got was underseasoned fries at the top and soggy fries at the bottom.
The paper cone is a traditional single serve package shape for street vendors, so you can walk away with your chips (fries), and eat while walking. Many street vendors set up shop near parks and beaches (dunes)
It is used in other countries too for a single serve, though many use a punnet (cone with point cut off), so it can sit on a park bench etc.
For large servings to be taken away by the customer, they are traditionally wrapped in paper (recycled and/or virgin newsprint) in a rectangular shape, or packaged into a flat box made of thin cardboard with a paper bag lid
The technical issues are portability (carrying something that's very hot), and stopping them from steaming up, and going limp
The cone works well for small serves about to be eaten immediately. With the lower volume of chips in the bottom and layers of paper, this allows you to hold on to them whilst still piping hot. Also the lower volume of chips at the bottom wont steam up too much, by the time you have eaten the top layer of chips, as the paper can absorb a small amount of steam
The crux of the answer
So when a restaurant serves you fries in a metal cone, they are trying to evoke the old world charm of traditional chips from Europe, but since you are sitting down in a warm restaurant, there is only one answer. They are "marketing" their brand to you, it ads nothing, and in your experience, actually subtracted something from the quality of the fries
A better serving container for fries with flavoured salt would be a flattish tray or bowl with some thermal insulating properties
As a note, the metal cone is lined with a paper cone.
I could imagine it actually being a heat sink. Fries that are TOO hot and fresh are not very palatable (fast food fries are often not served straight out of the fryer, and they are kept in metal bins). But in an a la carte restaurant, keeping a steady supply of fries in the right state of restedness is probably impractical/wasteful... especially because you don't want overrested fries in an expensive restaurant.
I imagine that there are two reasons. One is that it appears nicer [than just serving on a plate] and thus helps justify the cost of the restaurant.
And the second is that minimizing the surface area of the fries in contact with the air will keep them warmer for longer.
Presentation:
It is traditional.
It simply looks nice.
Easier to share with others.
Palatability:
The fries won't get cold as quickly without direct contact with a colder plate.
The orientation of the fries - standing upright - allows steam to escape rather than condensing on a plate or getting trapped and making them soggy. Oil, if there is any excess, can drip off rather than soaking in.
They won't get juices and sauce from the entrée all over them.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.159099
| 2015-11-10T03:46:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63331",
"authors": [
"Adrian Hum",
"Carl Dudley Mckee",
"Catija",
"Donald Lambert",
"Gemma-Grace Johnstone",
"Gordon Howells",
"Hannah Mitchell",
"Mary Halliday",
"Neil Trodden",
"Renee C DePauw",
"Ross Ridge",
"Ryan Watts",
"Terry McKinnon",
"blankip",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1353",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150729",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150730",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150731",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150732",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150785",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150847",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150848",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150849",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20456",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"peter skelton",
"pizzamoon33 moon",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho",
"tate bradfield",
"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
}
|
51789
|
Why does my pavlova always look like this?
It has circles on it every time I try to make it. And sometimes it just won't dry - it's soft; it doesn't really crack like I hope it would! It always sinks and the bottom is kinda sticky and dark brownish.
(click for full size)
Here's the recipe I used this time:
3 eggs
3/4 cup caster sugar
2 tsp corn flour
3/4 tsp white wine vinegar
1 tsp vanilla extract
I baked it at 150C for 1 and 1/4 hours. I have a small oven. What did I do wrong? Would beating the mixture longer help?
Hello Frozen Heaven, welcome to the site. It's an excellent idea to show the photos, because we can easily see what you are talking about. Could you perhaps add (click on "edit") your recipe and what temperature you bake at? I have a hunch, but need some more information. Is the color of the photos correct?
@Stephie Yes, the colour is correct. I guess it's too brown? Should I lower the temperature? :O
Here's a good Q/A on Pavlovas: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9860/what-is-the-best-way-to-making-a-great-pavlova-base?rq=1
A pavlova is similar to a meringue. (The additional starch and vinager change the texture a bit, but not the preparation).
The key to baking a pavlova is not baking it. You want it to dry, rather than bake.
What does this mean here?
If it turns brown, the heat is too high. (A very slight tinge is ok...) Especially with a smallish oven, the heat elements or oven walls might be too close or hotter than your thermostat setting. Also, oven thermometers are notoriously incorrect - and 30° can be a major difference here. You could invest in a good oven thermometer, but I'd probably just use a lower setting next time and see what happens.
If its sticky, there is too much humidity left. This might be due to you using a small oven. You want to keep the oven door slightly ajar to let the water "escape" after baking. Normally you shouldn't open the door while baking due to the risk of the pavlova collapsing, but I'd probably try leaving it slightly ajar (like for meringue) once, just out of curiosity...
Would longer beating help? I can't say as I don't know how long you are beating now. But this link describes the desired texture quite nicely.
As far as the rings are concerned: No idea, sorry. (Perhaps beating time...)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.159774
| 2014-12-20T14:37:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/51789",
"authors": [
"Adam",
"Frozen Heaven",
"Paul Kantarowski",
"Richard masters",
"Stephie",
"Susan Mandeville",
"Zoe Allen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122764",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122783",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122859",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31099",
"ricky martin"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
66204
|
Can I use 3 jalapenos in place of 1 habanero?
I once got from the library this big book of Mexican recipes. A lot of them called for habaneros and a few of them called for red habaneros.
My mother suggested that if I see a recipe calling for habaneros that I should use jalapenos instead and even suggested a ratio, 3 jalapenos to 1 habanero.
The reason? Jalapenos have more fruity flavor than habaneros (a lot more) so if I use jalapenos for something with the same amount of heat as habaneros then I will get more fruity flavor for the same amount of heat.
But can I really get the same amount of heat that is in 1 habanero from 3 jalapenos? Or should I change the ratio?
Beware the TAM Mild Jalapeno: http://m.bonnieplants.com/varieties/tabid/61/id/105/TAM-Mild-Jalapeno.aspx With a high yield per plant, they're becoming quite popular in grocery stores. They look like large Jalapenos, but have barely more heat than a green bell pepper. If your 3 jalapenos equal one habanero, it'll take a dozen of these.
That mild of a jalapeno sounds like it is right in the heat range of a banana pepper which is the hottest pepper I have ever had by itself and the banana peppers I have have quite a bit of zing(which probably has to do with the pickling process) but other than that aren't very hot, especially the red ones. The red ones have barely any heat at all and are more like sweet peppers than hot peppers.
Use GLOVES!!!! I made the mistake of not using them once lol.
@WayfaringStranger that would be a great thing to get out there as a Q&A.
Yes, you can usually make that substitution without a problem. The key thing in substituting peppers is that you like the substitution. So, experimentation is necessary to find what is ideal for you.
Personally, I like the flavor (separate from the heat) of habanero peppers more than I like the flavor of jalapenos, but I usually have jalapenos on hand. So I often make that substitution and then just add crushed red pepper flakes or cayenne to make up the difference in heat because I'm a big-time chili-head. Doing it that way, you don't need to use more jalapenos than you would habaneros, but you can. After all, it's your dish.
I also like the flavor of habaneros better but some of that is because jalapenos are always sold unripe. When I grow them myself and let them turn red on the plant, they taste sweeter (and hotter).
My general advice is just to taste your food as you cook it. Start with a little hot pepper and figure out the "heat level" you like, with whatever peppers you use, and then you can add more to calibrate the recipe. Keep in mind you can always add more spice with more peppers, but it's difficult to lower the "heat level."
If you can stand to taste the peppers directly, you can also use that to get a sense of when you might have a hotter or milder batch. I'd probably start with 3 to 5 jalapeños to substitute for a habanero, but it'd depend on the recipe, the size of the peppers, and the spiciness of the batch.
In terms of flavor, I find habaneros to actually be more "fruity," but it's hard to experience that since the heat is so intense. Jalapeños are more "vegetal" and "bright" in flavor, more like a bell pepper with some heat. If you want chunks of juicy hot pepper in your dish, jalapeños are probably a better choice.
MORE DETAILS:
An exact conversion is impossible here. Peppers can vary quite a bit in size, and different varieties of jalapeño or habanero can vary significantly in hotness (in both cases, the hottest varieties can be at least 5 times as hot as their milder forms).
Roughly speaking, habanero peppers are about 50-100 times as hot as jalapeños (on the Scoville scale). But that's in terms of density of heat, which may be very roughly correlated with heat per unit weight. (Traditionally the Scoville scale was based on empirical tasting methods that were quite variable, but more recently the American Spice Trade Association (ASTA) scale has adopted a more precise method based on dried chilis and chemical measurement of spice components. But the ASTA scale also has limitations since it is based on dried samples, whereas fresh peppers are mostly water.)
In any case, since habaneros are much smaller and thinner than jalapeños, it's really hard to come up with an exact conversion for equivalent heat. My personal experience would suggest that you'd need several jalapeños to equal one habanero, but it's really tough to judge. Many supermarket habaneros I've had seem quite mild: I could add several to a large pot of chili and still find it not excessively spicy. But I've also had homegrown habaneros that were so hot that even one would make a pot of chili barely edible (to "normal" folks who aren't into excessively spicy food).
In general, I agree that the juicy, larger fruit of jalapeños is often desirable. I tend to use them in a dish where I want the crunch or taste of "peppers" in addition to heat. With habaneros, unless you want really spicy food with a high concentration of them, you're not going to taste the "pepper" elements -- it's more like generic "heat." I would just be very careful to chop habaneros very fine. (Also, use gloves and do NOT touch your face.)
Beware, too, in dishes that are sensitive to the water content of ingredients. As you mentioned, habaneros are much smaller and thinner, which means that you're adding quite a bit more "flesh" into the recipe when you use jalapenos. This can affect everything from cooking time to consistency.
TL;DR: you will never get the same heat from any quantity of jalepenos as you will from 1 habenaro. Read on for why.
So, those two peppers have different flavor profiles. Additionally, habaneros are magnitudes hotter than jalapeños. I can handle, but not enjoy eating a habanero because it's really too hot, but I can easily eat whole jalepenos one right after the other without any real discomfort.
The short coming of jalepenos is once you have achieved maximum hotness through quantity you will not get any hotter. It's not just the quantity of capcacin that increase heat, but the density of it. Or in other words how much per bite. So the questions you need to ask do I want this hotness, and can my my recipe handle the additional pepper fruit material in the dish.
If you are making something like a stew, the additional jalepenos aren't likely to hurt anything, but if this is more of a dry recipe such as A Mexican style rice, it may be too much.
It's always worth experimenting, because then you will know exactly why and why not to do something from direct experience.
Who -1'd it and why, what he writes is solid.
I think most of the statements here are true but the conclusion isn't necessarily. First off, the OP wants the pepper flavor and likely won't mind having some extra. Second, the absolute statement about maximum heat level given as a tl;dr is an exaggeration. Sure, you'll never get hotter than pureed jalapeños. But at heat levels well short of that, you can absolutely increase the heat by adding more jalapeños. If a dish has one habanero in the whole thing, it's not likely anywhere close to that absolute maximum heat level, and it's likely really easy to reach the same heat level.
How can you say that? Puréed jalapeño can only be as hot as the jalapeño can be. It doesn't get hotter because you add more. A puréed habanero is FAR more hot. Even one habenaro will taste hotter than jalapeños no matter how many jalapeños you eat.
To add, it's like a cork. No matter how many corks you add to the pile, they will never sink no matter how heavy they get because they aren't sense enough. It's the same with jalapeños, no matter how many you add, once you hit purity you aren't adding anymore heat.
Mariachi peppers take a very interesting middle ground on heat vs flavor complexity:http://all-americaselections.org/winners/details.cfm?WinID=426 Never seen them in a store, so you have to grow your own, but the yield per plant is high, and they freeze well.
@rackandboneman All of the answers here (including mine) have one downvote.
Raw jalapeno can't get any hotter than itself, but it can be far hotter than a little bit of habenaro mixed with a lot of whatever you're actually cooking. It is extremely easy to put enough jalapenos into a dish that most people will consider it too hot. For those people, the difference between the peppers is flavor and/or price. The jalapenos will have more (and potentially different) flavor for the same heat, while probably being more expensive since you need more of them to get the same heat. Also, eating multiple jalapenos (or hot wings) does actually increase the sensation of heat.
Also, unless they really are atomized, the heat of single particles of peppers in a dish matters ... a small amount of dried ghost chili powder can make dishes taste very harsh that would be fine with adding the equivalent (in capsaicin) amount of a mild powder...
I think you misunderstood my comment. Pureed jalapeño is the absolute maximum, and I agree you can't get past that. But the OP is making a dish with one habanero in it, not a pepper puree. They're way short of maximum heat, so adding more does help. Answering in terms of the maximum is true but kind of missing the point.
Unless the addition of all that fruit you'd need changes or ruins the dish. It becomes a pepper dish after too many are added.
Agreed. If it takes too much, it won't work. But if a 3:1 ratio is sufficient, it'd likely be okay. I don't think you're wrong about the details, I just think that "it will never work" is a pretty big exaggeration, so you're making your answer less useful by using it as the summary.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.160025
| 2016-02-04T19:13:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66204",
"authors": [
"Caroline Greig",
"Cascabel",
"Caters",
"Christine Hough",
"Elizabeth Branscum",
"Escoce",
"Filomena Milenkovski",
"GalacticCowboy",
"John Daniels",
"Jolenealaska",
"Michael Milia",
"MichaelS",
"Rachel M",
"Sobachatina",
"Tammie Gilbertson Tamm",
"Terry Abel",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"haakon.io",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158461",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158462",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158463",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158465",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158466",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24456",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41891",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42716",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
50185
|
Baking a pie in air grill / electrical convection oven?
I got a following device, apparently not too common one. :) Marketed here as air grill, but also named electrical convection oven.
It took me a bit of trial and error to learn to cook meat in it (it dries out / overcooks at times meant for normal oven). Once I got that nailed I decided to try baking and results had been total meh. And instruction is of very meh quality and self-contradicting.
Recipe
Very simple apple pie, popular around here. 4 eggs, glass of sugar, glass of flour, sliced apple. Mix with mixer, pour on apple slices in metal form.
Attempt 1
30 min at 170C, following "pie with a crust" estimate from instruction.
Was firm on top, but completely liquid inside. Tried to keep more time at 170C, wasn't really doing it, cranked up to 210C and after like hour total of torturing got it more or less baked inside and burnt on top. Obviously with meh result.
Attempt 2
Cover with foil, 15 min at 210C, then 25 min at 180C, following "if you have trouble baking liquid dough through" in instructions.
Seemed a little more even inside, but still very raw, including on top. Kept for another 20 min at 180C for top to firm up and inside more or less baked. Also very meh.
Course of action for third attempt?
Any recommendations on time/temperature I should try?
Or should I just give up on baking in it? Marketing here tends to greatly overestimate what device is good for (on paper everything sold is miracle device, replacing rest of the kitchen).
That looks a awful lot like what is advertised here on late night television as a Flavor Wave. So, I bet this link would be of help to you Food.com. I'll keep looking for apple pie.
Here are some more recipes that look good. Use "Flavor Wave" or "Turbo Oven" in your search strings, I bet you'll find what you need. That's about all the help I can be, since I've never used one. Good Luck!
I use a similar device. It was an unused wedding gift that I finally pulled out when my oven door hinge broke...
It does have a tendency to overcook the top before the rest is done. It also seems to cook quite unevenly. The way I get around the uneveness is to rotate the top as it's cooking.
I've baked a few times in it (bread loaves, scones, muffins and quick breads) and haven't really had any disasters but you do need to keep an eye on it.
What you want is to put the item being baked as far away from the element as possible. I always try to cook on the bottom shelf which is fine for things like scones and muffins but bread / quick breads still reach a little high up.
My suggestion is to get an extender ring which pushes up the lid somewhat giving you a greater distance between the heating element and the food, hopefully leading to a more even cook.
I haven't actually tried the extender ring because my version didn't come with one and I haven't had much luck finding one in Australia for a reasonable price.
Mine cooks very evenly on top, the issue seems to be penetrating thick layer of pie (it's awesome for heating thin pizza for example). I guess disproportionate amount of heat comes from lamp shining on top of food and not hot air circulating around/under the food. I have an extender ring for it, but at the moment my bigger issue seems to be undercooking insides rather than burning top off.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.160741
| 2014-11-29T20:22:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50185",
"authors": [
"Chasity Carter",
"Joan Dill",
"Jolenealaska",
"Legacy Bakehouse",
"Rarst",
"Sherdella Sims",
"White Tigress",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119977",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119978",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120116",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29628"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
58308
|
Boiling rice - drain or boil off water?
Because different rice varieties have different cooking times, I find it hard sometimes not to over/under cook them. I do it in two ways:
Boil off all the excess water, and fluff it with a fork.
Boil with excess water, and drain it afterwards.
What are the major differences between these two. I have noticed that method 1 produces more thick consistency, while method 2 is more soggy. Also, draining takes time, and I think the rice is losing some essential stuff (starch, maybe?). The problem with method 1 is that if I don't keep an eye on it, the rice might burn and stick to the bottom of the pan. Is there a right way to do it? Are there any methods other than these two to cook rice?
Washing the starch off won't make much difference to the cook or anything else -- I think this is part atavism (from a time when consumer grade rice was much dustier) and part distributors hedging a bet with tradition on their packaging.
Possible duplicate of How is boiled rice different from steamed?
If you are burning your rice on method 1 you either have too little water in it, cooked it too long, or have it on too high a heat. Assuming you are using white rice the general rule of thumb is to use double the volume of water as you do rice, so 2 cups of water for 1 cup rice. You then cover and bring it to a boil and then turn it down as low as you can and cook it until the water is absorbed, this could be 10-18 minutes depending on the variety of rice you are using. I sometimes bring it to a boil on a big burner and move it to a small burner to finish. I use method 1 for all white and brown rice as once you get the technique down it's pretty much foolproof, and less muss and fuss than method 2.
If your rice is soggy with method 2 you have cooked it too long, plain and simple. All you need to do is cut down your cooking time. I use method 2 for wild rice as every variety needs different amounts of water and the packaging is usually completely wrong. Using more water than can be absorbed takes the guesswork out of it and makes cooking it more reliable.
As for the starch part of the question rinsing your rice to get more separated grains does remove some of the starch from the surface of the rice. As starch = carbs = energy this does mean you are reducing the amount of absorbable energy from the end product. However, this is vanishingly small and nothing to worry about, it's all personal choice of how you like your rice.
Method 2 is simply cooking rice the same way you would cook pasta, cook with rolling water until tender then strain (and rinse if needed);
It will make for rice with separated grains; some people like that over rice prepared with method 1.
I don't think rinsing off the starch will change much in regards to nutritional values of the rice.
If you have problem with burn rice for method 1, then either add a little bit more water or use a lower temperature or a heavier bottomed pan.
Remember that some rice variety will cook better with method 1 (asian rice, italian rice) and some with method 2 (long grain rice)
Cooking it off tends to work better for me, but if there's a lot, it can lead to mushy rice. The "two fingers" method where you start with excess water (the arbitrary "a couple of fingers width above the rice" measurement), bring it to a boil, boil off the water above the level of the rice, then lower it to a simmer, cover it and let it finish steaming, works really well.
I'm not sure the time for white rice, because that's always been a rice-cooker thing for me, but I like the results better with brown rice this way vs rice cooker on the brown rice setting. After boiling off the excess, the brown rice is cooked in about 15 minutes of covered steaming. If there's still a bit of moisture after the 15 minutes, you cook it off, fairly quickly.
Boiling in excess water results in leaching out of water-soluble nutrients including starch and their loss when the cooking liquor is discarded. For example, 0.8 percent of the starch was removed on two washings of three milled rices, but 14.3 percent of the starch by weight was in the rice gruel after cooking for about 20 minutes in 10 weights of water (Perez et al., 1987). Protein removal was 0.4 percent during washing and 0.5 percent during cooking. Boil-in-the-bag parboiled rice in perforated plastic bags makes cooking in excess water simple and convenient. In the rice cooker or optimum-water-level method, the leachate sticks to the cooked rice surface as the water gets absorbed by the rice starch. The bottom layer is more mushy than the top layer.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/t0567e/T0567E0i.htm
Would starch be considered a nutrient, though?
Cooking rice is one of those things that you gain intuition the more you prepare it. Generally you should always boil off the water in your rice. In some restaurants I've worked in they will drain the rice and let it steam with the lid on for 10-15 more minutes. However, this is because we were cooking large amounts of rice quickly in giant pots, and this was the easiest way to ensure consistency in preparation with other prep cooks.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.161301
| 2015-06-16T19:58:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58308",
"authors": [
"Annette Mitchell",
"Dan ohdannyboy1986 K",
"Integrating CRM Services",
"Lucy Lightfoot",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Seyyed Hossein SeyyedAghaei Re",
"Sobachatina",
"Suraj Aswal",
"goldilocks",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138924",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138926",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138928",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138970",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25585",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
50269
|
red spots on the chicken
Are those red spots on the chicken ok? or does it mean chicken has got some bacteria or it is not fresh?
Judging from the picture alone, I'd say this is perfectly fine. Do you have additional information that might be worrying?
It looks like blood spots to me (almost a bruise), not bacteria.
Did you wash the chicken before taking a picture? Maybe it is just a blood, washing it a little will remove that one. Don't thoroughly wash it as it may remove the chicken flavor.
Please PLEASE don't wash your chicken. You're more likely to get sick from washing chicken than you would from eating 7 day old left overs.. https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=dont+wash+chicken
Oh and definitely just a bit of blood. It'll be fine once cooked.
They are little blood spots, perfectly safe to eat but often a sign of cheap and/or poor welfare birds. As long as you cook it properly (take it to at least 140f) its fine to eat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.161838
| 2014-12-02T15:41:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50269",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Calandra Lindsey",
"Cary Bondoc",
"Christina McLeod",
"Doug",
"Erica",
"Jenny Salsman",
"Michael Nolan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120232",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120510",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27126",
"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
}
|
120865
|
Should I store chili crisp in the refrigerator?
Generally speaking I only refrigerate things that say something along the lines of "refrigerate after opening" or "keep refrigerated" on the label. I opened a new jar of chili crisp today, used some, and am now wondering if I should refrigerate it.
It has a lot of words on the label, but nothing that indicates that it needs to be refrigerated. On the other hand, it does say no preservatives, and its ingredients include oils and garlic. I know there's a risk of botulism if you (for example) put some garlic in a container of olive oil and leave it at room temperature. Is there a similar risk for this product? Should I refrigerate this jar?
Chili crisp does not have to be refrigerated. However, if it will take you months to finish off a jar, refrigeration may keep the flavor better.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.161968
| 2022-06-20T02:34:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120865",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
126360
|
How can I tell when my dough is sufficiently proofed?
I baked some French bread today. The result was extremely dense, and based on the grain structure, I believe it was under proofed. (When cut, the cross section showed that it was denser at the bottom, which I believe implies under-proofing.)
My process was as follows:
mix the ingredients together to create the dough; knead until smooth (~10 minutes)
grease bowl with butter, form dough into ball, place dough in bowl; cover bowl loosely with dish towel, leave in 75F (23.9C) room until dough ball has doubled in size (~1 hr)
punch down dough; split in two; cover; let rest ~5 min
grease hands with butter and form each dough ball into thin baguette shape; place each tube of dough into greased (butter) baguette pan; make slices ~1/4 inch (0.635 cm) deep every ~1.25 (2.54 cm) inches
cover with dish towel; let rest in 75F (23.9C) room until doubled in size (~1 hr)
bake
The result, as mentioned, looks and tastes like it should, but is super dense, especially at the bottom of the loaf.
I believe my process is correct but the result is under-proofed; how do I know when the dough is sufficiently proofed? I've been going off of a combination of time and size -- eg. my goal is that the dough has doubled in size and I know that this usually takes about an hour, so that's when I start checking, though I wait until it reaches the desired size. And yet, this is clearly not sufficient.
How do I know when my dough is sufficiently proofed? Is there a way or is it best-guess?
Some caveats and plot twists:
I'm baking at altitude (5280 ft/1609 m); the recipe is specifically adapted for this altitude
I don't have a proofing drawer or an oven with a "proofing" setting; the lowest it can go is 180F/82C, which I believe is too warm for proofing. Regardless I can't use the oven to proof the second round because it's preheating to 425F/218C during that time. The room I'm using to proof is consistently 75-77F (24-26C) which should be sufficient for proofing, if a bit on the low side.
Other than the denseness, everything else was perfect (taste, chewiness, crust, etc)
That under-proofing is the issue is a guess, but it's based on the evidence collected. If you think I've misdiagnosed the issue please feel free to correct me. :)
75°F is plenty warm for proofing per a lot of resources. Warmer goes faster, (until it kills the yeast somewhere around 120°F or so) but does not taste as good, is the typical claim, at least by people not selling proofers. Commercial bakeries sometimes need to use ice water in mixing to keep the dough temperature down. Accurately judging doubled can be tricky depending on the shape of the pan.
Most bakers will tell you the best proof test is to make a modest indentation in the dough with your finger and see how fast it springs back. If it never comes back it's over-proofed; if it comes back literally immediately it's under-proofed. Between that is a HUGE range which gives you a lot of room for style and personal preference.
I make a ton of French baguettes and I will say that bulk fermentation time, dough hydration, and most importantly baking steam are the key factors in getting a perfect final product. I don't put proofing time on that list. I actually like to slightly under-proof my baguettes (about 40 minutes tops at 68F or so) as this results in more oven spring and a more pronounced "burst" from the scoring. Basically once the surface is nice and smooth and the all the bumps, seams, etc. from the shaping have worked themselves out, that's when I transfer, score, and bake. I'd say it has a marshmallow-like consistency at that point. It's grown by MAYBE 25%. Note I use a small amount of yeast (1/2tsp per 500g flour), so my bulk fermentation takes 3-4 hours at 80F (closed oven with the light on does the trick for me). If I've done everything right they grow 2-3x during baking.
So I very much doubt you're under-proofing. In fact, assuming your steam is plentiful (this is really critical, but not part of your question so I won't harp on it), it's possible you might actually be over-proofing, which can indeed result in a dense final product. The gluten network is always weakening over time; too much proofing will cost the dough too much internal strength and it won't rise, and could even collapse (think of a souffle). An hour at 75F is on the high side, and doubling in size is definitely too much IMO; a 25%-50% max increase is more typical for baguettes in my experience. You want it to balloon in the oven, not on your counter.
Also I've never seen or heard of anyone scoring before proofing. I can't speak for 100% of bakers and I can't say whether this would account for the density, but I've only ever done or seen scoring right before baking so you might try that instead.
Finally it's possible your mixing/kneading technique is affecting the density negatively. If you're using an electric mixer, 10 minutes is likely much too much (it's virtually impossible to over-knead by hand though). My baguettes, and most of the "artisan" recipes I see, forego kneading and do a simple hand mix followed by strength building folds every 30-45 minutes. (You'd also want to use less yeast here). This imparts as much strength as kneading but can yield a more open crumb, i.e., less dense texture. I've heard people say handle baguette dough as little as you have to.
I've given you a lot to think about here, but I should emphasize that you ought to only change one thing at a time as you try different things, otherwise you'll never know what was responsible for the changed result. Keep changes that get you closer to what you want and scrap the ones that don't, and needless to say, take notes! It'll take a lot of batches before you find what you like best, but it'll be worth it.
I do score the dough before loaf rising and the width of the expansion on the scoring gives me my rise time .As for density issues it’s hydration I find is the biggest factor . I try not to add flour past the “ sticky” stage and use the flour on the work surface to make the dough easier to handle.. Next would be oven steam , as not enough steam/humidity allows the crust to form early stopping oven “ spring” .
See my comment under your other answer, please. Plus you may rethink your writing style: Note that we have an international audience and for many users English is not their first (and often not even the second) language. So a more detailed, clear explanation will help them implement your advice and in the end, get you more appreciation from the community in the form of upvotes.
Proofing is the time you give to the yeast to multiply and produce bubbles of CO2. A few other things happen during that time too (especially some changes to the gluten), but they are secondary, and can be compensated otherwise.
So, given that the point of proofing is to have gas production, the perfect marker of proofing is the volume increase. That's why most recipes specify to proof "until the dough has doubled in volume". As Peter Moore mentions, the actual range of proofed dough is wider than that, you can work with dough that has reached less than double or more than double the volume, but it's a very good average measure to aim for.
Since you followed this rule, your dough was correctly proofed. Whatever caused your problem with density, you should look for it elsewhere.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.162070
| 2024-01-14T03:16:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/126360",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
104524
|
Adjusted cooking time for an already-baked pie shell
I have a pumpkin pie recipe that calls for an unbaked pie shell. During the cooking step, it cooks first at 425°F for 15 minutes, and then at 350°F for 30-40 minutes (until toothpick can be inserted cleanly). My understanding is that the first bit of cooking, at 425°F is to finish off the (frozen) crust, and then the 350°F is to cook the filling through.
At the moment, I have no unbaked pie shells, but I do have some graham cracker crust pie shells that I would like to substitute in their place. I figure that since the shells are 'ready to eat' already, they don't need the initial 425°F cooking step. Since the pumpkin still needs to cook and set, I would need to somehow extend the 350°F step accordingly to account for the cooking done in this initial stage, if I omit the 425°F step.
My basic plan is to fill the crusts and then bake at 350°F for about 50 minutes. Then continue baking until it passes the toothpick test (checking every 5 minutes or so.)
Is this a reasonable plan, or should I instead retain the 425°F initial baking phase even though the crust itself doesn't require any cooking? Or are the graham cracker crust shells entirely unsuitable for this project for some reason I'm overlooking?
(I'm following the basic Libby's "new fashioned pumpkin pie" recipe, which I've used previously many times with frozen pie shells.)
Most pie recipes that begin with a high-temperature setting and then lower it are to bake the crust. It isn't necessarily for frozen crusts only, but also for fresh-baked crusts that often need high heat to set and create the "flaky" pastry texture that many people desire. (Also, unbaked crusts can absorb too much liquid on the bottom before they set without this high temperature step.)
If you're using a pre-baked pie shell, you're correct that this high-temperature step likely isn't necessary. In fact, it's probably better not to use a high-temperature step on a pre-baked shell unless a recipe calls for it, as excessive crust browning is a problem with many pies that bake a long time to begin with. (Which is why people often use foil or pie covers toward the end of baking.)
Anyhow, your plan sounds reasonable -- bake for a bit longer than the original total recipe time to account for the decreased temperature, and then begin checking periodically for doneness. (And as there are a number of pumpkin pie recipes that use graham cracker crusts, I assume they should be fine for most recipes.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.162601
| 2020-01-03T23:04:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104524",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
49177
|
5 Gallon Drinking Water Container
I'd like to buy a 5 or 6 gallon container for drinking water. I don't like plastic. One option is a glass carboy. But it's easy to break a glass carboy. Another option is a metal container. I guess one option can be aluminum or galvanized milk can. I searched the web and all I found were old vintage milk cans which are pretty expensive. Are aluminum or galvanized milk cans (or water cans) still produced? Do you have a better suggestion for a can for storing drinking water (not plastic)?
Thanks.
This question appears to be off-topic because it is about recommending a store.
While there may not be current production of galvanized milk cans, 5, 10, and 15 gallon stainless steel pitchers are commonly used in the dairy industry. While relatively expensive ($150+), these pails are sealable, durable, easy to clean, and not plastic. A google search for "5 gallon stainless steel milk pail" or "dairy supply" will reveal numerous sources.
Reopening, the edit made the question on topic.
Why don't you like plastic?
You typically didn't transport glass carboys as-is. You'd pack them in straw in a wicker basket, to help cushion them ... which gets rather large and awkward for most situations. If the milk jugs are too expensive for you, you can get refurbished beer kegs in that size for under $100, but you might need a pump to get the water back out easily.
@talon8 I don't know why the OP doesn't like plastic but I don't either. The history of plastic has been one toxin or another leeching into our food and water. Sure, they remove BPAs from plastic bottles and replace them with BPSs, but no one knows what BPSs do, and I see no reason to think they're the least bit less toxic than BPAs.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bpa-free-plastic-containers-may-be-just-as-hazardous/
Use a bucket.
Lid sold separately, about ~20 for the two of them. Alternatively, you can pick up an oak barrel. They tend to be much more expensive in the 150-200 range. You could make your own container out of clay, though price effectiveness is questionable
More to the point, I think you underestimate the utility and glory that is plastic. Any container will flavor the water, plastic least so. Plastic is the lightest especially for its durability. It's incredibly cheap. It's safe (Don't let BPA alarmists mislead you, containers exhibit safe levels or they wouldn't be approved by the FDA. It's far more worrying how much of it winds up in other places.) It doesn't rust, and is non-porous. It is transparent, which allows natural sunlight to decontaminate drinking water from harmful microbes. It is hypoallergenic.
Overall plastic is pretty neat, and I strongly recommend you reconsider your aversion to it.
If you're going the plastic route, don't use a bucket; the weight of a 5 gal of water on those little tiny handles sucks. Instead, get a plastic jerry can. Which then made me wonder if someone still made/sold metal jerry cans in blue (to mark it as water & not fuel), and yes, they do.
I couldn't agree more about the plastic thing. Lightweight, hygienic, transparent, and scientifically shown to not be icky. What's not to love??
And make sure you get food-safe plastic buckets. Check your local homebrewing shop - they will have a wide selection.
There's only one thing that I can think of that might fit all of your requirements (not fragile, not plastic, food safe, inexpensive), but the last one only works if you have a good source of animal organs:
a zahako (aka 'bota bag' aka 'wineskin' or 'waterskin')
If you want to make one out of normal leather, instead of internal organs, you'll need to coat the inside in pitch or wax to make sure it's water proof.
You could also potentially get commecially produed ones, but some have plastic linings. You can get ones with latex linings, but I found there to be a bit of an aftertaste for the first dozen or so uses. (and we start getting back into the issues of expense)
I would've said gourds, but those are more fragile. (although it might be acceptable if a were thick-walled)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.162812
| 2014-10-23T07:09:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49177",
"authors": [
"Andre",
"Carey Gregory",
"Denis Phillips",
"Didgeridrew",
"Jeff Harrington",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Sally Bosco",
"Under Dog",
"Valerie M",
"Wanda Rice",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117419",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117420",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117440",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117519",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117521",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117889",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"john3103",
"rumtscho",
"scott ritchie",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
49488
|
Does dissolved sugar really help to extract fruit flavours?
A few times now I've come across online advice that, when steeping/infusing fruits in liquid to extract their flavours, it helps to add sugar to the solution. As an example this sloe gin Wikipedia page states "sufficient sugar is required while the drupes steep to ensure full extraction of flavour". Some commentators mention that this is obvious, because if you add sugar to strawberries they macerate and become syrupy. Well it seems to me a very big assumption that if sugar crystals draw in liquids/flavours from a high moisture-content source then a largely already liquid sugar solution must do the same thing. Can anyone clarify?
Edit:
This SA answer to a related but I think distinct question would seem to suggest that adding sugar to the solution should in fact slow absorption down as it would reduce the difference between sugar concentrations in the solution and fruit..
Thanks Piglet. Your method sounds like what I think would work better. I think the Wikipedia statement still needs to be addressed. I haven't found anything other than what sounds like culinary myth and pseudo-science, so I remain skeptical :)
In sum: YES, sugar DOES really help to extract fruit flavors.
The answer quoted in the edit does NOT imply that "absorption is slowed down" in general. It merely states that in a sugar solution, sugar will generally not move out of fruit; it doesn't say anything about what else happens.
Osmosis is simply a process by which the stuff on both sides of a barrier tries to come to equilibrium. Increasing sugar content in a solution will only decrease the amount of sugar that comes out of the fruit, but it will often simultaneously increase the water that diffuses out (along with many things dissolved in that water, like fruit flavors).
In other words, in a plain water solution, sugar will diffuse out of fruit to raise the water's sugar concentration. However, in most cases when a sugar solution is used, it is deliberately higher in concentration than the sugar content within the fruit cells (as in the strawberry example mentioned in the question, where there is basically no water at first outside the fruit, so water is forced out to bring the system into better equilibrium).
Sugar is very hydrophilic, which basically means it attracts water. If the sugar solution has a higher sugar content than the moisture within the fruit cells (as is true in most recipes using this technique), water will diffuse out of the fruit. Anything that is water-soluble, such as various flavor components, will come along with it to some extent. Meanwhile, sugar will also be forced into the fruit, changing its texture -- when done in excess over a period of time, such a process can actually preserve the fruit by lowering the water content substantially (driving it out into the solution) while raising the internal sugar content of the fruit, resulting in candied fruit.
You may note that candied fruit generally lacks many of the flavors of fresh fruit. This is because many flavor components were extracted along with the water by the sugar solution.
Regarding questions that were raised in comments, the same process occurs with alcohol in a solution. There's almost no alcohol inside the fruit, so alcohol's presence outside the fruit will force water out of the fruit, carrying flavors along with it. Alcohol also tends to dissolve certain flavor components that water doesn't dissolve as well, so it will gather different sets of flavors than water alone. Note also that different flavor components will come out of the interaction of this osmosis process with the cell membrane compared to, say, simply crushing the fruit, again partly because some flavor molecules are more soluble in alcohol.
This sounds very reasonable, thanks for the contribution! But going by this logic I wonder about the relative benefit of adding sugar in the case of sloe gin. The solution's water concentration is a relatively low 60% (vs berry's typical 85%) so water extraction is presumably very efficient already. And sugar absorption is also going to be optimised by not adding sugar to the solution, meaning better extraction of any sugar-related flavours. So I still can't see any benefit of adding sugar in this case. How does this sound to you?
As I said in the answer, both sugar and alcohol have a tendency to draw water (and flavor) out of fruit. I've looked around a bit in food science books, and I don't see much explanation about interactions in solutions which contain BOTH sugar AND alcohol. While the general tendency of osmosis is to try to equalize things, there may be interactions here that still justify the sugar addition in some cases. (I rather like the idea of Piglet's method, which would pull different components from the fruit at different stages.)
Also, for the record, I'm not sure that "sugar-related flavors" really exist; flavors are not generally "dissolved" in sugar as they are in water. Increasing sugar output from the fruit won't actually increase flavor extraction to a significant degree; it will just bring out small amounts of sugar.
I like Piglet's method too. Also the notion I'm being advised by a friend of Winnie the Pooh.
Not sure I agree on that. Sugar is a taste too, and different ones must have different flavours. Yeasts would certainly agree as many varieties consume some sugars but not others.
If you mean "sugar flavors," i.e., sweetness, yes, I agree. When you said "sugar-related," I assumed you meant things other than sugar (e.g., "fruit flavors," like the flavors I was referring to that follow water). As for more complex sugar molecules that you may be referring to, they will probably exchange across the barrier regardless of whether the solution is water or a sugar solution. (As the water moves out of the fruit in a sugar solution, it will carry dissolved stuff including some sugar molecules; exchange will continue to occur until things come to a better equilibrium.)
Thanks again for the input :) Hopefully in due course someone else can contribute on the alcohol + sugar dynamic..
MY OBSERVATIONS SO FAR:
I once left sloes with intact skins (not pricked) in water overnight to clean them. Nearly all the bigger ones split their skins so I disposed of them in case they made the gin cloudy. After adding gin (37.5% ABV) to just cover the remaining small hard sloes, the colour is a beautiful clear red after 2 weeks. The sloes are still intact and I usually leave it longer for a darker colour - no shaking. I add the sugar at the very end, after removing the sloes and diluting the sloe gin with more gin to give me the colour I want. I use 125gm/700ml bottle (approx 18% sugar by weight). The result of this method is a sloe gin of superb colour and flavour, and a slightly reduced ABV of 34% due to the added sugar.
CONCLUSIONS: (1) Sugar is not needed at the start to get a good flavour. (2) Sloes in plain water appear to absorb the water by osmosis through intact skins. (3) Pricking and shaking the sloes is unecessary, and could lead to sediment making the sloe gin cloudy - if the skins of riper sloes split. (4) The skin of the sloes seems far more important than the flesh in making sloe gin. Is extracting juice from the flesh really necessary?
Useful thanks for sharing. I don't think I share your concern about split skins. I find it's better to freeze berries instead of prick - all the skins split regularly and speed up diffusion. The result isn't cloudy - just leave it a couple of days and slowly pour clear gin off the sediment :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.163165
| 2014-11-03T12:52:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49488",
"authors": [
"Ann Cassemis",
"Athanasius",
"Beiladung Lübeck Herrmann",
"Chris Verity",
"Dave Cloninger",
"Jillian Robinson",
"Kevin Dupont",
"Mojo McKinley",
"No Body",
"Rebecca Burston",
"geotheory",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149354",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149382",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28946",
"michelle doherty"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
49478
|
Can anyone identify this RED GINSENG CANDY?
Can anyone identify this RED GINSENG CANDY? Do you know where to buy?
In 1992, a realtor in Edison, NJ, gave me one of these wonderful candies. She didn't know where to buy more because the Asian supermarkets (in Edison, NJ) stopped carrying them. I searched the internet, shoppes in Chinatown and Flushing, NY, but saw no candy with similar wrappers. (My wife says that the non-English writing on the wrapper is Chinese for "Red Tea".)
BTW, there are similar candies available from many suppliers, including Amazon. Instead of a different manufacturer, I'd enjoy knowing the original brand or company name that produced or produces candy with this wrapper. Perhaps the original company is still in business and makes something similar to these candies in the photo -- the best ginseng candies made!
I'm impressed that you've still got that wrapper after 22 years -- they MUST be delicious.
Actually the wrapper writing in the dark circle says "red ginseng" in traditional Chinese. The candy is Korean though, given the "홍삼" written up at the top. There's nothing else I can make out though, unless there's any more visible writing on the bottom part or edges of that wrapper. I'm personally partial to 'Renesse' candy from the Korea Ginseng Company, but "Korean red ginseng candies" is specific enough that maybe you can just try out whatever you can get locally. (eta: There looks like there's an H Mart in Edison that might be promising. I'd seek out Korean markets specifically.)
Thanks so much, @Erica too, for your considerate manner of reply. My uncertainty and craving for the original candy are now satisfied. I took your advice, bought a tin of Korean Red Ginseng Renege from a vendor in Korea on ebay. It took a month to arrive. That is why I waited so long to reply. The candy received is a translucent hard gel candy, very different than the candy I enjoyed in 1992, which was chewy and hit me with flavor. However, I'm actually happier with this candy, since I bought the sugar free Renege which is better for me and warms my heart as do both of you. Thank you!
@janeylicious It sounds to me like that was ultimately the answer. Why not post it as one?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.163860
| 2014-11-02T23:33:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49478",
"authors": [
"Alba Sanchez",
"Bill Bauer",
"Erica",
"Hannah Purr",
"JTL",
"Kimberly",
"Mark Westby",
"Mary Lynn Veck",
"Mneera Diab",
"Shanna Vaux",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118162",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36516",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4763",
"janeylicious",
"tracey letourneau"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
34188
|
What is the name of this drink and is there a substitute for the pineapple?
In many cities in the Venezuelan Andes, there is a traditional beverage with the following preparation:
Put a slice/piece of pineapple about two inches per side in a bottle of milk.
Put the milk with the pineaple in the refrigerator for about 4 hours.
Take the milk, without the pineapple, and shake a little with a spoon to homohenize, then put about 2 oz in a milkshake machine, and shake for about 1 minute puting suggar in the process.
Optionaly put some artifitial flavor in the milkshake machine - I'd recomend coconut artifitial flavor. Also you can put in the milkshake machine with the milk, some small pices of ice cubes, this makes the drink a bit more creamy.
This is usually a companion for Empanadas or Pasteles
What is the name of this beverage? Is a powder or something else that substitutes the pineapple piece and/or the fermentation process?
I googled for something like this with no luck, the closest recipe is the pineapple-coconut milk, but that is not what I'm looking for.
Just curiosity ... What city is that?
I haven't heard of soaking pineapple in milk, but I have seen pineapple-coconut milk smoothie recipes that use just coconut milk + pineapple + sweeteners.
Is it similar to chicha andina?
@PeterTaylor the chicha andina is another traditional drink in the andes, that one together with the mazato, are made of corn, barley, rice or alikes, with sugar, passing through a fermetation process. the one I've descrived is another drink, that is only milk fermentated with the sugar in the pineapple
See also: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/31897/are-smoothies-and-milk-shakes-the-same-things-with-different-names/31898#31898
+1 for the picture. That looks well worth trying at home.
From the description of how this beverage is made, it is not fermented. Four hours, at refrigerator temperature, and without any inoculation from an active bacterial culture simply will not cause any significant amount of fermentation.
Instead, what is happening is that the enzyme bromelin and acid present in pineapple is curdling the milk proteins, lending it a thicker texture. This is very analogous to some types of cheese making.
I was not able to determine a name for this beverage.
hmmm... I'm lactose intolerant, that would explain why this drink doesn't cause me digestive problems unlike milk alone.
Fresh cheeses usually still contain lactose, but possibly a smaller amount than the milk that they're made of. However, I don't think there is a difference after only four hours....
The enzyme acts on proteins, and because there is no true fermentation, I would suspect there is little or no reduction in the amount of lactose present in the milk.
@SAJ14SAJ I've found this article but frankly I'm not sure if it's the the same drink. It appears that pineapple can ferment in three hours at 43 ºC. That would explain the lactose diminution.
43 C is 110 F -- definitely not refrigerator temperature! Also, the industrial process described begins by innoculating the milk with a specific culture of lactobacillus. So it is essentially a liquid yohurt--probably very enjoyable to the same palette that likes the pineapple drink--but a different beverage.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.164098
| 2013-05-18T16:34:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34188",
"authors": [
"Dr. belisarius",
"HobbieJ",
"JB-Franco",
"Ke Zhang",
"Manu",
"Martin",
"Mien",
"Nicholas B Scott",
"Olga Myroshnyshenko",
"Peter Taylor",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sajitha Verghese",
"Shaunette Nastar",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18161",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79555",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79556",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79566",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79567",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79625",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79869",
"mdegges",
"robith jadzab",
"rraallvv"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35599
|
How can I make lemon and chilli liquid to have with hummus?
A few weeks ago I had hummus at the famous Abu-Hassan/Ali-Caravan place in Jaffa, Tel Aviv. When you order hummus there you also get a small bowl of lemony chilli liquid on the side. The liquid is hot and really bitter.
The idea is to mix the chilli liquid in with the hummus to get it as hot as you like. It's really delicious!
Does anyone have any creative ideas about how I could make this kind of liquid at home? I have dried chilli flakes, and as a first pass I can fry them in some olive oil, drain and mix in lemon juice. I wonder though if anyone created this kind of thing before and is in a position to give some advice.
Thank you!
When you say it's a liquid, is it oily? Since hummus normally has tahini in it, and since this liquid is bitter, it could be that they're taking the oil off of their tahini and infusing it with chilis and lemon rind/oil. It's hard to say, though, without some rough description of the composition of the liquid.
@OmniaFaciat - it wasn't oily, more the consistency of water.
Are you sure that it was just chilis in the liquid? Sumac is traditional to serve with hummus in some regions. It is red, like chilis, but has a tart, slightly bitter flavor.
In Israel I have often seen hummus/falafel/thina served with a hot sauce called skhug, I have mostly seen the green variety (skhug yarok), which is a sauce made of fresh herbs, garlic, chili, lemon juice, garlic, olive oil, and some spices.
Hummus is often just served with thina on the side and with olive oil, but there is a lot of variety ... I have seen sauces based on olive oil and lemon juice, similar to what you describe (although not biter ... but the bitterness could also come from blending the olive oil). But I never saw it being prepared in front of me or it being called a particular name, but it looked a little like a thin vinaigrette.
Using my extremely limited hebrew knowledge and google I found this recipe.
The ingredients translate to:
2 hot chilies
3-4 cloves of garlic
3 tbsp olive oil
juice of half a lemon
salt
additional recomendation:
1 tsp cumin
sugar
Preparation: Put all ingredients into the food processor and turn into the sauce. Taste and adjust spices/oil/lemon juice to taste. And add sugar if too sour to balance the flavor.
You can let sit a little for the flavors to combine ... and strain out remaining bits if desired.
I am not sure if this is the sauce that you had ... but it could be very similar. Anyway ... it sounds tasty.
This sounds like it will work! Thank you! @Sobachatina: beauty is in the eye of the beholder!
James, glad if I can help. Enjoy your hot sauce. @Sobachatina I swapped the image for you ;-) But I don't want to know what you feed your poor cats =P
@JamesFennell I just wanted to add, that there are millions of variations on all the sauces, so you should try playing around with the recipe adding a bit more of one ingredient or another ... until you hopefully get what you are looking for. And if you use google translate on the original page of the recipe, what gets translated to Yoda talk: "can substitute spicy peppers not", should actually read: "you can substitute with non-spicy chilies/peppers" (more for fun, but also just in case you want to reduce heat at some point) =D
This seems to be the right thing. Especially if you prepare it with a knife and not with a food processor!
Capsaicin dissolves easily in oils (and alcohol).
Steeping or gently heating chili peppers in oil will easily produce a spicy oil. You could use crushed red peppers but you might get more interesting flavors by using a fresh pepper. A single habanero would give you an interesting fruitiness and all the heat you could ever want.
As for the lemon-
Lemon juice is obviously not going to mix with olive oil. You should use lemon zest instead to take advantage of the fruit's essential oils.
I would warm some olive oil and steep minced habanero and lemon zest in it for a while. Strain out the fruits when you get to the heat level that you want.
"Lemon juice is obviously not going to mix with olive oil" — Garlic acts as an emulsifier helping olive oil and lemon juice stay together.
@n.m.- If that was the goal, there are a lot of emulsifiers that he could use. He didn't mention garlic as one of the flavors and implied that it was more of a flavored oil than a vinaigrette.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.164410
| 2013-07-26T15:25:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35599",
"authors": [
"Cath Bowd",
"James Fennell",
"John Lough",
"Martin Turjak",
"OmniaFaciat",
"Sobachatina",
"SourDoh",
"Sunday Okoye ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18091",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19384",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83275",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83276",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83277",
"n. m. could be an AI",
"robert howe",
"sunil adiyodi ",
"user3107357"
],
"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
}
|
57550
|
Can I cook beans without salt?
I made some refried beans in a slow cooker, loosely following the recipe from my cookbook. The recipe says to cook the beans with ½ teaspoon of salt. Is this necessary to properly cook the beans? I am starting from dry beans.
I actually used ½ tbsp of soy sauce instead of plain salt and the beans tasted fine, but I would rather add no salt or soy sauce.
I see from this question that salt can affect the softness of the beans, but it seems like the beans should soften eventually either way. Since I am making refried beans, I only need the beans to soften enough for me to break them apart with a hand mixer, and then I can continue cooking them until they’re ready.
This post at the New York Times only discusses using salt to add flavor to the beans, but I am not worried about that. If I make a salt-free batch of beans and don’t like the taste, I can always go back to adding salt next time.
So will the beans cook properly in a slow cooker without adding salt?
Is there a reason you're trying to avoid this extremely small amount of salt?
@Catija Unless I am off in my calculations (which I could be), the added salt will make the sodium content of the beans 4 or 5% of the US daily value per cup—not a huge amount, but I would like it to be lower if it can be. A lot of the reason that I’m cooking my own refried beans is that I feel like canned refried beans have too much sodium.
Yes. In fact, many, many people believe (falsely) that adding salt before or during cooking will keep beans hard (a myth addressed in your first link), and most of these people have been cooking perfectly good beans for many years without adding salt until the beans were fully cooked.
The cooking time may vary slightly. In some circumstances, the texture of the beans and/or their skins may soften at somewhat different rates than with salt. But the beans will still cook fine.
(One note: some chefs have claimed that cooking beans without salt causes people to add even more salt afterward to create a flavor that tastes "properly salted." Beans are generally enhanced by adding flavoring components early enough in cooking for the flavors to penetrate. But you can always add salt afterward too; the resulting flavor distribution will just be different.)
I tend to avoid salting any soup-y things until the cooking is done... The salt flavor just disappears during the cooking and I always have to add more later on.
Thanks. I’ll make my next batch without salt and see if it tastes OK.
@Catija - It works either way. The salt flavor doesn't "disappear"; it merely gets intermingled with other ingredients. I read this some years ago, which claimed that pre-salting required half as much salt as post-salting to produce adequate flavor. I tried it myself and while I didn't see as much difference, I found I used somewhat less salt overall when I added most at the beginning. It also depends on whether you really want the concentrated "briny sauce" flavor with contrasting (more bland) beans vs. less contrast.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.164792
| 2015-05-16T22:37:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57550",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Catija",
"Dynamic Hydrofab",
"Panagiotis Suvaliotis",
"Sue carr",
"Tina Blankson",
"amaranth",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136924",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136926",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136927",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33290",
"网上提款通道维护不给出款怎么办如何拿回来"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
61508
|
What nut did I find?
I ask this knowing that it's possibly borderline off-topic, but I don't see a Botany SE site where I could ask, so...
A few days ago I stumbled (literally) upon an odd little fruit that had fallen onto the sidewalk. It fascinated me because it had three large lobes and a hard, mottled outer texture. I couldn't figure out what it was, so I brought it home and promptly forgot about it for a couple days.
When I picked it up today, one lobe had softened, and with a little pressure I was able to pop it off. The lobe contained a smooth, dark-brown nut!
Upon examination this reminded me of a chestnut. I broke off another lobe and found a second pod:
I have no idea what these are; they appear very similar to chestnuts but are missing the pointed tip and spiny shell. I don't know what to make of them.
Does anybody know what these are? More to the point for this site, are they (safely) edible? I noticed a lot more had fallen nearby, and I'm not above gathering some if they're tasty.
You've got your answer, but do also consider [gardening.se] SE in the future! While not botany as such, they do have an identification tag for this purpose.
I have to close this as per the new rule of plant identification which was voted on Meta, http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2126/. I hope you don't mind.
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because questions about identifying (edible) plants are outside of our scope.
That is a buckeye, fruit of Aesculus glabra, also known as the Ohio buckeye tree. The seeds (the "buckeye" part) look sort of like a horse chestnut, but the fruit is different.
Do not eat it!
The fruits contain tannic acid, and are poisonous to cattle, and humans, as is the foliage. (Wikipedia)
(You can, however, make buckeye candy: peanut butter balls dipped in chocolate.)
This is a buckeye still on the tree, as well as some leaves if you'd like to revisit the source to verify:
Actually, the seeds may be edible if you cook them properly to leach out the toxins: ("Aesculin is the toxic substance in buckeye seeds. Native Americans boiled buckeyes to leach out aesculin and make them edible for humans." ref) However, given the lack of "recipes" available, the amount of work required, and the high risk of not getting all the aesculin out -- I still don't recommend trying it.
Bummer that they can't be eaten, but thanks for satisfying my curiosity! Now I have to figure out what an Ohio buckeye tree is doing in Minnesota, well outside its natural range...
These are what we Brits would call Conkers!
Only we use a close relative - the horse chestnut. The schoolyard game of Conkers involves drilling a hole, threading a string with a knot and taking it in turns to smash your opponent's conker.
Surfice to say that there is very little use for them aside from the wartime production of acetone.
Horse chestnut trees are so abundant here that it seems a shame a more useful tree couldn't have been planted.
-1, because this isn't a horse chestnut (conkers). The brown inside looks pretty similar, but you can clearly see the difference on the green outside of the fruit.
"Only we use a close relative - the horse chestnut." Thanks for marking me down without reading properly!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.165067
| 2015-09-05T06:23:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/61508",
"authors": [
"Dan DiMuro",
"Daniel Chavez",
"Dave Del Grande",
"Erica",
"Robert Pickford",
"Valerie Jantzen",
"gpa member",
"hoc_age",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145856",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145858",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145861",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18447",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"logophobe",
"rumtscho",
"worthwords"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46582
|
Do scalloped sides on a knife blade have any effect?
One of the first knives I was ever given was a Wusthof 7-inch Santoku. Over my years of use, I've never put much thought into the cut-outs along the side of the blade (which appear to be variously referred to as "hollows", "scallops", or a "Granton edge") which many santoku-style knives seem to feature. Just to be clear, I'm talking about the oval indentations, evenly spaced down the side of the knife face, as prominently shown on this similar model:
I idly noticed these the other day and started a bit of research into their function, but what I found wasn't exactly definitive. Some sources make them sound like quite an advantage:
...it's the enhanced slicing ability - without shredding, ease of cutting and better food release that makes this particular knife design so popular with professional chefs and home cooks alike.
I question this, as I never noticed any of the professional chefs I've worked with in the past using a scalloped-sided blade, and I personally have never noticed a significant performance difference between my santoku and other knives of similar thickness. Likewise, there seems to be some debate about whether this feature is actually effective for its stated purpose. Many users seem to think that there's no real difference.
So, my main question: has anyone conducted a comparison of scalloped vs. non-scalloped knife designs? Was there any significant difference?
In addition, some follow-on questions that an ideal answer could address:
What's the principle that these cut-outs supposedly work on? In other words, if they work: why?
Does the prominence of the cut-outs matter? They're fairly subtle and shallow on my Wusthof, but are they more effective if deeper/more prominent, like on this knife?
Is there a particular method that makes the best use of these cut-outs? For example, do they have more effect when using a slicing motion across the food, as opposed to a chopping motion straight down to the board?
EDIT: Let me clarify, I'm not asking about general knife preferences here. There are tons of other answers on this site related to what to look for in a knife, and I'm experienced enough to know what I like, and what works well. But, if I were faced with a choice between two knives, identical in every way except that only one had scallops, could I anticipate any noticeable difference in their performance?
Related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35569/are-fluted-knives-a-gimmick?rq=1
@Jolenealaska Drat - that's not just related, this is probably a duplicate. And I finally thought I had a good question...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.165360
| 2014-08-22T16:00:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46582",
"authors": [
"Angela Bohlen",
"Candy Clayton",
"Cath Empson",
"Derek Stanfield",
"Eric Tardif",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kim Clark",
"Laura Bissell",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155153",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
50379
|
What kind of pan is this? (photo) How would you use it?
This is antique or at least vintage (family heirloom). It looks like it might be some sort of double-boiler? The bottom part is ~ 9.5" diameter and ~ 2" deep and appears to be ceramic-coated metal. The insignia on the bottom looks like a lion leaning on a coffee-pot with a "B" in it, and lettering under the stamp is illegible, except for the number 134. On the metal rim it says 'Patented May 23, 1899'. The top part is possibly aluminum, is less than 1" deep, and it is textured as shown, with no markings on the bottom. Handles on both are wood. Even when holding both in hand, these are not heavy. All ideas are welcome, as I am baffled.
Update 12/12: The enameled pan has been identified as a chafing dish, but the textured pan is still a mystery, so if there are any ideas on what it is or how it might be used, please feel free to share!
(click for full size)
You are assuming these are meant to be stacked when used. Maybe they just fit out of coincidence, for storage, or so the pan could also be used as a lid.
If the handles fit as well as they seem to on the upper picture, then the storage hypothesis isn't very likely.
If you really want to research it, the US patent office issued 468 patents on 5/23/1899. You can look at images of the patent docs by searching here: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=5%2F23%2F1899&FIELD1=ISD&co1=AND&TERM2=&FIELD2=&d=PALL I've never found a site offering free text search on patents that old, so serious digging will be required. The maker's mark looks rather British, not sure how their search system works: https://www.gov.uk/search-for-patent A patent NUMBER would be very helpful.
It looks possible that the two pieces don't actually go together. The patent referred to is number 625702, for an enameled chafing dish with a domed lid. (It's kind of hard to tell, but I think the innovation being claimed is the lip/indentation which allows the handle to be attached without damaging the enamel.)
The patent does mention the inventor's desire to apply the patent to other dishes, not just ones of the chafing variety, but the enameled piece you have greatly resembles the enameled portion of the dish in the patent drawing.
You got lucky! It was on the second page! :-)
@WayfaringStranger: I actually looked through all 468 patents, because sometimes people get multiple patents for similar things, and I was hoping that textured pan would show up somewhere. Unfortunately, Mr. G. E. Savage only had the single patent granted on this date.
The metal pan is a toaster, an accessory for the Manning-Bowman white enamel chafing dish.
see 1907 brochure from company link:
https://archive.lib.msu.edu/DMC/sliker/msuspcsbs_manb_manningbow2/msuspcsbs_manb_manningbow2.pdf
Well-found ... isn't it the 'waffler', though?
I talked to my Mom and we both agreed that it may be a old fashioned waffle or fancy pancake pan. All you do is put water in the bottom, boil, butter the top pan, add the pancake or waffle mix, stir around, put back on top and cook. Maybe you could put a homemade cake or shortcake mix and put the lid on and cook. There are cakes that one can cook on the stove, so why not on a "double boiler" with a fancy waffle design. I would try it out if I had it
This sounds implausible. A cake or waffle won't get hot enough in a double boiler.
Looks like a roasting pan...perhaps for chestnuts
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.165614
| 2014-12-06T16:40:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50379",
"authors": [
"Abishai Arenas",
"Beneventi paul",
"Cassandra Brown",
"FGA Services Group",
"Gary Gross",
"GdD",
"Jackie Okimoto",
"James Flynn",
"Jose William Cordero",
"Karen B",
"Karen Stuart",
"LivingWord Gboko",
"Marti",
"Moshe Horne",
"Nicholas Reynolds",
"Richandra Jordan",
"Robin Betts",
"SK Sharp",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120547",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120550",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120555",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120556",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120560",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122028",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128087",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59328",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
50397
|
What direction must one stir molten chocolate?
I vividly remember molten chocolate was supposed to be stirred in one direction; there was even a name for this procedure. My friend, who used to work (sales) at a large Belgian chocolate factory, told me that as far as he could remember this had to do with the 'shinyness' of the chocolate. When stirred in the wrong direction they'd lose a couple of hours to try and 'salvage' the batch (which was then used for lower-end products).
Sadly I forgot the name, because I always figured just googling it would shower me with results. However I can't find anything (except forum-posts that that confirm my recollection but don't give an answer other than 'who cares, it ends up in your stomach anyway').
So, what direction (clock-wise or counter-clock-wise), and how is this called again?
Surely if it makes a difference at all, the answer would depend on whether you're left or right handed!
@Jefromi: I fail to understand your comment: 'if it makes a difference (at all)' then why would that difference depend on being left or right handed?? It's about the chocolate not 'breaking' (whatever that means) by stirring in the 'wrong' direction.
I'm sure it's possible that there's something I just don't know, but this sounds highly implausible and maybe even scientifically impossible. The direction in which you stir simply has nothing whatsoever to do with crystal formation - only the temperature matters. Certainly I've stirred in both directions - sometimes in the same batch - and haven't noticed any difference.
If you're right-handed, stir counter-clockwise to incorporate and clockwise to disperse or thin out. Eggs should also be beaten in the same direction.
@Linda: could you please explain this further? Why do you mention 'if right-handed'? @ jefromi also mentioned importance of left vs right-handedness.. Surely, there must be some logic to this? @ Aaronut: thanks for your thoughts. For all I care it's a urban myth, but then.. where does it come from (and origin of the myth based on something, is there a 'common' mis-interpretation)?
I don't think THE direction is important, only that the direction is not changed. By maintaining the same direction you are less likely to overmix. Also, reversing directions can create a vortex that can incorporate air into whatever you are mixing (with chocolate this is usually undesirable). I would consider it to be conventional wisdom.
A friend (my source of the story) just phoned back (after I texted him). He used to work (sales) at a large belgian chocolate factory. He was bummed that he forgot about the direction and name, but as far as he could remember this had to do with the 'shinyness' of the chocolate. When stirred in the wrong direction they'd loose a couple of hours to try and 'salvage' the batch (which was then used for lower-end products). @StephenEure: could it be that the chocolate is continually mixed in the delivery-truck and the factory-machines must follow that mixing-direction? Also interested in Linda's A
Phoned friend back, to the best of his knowledge, the chocolate was not stirred in the truck, just kept on the right temperature.
Yeah, this is an old, old, old myth. It probably had some logic behind it originally - perhaps the "not incorporating air" that Stephen mentioned - but people who repeat it do so without any knowledge of said logic. (My mother drives me nuts with it.)
My point was that everything about the stirring (the bowl, the tool, the chocolate) is symmetric, so if the direction is important, the only possible reason is that, say, a right handed person scrapes the side of the bowl with the spatula better if they go clockwise, and that'd have to be reversed if you're left handed. I didn't say it mattered, though, I really doubt it does. The fact that the story just had a single direction is another sign it's not real.
@Linda That sounds irrelevant (chocolate isn't about incorporating or dispersing), and also probably like an old wives' tale.
No old wives' tale, it's basic pharmacy technique. When you're right-handed and stir to the left, you tend to start from the bowl, gathering the ingredients to the center, while when you're stirring to the right you tend to start at the center, sort of centripete vs. centrifuge forces.
@Linda: thanks for clearing that up!! (I hate loose threads/what-if's). I can understand the reasoning behind that (and how that just might be the source of this (possible) myth) and I think that this 'efficiency' of the left/right wrist's 'action-radius' is also what Jefromi meant(?).
@stir_choc I didn't mean anything specific, just in general that any difference between the two directions had to come from people not stirring symmetrically, and therefore would be dependent on which hand you're using.
In the time before electric mixing, chocolate, made by hand, sometimes required the effort of multiple people switching out as they tired, needed to work on some other task, or switched in and out cheaper laborers and experts during less or more critical stages of the process.
Mixing chocolate in one direction is important not because there's "one true direction" but because changing direction in the middle of a batch altered the quality of the chocolate due to turbulent flow.
Thus large chocolate houses defined the specific direction they chose so if you had to stir a pot, you didn't have to ask the previous person which direction they chose, or guess. Everyone in that company stirred in the same direction.
The direction itself didn't matter - the consistency of direction is what mattered.
This is rarely an issue now. Few people eschew mechanical means of stirring, and one doesn't switch machines in the middle of a batch - the machine doesn't tire.
But yes, some companies did adopt a consistent stirring direction that did improve their chocolate by reducing process turbulence.
To some degree it's akin to the cook whose friend asked why she always cut the roast in half. "That's the way my mom did it, and it always turned out wonderfully!" Eventually the cook asked her mother, to which she responded, "My roasting pan couldn't hold a whole roast at once."
I picked this answer because I think it sheds a reasonable light on the origin of the 'myth'. However I must admit, really I like all answers equally: each brings good and relative information and explanation.
I see enough here: Rheological measurements of chocolate quality:
non-Newtonian liquid
non-ideal plastic behavior
time-dependent behavior
Thixotropic/non-thixotropic transition
To make me think that changing the direction in which you are stirring melted chocolate might easily cause changes in the properties of the melt that take a while to settle down.
However, if there were a "clockwise in the northern hemisphere and counterclockwise in the southern hemisphere" rule, or some such, that rule should appear in the cited tech literature. It does not, so there probably is no such rule.
I was just about to discard it as a 'myth' other than the scientifically (but nitpicky) Coriolis effect (that apparently Cook's Illustrated has some recipes that (ab)use this effect). But then I found some papers (and references to them) about stirring-direction having a measurable effect on gluten(length), polymer(strength) and chiral pairs (orientation ?). While the origin might be a myth (altough craftsmen often noted things before they were scientifically proven), I (currently) still can not discard it as a complete myth.
Cooks illustrated has recipes that make use of the Coriolis Effect? Good grief. It doesn't affect anything smaller than weather systems!
Apparently.. from this source (I couldn't find the recipe however): `"Also: there is no possible mechanism by which stirring counterclockwise could give different results than stirring clockwise, unless Cook's Illustrated recipes depend on the weak nuclear force."
"The recipe was optimized for the northern hemisphere, and the accompanying article says as much. You should stir clockwise in the southern hemisphere. You want the Coriolis effect to augment your stirring, not counteract it."`
@stir_choc Pretty sure that's a joke.
@Jefromi: I also found this (which is an un-attributed copy of a piece of text from Howard Hillman's "The New Kitchen Science: A Guide to Knowing the Hows and Whys for Fun and Success in the Kitchen" (don't know how to do a google-books preview link) which also puts things in perspective. Actually, I'm contemplating to add (not accept) the text from that link as an answer.
@stir_choc That's just yet another person propagating the same bad information. (They do say it's tiny, "a calorie per century", but they say it affects kitchen sink whirlpools, which is false.) See this, for example: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7738/why-theres-a-whirl-when-you-drain-the-bathtub. The coriolis effect is detectable on the scale of a bathtub... as long as you let the water settle for a day first so that it becomes the dominant effect. As soon as you're stirring (or even just... pouring liquid in asymmetrically), the coriolis force is so tiny you'll never notice it.
For the answer: We've seen from the comments here (posting links to other places) that people are really eager to buy into "it's the coriolis effect" explanations. I honestly think the way you've addressed that idea gives it too much credit.
@Jefromi: I already noted in my first comment that I found the Corliolis effect nitpicky (but in an attempt to figure out where the myth comes from, it is a valid answer, as pointed out in that link from "The New Kitchen Science"). However, some protein/polymer/gluten string thingy/composition (temporarily) breaking down/loosing strength/changing orientation might be less nitpicky reason. If there is such a reason..
@stir_choc There's a difference between "nitpicky" and "has no measurable effect"; the former sounds like you mean "this tiny tiny effect is what makes the difference" and the latter says "this falsehood is why people think this matters but it really doesn't".
@Jefromi, that is what I meant, did that somehow got lost in translation (on my non-native speaker part)?
@stir_choc Ah, okay, never mind then. Yeah, I think it got a bit lost in translation, sorry. It really sounded like you meant it could be a tiny but real effect, enough to justify the original story.
Just to be sure: I mean: I acknowledge that using highly sensitive measurement instruments one could argue that the Coriolis effect is measurable even when stirring. I recognize this is negligible (even if a factory uses containers the size of a bathtub or bigger) and thus probably not the real reason or origin of the myth. However, getting stronger/longer/differently aligned 'structures' depending on stir-direction OR 'breaking' 'structures' when changing stir-direction (even after an X amount of (transport-)time) could hold chocolate uhh.. water. It might even be noticed by craftsmen.
It sounds like the "one correct direction" thing isn't real. However, it's definitely a good idea to stir consistently in one direction, to keep things flowing smoothly (laminar flow) rather than creating turbulence. It's possible that they picked one direction as the standard direction and told everyone to stir that way to make sure it was consistent. But if the idea is that clockwise is actually inherently better than counterclockwise, that sounds like a superstition or joke.
Chocolate comes out shiny and snappy thanks to a process called tempering. It does involve holding the chocolate at a well-controlled temperature and stirring to promote crystal formation, and it is pretty sensitive. But the chocolate doesn't have any idea what direction it's being stirred. The easiest way to mess it up is by getting the temperature wrong, which could actually involve stirring: if it's a large batch and the heat's only coming from the bottom, the stirring might be helping to maintain the correct temperature throughout the chocolate, and if you don't stir deep enough, you'd ruin the temper. Stirring too vigorously (especially if you're pulling in air and cooling the chocolate down) could also cause problems - and this includes things like reversing direction and creating a bunch of turbulence.
With a big batch, if you discovered bad tempering once it'd cooled, I could easily imagine it'd take hours trying to gently reheat and retemper it. And it really is finicky - if you don't know what you're doing, you can completely mess it up and have no idea what you did wrong. I can easily imagine jokes like this ("oh, the tempering's ruined, must've stirred it the wrong direction"), or superstitions ("I swear if I stir it clockwise it always works"). So this does seem consistent with your friend's story, it's just that it's not really anything to do with what specific direction you stir the chocolate in.
Thank you for (all) your contribution(s)! I tried tricking the friend ('s memory) by saying I found the answer and that it was 'tempering'. He instantly responded: 'no no, that (tempering) is indeed the most important thing to get a usable end-product, but this was about maintaining the batch'. Meanwhile we both googled 'shininess chocolate' and failed to come up with results (he said the explanation was among the top-links back then). I think I should leave the question open a little longer, there might actually be something to it.
@stir_choc I edited a bit - maintaining the batch means holding temper, which means basically the same problems as getting it tempered in the first place. I did add in the only practical reason I can think to pick a specific direction, though!
I don't buy the laminar versus turbulent flow argument. There's always going to be a big regiou of turbulence behind your stirrer as the liquid rushes into the low-pressure region it creates.
@DavidRicherby Sure, but it's a lot worse if you have it circulating one way and then try to reverse it.
Hello @stir_choc and welcome to Seasoned Advice! You really gave us a tough question! I have to admit that I had never heard of this. However after much digging it appears that there is in fact a very scientific explanation for the reason behind this.
When I first started researching this, I came up with many results for recipes that gave the instruction to stir in one direction only. Some stated that it was important or that the dish would be ruined if not done correctly, but none said why.
Thanks to a similar question on the SE Physics site, I was able to dig up more information. As @Jefromi and @Aaronut noted, temperature is the most important factor. But there are other factors involved, not only for chocolate but for other mixtures.
Simply put, by stirring gently in one direction you are creating a laminar flow as opposed to a turbulent flow. This helps to keep from incorporating air bubbles and lowering the temperature. Also, stirring in one direction allows the protein molecules to form into strings. If you stir in one direction and then reverse direction, they will form into balls.
The flow and shear are important in that they affect aspects such as texture, viscosity, mouthfeel, etc. With chocolate, probably more so than other foods, you would want the flow to be as laminar as possible.
This link has a ton of information on physics in food production and is primarily focused on chocolate. And fortunately it is written pretty much in lay terms. (There is a wealth of information and studies available but most are published by physicists and way out of my league.)
This link explains a little about how stirring in one direction only affects the protein molecules when making dumplings. (And what that means to the finished product.)
So, while I was skeptical about the whole idea, it appears that there could be merit in it. That said, I think it would be much more critical in commercial production than in a home kitchen. As I read on many posts, most people get good results without incorporating this. I may just have to give it a try and see if I can distinguish any difference! :)
Hope this helps! :)
I found some papers (and references to them) talking about measurable differences depending on stirring-direction in solutions for gluten(length), polymer(strength) and chiral pairs (orientation ?). Let's assume the factory that fills the trucks with chocolate stirred in direction X (regardless of it being the 'optimum' direction) and the factory that receives the trucks (making chocolate bars for example) has it's machine rotating in the opposite direction. Would that (at least temporarily) destroy those protein molecules?
The molecules won't be destroyed, @stir_choc; it sounds like the larger structures they are intended to form might not come together in exactly the right way, however.
@JoshCaswell: sorry you are right, should have been: protein molecule strings (to late to edit that). Or (if applicable, I'm no food scientist/chemist) gluten(strains?), protein(thingy's) or chiral pairs(alignment?)
I'm not sure where you read that about northern/southern hemisphere, but it's a joke, or someone thinking a joke was true and repeating it as truth. The Coriolis effect doesn't do anything at all significant on things that size.
@Jefromi While I did read that in two or three places, as noted I was a bit skeptical. Further reading confirms that you are correct. I am deleting that from my answer.
@Cindy Yeah, it's one of those things that sounds scientific enough that people will repeat it. Thanks for helping stamp it out :)
@stir_choc By chance are you asking about conching? If so I have a couple of really good links I can add. Note that conching is a separate process from tempering.
@Cindy: googlin conching now. If you already think it's relevant, I see no harm in adding it to your answer. Did you read the 'what if' in my first comment to your (otherwise excellent) answer?
I phoned the friend again and apart from the wikipedia article we also found this which seemed to us a short 'objective' description. My friend did hear of conching, however noted that he never looked under the hood of every machine (there were hoods) but didn't think it was the same machine (also because I asked him: "if there was just one 'true' stir-direction then why have a reverse-switch on the machine to spoil the batch" to which he promptly responded "because that machine was also used for cacao-butter").
It seems that the only part of this post that's actually answering the question is the 4th paragraph, which basically says "stir in a consistent direction, doesn't matter which one".
One must stir molten chocolate in whatever direction one feels like.
Really. There's no magic about what direction you stir. There's not even really any magic about always stirring in one direction, though if your stirring technique is bad, being told to pick a direction and stick to it can help improve it. (As in, if your stirring technique involves slopping things about in a random manner, stirring some parts and not others, then being forced to go around in circles will be an improvement, regardless of whether said circles are widdershins or sunward.)
Trust me. There's no magic in cooking. Or if there is, it sure doesn't lie in the direction you happen to stir your chocolate.
The only way it would matter which direction you stir is if there is some difference in the way you stir one direction vs the other. For example, if the industrial size mixer they were using in your friend's chocolate factory had blades that were shaped to move in a specific direction.
Hmm, given that I just spoke to my friend again who said the same machine was also used for cacao-butter (hence the reverse whatever-direction switch). Now I assume they could also switch blades.. So putting on the right blade but letting it rotate in the wrong direction would cause problems outlined in other answers. Good call!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.166112
| 2014-12-07T09:07:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50397",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Adam Davis",
"Alysa Komisarz",
"Cascabel",
"Cindy",
"Colonoscopy34",
"Daniel Goldstein",
"David Richerby",
"Dorothy",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Fire Alarm Installation Limite",
"G.hasara",
"Ian McCann",
"Isadora Duffus",
"Jan Baartman",
"Jody Beaudine",
"Linda",
"Marti",
"Shannon Walker",
"Stephen Eure",
"Terry Morgan",
"Thierry Taule",
"glenn mackey",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120612",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120631",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120637",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120647",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120648",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120654",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120691",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120692",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120702",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29775",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127",
"jscs",
"stir_choc"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35440
|
Why does my lime peel-alcohol infusion become cloudy when mixed with water?
Over the past week or so, I've been experimenting with infusing lime peels in alcohol, by:
Peel limes
Mix with 250mL of 151-proof grain alcohol
Let sit for a week
Strain through a coffee filter.
What I got is a nice, clear-green liquid:
However, I've discovered that when you dilute this with water, it becomes cloudy:
(click to see bigger, longer version)
Why does mixing two clear liquids create a cloudy liquid?
If you let it sit, does it stay cloudy?
After letting it sit for maybe half an hour, it stayed cloudy. I haven't tried letting it sit for longer than this.
This is a kind of emulsion called the Ouzo Effect (ouzo and other aniseed drinks also do this). I won't pretend to know enough to explain it, but it's essentially down to how oils (like those in fruit skin), water, and alcohol interact when stirred or otherwise agitated.
Wikipedia has an article that explains it fully.
Easy, when you make your extract with the peels you extract the oil also and when you mix it with water to thin it down the oil "demulsify" meaning it comes out a solution. If you would take the same solution and add high-proof spirit back to it it would go away.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.167878
| 2013-07-21T00:39:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35440",
"authors": [
"Evan Krall",
"GoboRiot",
"Kristine Fattah",
"Marti",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110578",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110647",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5385"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
112482
|
Garlic substitution in marinade/paste
I'm trying to find a substitute for garlic in a chicken pulao recipe. The masala paste calls for 4 cloves of garlic, which are ground with the other ingredients into a paste. I'm already substituting radish for the onion. (My sister has celiac disease and is very sensitive to/finds it difficult to digest onions and garlic and related -- no chives, shallots, etc. Even garlic and onion powder are out.)
I'm not sure what to substitute here. If it was a small quantity, such as one clove, I'd be ok in just omitting it entirely. But 4 cloves is not an insignificant amount. Further, the canonical 'onion and garlic subsitutions' question suggests a lot of other ingredients still in the garlic/onion family -- which are all out. Asafoetida, which it suggests, I've only ever used as an onion replacement. And even in that other question it says to fry it in hot oil first. My current use is as part of a paste which is used to marinate the meat overnight prior to cooking so I'm not not sure how having to fry it in hot oil first would work into that (assuming I can even find it in a store.)
I don't want to use ginger since the paste already includes ginger. Can I use horseradish? Garlic adds a certain kind of 'umami' and sharpness/pungency that I'm unsure how to replace in a marinade like this.
Basically the recipe is to grind a bunch of ingredients into a paste, coat the chicken, and let sit overnight. The coated chicken is then cooked with rice and spices to make the pulao. The other ingredients in the paste are onion, ginger, yoghurt or buttermilk, and spices.
You may get a better result if you pick a recipe that doesn't contain so many ingredients that need substitutions.
I would still suggest using asafoetida (also known as "hing"). Bloom it in just a couple tsp of vegetable oil,and then add it to the paste. Since your marinade already has fat in it from the yogurt and buttermilk, a little extra fat from the oil won't change it significantly. Frying spices in oil separately and adding them to liquid is a common Indian food technique, called a "tarka" or "tadka". And asafoetida really is the best garlic substitute ... that's the whole reason it exists, as a food.
In terms of obtaining it, your best bets where you are (your profile says Rocky Mountains) is either to find a grocery store with a substantial Indian food aisle (there are Indian groceries in almost every major Western US and Canadian city), or online ordering. The nice thing about hing is that a little goes a long way, and it keeps for a long time if it stays dry, so the one little jar you buy should be good for dozens of dinners with your sister.
Substitution ratio: 1/2 tsp is equivalent to 2 cloves garlic, or 2/3 cup minced onion.
It's often available in jars diuted with fenugreek, so you may need to use a little more - but that's a good thing as you wouldn't use much otherwise. And keep it in a glass jar with a well-sealed metal lid
What's the ratio of asafoetida to garlic for this? One tsp = 1 clove? (For some reason I had been under the impression that it was an onion equivalent, not a garlic equivalent.)
Honestly the hardest part about finding asafoetida is finding a gluten free version. Most of them appear to be cut with wheat.
It can be either, or both, really. I don't know about the gluten. Maybe try some high-end? The stuff from Savory Spice is only cut with Fenugreek, no wheat: https://www.savoryspiceshop.com/asafetida
I added a substitition ratio to the answer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.168025
| 2020-11-06T03:01:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112482",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"FuzzyChef",
"GdD",
"Roddy of the Frozen Peas",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"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
}
|
117846
|
Substitute for onion sweetness?
I have a lamb stew recipe which I'm trying to adapt for my sister, who can't eat onions, garlic, or other alliums. Usually when I need to substitute for garlic or onion, I use a tiny amount of asafoetida, which works well enough for that strong alium taste. However, that's not the role of the onion in this stew, and I'm a little stumped for how to substitute it out.
For starters, this stew only has three ingredients: lamb stew meat, onion, and water (plus a host of spices). It simmers for about 2-3 hours, during which point the onion dissolves completely and the tough meat becomes tender. (It's then served over rice; not important to the narrative.)
The onion serves to add a touch of sweetness, which mellows out the lamb meat. It also provides a slight thickness to the liquid. I tried omitting the onion entirely, and the end result was nearly harsh -- it's definitely something I want to try and substitute out instead of simply omit.
Asafoetida is a decent substitute for the garlicy/oniony taste, but that's not really the primary characteristic I'm going for here -- I'm looking for that mild sweetness that shows up after you cook onions low and slow until they dissolve into nothing. For thickness, I figure I can blend in minute quantities of corn starch until I reach the desired consistency -- but I can't figure out what to use for the sweetness.
Any ideas?
Might I suggest, that if your sister is allergic to aliums, you maybe should consider making a different recipe?
I've stopped making so many things because of this allergy I'd rather start adjusting instead. Something like pollo al ajillo isn't going to be substitutable, but this seems doable on its face.
Would (small) Turnips not serve? They also become sweet when thoroughly cooked and would contribute similarly to the texture...
Molasses or brown sugar? Or maybe heavily browned capsicum/bell pepper?
umm, I don't know , but I'd give apples a try
Friendly reminder not to answer in the comments.
While all the other answers are based on flavour, I'd recommend looking into this question. Onions might affect the tenderness of your meat as you described, so you should look for something to replace that effect, not just the taste.
You might try carrot. It is a common ingredient, often used in Italian cuisine, for example, to counteract the acidity in tomatoes, when making a sauce. In my example it is grated, then simmered with the sauce. It won't break down as much as onion, but could add the subtle sweetness that you are missing, and if finely grated, I doubt you would notice it texturally.
I'm going to try GdD's suggestion of honey first, since it won't affect the texture at all. But I'll try the carrots alternative after. Do you know what kind of ratio I'd be going for? 1:1 shredded carrot substitute to finely chopped onion original?
I would recommend adding some celeriac and/or parsnip and/or parsley root. They all become tender and a little sweet and if you press them through a sieve after you remove the meat, you get a light consistency and that extra flavor
@RoddyoftheFrozenPeas I would begin with 1/2 to one carrot. I typically use 1/2 for a pot of tomato sauce, made with a 28oz can of tomato. That recipe also has onion, so maybe go for 1 carrot to start.
@jmk that seems to be an answer of itself.
Carrots break down into mush, I'd say, even easier than onions do. You can prepare them just like mashed potatoes.
If you grate the carrots they should break down to almost no texture as well
@jmk I'll second the note that the suggestion of celeriac could be its own answer, but be aware that Celery allergies are reasonably common, and celeriac being in the same family could equally trigger a reaction. In my anecdotal experience allergies travel in packs, and it might not be something Roddy's sister has been exposed to before and thus not be aware of.
For thickening you have many options, I'd suggest rather than cornstarch that you make a roux of flour and butter as that will give the opportunity for adding flavor as well. For stews I like to make a medium roux in larger quantities than I may need and then set it aside, adding it later to the right consistency towards the end of the cooking process. The browning of the roux adds some of the flavor you lose by removing the onion.
Onions add a sweetness with some complexity to it, a bit of richness, so I would suggest trying a drop of honey, or less processed sugar like Demerara. If you don't have that a sprinkle of a 50:50 white sugar to light brown sugar ought to work as well, just don't overdo it no matter what sweetener you use - if you add too much it will taste all wrong. I'd err on the side of too little than too much.
Another approach may be to add some potato in and let them cook long enough to break down, the starch ought to thicken and will add some sweetness as well. I'd try that on a small scale first to see if it works, you could test it with some beef stock without using any other ingredients.
Yeah I usually would prefer a roux, but my sister is also celiac and I've not had luck with the various gf flours I've tried. Your idea with honey sounds interesting, I'll try that the next go around.
@RoddyoftheFrozenPeas I used up the end of a bag of rice flour in roux and it worked perfectly. Maybe there's a question in the trouble you were having with GF flours (note that some have gum added to make them a better substitute for baking; those might not be good options)
@RoddyoftheFrozenPeas I've had success in various recipes with gf flour mixtures (premixed from different gf flours). Works well for pancakes (and waffles, muffins), could be worth a try in roux.
Turnips.
But use small, young ones, as the large older ones are woody and give off a bit to much of a sulphurous taste. (you want some, to match the onion, but there's enough and there's way too much)
Turnip will mostly dissolve into the broth, making a smooth and creamy but not gelatinous consistency. It should be of minor to mild sweetness, without at all overwhelming the lamb's flavor.
While not the direct substitution requested, this recipe would work well with some Carrot, and some Celery too.
Many cuisines have some backbone to contribute flavor and other things like sweetness. Aliums are a classical part of many of them, but other ingredients usually are added to the alium backbone: Cajun--> bell pepper and celery, French--> carrot and celery, and so on.
I'd go with the carrot suggestion but add celery and bell pepper all pretty finely diced and caramelized in the pan first to try and maximise sweetness; you can also look at cooking in some tomato paste in the pan with it (pinçage)
The classic French ratio is 1 carrot: 2 onion : 1 celery to try and help with your substitution.
Interesting. This is actually a Persian recipe -- do you know what sort of 'backbone' is used in that type of cuisine?
@RoddyoftheFrozenPeas I don't know much about Persian cuisine, or whether it has an equivalent of a French mirepoix, Cajun trinity, or Indian ginger-garlic paste, but many Persian dishes have historically used dried fruits (especially raisins/sultanas and dates). If you chopped those finely you might get the effect you want
@RoddyoftheFrozenPeas I'd liken Persian cuisine to that of any "Ottoman" or "Middle-Eastern" (Lebanese, Egyptian, etc.), even though I'd likely to be smashed into the nose by anybody coming from any if these places for this assessment :) This would mean using onions and carrots as such a 'backbone' would be the default.
For sweetness, dried fruits: raisins, dates apricots etc. seem cuisine appropriate. Fresh or dried apples might work as well too (I find that they compliment onions, so maybe they'd work as a substitute). Possibly combine these with a vegetable, carrot or turnip, to provide balance. These are in addition to the asefetida.
but onion doesn't only add sweetness due to sugars that it contains, it also makes meat softer, hence it's broad adoption in meat marinades for shish kebabs.
I would try beetroot/vinegar combo. Beetroot for sweetness (also gives natural color), vinegar to make meat soft. Experiment with quantities, but don't go over the edge with vinegar.
Hm. Since there's a lot of red pepper and turmeric that might hide the red from the beetroot somewhat. Beets do have an unfortunate tendency to taste like dirt though.
I never tasted dirt, to be honest, so cannot comment, really. If cooked properly, beetroots are delicious and are used in «high cuisine» (expensive restaurants, that is for us, mere mortals) and «molecular cuisine» (even spookier, some alien tech coupled with mad marketing) to mimick almost anything - meat, fish, some vegs etc.
I think it's one of those genetic things -- like how some people think cilantro tastes like soap. Even in fancy restaurants there's a dirt taste; i know of several people who have the same opinion. Don't get me wrong -- i like beets ... I'm just trying not to change the taste of the end product.
I'm surprised nobody mentioned alcohol so far. I have seen the explanation that sugar and alcohol combination softens the meat (actually sugar softens, but alcohol apparently improves sugar penetration into the meat). Unfortunately I've read about it in a different language, but sugar+alcohol seems to be a popular combination for marinating meat. I assume you'd want to marinate it for a couple of hours before cooking, and all the alcohol will disappear during cooking.
P.S.: I assume vinegar might work in a similar way to the alcohol
Interesting. What kind of alcohol were you thinking? My first thought would be vodka or rakija.
@RoddyoftheFrozenPeas the recipe I've seen was a Japaneese recipe for boiled chicken breasts, that makes it moist and soft, instead of dry and stringy. Here it is: a breast is marinated in 2 spoons of sake/white wine for 10 min, than add 2-3g of sugar, a bit more wine and leave for 30 min. Boil the water, turn it off and put the chicken in a thermoresistent bag for an hour. White wine can already be quite sweet, so you'd want to adjust the amount of sugar, but I believe vodka and rakija should both work well. Might have some effect on the taste if you have a flavoured rakija ;)
I include redcurrant jelly in a lot of dishes to add a bit of sweetness, and now that I've had to cut alliums largely out of my diet (due to IBS not allergies) it's one of my main sources of sweetness in many dishes.
Depending on cuisine though I might also use honey, sugar (white, or darker depending on what I need, or potentially palm sugar or jaggery instead), grated carrot, or finely chopped dried fruit (e.g. sultanas or dates).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.168352
| 2021-11-14T01:38:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117846",
"authors": [
"Alexey Gusev",
"AncientSwordRage",
"Chris H",
"D. Kovács",
"FuzzyChef",
"Hobbamok",
"J...",
"PcMan",
"Roddy of the Frozen Peas",
"Steve Bennett",
"Tristan",
"elena",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9223",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94739",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95420",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96484",
"jmk",
"kopaka",
"leftaroundabout",
"mcalex",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
122566
|
Baking with lemon curd: when is it set?
I was trying out a new recipe which are shortbread squares with a layer of cranberry preserves topped by a thin (~1 cm) layer of lemon curd. After pouring on the curd, the recipe says to cook at 300 degrees F "until curd is set (about 10 mins)."
I have no idea what this means. I tried googling and found a variety of methods, none of which seemed very official/scientific and all of which seemed to be tailored to the recipe they were associated with. A lemon tart recipe said to gently tap the crust and look to see if the curd in the center jiggled (i have no crust). Another said to apply a "thumbprint test" but didn't elaborate on what that was. A question on this site about lemon bars suggested an internal temperature of 83C, but I couldn't get my thermometer to give a reliable reading given how thin the layer of curd was.
I ended up taking it out at 15 minutes, when a gentle shake of the pan seemed to be only slightly jiggly (and my highly unreliable thermometer said 139F which is probably not correct.)
When a recipe says to bake until curd is set like above, how do I know it is set? This curd was made by whisking together butter, sugar, egg yolks, and lemon juice, and thickening it over low heat in the stove.
I guess this question could be phrased "if i can't take the temperature, how do I know if it's set?"
Also I've never cooked with curd before -- pretty sure I've never even eaten curd before -- so i really am clueless about this whole process. :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.169296
| 2022-12-07T00:41:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122566",
"authors": [
"Roddy of the Frozen Peas",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11143"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
121805
|
Cooking (not baking) adjustments for altitude
I currently live at altitude (5,280 ft/1609 m), but I grew up and learned to cook at sea level, so my recipes are written with sea level temperatures and cooking times in mind. This isn't particularly high altitude -- you definitely don't need to do the crazy stuff necessary for 10,000 ft -- but it starts to get noticeable here. Water boils at about 200 degrees instead of 212, for example, which simplifies making certain kinds of tea. You do need to do slight adjustments when baking or making griddlecakes/pancakes.
I have a specific problem, where when I make bean soups using the same recipes I used at sea level, I find that I need to greatly extend the cooking time in order to get the beans to the correct consistency and not crunchy. Short of using a pressure cooker, I'm wondering if there are specific ways I need to change my technique or adjust the recipe to deal with altitude.
A specific recipe I've made at both altitudes goes like this:
soak dry beans
drain beans and put in a soup pot along with a ham hock and 7 cups cold water
bring to boil, reduce heat, simmer until beans are tender
There are additional steps, but this is where things are getting tricksy. The recipe I'm following suggests that you simmer approximately 1.25 hours -- and this is just about accurate for sea level. Following the same steps, at altitude, however, the beans are crunchy and not tender at all at this same point in time. I made this soup a few days ago and ended up having to simmer for nearly double the time (2h 20m roughly) in order to get the beans to the desired consistency. Even though there's 30 minutes of additional simmering after the addition of carrots, celery, onion, garlic, potatoes, the recipe as originally written leaves the beans under-done and unpleasantly firm or crunchy.
Other than doubling the cooking time, are there other ways to adjust this recipe so that the beans get tender? I don't have a pressure cooker and really am not looking to increase my collection of kitchen gadgetry. Otherwise, will increasing temperature help? For example, cooking at a low boil rather than a simmer? I don't think the addition of salt will help since depressing the boiling point further doesn't seem like a good idea.
Unfortunately most of the high altitude cooking guidance is baking focused -- which makes sense because that gets very complicated. :(
Given that you're living 1.6km up, I'd suggest that getting a pressure cooker would be a very good investment for you.
It won’t help, but since you mentioned it, salt increases the boiling point.
Right, it lowers the specific heat, but increases the boiling point. Had a moment of stupid there. Either way you need a lot of salt to make a noticeable difference, and there's salt in the ham hocks anyway.
I haven't tried this specifically at altitude, but baking soda does wonders for softening stubborn beans in general. Serious Eats recommends soaking them in it; I've had success with adding a pinch to the cooking water (not so much that it damages the flavor!). On the flip side, make sure you're not adding acidic ingredients like tomatoes, which lengthen the cooking time
The recipe is literally as written. Ham hock + beans soaked overnight + cold water. The only "unwritten" ingredient here might be some extra salt courtesy of the ham -- no acid I'm aware of. Are you suggesting adding baking soda during the bean soaking, or during the simmering?
Either way! I add baking soda during the simmering, and Serious Eats recommends during the soaking.
Soaking the beans in baking soda definitely helps to soften them. You may have to play around with different amounts of baking soda and soaking time to get them to the desired consistency, though. Too much and they get mushy. (As well as getting a slightly chalky taste.) If done properly it shouldn't have any impact on the taste.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.169443
| 2022-09-27T18:35:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121805",
"authors": [
"Damila",
"FuzzyChef",
"Popup",
"Roddy of the Frozen Peas",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25423",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76675",
"perigon"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
123066
|
How big a garlic clove?
How big (grams) is a clove of garlic, as found in a recipe?
I have a lot of recipes that call for some number of cloves of garlic. The problem is that garlic is a plant, and the size of the clove varies greatly. My local supermarket sells heads of garlic with really large cloves -- I weighed some tonight while cooking and they clocked in around 30g. On the other hand, the local convenience store sells small, roughly uniformly-sized heads of garlic in a mesh sheath whose cloves are about 10g each. This is a huge variation in size and weight!
My recipes generally don't include weights, they just say things like "5 cloves garlic". Is there any "standard size" for a clove, or even a "rule of thumb" that I can use? (This is literally the difference between 150g and 50g of garlic in a dish ... or the difference between a 'garlic bomb' and possibly something that's under-flavored.) I'm just really tired of accidentally making dishes that taste overwhelmingly of garlic ...
If you're finding your dishes taste too strongly of garlic, you're free to use less than the recipe suggests - 3 cloves of whatever size you have instead of 5. You might just not be as keen on it as the chefs you follow. Some people can't stand garlic; I like it and may add extra - but use far less salt than recipe writers.
At some point you have to accept that cooking isn't totally precise. This is one of those points. Even so some recipes do call for "a fat clove of garlic" to guide you (you could use 2 or even 3 little ones).
As well as varying in size, garlic varies in strength, which you can't measure. The flavour also mellows with cooking, which you can but not realistically to enough precision.
If you like garlic, you can bias towards more, if you think the merest hint is appropriate, bias towards less. Cooking a single portion, weighing garlic would need accuracy of the order of 1g anyway, which most scales can't really do even if they count in single grams; until recently less than 5g precision was rare, and that's not enough to discriminate small/medium/large.
Those garlic bulbs with massive cloves are sometimes labelled differently from everyday garlic. I can't often get them but prefer them as I never want one small clove. The other size is more typical, but variation within one bulb can be a factor of 4 (or even more when I grow my own)
Sure but which is the "normal" clove i should be using as a baseline? The big 30g ones or the small 10g ones? My "big" garlic is normal to me and what i can get at the supermarket without much effort, but I've seen a lot of variance in what's available elsewhere. When people (chefs, recipe authors) talk about a "clove", how big a clove are they referring to in general?
Typos aside: "Those garlic bulbs with massive cloves are sometimes labelled differently. " - so not those
The really massive ones might be ‘elephant garlic’ which isn’t very garlicy in flavor. But I don’t know if you can generalize and say that smaller garlic cloves are more powerful, I think it’s more about the variety
@Joe I don;t think you can generalise. I considered it. The big one I got recently wasn't mild like I've seen sold as elephant garlic in the past (and there the cloves are generally even bigger and fewer), but wasn't massively strong either.
The garlic bulbs with big cloves are not labelled "elephant garlic" (which I've heard of but never seen.) They're simply labelled "garlic" and it's the only garlic at my supermarket; it tastes properly garlicy.
@RoddyoftheFrozenPeas There is no baseline. There's no standard garlic clove. Two authors who say "three cloves" might mean different amounts of garlic.
I'd always call the '3 in a bag' your baseline. Other than those I can get variously-labelled 'jumbo' or 'elephant' but my local grocer also sells what looks like jumbo, but quite purple hinted & the skin hasn't yet gone completely dry & papery, which is really a new thing to me. I would guesstimate that each clove, whatever the size, has the same amount of 'garlickness', as the bigger they get, the milder they are. The little ones can nearly make you cry, the big ones you could just eat as they are.
Roddy: this is one of the reasons I've found videos by chefs to be invaluable. If I can watch the recipe author making a dish, I can see what they mean by "3 garlic cloves" (also, "one small onion" etc.)
@Tetsujin Concepts like "3 in a bag" tend to stop at country borders (and probably state/province borders in large countries), which makes them difficult to apply, even if the recipe is written for the quasi-standardized produce from the grocery store, as opposed to the local tiny produce seller, the restaurant supplier, or homegrown plants.
@rumtscho - I only really called it that because the OP already hinted at it. Basically, if you buy them bagged rather than singles, they tend to be the smaller variety. Even my corner shop sells this type, as well as the more esoteric.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.169770
| 2023-01-18T05:47:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123066",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe",
"Roddy of the Frozen Peas",
"Sneftel",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46189
|
How do I make prettier fried eggs?
I have no problem cooking fried eggs to my desired doneness or keeping them intact while cooking and serving.
But eggs cooked by professional chefs and diner line cooks look like this:
The white is round and mostly white; the yolk is basically centered.
My fried eggs look like this:
The yolk won't stay in the center (even though I let the white firm a little before adding the yolk to the pan), and the white looks like the British coastline. (Ignoring, of course, the detritus of the leftover onions and peas - those are attributed simply to laziness of the cook.)
How do the pros get their eggs to stay so symmetrical and pretty?
Administrative note: it seemed like a fried-eggs tag was in order, but if that's taboo please feel free to remove it.
Personally, I'd rather not have a separate tag for vs just , but I'll leave it alone and wait to see what others say.
@Jolenealaska Community's discretion of course. I just saw a) several questions about fried eggs, and b) tags for scrambled-eggs and other specific egg preparations.
I'm just starting to try to help get our tags organized, from my limited perspective, it feels like less is more.
Since you are already frying them with veggies, why not try this trick?
Ohohoho. I will certainly be trying that onion trick, @Timmy!
If you do the trick, start with just the white in an oven safe frying pan then add the yolk and finish off in an oven.
They did it in America's test kitchen. Their secret is to pour the eggs from a container (not directly from the shell) and cover it up at the end. It worked for me. Check out the video:
http://www.americastestkitchen.com/recipes/7554-perfect-fried-eggs
your egg isn't finished being cooked, plus I think they slightly basted their egg, at least that is what it looks like
My eggs turn out mostly like your pretty version above. It was entirely by accident, but after reading the answers here I now know why!
At least your egg doesn't have a hair in it... look at the out of focus hair right under the yolk in the 'pretty' egg!
One factor you may not be considering is the quality of the egg itself. The highest-grade eggs have firm whites and more regular shapes when cracked onto a flat surface. The fresher the egg, generally, the higher the grade. If you've ever cracked a grocery store egg next to a fresh-laid egg, the difference is clear. The hen's diet makes a big difference, too.
But judging by the pictures, I'd say your biggest problem is cooking with too much heat. Notice how much your whites have bubbled and that the edges are already browning while the inner albumen (the thick part of the white that surrounds the yolk) is still raw. In comparison, the albumen of the "prettier" egg has a visibly consistent cook on the whites.
Getting the right temperature
To get that consistent cook on a sunny side up egg you need to use less heat than you'd use for other fried eggs. The inner albumen cooks slower because it's sitting up higher than the outer albumen, farther from the heat. And you're not going to flip this egg, so it's a very uneven heat that you have to work with.
Imagine trying to cook a hamburger, entirely on one side! That's the challenge you have here, except with an egg, which is thinner than a hamburger but also less evenly-shaped and much more delicate. Some people like to loosely cover the pan for part of the cooking time, which reflects some heat and traps some steam to help cook the inner albumen from above. The risk there is that you're also cooking the yolk faster; if you cover the pan tightly, you can end up steaming the egg instead of frying it. You can use a plate, a lid of the wrong size, or another pan if you like.
Assuming you can get the temperature right, though, you don't need to cover the pan. To practice, start with the heat around medium-low and try to find the right balance of heat and time through trial and error. Crispy, brown edges means either too much time or too much heat. If you're practicing, try not to adjust the heat too much in the middle of cooking an egg. Cook one egg through, then assess the result and adjust your heat if necessary on the next one.
Getting the egg into the pan
Once you get the temperature right, assuming your eggs are decent quality, your only other challenge is getting it into and out of the pan gently. If you're rough with the egg, not only will it spread out unevenly, but you can break the membrane that separates the inner and outer albumen. This makes the white cook faster but it definitely doesn't lead to an attractive sunny side up egg.
Cracking the egg into a ramekin or small prep bowl rather than directly into the pan or pot makes it much easier to get a regular, attractive shape on your fried or poached egg. As far as centering the yolk, I suspect that's all about the grade of the egg; high-quality fresh eggs are just firmer and tend not to wander so much. I wouldn't recommend separating the yolk and adding it after the white -- I think that would do more harm than good. You want to keep that nested membrane structure, but separating the yolk requires breaking the inner albumen's membrane. What you get is a yolk that's just going to slide around on the raw surface of the white, instead of being held by the membrane in one place.
Other tips
Use oil rather than butter. Butter will brown the bottom and edges of your egg more quickly, and give it that browned butter flavor. A classic sunny side up egg is supposed to be evenly white and taste like egg. (Of course, if you like that flavor, go for it!)
Whether you're using oil or butter, only use enough to keep the egg from sticking. Too much butter can foam up around the edges and not look very nice. Too much oil can result in little splashes of oil on top of the egg and an unpleasant residue on the plate (and palate).
It takes some practice but cooking an egg every which way is a very basic technical skill that will stay with you forever once learned. As you get better you may start to notice how much of a difference the freshness of the egg makes, or how the color of the yolk indicates the quality of the hen's diet (and the flavor and nutrition in the egg as a result).
You don't have to go buy the fanciest eggs on the shelf -- plenty of restaurants get good results with whatever they order from their supplier -- but there's definitely a difference between brands. Hard to tell the gimmick from the real deal without cracking one open; I remember a story on the radio a couple years ago about a woman who resold grocery store eggs at a farmer's market when her hens weren't laying well, passing them off as fresh-laid. Best thing is to keep your own hens, but that's obviously not possible (or desirable) for everyone. Next best source is likely a CSA or farm stand.
Oh and by the way -- I never ate egg breakfast growing up. Couldn't stand them, especially the runny yolks! Tastes change; now I keep my own hens and I love a good runny poached egg. I don't claim to be any sort of professional in the kitchen; it's all about quality ingredients and practice, practice, practice.
A note on color and texture
I wrote above that "crispy, brown edges means either too much time or too much heat." To be clear, that's assuming your goal is a classic American diner-style sunny side up egg, evenly cooked and pale in color, like the photo shown in the question. But crispy fried eggs are also delicious, and require more heat rather than less. I cooked two crispy fried eggs, sunny side up in my wok this morning on a high-output propane burner. The image shows that the edges are crisp and lacy without being burned or ragged, the inner albumen is fully set and the yolk is liquid. I didn't cover the pan, baste with fat, or use any sort of ring mold or specialty egg device as other answers have suggested; I just have enough practice with this pan and heat source to be able to get this result. Which is to say, I've ruined dozens of eggs over the years trying and failing to get this result.
It's fine to cover the pan, to baste the egg, to use egg molds. All of these methods involve trade-offs and you may find that one of them is your preferred method. But if there is a simple thesis to my answer, it's that cooking an egg is fundamentally a problem of finding the right time and temp. And there's no substitute for experience because everyone's kitchen and ingredients are a little different.
What heat do you recommend for the pan?
@abbyhairboat I'd call it medium-low heat, but I think the important thing is to make friends with your heat source and your pan, and tweak the heat until you find something that works.
Butter ≫ oil for tasty eggs though. Never had problem with foaming or excessively browned edges. The key is low temperature.
May I know how you guys crack an egg, it should be the first step, right. If this step is wrong, I guess there will never be a good looking egg.
@KonradRudolph Funny -- I was editing the butter-vs-oil section right when you said that! I agree, temperature is the most important factor.
@Daniel How you crack the egg isn't that important, as long as you're not getting bits of shell in the pan (for that, try cracking it against a flat surface instead of a sharp edge).
Why I always get yolk on my fingers ...
@Daniel If you get yolk on your fingers when cracking your eggs, you need to be more gentle! The goal is to pry the halves of the shell apart, not to smash it.
I have been frying eggs for years and I never thought to use a prep bowl: I just crack the egg right into the pan. But it did make a difference when I tried it just now. But that revealed another problem: my pan is not perfectly level, so the egg slid to one corner. I guess the solution is to either make sure my stove is level (not a bad idea in any case) or to hold the pan level as I transfer the egg from bowl to pan.
@Jon Before checking the level of the stove (which is rarely perfect) you might consider focusing on the burner grates. Much easier to deal with, if you can shim them slightly with something heat resistant, than the whole stove.
As with many kitchen techniques, there's a gadget that can help!
In this case, little metal rings that hold your egg in place while it's frying so the end result is nice and round. Here's an example of a set that
Williams Sonoma sells:
If you don't want yet another gadget, you can get better with practice. Use a small frying pan so there's less room for the white to spread out, and I sometimes kind of hold the yolk in the center of the white with a spatula until the egg is nearly done.
I'm not sure if there are other techniques that the pros use, but I'm willing to bet that the pretty, perfect looking ones are made in one of these rings.
I bet I could approximate these with the ring parts of jar lids.
These little gadgets often have a non-stick coating that wears out quickly in an automatic dishwasher, so you'll want to wash them by hand.
@abbyhairboat I do exactly that. Keep them right-side up, as though you were screwing them onto the surface of the pan, or else the rim makes removal tougher. Oiling them is a good idea too.
+1 - OP's first picture confirms this - the pan is roughly the size of the egg.
I think the OP was also asking how to keep the yolk from spilling over to the surrounding egg white. Your answer barely answers that.
@abbyhairboat : short cans work pretty well, as you then don't have an indent to deal with ... ones the size of water chestnuts or tuna fish ... if you can, look for ones that you can use a can-opener on the bottom to get a clean edge. Or metal cookie / biscuit cutters.
@Joe you've opened a whole new door with the cookie cutter idea... Fun fried egg shapes!
Of course, you can use onion or paprika rings to the same effect (cheaper and less harmful to coated pans).
I'm making teddy bear shaped fried eggs today!
To get the perfectly round shape yet not fast food style "square" edges don't use a frying pan. Or at least don't use a large flat-bottom frying pan. Use a wok or a small, purpose built, egg frying pan.
The round bottom of the wok means that your egg will be forced into a round shape and not wander around. The down side of using a wok is that you'll end up using more oil/fat to fry your egg since the oil will insist on pooling at the bottom of the wok.
Alternatively you can use a small egg pan that is just large enough to cook one or at most two eggs.
I was in the same place you are several years ago. I'd crack the egg into the pan and it'd end up all splotchy and non-circular. I even tried cracking the egg into a separate bowl first as I'd seen a diner cook do, and then pouring the bowl into the pan to try to get a more circular result but to no avail.
The thing that I finally realized is that during the initial stage, between when the egg first hits the pan and when the bottom solidifies into the final shape it will end up as, you can just use the spatula to push the egg whites around! It feels like cheating but I swear it's not!
So in your above picture, crack the egg into the pan, stare at the British coastline, declare yourself god, and push it back into shape with the spatula.
You can get this same effect with one of those metal rings from William and Sonoma other people have posted (I've just used a cheapo metal ring from some Chinese Grocery I also use for plating rice, same end result) but that's an entire other thing to wash - too much work for me.
This is the technique that helps most. By far. I use a regular spoon to slide the whites from top and side of the yolk.
The picture of the chef egg has mixed the whites. An egg has a thin and thick albumin which is called the egg whites. Crack the egg in shallow dish, lightly blend the two whites with a fork, you will visible see the thick around the yolk and the light around the outside. A few passes through the fork tines careful not to puncture the yolk should do it. Lightly slide the egg in your pan, oil or clarified butter at a med low temp. Lightly spoon the oil over the white close to the yolk. The yolk still has egg white on it so it will turn white if you put hot oil on the yolk. After two minutes, the white should have slid off the yolk and you can spoon some oil over the yolk if you want a slight cook on top of the yolk. Getting the temp right is the hard part and takes a few times to figure out. Also, if the yolk will not center, your surface may not be level or the pan has an uneven surface. Good luck!
That's a great tip about gently mixing the whites--hadn't heard that one before. Thanks!
Use clarified butter, pre-heat the pan on medium heat
Drain the watery part of the white away from the egg (also a technique to use you want good lookin' poached eggs)
cook until desired doneness. Lower the heat to avoid bubbling and browning (which I didn't do).
Note: regarding the OP's "good looking egg" reference picture ... The only time I've ever been able to get whites that silky, yolk color like that and with those little bubbles inside the yolk was when I've finished the eggs in a low oven - and added the yolk back to the white once the white has set a bit (as OP mentions).
(this egg is about two weeks old - from a farm store. It was 3 days old when we bought the flat)
I've found that warming the eggs before I cook them by placing them in warm water helps them cook in the pan much faster with less temperature fluctuation, and I'm finding that the yolk has less of a tendency to roll off to the side. Also, I'm using a cast-iron skillet, which also reduces temperature fluctuation since it both retains and conducts heat well.
I cook my eggs in bacon grease, so I leave them in the warm tap water while the bacon cooks.
I flip the grease onto the yolk with a rounded wooden spatula. This cooks the whites on top of the yolk without solidifying the yolk itself.
I'm always pleased with my results. I posted my complete process here if you want to get the full picture.
Several answers have rightly pointed out the freshness issue.
I searched for visuals to compliment.
A fresh egg has a yolk that rides high on a firm albumen (egg white). These fried eggs have a smaller more attractive foot print when plated.
As an egg ages, it's albumen deteriorates. A less fresh egg has a thin runny watery albumen. This results in fried egg with the white thin and spread out. Not very good at all.
See this answer: What's the best approach to get runny-yolk sunny side up fried eggs?.
You can certainly use a ring mold as in Laura's answer, but that's not something you're likely to see in a diner or cafe. A little irregularity in the shape of fried eggs is usually expected, but it is nice to take care to center the yolks. If you'd like to use a ring mold, and the technique I recommend in the above answer, be sure to get ring molds that still allow you to place a lid on the skillet.
If a little irregularity is desirable, it might work to use a ring but pull the mold a bit early, while the whites are still a bit watery on top. The liquidish whites should flow down the now free edges, and give both a smoother slope and a little room for irregular puddling around the edges - but only a little would flow, since most of the whites would already be set and it should stay mostly in that circle shape.
As an addition to the other tricks: Eggs are a bit like human mammaries: Younger ones are firmer and rounder than older ones.
So using fresher eggs will help.
You should also ensure that you don't use too high a heat (medium heat is plenty).
Use heaps of oil. Cook on a medium low heat, spooning hot oil every so often to coat the top of the whites. Place a plate over then pan for the last couple of minutes to finish off the tops of the whites.
I've only tried this using fresh eggs from happy chickens so that may be the real trick.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.170192
| 2014-08-08T00:57:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46189",
"authors": [
"Air",
"Alton",
"Ariel",
"Charles Mizas",
"Comintern",
"Daniel",
"Dege",
"Fahad Bin Abu Naser",
"Flying Scotsman UAS",
"Freddie Spammer",
"Gacha",
"Green Protein",
"Home of dissertations",
"Joe",
"John Hobson",
"Jolenealaska",
"Jon Ericson",
"Konrad Rudolph",
"Malachi",
"Megha",
"Michael E.",
"Paula Kelly",
"Ramesh Yadav",
"Raphael",
"Ron",
"Spammer",
"TallMoose",
"Tiffany Thomason",
"Tymric",
"daedalCacoethes",
"doctoraw",
"dougal 5.0.0",
"hairboat",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110223",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110224",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110228",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110254",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110255",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110258",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26377",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26387",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44475",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6292",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7561",
"logophobe",
"starsplusplus",
"user110297",
"vero",
"yuritsuki"
],
"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
}
|
17657
|
What is a good recipe that uses a lot of evaporated and/or sweetened milk?
I have 60 oz of evaporated milk and don't know what to cook with it. I have found some recipes, but they only call for 12 oz to be used and I'm about to get another 36 oz. What is a good recipe (or recipes) that use a lot of evaporated milk? Breakfast, lunch, dinner, snack, or desert recipes are welcome. This question taught me that I can turn some of it into sweetened condensed milk, so that can be one of the ingrediants too.
Dear NoAlias, I am afraid that recipe requests are off-topic per [faq]. The "culinary-uses" clause is also limited to some very rare ingredients. This is why I vote to close. You can find such information in other places, such as recipe search engines. Feel free to come back with more specific questions about cooking, e.g. if you run into problems with a recipe you have found elsewhere.
Hmm, just reread your post; you probably need to change your question to something like; 'Have tons of evaporated milk, anybody know what I can do with it?'; otherwise it will likely be closed
This question does not currently meet any of our guidelines for "culinary uses" questions. We welcome questions about using edible non-culinary or waste ingredients or other rare ingredients; common ingredients are better addressed by using an ingredient-based recipe search.
Flan, a type of custard, is the same as crème caramel, tasty desert.
Pumpkin pie uses a bunch of evaporated milk.
Ducle de leche is a terrific desert topping and filling, translated literally it means 'sweet of milk'. The reason I mention this is that in Argentina and Chile, cans of sweetened condensed milk are boiled, unopened, on the stove for some hours to produce dulce de leche. I understand that what you have is evaporated milk, which is different; there is no reason not to try using it to make this delicious treat.
Here is a link with a bazillion uses for evaporated milk:
http://www.carnationmilk.ca/recipes.aspx
Mmmm... flan... Oh, sorry, where was I?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.171829
| 2011-09-11T21:13:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17657",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Eduard Uta",
"Frankie",
"GillesDV",
"Marti",
"Ollie",
"Timtianyang",
"Xiong Chiamiov",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37985",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37987",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37991",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37994",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7092",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
56679
|
Is it okay to use stainless steel in oven?
Its stainless steel dish so can I put it in the oven at 250c/482f ?
What is this pan meant for? Does it have a handle? If so, is the handle likely to be oven-safe? I have cookie sheets made out of stainless steel, and they (obviously) work just fine in the oven, so I wouldn't be overly concerned about the metal.
When you ask "can I put it in the oven?" you're actually not asking a whole question. Can you put it in the oven? Of course you can. Will anything happen to it and your food that you don't like? Ah, that is the other half, right? What might happen?
the pan might warp (if it is thin)
the food might scorch or burn (again, more likely if the pan is thin)
the pan might stain (especially if there are areas of it that have only oil on them - for example if you're roasting a piece of meat)
the food might stick to the pan and not come out well
If the pan is thick, and not a lot of it will be empty and exposed, then it should be fine. Another thing to consider is how you're going to get it out again after cooking. I don't see any handles.
If the dish is not meant for oven-safety, could it have a coating on it that will be affected by the high-heat of the oven?
that seems unlikely. A non-stick pan, sure. but a stainless steel pan, I doubt it.
Only if you are cooking something in it. That's a pretty high temp and your stainless is going to get stained.
This answer seems a little too brief. Are you saying that 480F is hot enough to damage the stainless steel and that baking food in it would prevent this? (I presume moist food/steam keeping the temps down?)
Sort of...having food in the dish will keep its temp lower...however at that heat, the stainless is likely to develop a brown stain you can't get rid of.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.172035
| 2015-04-14T15:33:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56679",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Elizabeth Wyman",
"Escoce",
"Jennifer Kirtlan",
"Kate Gregory",
"Kathryn Parker",
"Marti",
"Rina Latiban",
"Rod Hamill",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134783",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134784",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134787",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134797",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
57682
|
Ice Cream Bar Wrapping Machine Suggestions?
I have been making some ice bars recently, and was wondering what the most cost-effective way would be to package them.
I am not talking about Haagen-Daaz level of production capacity but more like a mom-and-pop store kind of capacity, which will be done by hand ;)
Is there an affordable machine/tool that can zip/seal my ice cream bars? I thought about one of those vacuum sealers but I don't think they won't look that good.
I did some research on the types of wrappers and noticed that there is a smooth-end version (picture 1) and a sawtooth-end version (picture 2). I personally prefer the smooth-end version because it looks more elegant.
Or, if such machines are too expensive, are there any other good options that can yield the same results? Maybe custom ordering a pre-sealed package with one end open and has an adhesive on it so I can just slip the bar in and simply zip it that way?
Again, it doesn't have to be of high-capacity. I'd really appreciate your input on this! ;)
The smooth end might be 'more elegant', but the reason for the pinking (zig-zag) is often to give the consumer places to focus the stress when tearing into it.
There are many food grade presized "Cello"/"Cellophane" bags. They all use more modern plastics, but are continued to be called "Cello".
Here is one that has an adhesive flap. Others can be used with a heat sealer, twist tie or ribbon.
Heat sealer
Just use lightweight "zip-loc" style bags. They are available in all sorts of sizes. It only has to be freezer safe, not 100% vacuum packed
Many packaging printers can "screen print" plastic bags
Vacuum sealing would be bad for multiple reasons. Sucking air out of the product and anerobic bacteria are the two that spring right to mind.
Material/machinery-wise though should probably be cellophane, and a heat seal (you heat the seal, not where the ice cream is.) You should also discuss it with your local food inspector and hear about what they'd like to see before you buy it, not after.
The things you have pictured both came off millions of bars level lines. What you are describing probably plays at the "get clear bags/pouches, and a heat sealer, and perhaps put a label on" level, unless you can find someone willing to make you a real deal on printing the bags without forcing you to buy 10,000 of them.
Without shopping too much, I see bags that might work for a nickle each (1000/$50) and sealers down to $25 or so.
Anaerobic bacteria that grow in the freezer?
http://www.cdc.gov/listeria/outbreaks/ice-cream-03-15/
I'm not saying freezing kills everything. I'm just saying that sucking out the air would not seem to make it more dangerous. If it's contaminated before you package it, whether with listeria or something else, that's the problem. (That outbreak had nothing to do with vacuum sealing, as far as I know - in fact the specific contamination mentioned on that page is of half-gallons, which definitely aren't vacuum sealed.)
printing on the bags might not be that expensive if you do big press runs ... but for convenience, it might be easier to have stickers made, so that you don't have to keep around lots of different types of bags if you can't easily tell them apart on their own in a clear bag.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.172249
| 2015-05-21T21:59:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57682",
"authors": [
"Angela Matthews",
"Cascabel",
"David Spriggs",
"Ecnerwal",
"Hasnain",
"Joe",
"Judy Patterson",
"Kim Bailey",
"Tamell Hillsman",
"davy skerries",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137261",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137269",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137338",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137344",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"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/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.