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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
60410
|
"Old wild west" secret sauce
I don't know if the "Old Wild West" franchise even exists outside of Italy, but I'll give it a shot anyway.
In those restaurants they serve this sauce,
which colors resembles much the one of a cocktail sauce. In the sauce there is something solid that I believe to be tiny pieces of chili peppers.
It has a neutral smell and tastes creamy, slightly spicy. It is very good to eat with sausages or roasted meat.
I have asked the waiters to tell me the recipe, but they wouldn't. Once, a friend of mine told me that it was a mix of mayo, ketchup, chili peppers and worchester sauce. I tried several times to mix them with verious percentages of the components and nothing I could come up with tasted anything like that.
Can you help me to understand the recipe?
Tiny pieces of chili wouldn't taste creamy. There can be spicy "tiny pieces" or a spicy "cream", but I've never come across "tiny creamed pieces". My personal opinion: It must be one hell of a sauce, because the rest on that plate doesn't look like anything to get excited about.
As you can see, in the sauce there are some "irregularities", but you can't feel them in your mouth. Yes, those are "tiny spicy bits", but the texture of the whole sauce is actually "creamy".
Well, in my opinion it IS a hell of a sauce.
It looks suspiciously like "Thousand Island" Dressing from the US.
A few possibilities, based on your description : (1) mayo + sambal (and maybe some worcestershire sauce) (2) Thousand island + ground cayenne or chili powder. (3) Thousand island made w/ minced pickled jalapeños instead of standard pickle relish.
Even though I've never eaten sambal, this sauce looks to me to be pretty tasty, maybe strong in flavour, while the sauce I posted is quite "smooth" and "soft". I will try thousand island and let you know
It wasn't absolutely the thousand island :/
I brought some OWW sauce back with me from Italy this summer. Here are a list of ingredients on the back of the packet in both Italian and French.
ingredients: Sunflower oil, water, vinegar, sugar, pureed tomatoes, egg yolk, iodized salt, mustard, modified starch, salt, dried parsley, spice extracts (paprika, turmeric), smoked paprika powder, thickener (xanthane), powdered cayenne pepper, smoke aroma, natural lemon aroma
Welcome to Seasoned Advice. Where is the english part?
Hi Annika, thank you for this find, it's great. We like our answers being findable with our search, so typed text is better than an image. I typed off an English translation.
So mayo, ketchup , mustard and chipotle powder should approximate this :)
@UnhandledExcepSean : and parsley. (I suspect the tumeric is more for color than flavor, and that you're replacing the paprika, smoked paprika, cayenne, and smoke aroma with the chipotle). I'd be even lazier, and mix mayo with the sauce from a can of chipotles en adobo. If it needed more sweetness, then I'd add the ketchup.
I've never been to Old Wild West but that looks very much like "fry sauce" or "secret sauce" as we use them here in the United States. In looking at Old Wild West's website, it appears to be geared around offering traditional US style burgers, fries, steaks, ribs, etc. so the inclusion of US style fry sauce would make sense. Here is a link to a typical version that would be used here: http://www.epicurious.com/recipes/food/views/epicurious-not-so-secret-sauce-51261820
That is right, the old wild west is a tex-mex styl-ish fast food restaurant. Can I substitute the "spicy pickle juice" with anything else? I don't know if I can find anything like that to buy here
Is it pickles in general that aren't available, or just "spicy pickles"? If you have access to dill pickles, etc, then you can use that. Otherwise you could substitute a splash a vinegar (cider or white) and if desired add a pinch of pickling spices (pepper, dill, etc). You could also leave it out altogether.
That's it! I tried it and it tasted absolutely-ish like the one in the picture. I have to figure out the perfect quantities, but it's this one
@Noldor130884 I know I'm late to this party, but sometimes "spicy pickles" are called "zesty pickles". https://i5.walmartimages.com/asr/eb471bb1-d16a-451e-86a2-28021ec9cbfe_1.3887dae6bc7a5f93db20060f415040c6.jpeg?odnHeight=450&odnWidth=450&odnBg=FFFFFF
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.293887
| 2015-09-01T11:38:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/60410",
"authors": [
"BrownRedHawk",
"Debra Hocking",
"Joe",
"Johannes_B",
"Keith Drewrey",
"Noldor130884",
"Patrick Wright",
"Sarah Nabunnya Emoru",
"SnakeDoc",
"Tina Picanza",
"UnhandledExcepSean",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"djmadscribbler",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144620",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144621",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144622",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28824",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9799",
"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
}
|
30612
|
How can I cultivate and store yeast?
I am often making a basic leavened bread for some basic recipes, like naan, burek, focaccia, pizza, etc. However, I find that dry active yeast is prohibitively expensive, considering it is a self-replicating living organism. Is there a way to effectively create and store yeast for a reasonable period of time (~3 months) from a mother spore?
I want to know what kind of burek you are making that uses yeast. The kind I am familiar with (sigara böreği) is just yufka with fillings.
I am curious why yeast seems prohibitively expensive, when you almost certainly have to buy flour, and possibly other ingredients for bread--and that cost dwarfs the cost of the yeast (at least here in the US, since your profile says you are in Seattle). Is it just the principal of the thing? I think of the cost of yeast as the cost of convenience and consistency, for not having to maintain a starter.
Dry active Baker's yeast is pricey if you get it in the little foil packs, but in bulk, at you local coop or natural foods store, it should run about $4.00 a pound. It keeps well in a closed jar in the frig, and works just as well as the expensive stuff.
@SAJ14SAJ, I've seen places that sell dry active yeast in the bulk section. My local go-to recently closed. The price was significantly less. A 4 oz jar of Fleischman's yeast runs $5-$8 at the grocery store but 4oz cost me less than $1 as Wayfaring Stranger said.
@Sobachatina, I do burek on my own terms... so perhaps I misspoke. I have an aversion to puff pastry dough. My version involves rolling out leavened dough very thinly, pasting with egg yolk, and rolling with egg, beef, sumac, spinach, pine nuts. I haven't experimented with rolling out unleavened bread, but I don't think it would be the same.
@ashkan If loaves are made from a formula with 2% yeast, one pound of yeast could raise bread made from 50 pounds of flour. Where I live, commercial yeast--delivered--in a 4 oz. jar from an expensive source is $24/lb. 50 lbs of flour retail from the same source would be approximately $35 to $60 depending on brand and variety. I guess I don't worry about it because that is still about 1/10th the total cost of buying whole, baked loaves. But until now, I never considered the percentage of cost from yeast.
Well, screw me for being curious, I only wanted to know what the process was of making "dry active yeast" as it comes in bags/jars and whether it could be cost effective.
@ashkan I wasn't trying to criticize, and apologize if you took it that way. I was saying I learned something interesting today.
@SAJ14SAJ Didn't mean to direct that at you, was more of a funny exclamation about the math that went into the calculation. Truth be told, it's a pretty convincing argument that I should just buck up and pay for the yeast jar.
In order to store yeast for that period of time it has to be make inactive, and the process to do that yourself is challenging, time consuming, and you'd need specialist equipment. It would be prohibitive in both time and cost, far above just buying yeast.
You can of course make a starter by mixing equal amounts of flour and water plus some yeast, this will keep the yeast alive by feeding it, and you can keep it alive indefinitely by feeding it once per week. You add some of the starter to your bread and it supplies active yeast.
+1 for the starter idea which is the only reasonable way I know of, as well, for home use.... I would suggest fleshing out with a description of how to maintain yeast-based starters in more detail, or linking to a site with that info.
I've heard of this before. I had bad luck relative to the consistency of yeast from the store, but perhaps I should revisit some starter recipes.
@ashkan sourdough is likely to be consistent, but yours will be unique and you'll need to learn its foibles. In particular it will be much slower than shop-bought yeast; think bread that rises overnight, not in a couple of hours.
You can "hibernate" a yeast starter in various ways.
Firstly, if you leave a starter in the fridge, and neglect to feed it, it can be revived after months or even years, by kneading it into some fresh dough, and feeding it as normal for a few days.
Secondly, you can freeze a starter. After thawing it, again knead into fresh dough, and feed as normal, and once again you'll have a healthy starter after a few days.
Thirdly, you can preserve a starter by drying it. Spread some starter very thinly on parchment paper, and allow it to dry completely. Crumble this into fresh dough to create a new starter containing the old yeast.
If you bake regularly, though, you don't need to do any of this. Just keep a starter continuously fed. Never use all of it at once, but stir in some fresh water and flour to replace what you've used.
If you're lucky, or careful, you can preserve the strain of yeast you start with. Normally, however, even if you start with commercial yeast, a wild strain will soon become dominant, and what you have there is a sourdough. Many people prefer sourdough, but you do have to get used to its slower action and its more acidic flavour.
Preventing other strains from colonising, is one of the complexities that contributes to the cost of producing commercial dry active yeast. However, as others have noted, bought in tubs rather than sachets, it should be very cheap compared to the other ingredients in your bread.
You can also try to capture "wild" yeast. Place a glass with water and flour just covered with some fine mesh (so no insects or large particles fall into it) and leave it overnight exposed out. Some yeast you catch would be terrible for making bread but some others would yield a great sourdough. Once you find you you like you can keep it alive forever in the manner answer 1 describes.
I would also recommend going for the "starer idea", using water, flour and a little yeast. I did this last year for severeal months and it worked really well for me (used it to bake bread most of the time).
However, I just wanted to add, that I know this kind of starter-usage as sourdough, rather than yeast.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.294376
| 2013-02-01T20:11:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30612",
"authors": [
"AdamO",
"AlanObject",
"BarterSage",
"Linda Molter",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sobachatina",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71566",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71567",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71570",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71739",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71745",
"mei zhou",
"slim",
"user71739",
"user71745"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
49328
|
What's the best container to ferment vegetables?
I'm brand new to fermenting. Popular purchases are Ohio stoneware crocks and A German style air-lock ceramic crock for fermenting the harvest. (pictured in order below)
I'm interested in smaller batches. I don't mind scraping off surface mold as the ferment develops.
Tips and advice using glass jars to ferment? Are there other container options? Should I just stick to ceramic?
I've used the harsch crocks myself - for longer ferments (3-8 weeks). However I've used the giant glass pickle jars for beets when making kvas for borscht.
The thing with the harsch is it takes the guessing out - once you seal it you don't really have to worry about anything except keeping the little water lip filled.
Fermenting in glass jars, to me, has been much more high maintenance: you need to top off water, skim the gunk, make sure that it doesn't go bad - but I've used them successfully for shorter ferments (7 days versus 6 weeks). One thing I'd say about the jar ferments is you need to make sure that you've got enough salt in there - this method to me is way less forgiving and goes bad easier.
Good luck - fermenting on your own is soooooo worth it.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! If you'd like to link to your website, you can do so in your user profile, but we ask that you keep to answering the question in your answers.
How small? You could use mason jars...or even plastic quart containers. I frequently use Cambro brand food containers. The key is to use food safe products and avoid material that is worn or cracked, which could harbor bacteria...other than that, almost anything can work.
I've not done fermenting myself, but I would suspect that if you're using glass jars, that you'd want to cover them or keep them in a cabinet, so that light doesn't hit them ... as that might affect the type of bacteria present.
@Joe I cover them with a clean kitchen towel and they get put in a dark closet in the basement.
After searching online for weeks and coming up fruitless, I got some terrific smaller jars (2 1/2 qt) at a local Target. Glazed ceramic with wooden lids. Easy to drill a hole if you like, but I found it easier to pull off the rubber gasket which made it loose-fitting enough to breathe as-is. $15 or so.
I'm not sure this is such a good choice. Many glazed ceramics are somewhat porous and will soak up a bit of liquid. They might end up with a lot of fermentation smell you can't get out of them.
Which container is, as you say, best for fermenting vegetables may not have a concrete, objective answer, because what is ideal for fermenting one vegetable (singular, plural, seasoned or not) may not be ideal for fermenting another. The Korean onggi however has a long history of effective use as a fermentation container owing apparently to not only its shape (which is lovely) but to its grade of porosity.
(image credit)
Mason jars are ideal for small batches.
In fact, I often use multiple mason jars for larger batches rather than using my "real" fermentation rig, a large glass jar with a fermentation airlock.
Some things to know:
Covering the jar. Some people lay a cloth over the top. I much prefer plastic mason jar lids. During fermentation you can leave them screwed on loosely to let CO2 vent, and since they're solid they keep out dust, insects, mold spores, etc. Once you're done fermenting, just screw them on tight to refrigerate. (Metal lids sometimes corrode from splashed brine.)
Light. You'll read in some places that glass is bad because it lets in light—that you need to keep mason jars in a cupboard or closet. I keep mine on the kitchen counter. In a shaded spot, not direct sunlight, but still in the open. Fermentation still happens. Bonuses: they're pretty to look at, a good conversation piece, and seeing them reminds you to check them.
Submersion. Big crock systems have the great benefit of a sinker that keeps the vegetables submerged. It's trickier with a small-necked mason jar. I've heard (and tried) many techniques. Simplest by far: cut a carrot into thin "planks", like little wooden boards, just a little wider than the jar's mouth. Nestle them on top of the vegetables in a cross pattern. Except for very small things (like bits of cabbage and the occasional peppercorn), they hold everything down. It's easy to skim off any yeast or mold, and you can eat them afterward.
For the covering and submerging parts, many people use a small plastic zip lock bag filled with salt water for small and large mason jars. I'm not a fan:
Fussy. When scum forms, it's all around the bag—so you're not just skimming, you're also removing, washing and replacing the bag.
Safety? Though plastic bags are food-safe, I'm uncomfortable leaving them floating in an acidic, saline brine for days or weeks at a time. They probably don't leach chemicals into the brine... but carrots definitely don't.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.294862
| 2014-10-28T18:22:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49328",
"authors": [
"Anthony Stringer",
"Augusto Sánchez",
"Botlhale-Bohlokwa Molapo",
"Carl Wilson",
"Cascabel",
"Cheen Lee",
"Janet Onheiser",
"Joe",
"Kathleen Jones",
"Peter Townsend",
"Sandra Kofowo",
"Sharen Ganzman",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117783",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117784",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117785",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117787",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117788",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117789",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117861",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117875",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117899",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
49732
|
What are the transparent strands in this salad?
What are the transparent, irregularly winding strands at the bottom of the following picture? They can obviously be had cold together with salad. They are very crispy.
They are much firmer and crisper than any "pudding jelly" I have met. They do not seem to be made in a mould but have a more "natural" shape.
I had this in Thailand and when I ask what it is, people have told me wun (jelly) and buk (which I don't know what it is). I am not sure this is correct.
(The staff preparing the salad buffet called it "buk", like English "book".)
What is it and how is it made?
In China I had somewhat similar food but warm and not completely transparent. I was told that was jellyfish. The only transparent things I come to think of are jellyfish (cut in strips) and konnyaku. Could this maybe be jellyfish?
Two more pictures:
https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/320xq90/r/908/B0O23n.jpg
https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/320xq90/r/537/3Sc643.jpg
Low odds, but another "clear" food product from the region? I have recently been playing with "rice paper" (which really seems to be mostly tapioca) wrappers. Those arrive as a translucent firm sheet, which becomes almost completely clear (and quite flexible) after a short dip in warm water - but I doubt strips of it would be "crispy".
I have had edible rice paper. The Vietnamese call it banh trang. They wrap f.ex. summer rolls (goi cun) in it. I like that very much, summer rolls are filled with salad, shrimps etc, less fat and not deep fried like spring rolls.
I think what you are looking for is kelp noodles. They are considered a type of glass noodle. They can be eaten raw or cooked in other dishes. In their raw state they are crunchy. Please see this link for a picture and some info.
Hope this helps! :)
I think you are right. The description fits.
From the picture, it looks like some variation on Yum Woon Sen (sometimes Yam Wun Sen Kung) - a salad that features clear noodles that are known by a variety of names in English: glass noodles, cellophane noodles, mung bean noodles, etc. They would be firm, like you would expect a noodle to be, but possibly less limp - but I don't think of them as "crispy."
I don't speak Thai, so I can't weigh-in on "buk" but the name of the salad definitely refers to the "wun" you mentioned in your question above.
On sight, though, they look like cellophane noodles.
Thank you. It is a very good comment. But I have had glass noodles long ago and they were more "noodle like". The current product is resilient and crispy, watery almost like bean sprouts. If glass noodles can be made like this I don't know. Glass noodles seem to be "wun sen" in Thai. Let's see if I can ask. // No real conclusions can be drawn from the composition of the salad that I made myself at random in a supermarket buffet. // Two more pictures added.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.295278
| 2014-11-13T09:13:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49732",
"authors": [
"Anna Magdalena Christianson",
"Dave Davenport",
"Ecnerwal",
"Gudisay Gnana Bhushan Kumar",
"John Johnston",
"Kali Passafiume",
"Karen F",
"ROSE SHUTTLEWORTH",
"Rachel Free",
"Reana Rockford",
"Tiffany Savani-swartz",
"Vanessa Yanishak",
"cvr",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118842",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118843",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118844",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118845",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118847",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118849",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118856",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29258",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"kelly anne Morrow"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
61773
|
What is glooi in English?
Warning! As is discussed in the comments to the answer, the plant and tuber may be poisonous and must be cooked by experts.
I went to a village market in NE Thailand. They had many products from "the jungle". For lunch I had steamed, shredded coco-nut, pumpkin and a white tuber (?) they called "glooi".
I assume the "glooi" is sliced (and steamed) in the picture below.
Does anyone know more about "glooi", it's English name etc?
Did it have a district taste or texture that you can describe? Thai cuisine uses may types of root vegetables that all may look superficially similar (translucent, creamy white) when cooked -- jicama, manioc, taro, lotus. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Thai_ingredients#Roots .
Widely speaking, cassava, taro, violet yam, sweet potato are all a little "soft, mealy and grainy" like a well boiled potato of the soft kind, I think. / But this was more crisp and hard as I remember. Also much whiter than the above mentioned. (Just a yellowish tone of white.)
Lotus root is a little harder to chew. Maybe like that. But that has a very typical shape, with the holes, and also different color.
The only one in the link under "roots" I think I can not rule out immediately from experience is jicama. I have not eaten that. But according to the Internet jicama is often eaten raw and it's Thai name is not gooi but "man kaeo". / The taste of the dish I had was sweet, though. From added sugar or coco or the root?
yuca/cassava is like a slightly sweeter, lighter potato if it was anything like that.
could this be Gluay - Plantain/Banana?
Thai people say it is glooi that grows in the ground. To us foreigners gluay/banana may sound similar but Thai people verify it is not banana.
Warning! The plant and tuber may be poisonous and must be cooked by experts. See comments.
Some Thai friends had eaten this tuber when they were young and helped me surf the Internet for it.
It is pronounced glooi (กลอย).
Scientifically it would be
Dioscorea hispida Dennst
http://www.thaicrudedrug.com/main.php?action=viewpage&pid=14
My dictionary translates it as wild yam, but that is probably a wide definition. It is definitely different from other yam that resembles sweet potato and is sometimes purple. (Yam in Thai language is "man".)
Great, thank you for sharing the answer with us after you found it! Note that it is OK on our site to mark your own answer as the accepted one.
From that scientific name, USDA shows it's called "intoxicating yam". http://plants.usda.gov/java/ClassificationServlet?source=display&classid=DIHI7 Google Books shows something for that name, too https://books.google.com/books?id=CnWwxljAQIkC&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=intoxicating+yam&source=bl&ots=d8rr5qOJK_&sig=LBGaunJqdAjsI1_-DtuUZSpnQK0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDoQ6AEwBGoVChMI-viVy8X-xwIVgTk-Ch0GTwct#v=onepage&q=intoxicating%20yam&f=false
Yes. That is interesting. According to the link in the answer, parts of the plant are poisonous, parts have medicinal effects. My Thai reading is poor and I combine with Google translate. If I get it right you must peel and slice the tuber and leave the slices in water for a couple of days. That could be part of a detoxifying process. The link also describes steaming, the way I had it. It definitely does NOT seem like something you grind whole and bake a cake of. If you eat that, you would die. Should be cooked by people with experience of it.
The closest culinary ingredient to "gooi" I can find is gui chai ("กุ่ยช่าย"), which is Chinese chives, but this does not describe anything I can see in the dish.
My best guess of the mystery ingredient is Jicama. It is is naturally a little sweet from oligosaccharides, similar to sunchoke / Jerusalem artichoke, but that might be just as foreign to you. That's probably my best guess looking at the fibres -- opaque and white. Though often eaten raw, it holds up well to steaming or sautéing. It will remain somewhat toothsome after light cooking.
Jicama, which was also discussed above, is probably similar, but has another name in Thai (man kaeo) according to the Internet. (As a kid in northern Europe I had Jerusalem artichokes. It was too long ago for me to remember the taste, though.) / To be sure what this is I think it must fit the name "gooi". Several Thai people used this name. I think it is more widely used in Thailand and probably not only dialect.
@ycc_swe Yes, I migrated and expanded this answer from my comment. Please consider modifying your question to include content from your comments about flavour and texture and anything else you can say about the veg in question. If this isn't it, I hope you get the correct answer!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.295556
| 2015-09-16T11:31:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/61773",
"authors": [
"Anusha V",
"Betty Millien",
"Braam De Beer",
"David Powers",
"Future Beyond",
"JWiley",
"Judy Faulkner",
"Kelly Mcmeneny",
"Monalisa deWee",
"Neal",
"Sharif S",
"Spammer",
"Suzy Ince",
"Yvonne Thompson",
"alan blake",
"cvr",
"derobert",
"hoc_age",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146634",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146635",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146637",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146644",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146691",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146692",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146700",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146736",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146737",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146758",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29258",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9973",
"penney stettler",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
55823
|
Can I cook duck breast a day before?
I have to serve a 'carpaccio' of roasted duck breast tomorrow, but I'd like to prepare it today. I want to serve the duck breast on room temperature, after cooking it medium rare or medium.
Can I cook the duck breast today, store it in the fridge overnight and let it come to room temperature tomorrow?
(I know that technically this isn't carpaccio, as it isn't raw.)
UPDATE
It all worked out really well. Thanks for the advice. ;)
Yes, you can do that. Simply make sure that the duck isn't at room temperature for too long. 2 hours is the strict limit: you may wish to be more... sensible about it.
I'd suggest slicing straight from the fridge, as it will not only be easier to get thin slices when the meat is firmer, but it will also de-chill quicker.
Thanks for the tips! I have to take it on a 2 hour car trip after taking it from the fridge. In that case the advice would probably be to A) cook it tonight, B) store it in the fridge, C) ship it to the next location in 1 piece, D) cut and serve right away. Am I right?
I would certainly put it in a cooler with a ice pack for the car ride. I would also cut fresh at your destination like you are thinking. Once you cut it you greatly increase the surface area and it will warm up a lot faster.
Did exactly that, see the updated question for the result!
Looks great, well done.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.295950
| 2015-03-18T13:00:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55823",
"authors": [
"Anaswar P",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Sheena Mennie",
"Sherlock",
"Timothy Kuni",
"draksia",
"fiona howlett",
"govindarajan r",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132663",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132664",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132665",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132815",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
57436
|
Mung bean sprouts developed a slight purple color on day 3?
I've been sprouting my beans for three days now; yesterday I noticed some had developed a slight purple coloration while rinsing them, photo attached. One of them even went blue-ish, but there is no brown or signs of mold. Is this normal or should I worry?
Here's a picture of the sprouts:
The sprouts developing a purple tinge is fine, it's a sign that they were exposed to light - they will even start turning green if they recieve more light.
This is like with white asparagus: As long as the stalks remain completely covered in the soil, they stay white. If they start to break through the surface, they develop a purple tinge in a very short time.
See the picture below:
Some stalks are still white, some slighltly purple.
But there's nothing wrong with eating green-ed sprouts, or is there?
No, they are just fine. Give them another day or two, then enjoy them.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.296102
| 2015-05-13T06:56:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57436",
"authors": [
"Amrita Subramanian",
"David Bergman",
"Eddie Hulme",
"Mary Kraus",
"Michele De Pascalis",
"Pauline Evans",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136658",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136659",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136663",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136664",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29617"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
51575
|
Coconut Water from White vs Brown Coconuts
The warning label on each coconut describes how to treat the water within each. The water on the brown coconut is to be discarded; the water on the white coconut is safe for consumption.
In what ways is the water from the brown coconut different than that of the white coconut?
Good question! I can find multiple references saying that you shouldn't drink from older (brown) coconuts, but nothing so far which says why.
Phew, too long for a comment.
The liquid of (young?) coconuts is sterile and can even be used for transfusions. The abstract of the linked article doesn't say anything about the sterility of older coconuts. I assume that the older coconuts (esperically the peeled ones) are not sterile anymore. This not very trustworthy looking website (this article is written by someone who sells coconut-related products...) says the liquid of older coconuts tastes sour.
If I search for "brown coconut juice sour" (both in English and in German) I get results (of ...well, not very trustworthy websites, too) that say the juice ferments if stored for too long. 1 Then, the highest rated answer on Yahoo Answers makes sense:
The longer a coconut stays and ages on the palm, the stronger and sharper its flavor gets...pick it early at the right age, but store it for an awfully long time, the flavor fades OR if it's a high-sugar variety, then it turns sour fast.
If I search for "brown coconut juice sour ferment" I get (among many, many results about coconut juice-based kefir) an article of the Cincinnati Herald by Timothy Moore:
The fruit itself has a very short life span and likewise must not come into contact with oxygen for too long. Fermentation will begin and the coconut and water will taste sour and smell. It will attract bacteria and complications will arise after it is digested.
The commercialization of coconut water prevents it from fermenting and souring as quickly as the natural fruit.[...]
If you are shopping for a coconut, don’t be afraid to ask how long the fruit was transported or how old the coconut is? In some cases, ask if you can open the coconut to be on the safe side. You don’t want to leave the store with a bad coconut.
On the one hand I would to take this article with a pinch of salt since the description of the author at the end of the article sound quite sensationalistic - on the other hand this explaination sounds plausible.
1 "Bei zu langer Lagerung wird das Kokoswasser sauer oder gärt." Translation: The coconut juice turns sour or even ferments if stored fo too long. Source.
Hmm, makes me wonder why then the meat of older coconuts is still considered edible. This seems like a possibly credible explanation, but it'd be great to have it verified by more trustworthy sources. Not that I can find any of those in my own research...
Just a note about the terminology: they "brown" coconut is referred to as a mature coconut, whereas the "white" one is referred to as a young coconut
I have been in the coconut export business for over 6 years. Coconuts are either 'young' 7-9 months or 'mature' 11-12 months old at the time of harvest. If you want sweet water, the coconut is harvest young, when the sugar content and volume of water are at their peak.
As the coconut ages, the water is absorbed as the 'meat' in the coconut grows thicker. The water also looses its sugar content. After husking, young coconut shells are white and quickly turn brown UNLESS treated in chemicals to keep them white for an extended period.. The water in an older, browner, coconuts is still safe to drink, just not as sweet.
If the water is rancid, so is the coconut meat.
If it is unsanitary to drink the water of mature coconuts, it does stand to reason that the meat would also be contaminated. I have yet to find any information suggesting that harm may befall a consumer of said meat, fermented or not.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.296356
| 2014-12-14T04:22:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/51575",
"authors": [
"Alun Evans",
"Angela Cooper",
"Awaa",
"Christine Rozen",
"Debra Anderson",
"FuzzyChef",
"Ian Mckay",
"Joseph Lerma",
"Keith Adams",
"Sammi Sammi Smith",
"Tin Man",
"Tracy Mason",
"deryb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122078",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122079",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138289",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138306",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139377",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139378",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54861",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"logophobe"
],
"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
}
|
52048
|
Maintenance and safety of cast iron skillet
I come from Stack Overflow and this it my first post on this branch of Stack Exchange!
I write here because I received a small skillet as a gift (I assume its material to be cast iron), and I don't know how to handle and maintain it properly because I have never used one. Also, I have a couple concerns regarding it and I hope that I could get proper advice here.
TL;DR (yes, this question in quite long, if you read it all I'd really appreciate)
Is it normal for the skillet to have residue when I pass my finger on it? Is it safe to cook in it? Out of the many advices that I could find on the Internet on how to clean it, which one(s) should I follow?
Detailed version
The skillet serves to keep food hot on the table by lighting a candle underneath it. I first saw it at a Japanese restaurant and I liked it a lot, the one that I have should come from the same place the restaurant bought it from.
Some pictures:
The first picture is of the stand: the candle is put in the hole, and the skillet is put above. The second pictures is of the handles, and the third is obviously of the skillet.
The person who gave it to me washed everything twice thouroughly. I think this might have caused some of the coating to come off from stand & handles, as you can see from the pictures. I wouldn't care for that, I also think that the material used for the stand is not iron as it is very light. I'll just use the stand and never wash it.
I noticed that the skillet itself, though, leaves a bit of residue when i rub my finger on its bottom. It's different from the pieces of coating that come off from the stand, it's a very fine powder.
I've looked online, and it seems that from now on I'd better not wash it with water and clean it in other ways instead. The problem is that I've seen a lot of different advices on the Internet, and I can't figure out how to properly take care of the skillet. So here is my list of questions:
1) Is the residue normal? Can I get rid of it? Is it dangerous for my health to put food in the skillet?
2) Out of the many methods that I found to clean the skillet, which one should I use? I've seen people suggesting that I rub it with salt, then I apply a thin film of vegetable oil. Others say that it can be cleaned by pouring water in it while it is on the stove, and letting it evaporate.
3) While I don't care about the base, I'm not OK that the handles lose coating above my food. Should I avoid using them, or again there is something that I can do to stop it from coming off? If they are made of iron like the skillet, can I assume that a proper handling (e.g. scrubbing with salt, no more water, rubbing with oil) will work?
Thanks in advance.
EDIT: When I asked the question I didn't know about cast iron seasoning. Now that I read something it seems reasonable that the skillet came kind of oily and with a bit of smell like fried oil.
To reply to Jolenealaska's comment: I'm pretty sure that the skillet is cast iron and the base is not. I'll check about the handles. Too bad I don't have an oven that can reach the high temperatures required for a self-cleaning cycle (it can go up to 275°C).
However, I found advice from a chef online that a preseasoned skillet (like mine seems to be) can be simply treated the following way: clean with hot water, scrub with salt, season on the stove with vegetable oil three times and then store it after rubbing with vegetable oil. Does this seem reasonable? I would post a link but the video is in Italian.
It looks to me that the skillet is cast iron, but the base isn't. I'm on the fence about the handles. Cast iron is very heavy, go to a store that carries cast iron cookware and feel how heavy it is. Is your skillet as heavy as that? What about the other things? My inclination is to advise you to put the skillet and handles in the oven for a self-clean cycle. That will ready the skillet for a good seasoning, and burn off any coating on the handles. It also may ruin them if they aren't, in fact, cast iron.
Thanks @Jolenealaska for your comments, I edited my question accordingly.
You can easily test for cast iron with a magnet.
Great question - very well put!
Your chef advice is sound. I have been cooking with cast iron skillets for longer than I care to admit (old guy) and at first they can be intimidating but in the end, they become your go to pan especially for searing/cooking hot.
You asked the same question several times, "is the residue safe?" It's as safe as the cooking oil you use to season it and as clean as you were able to get it before storage. A clean oiled cast iron pan in your cupboard is safe. Sometimes, I will wipe the old residue off with a paper towel just before cooking just to get any dusty nasties off of the cooking surface.
Basically, this is how I use my cast iron.
1) Remove from cupboard
2) Take a look - is there any dirt, debris, dust or corrosion. If so, remove. (Corrosion being the most difficult but a little scouring and re-seasoning will do the trick.)
3) Heat pan thoroughly before cooking - again, the heat will kill anything you can't see but don't want to consume.
4) Cook your food.
5) Eat your food (grin).
6) Clean the pan (NO SOAP)
a) Remove any remaining food with a scouring brush - in the sink, use hot water and elbow grease.
b) Fill pan with hot water
c) Place on burner (on high)
d) Wait till it comes to boil
e) Turn off burner and remove from heat (careful - water is hot).
f) Pour out water and brush clean with scouring pad/brush
---If clean, let cool to touch - if not, repeat b-f
g) When cool, pour a small amount of cooking oil into pan
h) with a paper towel, spread cooking oil all over the inside of the pan
i) With the same paper towel, wipe the outside of pan and handles, bottom, everywhere
--You're looking for a nice coating of oil - no pooling - just a nice gloss. This will prevent corrosion and keep the pan seasoned.
7) Once pan in completely cool, return to cupboard.
Tip - if you were unfortunate enough to leave the braising residue in your pan for a few days and it's a sticky mess, you can try filling it with warm water and putting a couple tablespoons of dish washing crystals (Cascade works best for me) in the pan. These "crystals" contain little enzymes that will "eat" the residue and make cleaning much easier. Don't leave in too long, about an hour or so - repeat if necessary. (Works on other pans too but not recommended for Teflon or non-stick pans.)
Tip 2 - I stack my pans in storage. To prevent metal to metal contact (not good), I put a paper towel between each pan. Be careful that the cast iron is not touching your other pans. Dissimilar metals have a way of talking to each other (causes corrosion on both).
There you have my tried and true method of caring for a cast iron pans. For some reason, I find myself craving some cornbread.
Good Luck!
Gringo Dave
Thanks for your precious experienced advice! I just finished cleaning & seasoning my skillet (this time in the oven at ~170°C), the first time I use it I'll make sure to follow your steps. Now that I understand the seasoning process and thanks to your answer I feel safe cooking in cast iron. Thanks again, greetings from Italy!
@Numbers - Thank you! Glad I could help. Greetings from sunny Arizona USA!
on the cleaning cast iron front, see : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/261/67
As an addition to the above excellent advice, if you cooked something that didn't get the pan overly dirty, try putting a few teaspoons of non iodized salt in and cleaning with that. Has the effect of sand, and effectively pulls away excess oil. For very dirty cast iron. I agree with the above answer!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.296722
| 2014-12-28T18:45:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/52048",
"authors": [
"0x5C91",
"Brandy America",
"Dianne Wilkowski",
"Digital Trauma",
"Dot Corlett",
"Eric Hoopman",
"Gringo Dave",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Joy Woods",
"LeNetta Huntoon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123456",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123576",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31292",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"sharon a"
],
"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
}
|
52078
|
What is the name of this french food?
One of my friends is in Paris (France), and he posted this photo from a restaurant there . Does anyone know the name of this dish ?
WOW, that totally looks NOT good.
Looks like a failed attempt to fancy up a humble fruit salad to me. Doubt it really has a name anywhere except for that restaurant. Though it is really hard to give a real answer without knowing what is under that cuckoo spit cough I mean foam...
I don't know but he said it's a main dish not an appetizer or a dessert . I know the foam (cuckoo spit :P ) hide the ingredient but maybe someone from Paris know what it is :)
It looks like a fruit salad with raw chicken. And of course the "foam". LOL Actually the foam reminds me of the foam that's on top of fresh apple juice (from a juicer).
I don't see 'Main' written anywhere. It looks to me like: Baby Fennel, diced apple, grape fruit segments, lychee (raw chicken), basil oil and a clove of garlic. All guess work. I know if that was put down in front of me I would send it back is all...
Really? I see a white fish, that one that has the pink tinges to it, I can't remember its name right now. I don't think this dish will have some kind of name that will be used in any other restaurant anyway, this looks like it's trying to be Nouvelle cuisine, so finding the name probably won't help to find the dish elsewhere anyway. Best people to ask is the waitstaff, not cooking.se :)
Do you have the restaurant name? that would help narrow it down.
If it is a french dish (they have other cuisines in Paris, yeah?) then it is likely to be a mix of poached (baby) vegetables, with or without some poached protein (fish or fowl). No fruit. These delicate veg dishes are prolific, hard to cook cos they depend on a carefully crafted stock and best quality veg (& little else, bar the molecular gastronomy nonsense foam). They can be a revelation in taste if done well and expertly, otherwise they look and taste like the remnants of stock-making day, that over boiled sludge in the bottom of your colander.
I doubt this dish has a name, as such. Obviously the menu named it, but in Larousse I'm guessing it would be just the standard poached veg.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.297318
| 2014-12-29T17:21:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/52078",
"authors": [
"Andreas Georgiou",
"Brooke",
"Christine O'Dell",
"Doug",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kim Beach",
"Laura Hunter",
"Matt",
"Max",
"Ming",
"Patrick McMullen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123542",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123543",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31309"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
69171
|
Cuisinart frozen yogurt recipes confusing
I just bought an ice cream maker (ICE 70) and it came with an instruction/recipe book, but the recipes for the frozen yogurt are confusing.
One example is like this
2 cups whole milk, plain Greek yoghurt
1/4 cup granulated sugar
4 cups frozen mango pieces
1 teaspoon lime juice
So on the first ingredient they say two different things, whole milk and yoghurt, but am I supposed to use both, or only one of these?
For example am i supposed to use
2 cups whole milk AND 2 cups yoghurt?
OR
2 cups combined whole milk and yoghurt (1 cup each)
OR
2 cups only of whole milk OR 2 cups only of yoghurt (I choose which one)
Does anyone know?
The recipe says:
A recipe wouldn't be a recipe if it wasn't confusing
I read that as 2 cups of Greek yogurt made from whole milk (ie not low- or non-fat yogurt). The comma does make it confusing, however.
Thinking about it, you end up with ice-cream if you just use the milk. :)
And that adds up (2 cups yogurt, 4 cups mango, makes 6 cups) so you know it's not some horribly unclear way of saying "2 cups of each".
It would be fixed with an extra comma. Whole milk, plain, Greek yogurt.
Or not using any commas. "Whole milk plain Greek yogurt" would be the natural way to say it.
Or write it as "Plain whole milk Greek [style] yogurt" (this seems to be the way it is listed on, for example, the WholeFoods website).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.297542
| 2016-05-22T18:47:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/69171",
"authors": [
"Adrian Hum",
"Batman",
"Cascabel",
"MicroMachine",
"Sobachatina",
"Xander Henderson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37730",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89259"
],
"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
}
|
52256
|
How to prepare tiny salted squid for cooking?
So, I have a bag of tiny salted squid. I love squid, but I've never cooked them and have no idea what to do with this. They're whole, and the bag says that they've been steamed, but I don't know if that means they're ready to eat as is or if they need further cooking.
At the moment, my best guess is to look up the squid cleaning instructions in Hazan's Classic Pasta Cookbook or in Time-Life Pasta and hope they apply as well to tiny squid as they do to the larger squid pictured in those books, and then use them in some sort of pasta dish, and hope the fact that they're tiny and already steamed doesn't interfere.
So -- can I clean them in the same way as full size squid? How does the steaming affect their preparation? And what can I do with them? I realize the last question is pretty broad, so I'm mostly interested in answers to the first two, but I'm also open to suggestions for what one can use a bunch of tiny salted squid for.
Can't help you but for an interesting read check this out http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2159692/Womans-mouth-falls-pregnant-squid-biting-sea-creature-scientists-claim.html for why you must make sure you clean them properly :)
Were those frozen or refrigerated? Do they have an expiration date? Just curious :)
@DeirdraStrangio They are frozen; they have no expiration date.
I think she's getting at how long they've been frozen. If they've been in there much over a year they probably won't taste very good.
Hello ToxicFrog, people were confused, thinking that you are asking for recipes, which is very off topic here. So I changed the title.
Those are meant to eat with rice, though you can it on your own. They aren't really salted, they were steamed with some salt, then frozen.
Did you have any hints on how they'd be taken from frozen to ready to eat? Would you normally just defrost and toss through some warm rice or do they taste better after being steamed for a while?
Usually steamed. To be honest, I'm never a fan of frozen cooked seafood as they can have some funky smell. These are close enough to the dim sum version that if you toss them with some scallions, ginger, and a splash of mirin (or shaoxing wine), then steam them, it would be much more palatable.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.297690
| 2015-01-04T03:44:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/52256",
"authors": [
"Deirdra Strangio",
"Derpy",
"Doug",
"Helen",
"June Baxter",
"Miklós Salánki",
"Nick Simigiannis",
"Peter Lawson",
"PeterJ",
"Roland Kopp",
"Sue E",
"ToxicFrog",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124016",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135176",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135182",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135693",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18696",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31424",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho",
"user2052413"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21382
|
How to make mayonnaise with a cooked yolk?
I have heard of mayonnaise made with cooked yolks before, but was suspicious of it. Now a user posted another question with a link to a recipe which shows the making steps. It shows the making a mayonnaise with a hard boiled yolk, emulsifying 150 ml of oil with a single yolk (and as far as I can tell, no additional liquid - the text is in Romanian). The mayonnaise in the picture looks nicely emulsified and smooth.
How is boiled-yolk-mayo made? What is the best ratio? Should I follow a different method than with raw yolk? How different is the result from normal mayonnaise?
I auto-translated the text and it doesn't explain the making of the mayonnaise in any way. It's all about the eggplants.
I went ahead and tried it. I used hard-boiled yolks, as a soft and slimy one would be not really different from making the mayo in a waterbath. It turned out to be incredibly fickle.
The first try, only yolk and oil, with immersion blender, split immediately and never recovered. The second try was supposed to incorporate the bad emulsion. I first made a paste from the yolk with a few milliliters of lemon juice and water, then started adding the bad emulsion, beating with a mixer this time. I got a thick suspension of yolk particles in oil, but it wasn't emulsified.
The third try worked at first. Again, I started with yolk and water and lemon juice, and then added the oil in really tiny amounts, half a teaspoonful at once. I used the mixer again. It emulsified, but was runny. I kept adding oil, and it was a nice emulsion, but very soft, runnier than soft peaks, like a batter. And then, one of the teaspoons of oil broke the emulsion completely :(
I don't know how the emulsion in the picture is made, maybe the sources I have heard of forget to mention that the yolk shouldn't be hard boiled (mine was longer boiled than the one in the forum picture). If this is the case, then obviously there is nothing unusual happening here - the yolk retains some of its emulsifying power even after boiling (I suppose it is the lecithine), but many of the substances which are actively helping the emulsion when heated around 70°C don't work any more. So, working with cooked yolks is possible, but much harder than the normal heated raw yolks. Which makes me think that there is no reason to try further to use cooked yolks.
I can't comment on taste, didn't try the emulsion before it split. After splitting, the yolk-containing oil is still usable as a bread dip, but doesn't taste well enough to be made on purpose.
Regarding Romanian recipe...
Actually in Romania people tend not to use raw yolks so much. Most often we eat relatively raw yolks just in fried eggs or soft boiled eggs.
In most of recipes the yolks are cooked.
Regarding mayonnaise there are three ways of preparing it: using just raw yolks (most simple), using raw and cooked yolks 50-50, and using just cooked yolks (harder).
For the last one, which helps storing mayonnaise safer and longer, the eggs are well boiled and then the yolk is removed. After cooling done until lukewarm it is finely crushed (often by passing it through a sieve several times) and then oil is added little by little. Sometime a small quantity of soft mustard is added for creating more chance of success. For one yolk about 100 ml oil can be incorporated (depending yolk size, as well). The mayo resulting it is slight harder then regular one. For making it softer, if you would like, you can add at last bubbled water (like a teaspoon), some lemon juice and even a tablespoon of cream or yogurt. Enjoy! Pofta buna!!
PS: we have some recipes of mayo without yolks, at all. These are for the period when we traditionally fast and no animal product is allowed.
By "bubbled water", do you mean carbonated water?
It's not an emulsion if there's not a liquid other than oil in the recipe. An emulsion is, by definition, a combination of two immiscible liquids such that droplets of one (the dispersed phase) are suspended in and surrounded by the other (the continuous phase). I don't read Romanian either, but there's got to be some sort of non-oil liquid in there, like vinegar, wine, water, or lemon juice.
I've heard of making mayo with cooked egg yolks. Harold McGee gives a recipe in On Food and Cooking for mayo made with yolks heated enough to pasteurize (or something close to it) but not completely cooked. Julia Child describes a technique for mayo and Hollandaise that involves cooking an egg with water and flour (I'd guess to keep the cooked egg smooth); see The Way to Cook, pg. 377. She says it "tastes just like the real thing," and claims that it's less susceptible to spoiling in warm weather.
The pictures you linked show a food processor, and it's a good bet that the high speed of the processor helps to break up the hard boiled yolk and make for a somewhat smooth sauce. It'd probably help to give the processor a head start if you crumble/mash the yolk with a fork first.
I would like to contribute though unfortunately I have no source material besides my own experience. I have come to this question from a search for what to call a sauce made from cooked egg yolk, water, and oil since most definitions of mayonnaise define it as an emulsion from raw eggs. You can make an emulsion using cooked yolk. I use the yolks from hard boiled eggs to make mine. I use a plain hand whisk for the mixing, adding oil and water a little at a time. I often use soy sauce as part of the water component. I remember the first attempt I was concerned when it seemed to have come together to a point but still had a grainy appearance when it finally crossed over that invisible line and turned into a creamy emulsion that looked and felt as smooth as any store-bought mayo.
I assume you use hard-boiled yolks, not runny ones? Do you whip over a water bath?
If you are asking because you are concerned about safety...placing whole eggs in a water bath and maintaining them at 57 degrees Celsius for two hours with an immersion circulator will yield safe, pasteurized, eggs. When cracked and separated, the yolks behave essentially as raw. Proceed with mayo.
No, I am asking because I am interested in the chemistry of cooked-yolk mayonnaise as well as its practical differences from the raw-yolk one: does it taste differently, does it have the same success rate, etc. But while I knew before that there are ways to pasteurize eggs at home (including during mayonnaise making itself), I am glad that you included that information, because not every reader will be aware of it.
This is a very useful comment for people who arrive here searching for info about how to make mayonnaise more safely.
Look up sauce gribiche, If you leave out the pickle juice and use hard boiled egg, oil, lemon juice and mustard you have mayo.
Can you post a recipe?
Mustard is not typically a component of mayonnaise as far as I know.
So you mean that if I make a sauce which is basically a mayonnaise with pickle juice, but without the pickle juice, I get mayonnaise? I find this information underwhelming.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.297955
| 2012-02-15T22:20:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21382",
"authors": [
"Debbiensync",
"Kate Gregory",
"Marti",
"Rachel Wang",
"Reston Window Tinting spam",
"Rita K",
"SourDoh",
"X Goodrich",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106162",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/82980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97071",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97086",
"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
}
|
52285
|
Why are my sous vide salmon fillets coming out raw in the center?
My wife and I have tried a couple times to sous vide salmon fillets and they seem to keep coming out undercooked or raw in the center and I'm really not sure why. I took pretty good notes on what we did tonight and I'm hoping someone can find the flaw in my strategy.
We purchased 1 lbs. of salmon fillet from Trader Joe's. At home, we pulled it out of the refrigerator and cut the skin off of the salmon and cut it into two separate fillets. I have a FoodSaver vacuum-sealer that I used to vacuum seal the two salmon fillets into a single bag. The salmon fillets were vacuum-sealed in the same bag, but were not touching on another (they were about 3 inches apart).
I have an Anova Culinary sous vide that I used to get a water bath up to 126 degrees farenheit in a large All-Clad stainless steel pot. Image of the sous vide setup below:
Once the sous vide was up to temperature at 126 degrees Farenheit, I dropped the vacuum-sealed-bag with the two salmon fillets into the pot and started a timer. To be on the safe side, I left the salmon in the pot with the temperature at 126 Farenheit for one hour.
When I took the salmon out of the pot and opened the vacuum-sealed bag, it seemed like it was colder than I would expect. Upon cutting into the salmon, I noticed that it was still raw in the center.
After I noticed the salmon was raw, I put a thermometer in the pot and verified that the temperature was 126 degrees Farenheit, so I think the sous vide is working properly. From what I've read online, cooking for 1 hour at 126F should be more than enough. Likewise I read that vacuum-sealing fish tends to end up with overcooked fish rather than undercooked so I didn't think that was the issue.
Where did I go wrong here? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated! Thank you!
A picture of the Salmon would have been nice :), what you call raw is likely perfect to someone else (Jolenealaska and Me)
When you say you sealed both in the same bag, please clarify. Did you seal them touching (or even on top) of each other, doubling the thickness?
@Doug Yeah, my apologies for that. I didn't think of posting this until after the fact. If I try again, I will add that image.
@derobert Good question. They were in the same bag, but about 3 inches apart and not touching.
@BrentNash please edit that additional information/clarification in to your question (its helpful to keep ti all organised in one place, so people trying to answer don't have to go through a potentially long comment chain)
@derobert Good call. Done.
are you sure you set the correct temperature scale, 126 Fahrenheit or 53 Celsius? was the fish fresh or frozen? how thick are the filets?
In addition to other comments, always cook meat only after meat has come to room temperature.
We are missing all of the key information. What was the starting temperature, ie was it defrosted fully. You should measure this before. What was the ending temperature of the fish. What was the thickness of the salmon? Also, was it actually undercooked or was the fish just cold? 126 is much colder than traditional methods where the outside of the fish would be much hotter than 126.
You should account for the time it takes to rebound, basically the cold fish lowers the temperature of the bath. When I use a circulator to cook, I don't start cook time until the bath temperature has rebounded to the cook temperature.
Your set-up is fine. You'll probably eventually want to trade in the stock-pot for something like this:
But there is no reason that the set-up you have shouldn't make great salmon. I have exactly that set-up (including the stock-pot for now, but the square polypolycarbonate container is on order).
125F for one hour is pretty close to bare minimum time and temperature for salmon fillet. I like it that way, but it appears that you have a different expectation than I do. I base that guideline on the recipe from Modernist Cooking Made Easy: Sous Vide: The Authoritative Guide to Low Temperature Precision Cooking and having just enjoyed salmon done at 122F for 1 hour.
First, double check your water temperature just to be sure. If you have a sous-vide circulator and a vacuum sealer, I don't want to hear that you don't have a digital, instant read thermometer. Double check that your Anova circulator is producing the temperature for which it is set. If the temperature is how you've set it, that means that you don't like your salmon that rare. Simple as that.
140F for 1.5 hours is pretty much the upper limit for a typical salmon filet to not be overcooked. That would be overcooked for me, but I have a preference for rare.
Assuming that your circulator isn't defective, you will almost certainly like salmon somewhere on that spectrum. Exactly where you like it best, only you can say.
Thanks for the feedback! I'll try double-checking the thermometer and cooking for a bit longer. I was looking at this video as a guideline: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pzcWShb1Uw and I feel like my salmon came out even more "rare" looking than the very first fillet they show.
That looks great to me, so double check.
I don't really have a great explanation as to why, but I ended up picking up the polycarbonate container you linked to above and I haven't had any problems since. I haven't tried the stock pot since we've gotten this container, but all the sous vide cooking we've done in this container has been great. Thanks for the suggestion!
You said you purchased the fillets at Trader Joe's. TJs sells the fillets frozen. My guess is that the salmon wasn't fully defrosted before you put it in the water bath. Given that the salmon started out partly frozen, it would take longer to cook.
Welcome to the site! That's a good observation. You might like to take a look at the [tour] to see how the site as a whole works. Hope to see you around!
Pretty sure you didn't cook it long enough.
The thickness of a salmon fillet, at a guess (I don't have one on me to measure) is about 40mm.
Going by http://www.douglasbaldwin.com/sous-vide.html#Fish_and_Shellfish to reduce Listeria down to safe levels alone, I think you should have cooked it for much longer ...
You're right, what I'm describing does just sound like I didn't cook long enough. It's strange...the information on various websites varies so wildly. For instance, Sansaire's website seems to think 30 minutes at 117F is enough: http://sansaire.com/cook-fish-sous-vide/
I think seafood and sous-vide are a bit like that; on one hand, you don't want to overcook it, on the other, you don't want to go to hospital. People trade one thing off for another. The last time I sous-vided a salmon fillet for such a short time, I cured it first :)
For the next time you do this, I would probably slice the thick section of the fillet in two, so that you have all pieces as an even thickness, maybe they'll all be 20mm? Then experiment with duration until you get it to the doneness you like :) Or layer up the two thin ends of the two fillets so they overlap, making them fatter! Good luck!
I cooked one salmon and one halibut filet (1/2 - 3/4" thick, 8 oz each) in this exact same setup -- Anova + stockpot -- last week, at 130 degrees and 30 minutes. It was perfectly cooked.
did you vacuum seal or just use water displacement with a ziplock?
2 ziplocks and squeezed out the air. i only use vacuum for long cooks or when not serving immediately
to be clear, you can POACH salmon for 30 minutes at 130F and it would be cooked. SV in this instance should be (pretty much) the same.
Recently America's Test Kitchen conducted a survey of salmon consumers in which they found that the prefered cooking temperature of wild salmon was 120 degrees F and of farmed salmon was 125 degrees F. I sous vide my farmed salmon at the ATK recommended temp for 40 minutes after which I allow it to rest for ten or 15 minutes. The results are remarkable: the fish is not overcooked and flakes rather easily, some would describe it as "unctuous" (sic). I do use Ziplock bags, either opened or sealed; it made no difference as to the results(In either case, water displaces the air in the bags.). If purchasing salmon fillets, avoid the tail and the head section but do go for the middle where the belly is minimal and/or well trimmed. The problem with the other cuts are two fold: 1) the ratio of skin to flesh can be rather low(Why pay for waste?); 2) the difference thickness in a single fillet can results in an unevenly cooked piece of salmon. Generally, the belly section alone should be cooked at the recommended temperature but for 30 minutes and then allowed to rest. Yes, I am recommending that you trim your salmon to produce a relatively uniform fillet. This does reduce the chance of uneven results.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.298948
| 2015-01-05T03:37:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/52285",
"authors": [
"Anne FitzPatrick Neu MSDMM",
"Brandon Kam",
"Brent Writes Code",
"Dale Hagen",
"Dave Fasick",
"David Richerby",
"Doug",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kim H",
"MarsJarsGuitars-n-Chars",
"Ming",
"Ramiro Zapata",
"Yvette Clark",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124094",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124095",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124097",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124099",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124153",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45166",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5373",
"rbp",
"ron s",
"sanz",
"tikboy noblejas",
"tsturzl"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
53636
|
What does the clock-like symbols under plastic containers mean?
Under many of my food storage containers of plastic, there are circles with numbers and an arrow in the middle pointing at one of the numbers. What does these symbols mean?
Could it be recycling information? Plastic type? Production date? Serial number? Suitable for a special type of food?
Here is a picture of a food storage container of plastic from IKEA:
(click for full size)
As James McLeod's answer says, it tells you when the item was made. The recycling symbols look like this.
This is the date the item was manufactured. The upper dial gives the year, the middle one, the month.
The bottom indicator could be a mold identifier, and in some cases, it might be a shift indicator (although this would typically be a clock going from 1 to 3, 4, or 6 depending on how shifts are allocated rather than the example showing 0 to 5).
See e.g. this manufacturer's datasheet on mold indicators: http://www.plastixs.com/pdfs/datecodeti.pdf
The bottom dial could also be the mold number. Most commonly these "clock" symbols only indicate the mold used to form the part -- quality dept at the factory can then quickly track down which mold may need maintenance if faulty product is noticed. I think you're completely correct that the upper two are date-related, though.
@Erica - that is a very credible alternative explanation. I am going to update my answer this evening once I've found a good reference for this.
The year and month is correct as defined here http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Recalls/2012/IKEA-Recalls-to-Repair-High-Chairs-Due-to-Fall-Hazard/
Just saw a video talking about injection molding of plastic : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMjtmsr3CqA . They're mentioned right at the end, at about 8:20.
Oops, the link is dead.
Dang! Will look for a suitable replacement.
Top to bottom: Year, Month, Week. See D-M-E injection mold components catalog p157. If a problem turns up, the date markers will allow the investgating team to run down the batch.
If the third one is the week, then why are there six options?
Local law says a work week is 5 days with two days off or pay overtime. 5 days into most months is 6 weeks.
At our plastic company, the last dial is the material source identifier. We source the injection molding pellets for HDPE from different manfacturers of comparable quality to keep them hungry and to keep us from having a supply crisis. 1 = company 1's resin, 2 = company 2', etc. This way you can trace a quality issue to the date and material source. sometimes it is a shift and sometimes it is a day of the week, just depends on the company.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.299693
| 2015-01-15T10:09:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53636",
"authors": [
"A.dhyrianathan A.dhyrianathan",
"Catija",
"David Richerby",
"Erica",
"Holly Taylor",
"Huangism",
"James McLeod",
"Jessica Passarelli",
"Joe",
"Niall",
"R C",
"Sharon Whitson",
"Sudhir Agarwal",
"Teresa Trost",
"Victoria dean Smith",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126077",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126121",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126156",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53594",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"user53594"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
53980
|
Roasting a frozen Creole Pork Leg?
I have a cookbook from Panama and the directions are sometimes missing or can be very broad. I'm a new cook so I need exact directions. I've tried Googling too but can't seem to find other recipes that ask to freeze the pork.
Is there a reason it says 24 hours, like it's only partially frozen in 24? And after the 24 hours, I put it on the oven frozen for 2 1/2 hours? Or do you defrost it? Do you cover it?
Preparation:
Place all the ingredients except the meat in a bowl and crush well.
Wash the meat and dry it well. Make superficial cuts with a sharp knife.
Cover the meat with the mixture of ground ingredients and place in the freezer for 24 hours.
Preheat the oven to 350 F and roast the meat for 2 1/2 hours until well cooked.
Thank you.
I have no doubt in my mind that this is a serious case of "lost in translation". Where it states to place in the freezer for 24 hours I genuinely believe it means the fridge. Never have I heard of freezing meat as a preparation method for cooking joints. Especially if the intended cooking time is only 2 1/2 hours, it'll still be raw in the middle.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.299984
| 2015-01-25T19:08:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53980",
"authors": [
"Debbie Roberts",
"Irritable Bowel",
"Jan See",
"Jarvish Hunnea",
"Julia Pogodina",
"Lara O'Regan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126932",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126941"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
58272
|
Cooking Indian curry with yogurt
So, I've worked with Thai curry before and reviewed the post about "When to prefer yogurt, cream, and coconut milk in an Indian vegetarian dish to make it creamy?" but these seem to be concerned with ingredients, not cooking methods.
While working with Thai curry, the best way to keep the milk from curling when it is cooked with the curry paste is to heat the separated coconut cream as you would with butter and then cook the curry paste in the cream until dark grease lines form in the mixture. I'm not sure what the process is called officially (any help here would be appreciated), but it seems to bond the curry paste to the fat of the cream and makes for a smoother dish, and it also allows the thinner part of the coconut milk to mix in smoothly without any separation.
Now that I've explained the method I'm used to, I was wondering how one might prepare traditional Indian curry in a similar fashion. I can see how cream might be prepared in the same way, but does this hold true with yogurt? I read that whole milk yogurt is usually used in Indian cuisine, and maybe that has the appropriate fat content to prepare curry with a similar consistency. Any insight would be appreciated.
I am slightly confused with what you are trying to achieve here. Milk and cream are added to give a smooth slightly sweeter texture to the curry(So basically curry becomes milder). On the other hand Yogurt is added to make curry sour. I use yogurt(whole milk as you mentioned) when i do not want lemony sourness but creamy sourness. But yogurt is much stronger in flavor than milk so i add it little by little and taste the curry as i go. As for curdling, Yogurt is already in curdled form unlike milk, so there is not much you can do to change it.
Coconut milk is not a dairy product, it's little use comparing how you cook coconut cream with how you cook dairy cream and yogurt.
What exactly is the question? What do you mean by 'similar fashion'?
Whisking some cornstarch into the yoghurt before adding it is an effective method to limit curdling and is also often found in recipes (caveat: can thicken the sauce more than intended). In other cases, some gram flour (besan) is added (caveat here: needs to get cooked in the dish for a couple minutes, or roasted beforehand, raw besan tastes vile).
It depends on what you are cooking. Yogurt is used as marinade for a few barbeque dishes like tandoori chicken, paneer tikka, and it's used in making curries in many dishes as Srilekha mentioned.
Yogurt is added at the end and is cooked no more than 2-5 mins for the simple reason it separates water when cooked at high temperature, which reduces its sourness and creaminess to some extent.
Yogurt is used as the base of the marinade for the meat (chicken, goat, etc). The masala, which is the base of the curry, is comprised of spices, onions, tomatoes, and ginger/garlic paste. To get the rich, thick, lucious curry you need to slow cook the onions (30-40 min). The onions are what give the curry the consistency you are after.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.300130
| 2015-06-15T16:49:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58272",
"authors": [
"David R",
"GdD",
"Kaushik",
"Laura Shumaker",
"Lorence Astwood",
"User56756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138833",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7477",
"mj - gd"
],
"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
}
|
53981
|
Sweet rice recipe help? Panama cook book recipe
This is from my vague Panama cookbook for "Sweet Rice." It's a side dish, not dessert.
Ingredients:
- 4 or 5 coconuts (Google says 1 coconut is 1 or 2 cups of coconut milk)
- 1/2 pound of ginger (?)
- 1 box of raisins (my guess is 2 cups since I'll be making 4 cups of rice)
- 1 pound of rice (Google says 2 cups uncooked)
- Cinnamon to taste (?)
- Clove to taste (?)
- Salt to taste
- Light brown sugar (?)
- White sugar (?)
Please help me with "to taste" directions. I can't cook, I need specifics.
1/2 pound of ground ginger? How many thumbs would you use?
Cinnamon and clove to taste? How many ml?
And what's your guess on the amounts of sugar?
These directions sound so easy but I can't guess on these amounts myself. Appreciate any help, thanks.
There is a reason your cookbook gives you the amounts in weight. "How many ml?" We don't know. Volume is a bad measurement in cooking, worse in baking. Also, "to taste" means exactly that - keep adding until you like it.
@rumtscho Volume of spices is not really that crazy; it's not exact but recipes also aren't sensitive, and people are much more likely to have measuring spoons than a tenth-gram precision kitchen scale.
Can I start by saying... You need a new cook book...
Regarding the question.
For my taste
1tsp cloves
2tsp cinnamon
2tbsp brown sugar
1tbsp white sugar
3 Inches of Ginger
How many people are you cooking for because as a "Side Dish" this seems to make a huge amount of product.
As I said this is how I would do it to my taste but It's not something I've ever eaten before and I HATE the taste of cloves.
3 people? Thanks for your taste! I would have had no idea. I'm not good at tasting something and knowing how much more to add. That's what a chef can do! I know, this cookbook really sucks. I should just keep it as a Panama souvenir and leave it as that!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.300401
| 2015-01-25T19:22:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53981",
"authors": [
"Andre Richards",
"Cascabel",
"Fatima Said",
"Michael Moran",
"chung-ying huang",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126934",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126935",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126947",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"remembershirley",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
67889
|
Tarragon: French vs Russian vs Mexican
In this question about tarragon lookalikes on the gardening stackexchange, I asked about whether I have grown a tarragon lookalike or whether tarragon can be tasteless if grown improperly. I added an update to that question today and I am hoping for a herb gardeners perspective in that community, but I also want to ask a different flavor (pun intended) of that same question but from a culinary perspective.
I have grown tarragon in the past, some 15-ish years ago and it tasted great. Last year I wanted to grow some and bought some seed, and have since learned it was Russian tarragon and not flavorful at all. So this spring I decided to plant some tarragon from those fresh cuttings you can buy at many supermarkets in those plastic clamshells or tubes. Great, no issue there except this: the tarragon I bought that was sold as a culinary herb, it also seems rather flavorless.
In doing more research I discover I may have been growing what's called Mexican tarragon which is in the marigold family, but considered a good substitute in areas that don't grow French tarragon very well. It's also called winter tarragon by some, I guess because it's available from the south during winter months.
So that's the background leading up to my question.
What flavor should I expect from each of these varieties? Is French tarragon really tasteless in comparison to this marigold substitute? Are my expectations for nice anise flavor too high for this supposedly noble herb? From a purist standpoint, I am incredulous and on the edge of outrage over this.
Flavor is a personal "thing" what works for me, may not work for you.
Name "winter tarragon" is ironic anyway: Tarragon ist hardy, winter tarragon isn't.
Not sure why you're outraged? All herbs have multiple varieties.
Not posting an answer because I've never had non-French tarragon. Here's some web links though: https://www.green-talk.com/russian-tarragon/ https://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/newsletters/hortupdate/2009/jan09/Tarragon.html
Seems like Russian tarragon requires you to use much more, and Mexican is a completely different herb with a similar flavor to French.
It is all a question of taste, so there is no definitive answer.
As a purist, you should plant "French Tarragon" which is the proper Artemisia dracunculus plant.
It is not an intense flavor; and this is why it is so good (IMO) and will not overpower a dish.
If you want something stronger, grow the "Mexican tarragon" (Tagetes lucida), which is a different plant.
Both have their use; plant both.
So do you think it's me? That I simply can't taste the anise flavor that should be in French tarragon? I mean really, as far as licorice taste goes, it seems to taste no more like licorice than grass. I am actually wondering if I am getting bad tarragon or that it's Russian tarragon that the herb producer just isn't tasting and doesn't realize he/she has the wrong one. My problem is, since I discovered I didn't in fact have tarragon in the past, but Mexican tarragon that maybe I just don't know what French tarragon is supposed to taste like.
It's you, it's me, and everyone else, we all have different taste buds.
Yeah, I don't think that's it. I think French tarragon is a lot harder to get due to mislabeling etc. I honestly think I quite simply bought more Russian tarragon labeled as French tarragon. How can French tarragon be tasteless?
Yeah so I did some more research. The compounds that make the anise flavor are the same in tarragon, fennel, anise, Mexican tarragon, and licorice, so this isn't it because I can taste it in all the others. I must just be really unlucky trying to get some real French tarragon in my life.
I had Mexican marigold growing at one house. It was delicious. I would use it in almost any egg dish and some desserts. I should plant it again.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.300585
| 2016-03-30T15:41:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67889",
"authors": [
"Escoce",
"FuzzyChef",
"Max",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
54633
|
enriching thai curry with milk?
I come from Indonesia, but you might be more accustomed to Thai cuisine, so I use the term Thai curry in the title because the curries are similar. no, really. just a tad sweeter rather than sour.
So, from this "Indian Spicy" vs. "Thai Spicy" ,
I gather the difference between thai and indian, and I want to enrich it with milk (no, I won't replace coconut milk, but I want to add milk to the coconut milk curry basically) .
how do I do that? or should I add Veloute,Bechamel etc to enrich Thai curry?
or is it not favorable (heh) to enrich a coconut-milk based curry with dairy?
I can't use ghee (hence won't go to Indian route) because it's too expensive in my country. and I will replace butter with BOS (butter oil substitute), real butter are quite expensive here.
any seasoned advice is welcomed. and... I use brown beef stock (roasted beef bone stock), if that matters.
EDIT: I won't use this with rice but congee. yeah, curry congee.
What is your goal? You say you want to enrich it, however I don't understand what you mean in this context.
I want to get the Indian curry deep spicy taste, where as Thai curry has high but fleeting spicy taste, if I'm to understood the difference between them. basically, I want to get the best of the both worlds.
Some of the difference between the two might be the spices -- some Indian curries have cinnamon, cloves, fenugreek, or cardamom, which I don't believe are common in Thai curries. I think Indian curries tend to be slower cooked relative to the brothier Thai curries.
hey @Joe . you are right, to be honest I'm still mixing and matching the spices and aromatics too, though maybe I'll skip cinnamon, only clover and star anise for sweet aromatics. the rest are corriander,cumin,candlenuts,fenugreek etc. and the usual alliums, lemongrass and rhizomes.
What bout sweetened condensed milk?
Growing up, my mom (Italian-American) would make curry using a bechamel-like white sauce plus curry powder. She said it was her mother's recipe, and I can only assume it was attempting to recreate a meal that she had using ingredients and techniques that she knew.
There are is an advantage of using a white sauce over using just cream to enrich the sauce -- the starch will keep the sauce from breaking over higher heat, but it can get a bit too thick and keep the other flavors from really coming through if you make it too thick, and I don't know if the flavors meld the same way as with coconut milk. (it's been years since I've had this dish, and I currently avoid dairy)
I've never tried mixing bechamel to something that already had coconut milk ... but I suspect that it could work. I know that I've made a white sauce using vegetable molks before (almond & soy ... coconut is the wrong consistency on its own, but there's 'coconut milk drink' that might work, or you could try thinning it with water)
Milk is not an ingredient I think of with Indian recipes, nor would it enrich your curry. It isn't very rich, all you will do is water it down. Bechamel is also not part of any indian recipe I've ever seen.
Yogurt is what you are looking for if you don't want to use ghee (and I can't blame you on that one), although you can make your own clarified butter without too much trouble. Yogurt is used widely in indian cuisine and does add a rich quality. I wouldn't add oil or butter substitute, you'll end up with a greasy dish.
Thai and Indian curries differ in flavors because of spices, that deep flavor you are looking for is from the spices more than the base. Indian and Thai both use turmeric, cumin and coriander widely, however Indian curries can use cardamom, black mustard, yellow mustard, fenugreek seeds or leaves, black pepper, asafoetida, nigella seeds, bay, and many more I cannot think of. The combinations used vary widely depending on the region. Try some and see what you think, just remember that the powders should be fried in a bit of oil for a 60 seconds to get their flavors out.
I see, I will try to make yogurt. is ghee added or just used to fry the spices? aside from that, does the fat to fry/bloom the spices matter? lard,ghee,veg oil, does it matter?
You could use ghee to fry the spices, or any vegetable oil (don't use olive oil, it burns at too low a temperature). Ghee is not required at all, it's personal preference really. I don't ever use it myself. When you add the yogurt add it in stages so it doesn't separate.
If you don't remove coconut milk when you add cows milk, you will water the dish down too much. However you can still add the creamy part of the milk if you wish, keep reading if interested.
If you wish to add milky creamy richness I would use marscapone. It will thicken your dish and give you that creaminess without altering the flavor of the recipe like milk cultures can (yogurt, sour cream, etc). a 16 ounce tub costs about $10-16 depending on where you are.
Marscapone is also very easy to make if it's not available at the store or you want to save some moeny. 1 qt heavy cream, gently bring to 180 F in stainless steel sauce pan (it's almost there when the cream starts to get frothy when stired), stir in 3 teaspoons of lemon juice, keep stirring. Cream will start to firm up a little bit.
Put the whole pot in the refrigerator overnight. In the morning you have a wet marscapone. You can use that if desired, or you can drain it by hanging it up in a sterile handkerchief tied together at the 4 corners and hung up, and letting the whey drip away.
Within 24 hours from start to finish, with $3 worth of ingredients you have a $16 tub's worth of marscapone that will add the creaminess you desire without adding more liquid to your dish.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.300889
| 2015-02-12T09:04:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54633",
"authors": [
"Colleen Kirschbaum",
"Dixie Schumacher",
"GdD",
"JWiley",
"Joe",
"Marla Fyfe",
"Samuel Minier-Harvey",
"Tawni Tyler",
"crescent_lunar",
"donna driskell",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128644",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128647",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128687",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9973"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
54786
|
Can I use sona masoori rice for making dosa?
I have been trying to make dosa in the US since 6 months & never got the fermented batter. When searched in seasoned advice I found a similar question asked.
How to ferment dosa batter?
I have been using correct proportions of rice, urad dal, fenugreek & poha. Even I tried grinding the mixture using soaked urad dal, rice, water and even kept overnight in the oven with lights turned on, but I never got my dosa batter fermented. I have used the same proportions in India and I was successful in making good fermented dosas, but the only difference is that I am using Sona masoori rice for making dosas in the US. I am suspecting that this might be causing a problem , but I am not sure about this and if it is yes, why is it so ?
@tcb, I have successfully used sona masoori rice for dosa batter.
try this method:
Preheat oven to 200 degree F. Then turn off the oven. Then put your batter-pot in the oven on a tray.Check after 5-6 hours. If temp are really low outside, and you think it is still not fermenting ,again turn on oven for a couple of minutes and turn off. Batter should be ready in 9-10 hours.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.301437
| 2015-02-15T21:26:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54786",
"authors": [
"Cinda Alloway",
"D. Parks",
"Dory Flaata",
"Giorgi Gvalia",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129054",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129055",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130809"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
59531
|
Old stone mortar and pestle cleaning
My roommate has an old mortar made from stone that had been outdoors for quite some time. She rinsed it thoroughly,put it in a big pot, and boiled it to kill any bacteria that could be crawling in there.
The mortar has great sentimental value for her, and I'm unsure about what products use for cleaning, if at all, since the stone might absorb the chemicals and render it unusable.
This related question seems to indicate that soap is not to be used with porous materials, such as stone.
Why are stone ware and dutch oven items exempt from bacteria?
Before using it for food preparation, is there anything else we should do to avoid health issues? Can we use it already after boiling it?
What type of stone, lava, marble, granite? Bleach makes for a nice general purpose disinfectant, as it degrades on its own over time. Let the thing soak in bleach (1 part bleach 9 part water) for a few days then boil again, and you should be good to go; once you find a pestle that fits.
Hard to tell. It's light gray. Would someone be able to identify the material if seen?
Quite possibly. If the mortar is marble, a drop of vinegar on the bottom should bubble, at least slowly.
No way it's marble. How much should we wait after cleaning with bleach and boiling again? Or right after boiling we would be good to go?
I'd rinse it, then let it cool and dry before using.
If there's residual bleach smell, rinse and let it sit for a week or so. Bleach degrades naturally.
I wanted to wait until we used the mortar, to confirm nobody died, before accepting the answer. However, it's been a long time and we still haven't used it, so I'm marking it as accepted as licking the mortar didn't send me to the morgue.
I think you are all obsessed with 'germs', cut off from nature so much you imagine everything a threat! You all need to get a grip! All you need to do with something left outside is wash it out with water, and if any stains some detergent. Children who grow up messing about in earth come to no harm, they have healthy immune systems which can cope with anything nature has. Same with dogs, kids who grow up with a dog and their less than hygenic habits are healthier than kids who don't, and get fewer childhood illnesses.
Botulism? Are you mad? You could damge an antique mortar by boiuling it or using bleach. Get real, we are animals just like all others, we have an immune system. You have more to fear from the burgers America eats in vast quantities!
Boil in pressure cooker or oven.
I think the worst you have to worry about is Botulism, and it dies at 240.
So the pressure cooker would allow you to get the temp high enough to kill anything real bad.
Oven would work too, but be careful not to go too high because the stone could crack. And make sure to let it cool completely before you move it.
The vinegar is also a good thought. Not sure I would go the bleach route.
vinegar can mess up some kinds of stone used for mortars, proceed with caution and try on a non-critical spot first.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.301561
| 2015-08-02T08:06:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59531",
"authors": [
"Calculus Knight",
"Danae Howard",
"Fatma Noor Muhammad",
"Optimal Computer Solutions",
"Paul",
"Shayla Hand",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142261",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142262",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"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
}
|
14158
|
How to get threads in a yeast dough?
I think I may make some traditional food for Easter this year. What I love most is a type of rich sweet bread called kozunak. The perfect kozunak is defined by many qualities, but what I find hardest is the texture. First, it should be really tender. Second, it must be very airy. Third, it should be juicy, not as dry as normal bread, but not doughy. Fourth, it should have threads. This means that the bread is broken instead of cut, and the dough should easily separate along lines made by pulling while kneading it. The best way to imagine that is to think of collagen-rich meat taken out of the slow cooker and pulled apart into its muscle fibers. Here is a picture of what the threads should look like (I hope the colours of the original are off, else it isn't the perfect kozunak with that colour ;) and the crumb is denser than usual).
The ratio of the recipe is probably important. It is a very wet dough for yeast, and has enough fat to make a quiche envious. (Also, this is the only bread I know of which is kneaded in oil instead of flour to prevent sticking). A typical recipe is:
1 kg flour [assume all purpose]
55 g live yeast
300 g white sugar
250 g milk [can be partially or wholly substituted for cream]
250 g butter
8 eggs
lemon rind, zests
vanilla extract
1 tbsp rum
yolk for glazing
raisins (optional)
almonds (optional)
I am not very good at getting it this way, because there is at least a year between each of my tries, meaning that I don't remember what I did when it went good and when it went wrong. My grandma and all of her friends love to give "surefire advice" on how to get it that way. And the advice of one friend contradicts that of another one (if it isn't internally inconsistent at to start with). I think that you SeasonedAdvicers are less likely to just perpetuate old myths without understanding them than these nice old ladies. So if you are experienced with yeast doughs, I will appreciate your opinion on following factors.
Fat type. This recipe says butter, but there is lots of advice to use lard instead, to make it "more tender". I am not sure that this has any consequence in yeast dough, probably some well-intentioned home cook decided that if it works for pie crust, it works for bread too. But I'd like to hear your opinion.
How many times should I let it rise? The usual procedure is something like Rise yeast in milk - mix everything, knead - rise (ca. 2x volume) - knead - rise (ca. 3x volume) - knead, pull, braid - rise (ca. 2x volume) - bake. But some leave the middle rising out, letting rise a bit more the other times. Is it a simplification, or is the procedure outlined overkill? Are there disadvantages to that much rising?
How much should I knead it each time? Some say lots of kneading in the beginning, the least amount at the end. Others say that the least amount of kneading every time is best. What do you advice?
Optimal oven temperature? It gets thick, because it increases in volume another 2x to 3x before setting, 10 cm isn't unusual. That would speak for a lower temp, around 160°C. But the years I followed this instinct, it got quite dry (maybe I didn't check properly for doneness). So maybe less time at a higher temp. But this is theory, what would an experienced baker suggest?
I think that's about it, but if you have other useful suggestions, please tell. This type of dough has a reputation for being tricky (or is it just the fact that it is rarely made so home bakers are inexperienced? Or that the expectations on the final product are high?) and I'll check the theory again, but help from more experienced bakers would be appreciated.
Edit: maybe I didn't make it entirely clear what puzzles me most. As I see it, I need exuberant gluten formation for the threads (and the long rising supports this theory). But to make it tender and airy I'd think that I want less gluten. So the theory just confuses me this time. I hope that at least the juicy part is taken care of by the abundant fat.
I've eaten a lot of kozunak over the years and I've never noticed the "threads" before.
Damn, that looks good. I've never made this particular type of bread before, but here are some things that I do know which might help:
Butter is (roughly) 10% water and 90% fat, while lard is 100% fat. So if you substitute one for the other, you should adjust the amount of water in the recipe accordingly. The flavor will be a little different, but I bet either one would work.
I would not assume AP flour. In fact, I'd assume high-gluten bread flour. The gluten is what creates those fibers. It's the fat that keeps it tender.
This looks very similar to a brioche, so you might want to look at brioche recipes to learn some of the principles. One thing that most of them will tell you is to to knead the dough to develop the gluten fibers, and then add the butter. This I think is the key. I know that fat can keep gluten molecules from sticking together into strands, so if you add the fat later, you should wind up with strands of gluten surrounded by fat.
Brioche would be closer to 900g butter in that recipe, so this is a fair bit leaner. Well, at least compared to good brioche! More egg, though. Agree that I'd try bread or even higher gluten (bagel) flour. And a 350F oven.
Interesting comments, but I have yet to shop in a country in Europe beside Italy which has high gluten flour. The original bread is definitely made with all-purpose flour equivalent. I think I'll try the "fat later" thing, and probably use milk and not cream because the milk goes in early.
@rumtscho: In sweden you can find high protein wheat flour. Roughly translated it would be called "special wheat flour".
@rumtscho you can also get high-gluten flour in almost all supermarkets in the UK (often called 'strong' and/or 'bread' flour
OK, I must say I don't count the UK as "Europe" when it comes to culinary traditions, because they are much closer to North America in that specific aspect. I didn't know about Sweden, although I don't know if their high protein flour is the same thing as the Anglosaxon bread flour or a less-refined flour. But good to know that there are more options available than I thought!
I make braided bread every week using an oatmeal buns recipe. It, too, doesn't like to be overworked. It's best with maybe 5 minutes of kneading.
I don't actually think it is the ingredients that create the threads. It may be the braiding. Here are some of my key tips to successful bread: ALWAYS use a thermometer!Use a pattern to hand kneading like this: Fold the top over with your left hand, gently press it in with your right palm, turn the dough a quarter turn clockwise, repeat. Treat it like a baby, not an enemy, lol.
Identifying when dough is "doubled" is very important. To see if the dough is doubled after the first rise, stick 2 fingers into the dough. If it "sighs" and slightly deflates, it is doubled. Deflate completely by gently pressing dough down, not punching, since that can tear the gluten strands. You don't have to squeeze every last bit of air out of it. You could knead it maybe 5 times if you like, but that isn't necessary.
Divide dough into however many strands you want to braid. Roll into ropes, gently elongating, not pulling, because that tears the strands. I sometimes do a hand-over-hand gentle squeeze down the length of the rope and then gently roll it to smooth it. If it is too tight and springy, let it rest 5 minutes and come back to it.
Roll it out on a floured board, coating each rope in a dusting of flour, which I think creates some of the separation of the strands you are looking for. Lay the ropes side-by-side. Then start in the middle and braid to one end, turn it and braid to the other end, so that in the lifting of strands you don't break the ropes. Seal the ends together by pinching.
I slather it with 1 beaten egg with a teaspoon of water beaten into it. My young daughter accidentally discovered that the texture and moistness is very positively affected by repeated brushings till the whole egg is used up on two loaves. I don't know why. You can't argue with success.
By the way, I use active dry yeast, not quick rise. Better flavor. So the following timing is based on that. I preheat my oven for 5 minutes to 200 F and turn it off. I put the braided and brushed loaves into the oven on the greased cookie cookie sheet maybe 15 minutes. I remove the loaves and set them on the stove while the oven preheats to 375 F. I bake them for about 25 minutes, or until they are golden and I hear a hollow sound when I tap the top center of the loaf. This tapping needs to be done in the oven, or immediately upon removal from the oven, because the hot steam from the inside of the bread will soften the crust quickly. You can't tap it 5 minutes later or even a minute later. It won't sound hollow. The top crust on my recipe feels rigid at this point, but as it cools, it softens (and my bread is legendary among my crowd). Cover the bread with a kitchen towel. Five minutes later, remove from the cookie sheet to a cooling rack. Those 5 minutes allow the bread to become less fragile, and the loaves steam off the pan a little. Do remove to a cooling rack at 5 minutes rather than leave on the pan, because that steaming action will cause the bread to become soggy and lose much of its flavor. It would seem logical to put it in plastic as soon as possible to keep the moisture in, but trust me, you will completely ruin the bread if you do this. Cover the bread on the cooling rack with a kitchen towel and let it cool completely. It may take a good hour or more. Leave it under the towel till time to serve. Even all day. If you must enclose it, for transport or whatever, use a paper bag with lots of breathing room. After 3 to 12 hours, you could store it airtight. I don't know. It never lasts that long, lol.
I looked up your kind of bread on google and found this recipe.http://www.food.com/recipe/bulgarian-easter-bread-kozunak-109967
You might want to look at their method and mine and use your family's ingredients and see if you can merge them to come up with what you are looking for. Hope this helps!
The texture reminds me of two things - Italian "cakes" sold in the UK "German" supermarkets at Christmas (which are the colour in the photo), and the Lardy Cake that is made in Buckinghamshire (I mention that because you wanted to know about using lard).
The stringing in the Italian cakes seem to show that they are allowed to "rise into shape" - I am wondering if the key to the process is using two lots of dough, one of which is proved less than the other. Make a parcel of one inside the other?
I consulted my literature again before making it and could build a theory behind the whole. Gluten is built by 1) kneading (which encourages protein cross-linking) and 2) waiting. Obviously, I don't want much cross-linking for threads, I want the molecules to bind end-to-end. So in theory, I should let it rise for a very long time, and only occasionaly knead/pull in a direction to align the gluten. This is consistent with usual practice.
As was to be expected, I botched the practical part. That's why I can't confirm it empirically. It was partly my fault (I didn't reduce the amount of yeast in the recipe) and partly the global warming :P (it is unusual that my flat is over 30°C warm at easter, but that's what happened this year). My steps included:
preleaven yeast in milk
make dough without butter, let rise
work melted butter into dough, let rise (thank you @Mike Baranczak for the explanation, now it makes clear why the step is needed - of course, my grandma didn't know that, she puts the butter in from the beginning and then religiously disrupts the raising by kneading)
form and braid dough, put into pans, let rise
bake
With the prescribed amount of fresh yeast and the high temperature, every rising took no longer than 2 hours, and at the and the yeast was really spent and deflating in the last pan. Besides, the recipe may be too rich. The dough wasn't exactly liquid - I could tear pieces off and form them - but the braided strands joined together after 3-4 minutes. I could still see where the boundary between them should have been, but it was soft enough to be a single mass after forming, the viscosity (but not the overall texture) was something similar to "soft peaks" in eggwhite beating.
End result: Extremely tasty. Melted in the mouth. And that unmistakable childhood memory of springtime holiday - I could barely restrain myself from running out and chasing butterflies through the jasmine and lilac bushes.
But nothing even remotely resembling threads.
I found an interesting video on baking kozunak on Youtube, and it looks like it sheds some light on your questions. The "thread" aspect is emphasized as "stringiness" in the video, namely described as being "like string cheese".
Fat type. They use a combination of butter and lard. In this case, it looks like a 3:2 ratio of butter to lard. Also worth mentioning that they use warm ingredients -- so the butter and lard are softened/melted when incorporated into the mix. It looks like they use nearly 22% of the weight of the flour in butter/lard (125g to 575g flour). Furthermore, they use a lot of eggs. More eggs than fat (150g vs 125g).
How many times to let it rise? It looks like they only specifically allot time for a final proof (after shaping). That being said, I've found another recipe (that produces desired threads) that does add a 1-2 hour bulk ferment. The proof takes about 3-4 hours at 35C/95F (or until doubled), and the dough is coated in a little oil before the proof. Note that the recipe does use a poolish starter made from milk, flour, sugar and yeast. Around an hour passes before they add the starter to the main dough (it takes about half an hour for the preferment to be ready to be used -- i.e. when it doubles in size.)
How much should I knead? It looks like a lot of kneading. They spend about 30 minutes kneading room temperature ingredients (eggs, yogurt, sugar, salt, flour, then fat) for the main dough. This long kneading time makes sense since the dough is being kneaded with lots of fat and sugar. Then they add the preferment and continue kneading until it's incorporated (they say another 30 minutes -- and, yes, this is a long time; a different source I found mentions kneading 60-90 minutes (by hand) while the fat is added). Fruit zests are added last, then the dough is mixed and kneaded until it passes windowpane. Raisins are kneaded/folded in by hand at the end right before shaping.
Optimal oven temperature? Not sure about optimal, but they do 165-170C (329-338F) with no fan (conventional) for 40 minutes. They add a little water (50ml) to the oven for moisture (for a softer crust I assume). The final internal temperature of the bread should be at least 95 C (203 F).
Other things to point out:
Braiding appears to be important for getting threads. Note how the dough is formed into balls and braided
The recipe uses a surprisingly small amount of salt (at least to me). In baker's percentage it's a little less than 0.2%. Not sure if this is relevant for creating threads, but I'd imagine some impact since salt tightens gluten.
Entire process takes about 6.5 hours from start to finish (according to the video)
The flour they use (Wheat Flour Type 500) is quite low protein: only 10%. So we are talking a protein content lower than many all-purpose flours. This probably explains why so much kneading is done.
As with pretty much any bread, let it cool for at least an hour before cutting/breaking.
Another user mentioned how the threads resemble those Italian "cakes" around Christmas -- I agree, it strongly resembles panettone crumb. Interestingly, kozunak also appears to be a holiday bread -- Easter, in this case. There are lots of similarities in their creation as well; notably, the substantial amount of eggs and importance of temperature control (keeping the dough warm). Traditional panettone uses only egg yolks, and I've found kozunak recipes that use whole eggs with additional egg yolks.
I am not a professional but my understanding is that the threads come from the eggs(1) and this recipe has lots of eggs.
Beating the eggs will chemically change the protein strands so that they stretch and bind in a similar way to gluten when developed, and similar to a brioche. Brioche dough should be beaten in a stand mixer for a total of 30 minutes to get the smooth texture and long threads(2).
So, next time you make this, try beating the eggs before incorporating and then beating the mixture (holding butter aside) until it slaps the side of the bowl. Then add the butter and beat until it comes together again and slaps the side of the bowl. I think it is the eggs and not so much the gluten what gives your recipe its threads.
(1) see The Science of Cooking
(2) see Baking with Julia
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.301850
| 2011-04-19T17:03:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14158",
"authors": [
"Jason Shuler",
"Nicole",
"Sherwood Botsford",
"Zarac",
"anjana",
"ase",
"canardgras",
"derobert",
"gnicko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29738",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29739",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29740",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29743",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29753",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93395",
"rumtscho",
"sarah bridges",
"user4327835",
"wadera"
],
"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
}
|
12145
|
What can I use instead of corn syrup?
I saw the question about UK, but I don't think I can find treacle of any kind in Germany.
I am looking for a substitute which will keep the physical qualities of the pie filling reasonably close to the original. I don't mind if the sweetness changes (in fact, I'd probably like it if it is less sweet than the original) and I don't mind introducing new aromas into the recipe.
My first idea was to make a very light caramel, and eventually keep it sticky with a dash of lemon juice. Then I could probably try to solve sugar in maple syrup, which will also introduce a new flavor and also keep it sweet.
Probably the closest thing to real corn syrup sold in the supermarket here is beet sugar syrup. But it isn't high on my list, because I probably won't use the rest up.
I also plan to use walnuts instead of pecans, if it makes any difference (pecans are quite rare here too).
The substitution shouldn't be too adventurous, I am baking this for guests (if I were alone and the filling got too thin or too thick to call it a pie, I'd still eat it as long as the taste is OK).
Note that while I'm sure you can make a very good dessert with chocolate and walnuts, it will be pretty much nothing like chocolate pecan pie. Walnuts and pecans have very similar shapes, but quite different flavors.
Some of the Zuckerrübensirup look suitable as a replacement, the darker versions. Should be purchasable in healthfood stores.
@Marti, this is OK. My guests don't expect a genuine American pecan pie, they only expect a cake. But it had better be good, I have a reputation to uphold.
@Orbling I thought of that, but I am not really sure that it is the same. Besides, I never use it, so I'll have to throw the rest away - if not now, then in five years when I clean the pantry.
@rumtscho: It would probably be sufficiently similar for the recipe. But really, most proper sugar syrups would suffice. I think maple would make an excellent replacement, though with a strong flavour change.
@Orbling: wouldn't maple syrup be too thin? I am afraid that I'll get fluid pie filling. So I thought of cooking sugar in maple syrup, but don't know how to get the consistency right.
@rumtscho: I find it varies by make in consistency, your idea sounds sensible though I think trial and error would be required to get it right.
If treacle would make a good substitute, what about molasses? I think your idea of maple syrup would probably be delicious, so if you have that, it's what I'd try!
Treacle is vastly sweeter than molasses.
I think that molasses are as hard to get as treacle, but I'll look for both in a health food store. I can easily get real maple syrup, but I don't know if I can get the consistency right as I never have handled corn syrup.
@rumtscho - The corn syrup I've used is similar in consistency to maple syrup. I actually think molasses is probably thicker. In the Netherlands, molasses can be found in jars at the Natuurwinkel (a chain of healthy/organic food stores), so some place similar in Germany is probably a likely bet.
I did a little research and found this page which has a modified sugar syrup recipe for a substitute.
In case the link breaks:
Ingredients:
2 cups sugar
3/4 cup water
1/4 tsp. cream of tartar (spelling corrected by me)
dash of salt
Directions:
Combine all ingredients in a heavy, large pan. Stir and bring to a boil. Reduce heat to simmer and put a cover on for 3 minutes to get sugar crystals off the sides of the pan. Uncover and cook until it reaches soft ball stage. Stir often.
Cool syrup and store in a covered container at room temperature. It will keep 2 months. Yield: almost 2 cups. For dark corn syrup add 1/4 cup molasses to the above recipe.
This works. I have made pecan pie using a syrup similar to this one (just the sugar and water) and it worked very well.
This is interesting, but first, it sounds like lots of sugar for the filling, and second, I thought that corn syrup had its own taste, else why use it instead of dissolved sugar? Third, the recipe specifies dark syrup, and I can't get molasses. Anyway, your answer is already very helpful because now I know that it has the same consistency as a softball stage sugar syrup, so whatever I try as a substitute, I now have a guideline for consistency.
@rumtscho, actually, corn syrup doesn't taste like much of anything. It's just a different kind of sugar than the usual sucrose, and thus using both sugar & corn syrup is a way to prevent crystallization in the final product.
I finally tried it, and I think that while the idea could work, the ratios are way off. The syrup is very oversaturated and extremely difficult to work with, one small slip and it turns into fondant. If I try it next time, I'd work with somewhere between 3:1.5 and 3:1.8 sugar ratio, not a 3:1.15 like given here.
If you can find it, glucose syrup is an excellent substitute. It's arguably healthier, preferred in confectionery work, about half as sweet as corn syrup, and a 1:1 substitute in most cases (except for the sweetness).
Here in the US, I have to order mine from Amazon, but it's worth a look in your local stores.
Strange, most German sources state that glucose syrup is a synonym for corn syrup. Anyway, I can't get it locally, and it is too late to order over the Internet.
It's a matter of the fructose quantity. In the US, corn syrup is almost always mostly fructose. Glucose syrup should have very little fructose if any. At least that's my understanding.
Well, it's basically a Pecan Pie, and there are tons of Pecan Pie recipes that don't include corn syrup. The most common substitution is brown sugar: you can go roughly 1-to-1, but you'll need to increase the amount of butter, and you might as well just replace the white sugar with brown as well. (so, in this case, 2 cups DARK brown sugar (packed), and 1/2 cup butter.
Not sure how the chocolate will react, but your recipe calls for dark syrup, so the taste shouldn't be a big factor.
Good idea, but when I am cooking an untried recipe for guests, I'd only take one from a book I trust. The random ones could be good, but sometimes they can backfire really bad.
not sure if it would yield the same results, but i was going to suggest maybe sorghum syrup? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorghum_syrup
it seems like something that predates the introduction of commercially-produced stuff like corn syrup. it certainly would change the flavor, but maybe it would be for the better. : )
Not easily available either. But a nice thought, maybe I'll try to get some for later just to taste it.
there's always the internet : ) but it came to my mind because, even though i live in the west and far from the south where it is probably better known, i can pick it up at my local grocery store. i see it on a dusty shelf every time i go there, and i keep vowing to pick up a bottle for experiments in the kitchen, haha.
I did a Google search; in German, there are practically no hits. It seems to be available in the UK if one is willing to search health food shops, but I couldn't turn up an European source selling it online. And getting it from an online seller situated outside Europe is not worth it because import tax + sales tax + shipping will easily triple the price (if I can easily import food over a postal service, which may be prohibited by law). So I guess I won't taste the stuff until I travel to another continent.
Though this is a quite old discussion, maybe someone researching might want to try this:
There is a syrup made from sugar beets ("Zuckerrübensirup") which is very common as bread spread in Germany. It's quite dark and thick:
http://www.grafschafter.de/grafschafter-goldsaft
They also make a light version of it (not too common yet):
http://www.grafschafter.de/grafschafter-heller-sirup
There are other brands on the market, but this is the most common one in my area.
Thanks for mentioning the light version. The standard one was discussed already in the question itself and in comments.
Back then, I chickened out and made a reliable choco-banana cake for the guests. But I still wanted to try the pie, and finally got around to making it, even getting real pecans for it.
I cooked the substitute to get an idea of the desired consistency, but I think it got way too dense. Then I looked over all the sweeteners I had, and settled on a 1:1 mixture of beet sugar syrup and honey. The syrup was there to make it dark and, well, syrupy, and I hoped that the glucose in the honey will prevent sugar crystalization (it didn't do it perfectly, but it was OK) and that I'll get a denser consistency.
Now the pie is ready, after a night in the fridge. The consistency is really good, firm, but not overly sticky. It doesn't have the soufle-foamy feel you sometimes get with egg-heavy pie filling, and this is a big advantage in my book. But the taste would have been much better if it were less sweet. Next time I think I'll skip all the sugar and use less of the honey-syrup mix. Today, my co-workers will get some sweet pie.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.303149
| 2011-02-14T19:21:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12145",
"authors": [
"Allison",
"Barbara W",
"Computerish",
"Connie Butin",
"Crash",
"JIM",
"Learner",
"Marti",
"Orbling",
"Sobachatina",
"Terry Baker",
"franko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152825",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25044",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25048",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25074",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27258",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"mishsum",
"rumtscho",
"titaniumX",
"user8082"
],
"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
}
|
92822
|
Can you help me identify this garnish?
I recently visited a restaurant and was served this gorgeous lemon meringue tart. Can you help me identify which plant this green garnish belongs to?
It really helps with plant identification if you can get a clear picture of the leaf. But you did manage to capture the little curly bit coming off the side of the stem, suggesting that it's some sort of climbing vine (such as pea shoots, like Chris mentioned)
@Joe that was what caught my attention, then the leaf shape looks about right and the stems lighter than the leaves. It all looks a little pale but I reckon that's the style of the photo
The picture isn't from the best angle for identification, though it's very pretty, but it looks to be a pea shoot (picture).
These are common garnishes for savoury dishes, but much less common for sweet dishes, though not completely unknown (also a lemon recipe).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.303943
| 2018-10-11T13:38:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92822",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
85166
|
How do I adjust cooking time for smaller batch of bread?
I've been making this recipe for bread that I really like, but it yields more than I'd like to make at a time. I'm wondering if I were to cut the recipe by half, how would I adjust the cooking time?
Here's the current recipe:
40g fresh yeast
600ml warm water
1kg bread flour
18g salt
You proof it once for 2 hours, shape it, and once again proof for another hour. Then you cook it in a dutch oven in an oven heated to 480º F for 30 minutes and then 450º F for another 30 minutes.
Your best bet is to use a thermometer. Most bread is done when the internal temperature hits 190F (88c). Some people will bake longer because they enjoy a more browned crust. If it were me, I would keep your first bake step the same. Once you reduce the heat, the second step might not take as long. I might check the temperature at 15 minutes to see where it is.
Will it hurt my bread to remove the lid of the Dutch oven (to stick in a thermometer) while it’s cooking?
@IsaacWasserman After baking for 45 minutes, removing the cover should have minimal impact. In fact, it probably could be removed well before that with little impact.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.304062
| 2017-10-22T19:02:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85166",
"authors": [
"Isaac Wasserman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62360",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
54275
|
What properties allow something to be considered "milk"?
Traditionally, milk is defined as (from Merriam-Webster):
1: a white liquid produced by a woman to feed her baby or by female animals to feed their young; especially : milk from cows or goats that is used as food by people
2: a white liquid produced by a plant
In today's day and age, if you go to a grocery store (or coffee shop) you can get many varieties of milk: animal milk, lactose-free animal milk, soy milk, coconut milk, rice milk, almond milk, hemp milk, and more.
My question is, is the traditional definition of milk complete? Are there any exceptions to definition #2 of milk (i.e. white liquids produced by plants that are NOT considered milk, or non-white liquids produced by plants that ARE considered milk)? What other properties do all milks share that allow them to be substitute ingredients in the same products?
to also add to the traditional definition of milk, it is now accepted that men can also lactate (produce milk) either naturally which is quite uncommon or through medication however this is normally a side effect. it has also been observed that other male species naturally lactate including the Dayake fruit bat.
Glacial milk
In some countries these "plant based" milks can't actually be called "milk" on the packaging, for legal/food regulation reasons. Here in the UK for example, and I believe the European Union. For example Oatley is sold here as an "oat drink". Soy milk is sold as "soy drink".
The second definition of "milk" is referring to the bitter white sap of plants such as dandelions, which contains latex, which exudes from cut stems.
I will disagree with Johanna here. While hers sounds like a reasonable definition, it is not how the word is used in practice.
Milk is
A) Cow's (also goat's, sheep's, camel's and mare's) lactated fluid, or
B) Any liquid which kinda looks like A), doesn't have an overly strong taste, and there is a convention of being called a milk. It can in many cases be a substitute for A, including when drinking straight out of the mug.
So not only are there nut milks like almond milk which contain both fat and carbohydrates, but there are also grain milks like rice milk and oats milk, which have practically no fat and get their white color from the starch in the grains. This goes against the "fat in water emulsion" definition, but it is common usage.
There are also foods which have "milk" in their name while nobody would say that they are a milk, like the "donkey milk" wine.
In the end, there is no rule. Whatever people call "milk" is a milk. And they call "milk" whatever reminds them of the milk they have encountered before.
Note there are specific European Union regulations that define the terms "milk" and "dairy". This article from the Food Standards Agency (UK) summarises this: Guidance On Legislation On The Protection Of Definitions And Designations In Respect Of Milk And Milk Products
Specifically it says:
The terms ‘dairy’ and ‘milk and milk products’ are used synonymously and are used to
describe products from a normal mammary secretion obtained from one or more milkings.
There are a number of other protected terms, eg "cheese", "butter", "yoghurt". These can only be used for products made from dairy milk.
So in the EU, plant-based milks can not actually be labelled as such. Instead, soya milk is labelled as something like "soya drink" or "soya alternative to milk" or just "soya". Soya yoghurt may be called something like "soya dessert"
Very interesting to hear how it is classified in different cultures. Thanks!
Milk is a stable emulsion of fat in water, basically tiny drops of fat suspended in water. To qualify as milk, rather than cream, or whipping cream, it has a certain fat percentage, usually less than 3%. This is why really low fat milk tastes like water: it is basically water. Such a stable emulsion can be produced in lots of ways, including by cows or goats (or any mammal), extracted from soy or almonds, or come from coconuts. Depending on where the milk comes from, it will taste different, but since the basic ingredients (fat and water) are the same, they can usually be substituted for each other.
So, to answer your question: there are plenty of white liquids produced by animals or plants that are not milk (several plants have white sap for example). The essence of milk is that it is an emulsion of fat and water.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.304189
| 2015-02-01T21:34:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54275",
"authors": [
"AakashM",
"Albela Suma",
"Billy Kerr",
"Byron Hazell",
"Chantal Roberts",
"Holli Hamilton",
"M And S Roofing Company",
"Ralph s",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127665",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127667",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127687",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127700",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127785",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33227",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69138",
"james hughlett",
"pandora",
"spacetyper"
],
"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
}
|
81666
|
Can I mix a lot of different smoking woods together?
Due to planting some trees in an unfortunate location, I lost them due to root-rot.
I have about eight small dead trees with trunks about 3/4" thick, and am wanting to cut them up for smoking woodchips for grilling. Since each tree doesn't have much wood - maybe three to five pounds each - and since I'm just a very casual grill cook not an enthusiast, I was hoping I could just mix all the chips together in one bag.
The trees are: two cherries, an almond, something that might be pecan, another that is possibly a plum, and a nectarine.
If you had a bag of "assorted" wood chips like those above all mixed together, would it taste terrible to smoke with, for a casual cook who just grills chicken, porkchops, and hamburgers?
I also have a copious amount of mulberry, but I was leaving that seperate since it's of a significant quantity. I wouldn't mind mixing in some to the assorted bag if advised to, though.
All of the listed are stone fruits/nuts that should only be very subtly different in flavor as long as you don't have some which is too sappy and all would be considered pretty medium strength woods which go well with anything from fish to pork. Might be a little too light for some peoples tastes for beef, but burger would be fine and I am not the quite the selection snob some are. I will use a wide range for anything depending on what I have available.
General guides are that something like alder is a top and traditional choice for fish. Fruit wood like apple is in general considered sweeter and is uses with fish, poultry, bacon and I would put almond and nectarine in the same range. Cherry, plum, you tend to get a little more resin so a little stronger smoke, but especially mixed you probably will not notice any difference between them. I have done prime rib with any of them and loved the results, but most of the advice lists call for things like oak or whiskey soaked grape vines, and I agree that those are great, but too strong for some people.
Mulberry, I have zero experience with and do not know. When I have cut, it seemed fairly resin filled to me so I would be cautious myself, it might act like a soft wood and taste too bitter. You want to avoid that. The other woods, the subtle differences are really to subtle for most people, including me, to care. The prep of the meat and using the correct amount of smoke to meat your taste is more important by far than which of those woods you are using.
Thank you for the details! I forgot there were two apple trees mixed in there also. I've used Mulberry in the past for chicken, porkchops, and hamburgers, and enjoyed it, but I think it the wood was dried out and aged more, whereas the mulberry I just got is fresh (a huge tree branch fell down in a storm).
Yes, you may mix different species of wood together for smoking. If the combination tastes unbalanced or muddled to you, just pretend the wood chips are from a rare Amazonian hardwood species, and it will suddenly taste amazing, even to the fussiest of "experts". Better to obsess about the quality of the meat itself, or maybe even the characteristics of the wine.
P.S. sorry about your trees, that must have hurt.
Thanks for the sympathy - it was more of a facepalming moment for planting the trees there in the first place. This year I'm planting even more trees, in the same location, but higher elevated. If they die again, then it'll really hurt!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.304572
| 2017-05-14T13:40:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81666",
"authors": [
"Jamin Grey",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34599"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
56880
|
Collecting & using cooking profiles on foods like coffee roasters do
With precise devices like sous vide, which have sensors like thermometers that you can download readings from, I am curious if people have started collecting 'cooking profiles' much like coffee roasters do when they measure temperature, moisture, etc while roasting beans?
An example profile, showing environment and bean temperature versus time:
see also: some forum discussion of profiles, and a video of someone using one
These are used in coffee roasting to help produce the best roast you can. Different beans usually have different profiles and even different roasting equipment. The profiles can be used to experiment with different settings like temperature and air flow. They can even be used to control those settings.
I'm curious if people are experimenting in this way with other foods? For example I could imagine eggs being very interesting with their three different layers.
This is a great question. Personally I am a chef and a computer programmer, so this is an awesome find. We have the technology why not do this with all of our foods. We are only delaying the inevitable.
I found this question particularly challenging to provide a complete and concrete answer to your question. Although through strenuous research I was finally able to locate a text book that describes all sorts of new-age food processes and systems used in measuring such methods such as 'roasting profiles' which is also included in this text book, although most methods appear to be utilized in a scientific setting with expensive equipment.
The text book is also rather expensive, although looks very interesting, its called: Emerging Technologies for Food Processing the website provided allows you to purchase individual chapters of the book in PDF form.
The text book is edited by: Da-Wen Sun. who is the Professor of Food and Bio-systems Engineering (Personal Chair), at the National University of Ireland - Dublin (University College Dublin)
also the Director, Food Refrigeration & Computerised Food Technology (FRCFT), National University of Ireland - Dublin
I hope this is helpful
Thanks Chef_Code. Emerging Technologies for Food Process looks fascinating if incredibly deep. It might be a step beyond where I am. I'm a coder like you and have started to wonder how all the precision cooking devices that are coming out may evolve to allow profiles and how chefs might share them. It feels like the start of a potential ecosystem. Raises interesting questions of integration, apis and potentially standards.
On eggs, in particular, that kind of research has been done relatively recently, which ChefSteps converted into a calculator.
I'm sure this type of research has been done in service of frozen food production and other processed food as well, though perhaps not with the kind of output that's necessarily useful to a home cook.
The calculator claims that if you cook an egg at 60C for 7 hours 42 minutes the white will be completely runny and the yolk will be firm - is that for real?
Maybe Michael is a better person to ask; I think he or his colleage worked on converting the research into the calculator. Sometimes software has bugs, but sometimes research uncovers surprises... I wouldn't be able to guess which is correct. http://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393/michael-at-herbivoracious
Appreciate the egg calculator pointer Jason. Great information and led to a long conversation in an interview today.
I didn't see this comment before, but that is correct, I did work on the ChefSteps egg calculator along with Douglas Baldwin, Chris Young, Tim Salazar and other folks. I'm not positive we've tested the most extreme combinations, like 60 C for 7:42; the calculator uses a pretty fancy simulation model that tends to work quite well in most situations. If you try it, i'd love to hear your results.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.305116
| 2015-04-22T21:45:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56880",
"authors": [
"Allison Jones",
"Cascabel",
"Chef_Code",
"Edward Worley",
"Ellie Backhouse",
"JasonTrue",
"Joanne Bertrand",
"Michael Natkin",
"Niva Bouchet",
"Robin Church",
"Rolf",
"Roman Proshin",
"Shane Granlee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135292",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135309",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135314",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135315",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35074",
"lol lol",
"wong chee yin"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
53944
|
How to mount a ham?
I bought a Serrano ham on sale. It's the whole pig's leg, and it comes with a kind of a stand. However, the stand was delivered in pieces like IKEA furniture, but unlike IKEA, it has no manual explaining what goes where.
I'm especially puzzled about the large ring and the small trapez-without-base shaped pieces. Once must go up to hold the ankle, the other one down to hold the haunch. But which goes where, and how do I fasten the ham to the metal? Do I have to screw the metal screws through the bone?
The picture shows all parts delivered, only the inbus key is not in the frame. I put the trapezoid part onto the lower hole and started fastening it with a pointy screw; it's quite a long screw (7-8cm).
It kinda looks like you're supposed to mount the whole thing onto the wall (I don't see a hole for that though...), attach the ring to the arm, then stick the bone through the ring and let the weight of the ham make it stick in the ring. Any chance that'll work?
@Jefromi I'm pretty sure it's supposed to stay on the counter, not go onto the wall. I've seen it somewhere. There is also a picture on the outside of the package, and the stand is on a flat surface. Sadly, it shows a much more elaborate kind of stand with a different mounting system.
This should help, it's not precisely exact, but you can probably figure it out from here.
Yep. If you had bought Iberico (good God that is expensive) you would have an extra part or two :)
OK, after some fitting of screws and so on, I think I managed to find the correct fit. Jolene's picture also helped.
The two pointy screws get indeed screwed into the ham, but there is enough flesh and sinew that I don't have to go into the bone with them. This is lucky, because getting a screw in when using only a tiny L-shaped "screwdriver" greased with pig fat is hard work even when it's sinking into soft material.
One thing not visible from the picture: The long pointy screw goes through the middle of the black trapezoidal holder straight into the haunch.
Looks about right, but are you sure you don't have the ham upside down?
@PeterTaylor there was a user guide about cutting the ham, which also described the ham position. As far as I understood it, the ham is supposed to be like that. But I'll look into it again when I'm home.
It depends on how fast you're going to use it, if you're intending on getting through it quickly the other way up is perhaps best. You end up cutting one side, then the other, either way. The slices you generally see packaged are from the big side. The hard bit is getting it really thin, if anyone has tips on that I'd be interested.
@vwiggins You can post the request for tips in a separate question, it will be a good question. Personally, I enjoy munching on a thick piece of ham, even though it goes against tradition and economic considerations.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.305467
| 2015-01-24T19:09:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53944",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Dimitrov",
"Jolenealaska",
"Laura Fontanez",
"Peter Taylor",
"Thomas Proctor",
"Tleleng Mokhutshane",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126848",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126849",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126850",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126851",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"robin blackwell",
"rumtscho",
"vwiggins"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
56222
|
What causes pasta dough to be holey after running through a machine multiple times?
I've tried making pasta several times now, and every time it turns holey after I run the dough through a standard crank machine:
Ingredients I use:
200 grams all purpose flour
2 jumbo brown eggs
Bit of olive oil
Bit of salt
Look here: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36892/can-anybody-help-make-homemade-pasta-foolproof Note that both methods involve resting the dough.
are you progressively adjusting the machine smaller and smaller, or just running it through on the setting (size) you are wanting? If you are progressively adjusting the machine as the dough gets thinner, then you may need to let the gluten's in the dough rest longer, or you need more flour on the machine wheels.
are you kneading (developing gluten) before you try to use the machine?
I watched this video and saw I was adding an extra step. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6KhbS3q5b8
After making pasta again tonight, which came out perfect, I realized I was "re-kneading" the dough after I passed it through the machine.
Tonight I folded the dough once, and resent through the machine over and over, and it came out great! Hope this helps someone!
This jibes with my experience. My advice was to rotate the dough 90 degrees between folding / rolling lamination steps. Once I stopped rotating it the dough stopped having this problem. I wonder if the gluten proteins all align in one direction?
The site below basically covers all the possible reasons. Some of the tips that worked for me:
Flour the dough after each pass through the machine - lack of flour causes dough to stick to the machine as it's being rolled through, creating tears
Send in the dough vertically and through the center of machine. Hold the dough by folding over back of hand. Get your hand close to the entry of the machine to help with vertical angle before cranking the dough through. Gently tug and pull (not too much) to make sure that the dough stays vertical as it's being rolled through throughout the process
Don't go into high level setting too quickly - this can cause dough to fold with itself, leading to possible tears
https://seasonedcooks.com/why-does-pasta-dough-tear/
I am a new pasta machine user as well, and as one I can only offer my own theories based on my own experience: It always seems to happen to me early on in the cranking process, and goes away as you work the dough more. My theory is that it has to do with several things: the temperature of the dough (the holes go away as the dough warms up), the gluten in the dough (as the flour absorbs moisture, it gets more elastic from the gluten and thus the holes go away), and finally the moisture content of the dough (too little moisture will tend to cause it to break). I may be completely incorrect, but it makes sense to me. If anyone knows for sure, I'd love to hear the reason(s), too.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.305742
| 2015-03-30T23:14:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56222",
"authors": [
"Chef_Code",
"David Collingridge",
"Jolenealaska",
"Nelson",
"Sam Penceal",
"Victor Dicosola",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133659",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133661",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133664",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83270",
"manda Fry",
"margarita Sims"
],
"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
}
|
60471
|
Spray oil with hydrocarbon propellants on non-stick pan surfaces
I have heard that using spray-oils with hydrocarbon-based propellants (e.g. butane, isobutane or propane) can, over time, be detrimental to the effectiveness of non-stick pan surfaces.
Can anyone categorically confirm or deny this with references? There appears to be a lot of hearsay on the topic, and I'm after an authoritative source (like a study, or published experimental result).
EDITS
As @rumtscho points out below, as well as Sam Ley in this answer, small amounts of oil (particularly if sprayed on thinly) which overheat in a hot pan may polymerize and bind to the surface in much the same way as you'd season an iron/steel pan, reducing the effectiveness of the non-stick surface underneath. So, perhaps the problem is not actually with hydrocarbon propellants in spray oils (for which I haven't found any good references), but with the overheating of thin layers of oil applied by sprays which polymerize.
I bought an expensive Circulon pan with a lifetime guarantee.
After 6 months of cooking salmon, the fish started to stick to the pan.
I sent the pan back and they rejected my claim.
They told me using an aerosol olive oil and high'ish heat had damaged the pan and it was my fault.
There was nothing in the documentation warning of this.
I'll never buy Circulon again. Lesson learned.
I don't know about the propellants, but you're probably doing yourself a disfavor if you are using an oil spray on nonstick.
The problem is that you're using way too little oil with them. It won't matter if you're making stir fry, but people tend to plop a single piece of meat or fish on the pan. Then what you have is vast ares of pan bottom, hot, covered by nothing by oil. What happens is that the oil polymerizes, just like in seasoning a cast iron pan. You end up with a tacky gunk which is sticky enough to have a grip on the teflon. As you cannot heat the pan enough to actually make a good seasoning out of the stuff (and it won't work well on top of nonstick anyway), you end up with mini droplets of sticky substance on top of the teflon, which reduce the non stickiness.
The oil is also too little to prevent the pan from overheating, which means that your pan can get destroyed by the heat itself. Use an infrared thermometer to see which knob setting is low enough for your pan and only use a naked or sprayed pan under that setting.
I don't have any studies about that, I've just made a similar mistake to my own pans and have seen enough of my friends' and relatives' pans covered in that oil residue to know it's a common problem.
Of course, this problem is not inherent in the spray. You could spray until you have enough oil to not get that effect, a depth of at least 3 mm of a continuous oil puddle seems to be sufficient. But if you are going to use that amount of oil, it's easier and cheaper to get it from the bottle, not out of a spray can.
It is possible that there is an additional problem caused by the propellants. Or it could be a wrong theory by the people who notice the negative effects of frying on a sprayed non stick pan and don't know enough about pan seasoning to recognize the process I described before. My guess is the second, as the whole point of teflon is that it's as close to chemically inert as they could get. I'd like to see another, better sourced answer clarifying this point. But for me, the above problem is reason enough to keep the spray for other purposes, no matter what the propellants do or don't do.
Thank you, very insightful. I hadn't heard that polymerization of the oil may be the culprit on non-stick surfaces. I'd be interested to hear more people chime in on this, but perhaps the propellants aren't a problem.
I've personally discovered that my Teflon pans last much longer by never using spray oil. It polymerizes on the cooking surface and coats the Teflon, making it much less slippery.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.306121
| 2015-09-03T08:07:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/60471",
"authors": [
"Bruce",
"Claire Cowley",
"H. Pecoraro ",
"Joanne Wagner",
"Larry G.",
"Peggy Allegro",
"Peter",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144750",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144751",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144758",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144788",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38011",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55039",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70116",
"james O'Shea"
],
"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
}
|
60480
|
Small charcoal grill - raise fire grill?
Here's a typical small-cheap charcoal grill ...
These are only about 20 dollars (the "Weber" branded items are popular).
Regarding the lower wire grate that holds the coals.
Is there a way to set the grate to a higher or lower position?
(Many big expensive charcoal grills have such a feature -- either a crank, or, just dogs on which you can manually move the grate up and down.)
Am I missing something obvious, or is there a "usual way" to do this??
The issue of raising or lowering the fire is effectively a question about how to raise or lower the amount of heat that's getting to the food.
For the type of grill that you've mentioned, the typical procedure is to put the coals on one side of the grill -- either in a pile, or as a sort of crescent shape along the edge of the grill.
If you want to cook over a cooler fire, you move the food further away from the coals. If you want to cook with a hotter fire, you move them directly on top of the coals (which can also cause flare-ups, leading to even faster cooking).
You can also put the lid on the grill and change the temperature by opening or closing the little vents on the top & bottom of the grill, which will control how much oxygen is available to feed the fire ... but I've never really gotten the hang of that one, myself.
And of course, if you want rip-roaring heat across the entire surface of the grill, then you need extra coals. Which takes more fuel, so my guess is that the adjustable rack is a gimmicky means of increasing efficiency.
@logophobe : actually, charcoal elevators are great. As the coals die down, you can crank the coals higher so you can still keep the heat relatively high. Unfortunately, our rec. center has decided we're not allowed to use those grills any more when we cook for the ~150 people for our departmental picnic ... I ended up bringing propane griddles this year (which was a PITA ... and they've been sitting in the back of my truck since the picnic last week).
Hi Joe! the one-side trick sounds great. however, if the coals are closer to the meat, there is tremendoulsy more heat. (Indeed, this would apply whether you are using "colas everywhere" or "coals on one side only, to allow variation".)
Hi Logo. Say you have 70 coals. If you have the coals further from the meat, that makes less heat, if you have them closer to the meat, that makes more heat. Say you now have 150 coals. Again: if you have the coals further from the meat, that makes less heat, if you have them closer to the meat, that makes more heat.
Joe, your explanation of charcoal elevators is great - it never occurred to me you could use them to go "higher" near the end. amazing tip, thanks. for example the "Char-Broil" brand large, stand-up charcoal grill has a charcoal elevator. But, on my little "tiny" grill, there is no elevator.
@JoeBlow : I've only seen 'em on really expensive grills, or in ones that are built into commercial installations ... but people make do. If you want more heat, another option is to use lump charcoal, which gets much hotter than briquettes.
huh - what do you think that is in my photo there?? (lump or briquettes)
@JoeBlow : looks like briquettes to me. Briquettes look like little pillow-like things, all of the same size. Lump could look like anything, but it's quite irregular pieces (they don't all look alike)
@Joe That's a great point... I don't usually cook for that many, and I'm more often left with extra coals. But I see where it could come in handy.
No - there's no easy way to do this in a small kettle BBQ. Better to do as @Joe says and arrange the coals to provide differential heating in different areas.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.306481
| 2015-09-03T17:54:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/60480",
"authors": [
"Bill Frankovitz",
"CHITRA R",
"Colin Withers",
"Fattie",
"Jessica Roberts",
"Joe",
"Melani Gragg",
"Patricia M",
"Richard More-O'Ferrall",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144774",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144775",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144780",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145829",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145892",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"logophobe",
"schwindt Henry"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
59933
|
Butter usage in fudge
I have a number of questions relating to fudge. Thank you in advance for your help. For anyone following this I have as requested broken the question into parts. My main question here is Why do some recipes put the butter ON the fudge once its hot whereas the professional videos (i.e. youtube mackinac fudge shops) seem to show the butter in the boiling mix?
Other questions I've opened:
Use of whipping cream in fudge
Why is my chocolate fudge not that dark?
Commercial fudge recipes
Refrigerating fudge v leaving it out
If there are any professional fudgers I'd especially appreciate your response :o)
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! It is preferred if you can post separate questions instead of combining your questions into one. That way, it helps the people answering your question and also others hunting for at least one of your questions. Thanks!
Hello and welcome! Catija is right, please ask these as separate questions. It is OK if the body turns out to be very short. You can leave the first one in this post and delete the rest, then post the rest separately - then we can reopen this one. Or post all 5 one anew, then this one can stay closed.
I'm not a professional fudger, but here is my theory: one should add it to the boiling mixture. The reason is that butter has milk solids that are said to “burn” at low temperatures (somewhere in the range 120C-150C or 250F-300F) which just above the soft ball stage (113C or 235F) needed for making fudge. I interpret the burning to mean that those milk solids (sugars and proteins) get a chance to contribute to the Maillard reaction that gives caramel (and its grained cousin the fudge) its great and rich flavor. Given how unique and varied the flavors arising from butter are, I would not want to miss their contribution by adding them after the heat is gone.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.306833
| 2015-08-15T19:35:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59933",
"authors": [
"Arsh Optical",
"Catija",
"Crimson Changeling",
"Francois Potgieter",
"Jenny Simon",
"Job Ferolino",
"Linda Oakley",
"Robert George",
"Romina Guajardo",
"Travis Riggs",
"alisonamwwoodtalk21com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143335",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143336",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143387",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143396",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143397",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143411",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143420",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143427",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho",
"sonny Stayton"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
90829
|
What is this bean called?
Please identify these. The beans are very large as you can see in relation to the iphone.
Inside:
Can you open one for us?
Please use with caution! Some people may be allergic to broad beans, which can lead to serious symptoms - even death. People shouldn't consume them if they had never consumed any in the past.
While you're right that trying fava beans for the first time can be dangerous, the danger isn't an allergy, it's G6PDD, otherwise known as "favism". It affects about 1 out of 40 people, so relatively common, especially among folks of sub-saharan African descent.
Info: https://www.medicinenet.com/g6pd_deficiency/article.htm#glucose-6-phosphate_dehydrogenase_deficiency_facts
They look a lot like fava beans (also commonly known as broad beans).
This link has some images to compare to.
Fava beans are also known as broad beans in many commonwealth countries.
Those are definitely fava beans.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.307073
| 2018-07-06T04:07:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90829",
"authors": [
"FunnyJava",
"FuzzyChef",
"GdD",
"Summer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67565",
"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
}
|
88757
|
What is this palm like plant called? (Spoiler: leek)
For bonus points how do I cook and eat it.
For even more bonus points how long do have till I need to eat it (day, week, month). If someone knows the name I can google the rest.
Update if a google hit lands here under leek: The light green parts in the top core are tastier than the white parts in my opinion. Don't throw them out.
It looks like an ordinary leek to me (onion family)... If it is, it's already past its 'best before' day, but the white should still be edible.
@remco It smells like an onion so I you must be right.
I think on the days to eat it you are about -3.
That appears to be a leek, and not one in the prime of health either.
Trim off the root end. If it came from a farm, you might want to give it a traditional de-gritting by cutting it in half lengthwise and rinsing to get out any dirt between the leaves/layers (typically around the border between white, which was underground, and green, which was above.)
You can bake or braise them, but most people slice them into half moons (because they were already in half lengthwise) and use them wherever you would use onions. Don't use any brown part, nor the really sad green part, but happy looking green part is fine.
Recipes that specifically call for leeks abound, of course, now that you have a name for it.
Sure are! The tips are generally dried out and nasty even when the leek is just picked, but before that they are tasty and nutritious. Some folks claim more nutritious than the white (eat a rainbow etc) http://myfoodblog.com.au/cooking-with-leeks/
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.307194
| 2018-03-30T17:35:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88757",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Kate Gregory",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65788",
"remco",
"user5389726598465"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
92881
|
I waited two hours before starting my slow-cooker. Will the food be safe to eat?
What I did:
I browned some beef cubes and put them in the slow-cooker. I then added some spices (a lot of spices), tomato juice, olive oil and vinegar.
For all kinds of reason, I waited a total of over 2 hours since placing the meat in the slow-cooker (mostly covered) before turning it on.
I then turned it on high. I plan on cooking the food for at least 7 hours.
Is it safe?
Thank you!
Since it was marked as a duplicate, I cannot add a proper answer, but your question is very specific, so I think it deserves a specific answer. Meat is usually pretty sterile inside, it is the surface which was exposed to the environment where bacteria grow. Since you've browned the cubes, you've killed the vast majority of bacteria that was on the surface of the meat, so you've probably prolonged the safety period quite a lot.
The general rule is that food can only spend two hours in the 'danger zone'. Leaving it out for over two hours before starting the process of heating it out of the danger zone means that it could now be unsafe.
Cooking it for seven hours on high will probably kill all bacteria in the food, however, it is not the bacteria you need to worry about. The problem is if the bacteria have produced any kind of toxin. These toxins are generally proteins, which will not be destroyed at any normal cooking temperature.
I would recommend following your username and throwing it out.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.307356
| 2018-10-14T05:33:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92881",
"authors": [
"JohnEye",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9475"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
93270
|
What is the trick to create 4 layer Chapati?
More layers' chapati tastes delicious and looks soft. What is the trick to create 4 layers' chapati?
What I have tried --
Before rolling the chapati, I have made 2 folds by putting few drops of
oil in between the folds.
I rolled in similar fashion at all over the edges and middle
portion.
Till the date, I could make 3 layers' chapati but not 4 layers. I have tried more folds also before rolling the chapati but it doesn't help.
Layers depends on type of flour you are using. I suppose if you are using wheat flour, then before each folding add some cooking oil between folds. Repeat this process for each extra layer. Remember to add cooking oil in each fold to make sure that do not stick together again. Roll it gently, do not apply to much force.
To understand more about layer Chapati,
Click here
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.307503
| 2018-10-26T20:48:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93270",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
96025
|
Recipe interpretation
I've been following a recipe, and two things confuse me. One is the "what" for most steps, and the other is a "why".
The recipe is here.
But look at the steps, which I've abbreviated here to save reading.
Whisk flours and yeast together. Dissolve honey in water. Using dough hook on low speed, slowly add water mixture to flour mixture and mix until cohesive dough starts to form and no dry flour remains, about 2 minutes, scraping down bowl and hook as needed. Cover tightly and let dough rest for 30 minutes.
So what happens if there's no dry flour left, but a cohesive dough hasn't formed, or vice versa? Keep mixing? Stop, because I've gone 3 minutes and the recipe said only two? Give up and throw it away and start over?
Add salt to dough; mix on low speed for 5 minutes. Increase to medium and knead until dough is smooth and slightly sticky, about 1 minute.
Same deal: what if the dough was smooth and slightly sticky when I started? Do I still mix on medium for a minute? Or do I skip that step?
Transfer to lightly greased bowl, cover, let rise until doubled in size, 1 to 1 1/2 hours.
Same deal: suppose I've waited 2 hours, and it still hasn't doubled. Do I toss it?
Using greased bowl-scraper (or your fingertips), fold dough over itself by gently lifting and folding edge of dough toward middle. Turn bowl 90 degrees and fold dough again; repeat turning bowl and folding dough 2 more times (total of 4 folds). Cover tightly with plastic and let rise for 30 minutes.
A new question: What is the process above (repeated below) supposed to achieve? And in general, what does allowing multiple rises achieve? And why don't we just punch it down each time -- why the fancy folding for two of the rises?
Repeat folding, then cover bowl tightly with plastic and let dough rise until doubled in size, about 30 minutes.
[Form rolls and put them in a cake tin, cover, and...] Let rolls rise until nearly doubled in size and dough springs back minimally when poked gently with your knuckle, about 30 minutes.
Again: what if they double in size, but the dough sticks to my knuckle, or it springs back a lot, or doesn't spring back at all?
Mist with water, bake at 500 for 10m; remove from oven and separate, bake at 400 for another 10-15 min on a baking sheet. Cool.
Thankfully, this last step makes total sense to me. :)
Did you tried the recipe? Did you found the expected results on each step? Or you are just afraid of trying and simply anticipating that problems may arise?
I tried it. After step 2, I have no idea whether I was in the right state or not -- the dough seemed smooth before I ever added the salt, so "until smooth" meant nothing to me. "Slightly sticky", is, of course, a relative term. After step 6, the dough had doubled in size, but was still sticky enough that I couldn't check springback until I coated my knuckle with flour to avoid sticking. At that point, it was still a bit springy -- less like PlayDoh and more like a sponge (although not THAT springy). It's cool enough to try now, and the taste and texture are fine.
If you're just trying to make this one recipe one time, ignore this advice. If you're interested in learning to bake bread, I'd suggest buying or checking out from your library a book on bread baking that includes detailed information about these kinds of whys and hows. Two more technical books that come to mind are The Bread Baker's Apprentice by Peter Reinhart and Flour, Water, Salt, Yeast by Ken Forkish. These would be valuable to you because they explain what you're trying to accomplish with each major step. The answers in those books are more comprehensive than what we can offer here
Thanks. Those pointers to books are probably what I needed.
In bread baking, you do each step until you recognize that you achieved the correct end result for each step, then stop, wait until the appropriate changes have happened, then continue with the next step. An expert baker would work from a much more abbreviated recipe than the one you posted, and if something doesn't happen as expected, he or she will have an idea how to troubleshoot.
The recipe you chose seems to be aimed at a beginner baker. It not only explains what the intermediate results should look like ("until cohesive dough starts to form and no dry flour remains"), but gives approximate time amounts, mostly for the eager newb who starts kneading and at some point asks "is this already silky?". These are basically signposts to make sure you are still on the right path.
So, what you should do is to stop when the described stage has been reached, and not by the clock. Only if you are not entirely sure that it has been reached, and you are taking much longer than the clock, you should stop, take a step back, and think whether you might be interpreting the description wrongly, or maybe made a mistake somewhere along the way, so that there is not a chance of ever attaining the proper end stage. I agree this may be frustrating for a very new baker, if you have no idea why the recipe says 5 minutes, but it still looks entirely wrong after 15 minutes, but at least it gives you enough information when to abort your attempts. It is not feasible to do more within a single recipe - if you want to be an effective troubleshooter, you need both lots of practice and sufficient theroy (which can fill whole books).
The opposite case you are suggesting - "what if the dough was smooth and slightly sticky when I started?" should basically never happen. You are making the step in order to achieve that state. If it were achievable without that step, the step wouldn't be in the recipe in the first place.
So, all I can suggest is to try to follow the recipe as stated, and if a discrepancy occurs, play it by ear. I won't try getting into each of your questions separately, since some of them are not practically relevant, others need whole questions of their own here, and yet others are not really answerable in such a generic question. For example, if your bread really doubles in size in the last rise, but the dough is totally sticky, the diagnosis of the likeliest problem cause alone will require a detailed description of what happened until that occured, how you treated it, etc, and may still not be diagnosable from afar. And the appropriate reaction will depend on why it happened in the first place.
Bottom line: these hypotheticals are unnecessary. Just bake, and see if you will run into any of the problems you described. If you do, come ask a specific question on the exact problem. But if the recipe is well balanced, you will likely not encounter any of them in the first place.
Thanks. This is somewhat helpful. I think that the second paragraph of @PaulBeverage's answer below addresses the "why" of these apparently redundant and potentially-contradictory directions. This happens far less in non-baking recipes I've used (although in recipes for scallops, there seems to be a tendency to say things like "fry until they stop 'sweating' liquid, about 8-10 minutes," when something like 2-4 minutes is almost certainly more appropriate...go figure!) As for actual execution -- I do just fine. But I'd like to understand the "why" so that I can make informed modifications.
@John I actually doubt Paul Beverage's explanation of "why": Baking by the clock is strictly inferior to baking by recognizing when a step is done. So the recipe would work just fine if the author had left out the timing suggestions, but would produce wildly varying results if it had just time directions without descriptions of the dough behavior. "Housewives did not have clocks" sounds like a just-so explanation that falls apart at the secondd look.
I meant that in a general sense it addressed the matter of potentially conflicting clues: it's trying to say 'here are multiple methods for getting a result that'll be close to what you're aiming for,' rather than 'all these things should happen at exactly the same moment'. If you don't know what the author means by "slightly" sticky (day old honey on the kitchen floor? peanut butter on the roof of your mouth? Thickened epoxy that's begun releasing heat as it cures?), then you can use "3 minutes" and not be too far wrong.
Firstly, no recipe is foolproof, and all are open to interpretation. The variables involved can't possibly be consistent between the recipe developer and the end user. Ideally, recipes allow you to reproduce a product. More often they get you close.
Bread baking is even more problematic because of the nuanced differences in flours and mixers, and the more pronounced differences in temperature and humidity. You have to know something about bread baking, and better, have some experience to know when to follow a recipe exactly or when to deviate.
To respond to a few of your questions more specifically: #1 is influenced by type of flour, hydration, and humidity. You should develop an understanding of the nature of the dough you are working with. When the dough reaches that consistency, you are good to move on. If a cohesive dough has not formed, you can add more flour. However, some high hydration doughs don't look very cohesive at this point.
Point 2: Yes, mix to incorporate salt and begin gluten development
Point 4: Wait. Temperature influences yeast action. It could take longer. If you see no action, you could have faulty yeast, or maybe you killed it with liquid that was too hot. The stretching and folding is all about gluten development, which is important here.
Points 5 and 6 get you in the ball park, but you have to develop a feel for how bread dough behaves. Then you can adjust to local conditions.
In the end, the recipe is a guide. Don't worry about perfection. Make minor adjustments next time. Zero in on the result you are looking for.
Thanks -- useful information. You say "Stretching and folding is all about gluten development." Yes. But so is kneading. Why do we do one or the other at different times? And what effect does it have? My larger goal in starting to bake (non-quick) breads is to try to recreate a bread I remember vividly from my youth. Robotically (or even informed-ly) following recipes won't get me there -- I actually need to understand the "why" of some steps, so that I can modify them towards my goals.
Honestly, I think you may be overthinking the purpose of these tidbits of information. I believe a number of these are there to help people know when something is where it should be, regardless of time/effort/process. This type of language can be found as far back as some 1700s cookbooks at least, and a number of times that I have observed, it was practical in nature more than anything.
For instance, a housewife may not have had a clock, but she knew what "doubled in size" and "springs back minimally" meant from experience. Most of these points are worded in a descriptive manner for the same purpose, I believe.
In this instance, we're talking about baking, and baking is one of the most scientific and precise forms cooking can take, although it is not infallible. I have a friend who has baked hundreds, perhaps thousands, of cakes for her business, and the only times the cakes did not turn out right, and could not be fixed with minor, common baking "tweaks", were when she fudged the directions and/or the ingredients.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.307606
| 2019-01-29T18:21:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96025",
"authors": [
"John",
"Juhasz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72464",
"roetnig",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43977
|
What is the highest melting temperature of chocolate?
A pure chocolate bar will always melt at 33 Celsius, as several of my books assure me.
But an answer to another question claims that there are chocolates with a higher melting point.
What kind of chocolate can do this? What does it contain? How much actual chocolate would be inside it, and what is the rest made of? What is the highest melting temperature which can be achieved by such a product? What would be some generic terms for it - if I wanted some and went to a chocolate shop, what would I have to ask for?
The typical tricks used by chocolate manufacturers is to change the viscosity of chocolate by adding a gel like xanthan gum or glycerine. The other trick is to incorporate more water into the chocolate with the aid of an emulsifier such as lecithin. All these techniques are hard to do at home as they require many hours of stirring the chocolate to avoid grittiness. Patents often give recipes.
One can buy chocolate with higher melting points. Callebaut Volcano melts at 55°C, the highest melting point for a commercial chocolate that I know of, but is not yet on sale. Many of the commercial chocolate bars, such as the wartime Hershey's Tropical Bar use chocolate that incorporate these techniques as do the Nestle Toll House morsels.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.308516
| 2014-05-07T15:38:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43977",
"authors": [
"Aleesia",
"HannahSchmit",
"Matthias Häffner",
"Spammer",
"dougdaslug",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104302"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
125313
|
Resolve a "the eggs take longer than the pizza" issue?
I often cook a typical frozen pizza like this
in a typical mini-oven like this
I go with a nominal 420° indicated on the small over for 13 minutes. ("12-14 mins" suggested on the packaging.) TBC I very simply sit the naked pizza on the metal wires of the mini oven (no stone, foil, or anything else).
The results are perfectly fine for a frozen pizza, and the readiness/crispiness of the pizza is about right and how I want it.
I like egg on top of pizza, so, quite simply,
I take the pizza from the freezer, then I crack three fresh eggs and just dollop them on top of the pizza, and then put the pizza in the oven.
This is all great BUT, quite simply, cooking eggs that way appears to need more than 13 minutes. Call it more like 20. (Even if you like them REALLY runny on your pizza, they're just not ready after 13 with the procedure I describe.)
What if anything is the solution here, experts?!
Something I tried: it seemed kind of bizarre but I broke the three eggs just in to a low Pyrex bowl and *.. put just that bowl of eggs in the mini oven for oh four or five minutes. I then took that out, and poured the now slightly-cooked-ish (or at least "warm" ??) three eggs on the pizza, and then went ahead with the 13 minutes. This did seem to work to some extent, but it seems all wrong! Or maybe not, IDK.
What's the expert solution?
(*) I don't know why, when you have eggs on a pizza from a pizza parlor, it comes out great - maybe the temperature is massively higher or? IDK.
FWIW ...
{FTR I tried poking the yolks a bit with a pointy knife and spreading the yolk/white around a little; my idea here was that might help the eggs cook quicker? (A) I'd prefer to not do this (B) I don't know if that should make them cook more quickly (C) It really appears to make no difference, they don't seem to me to cook more quickly if you do that.}
I’m actually wondering if putting the raw eggs on a frozen pizza is keeping them from cooking well, and if it wouldn’t be better to have it partly cooked so it’s not like a giant ice cube below the eggs
Certainly a pizza parlor pizza is not starting from frozen, so that might well be worth a shot.
@Joe that's an interesting idea! You're saying the frozen pizza surprisingly cools them down a lot first. I'm gonna try that !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@Fattie Does this toaster oven have a top heating element? If so, is it turned on while the pizza is cooking? Toaster ovens I am familiar with here in the US typically offer multiple modes, affecting how heating is distributed between bottom and top heating elements. Does your oven have such settings? Also, is the wire rack height-adjustable, allowing the top of the pizza to be closer or further away from the top heating element?
Strange, I usually have exactly the opposite problem. The egg only needs 3 or 4 minutes in the 220°C oven. So I have to put it on at exactly the right time.
@joe I know that in France they just crack the egg onto the cooked pizza and it cooks from residual heat (with a really runny yolk but a set white). But that's eggs at a warm room temperature, in a warm kitchen, in a very hot pizza
Isn't the clue here '… if you like them runny…'? For roughly how many minutes are the eggs still runny, that you couldn't start them off on their own and add the pizza later?
@Joe: I suspect the same thing, and it's likely going to be a matter of the difference between the heat capacity of the egg and the pizza. My gut is telling me that the pizza is behaving towards the egg the same way that a pizza stone behaves towards a pizza, but in the opposite direction since a pizza stone is meant to be hot and the frozen pizza would be colder than the (obviously non-frozen) raw egg.
Instinctively, I would experiment with a room temperature pizza and egg and see if the egg cooks faster. If yes, then the frozen pizza is to blame and adding the egg after the pizza has heated up might actually solve the issue.
@Flater : thawing a frozen pizza often has issues. Some crusts aren’t par cooked, so loose structural integrity if thawed. They’re designed to cook the crust enough to firm back up before the whole thing thaws, I think. So I would recommend cracking the eggs into a bowl, then part way through cooking, open the oven, slide out the pizza to drop the eggs on, then slide it back in to finish cooking
@Joe: I wasn't necessarily suggesting that it needed to be a thawed once-frozen pizza, just a room temperature pizza. You can buy premade non-frozen pizzas in most supermarkets that I frequent. That being said, even a thawed pizza would give you the physics answer with regards to the cooking of the egg, regardless of the quality of the end product. So even if you use a sacrificial frozen pizza, you can prove the theory and then conclude to only put the egg on your (next, non-sacrificial) pizza after the oven has heated it to room temperature (or above).
The problem is since he leaves the yolk intact, the egg is thicker than the pizza and needs more time to bake.
hi @Joshua ! actually I tried a number of times specifically cracking up the yolks and mixing the yolk-white (see question, long para)
@RobbieGoodwin - how would I start them off on their own? (Notice in the question I explain how I start them off on their own when I tried that, but it wasn't really a great result, so hence asking expert chefs here!)
@Flater , this question is about supermarket-type frozen pizzas. Those have to go in the oven frozen (indeed straight out of your freezer). If you thaw them, they can't really ever be cooked acceptably, gotta just throw out if you accidentally thaw one. "sacrificial frozen pizza .." approach; true, but even if that line of physics enquiry is fruitful, ultimately I need to know "how to" (example: "after .. answer is .. 7.5 minutes ... only then add the eggs" ... for example).
Why can you not dollop three fresh eggs on a plate, put them in the oven and let them do their own thing until it's time to add the pizza underneath?
@RobbieGoodwin I tried it a number of times, as explained at length in the question! It "works" but it's kind of a crap method for a few reasons (as Ecnerwal points out); cleanup sucks (and you can't add grease or such as you get .. a totally different thing!); it's not really the same result, it seems, as cooking them "in to" the pizza (they come out, well, as if you cooked them on a piece of glass); it's kind of a lame inconvenient method anyway.
Just a minute. You put eggs in a Pyrex bowl in the mini oven for up to five minutes and that didn't help? Then can you define 'the mini oven' and its temperature settings?
@Fattie: You'd need to first verify that heat capacity is the correct suspect here, before you can finetune precisely what timing would help you overcome it. This is why my musing is a comment, not an answer, because it's as of yet unproven. Given the variance between oven power, placement of pizza in the oven (high/low), pizza bases (thick/thin) and even how cold your freezer is; I would recommend that you test with your own scenario to avoid getting an answer based on a meaningfully different scenario.
NEWS - https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125401
Here's a counterintuitive experiment that might be worth trying.
Let the pizza come up to temperature, egglessly. If the instructions say to cook it at 420 for 13 without egg, then cook it for maybe 10, or however much longer after that it takes for the cheese to be melty and sizzly.
Basically, I suspect you want to be putting the egg onto hot, sizzling cheese-grease, not onto frozen pizza. Putting the egg on while frozen will both cool the egg, and let the egg act as insulation to the pizza, so is doubly-bad.
Then add the egg onto that sizzlingly-hot top, and cook for the remaining 3-5 minutes. Maybe a 15 mins total cook time, 'cos you're adding a couple minutes for the extra toppings.
That 3-5 minutes of final cook time should be plenty of time for the hot cheese and sauce to cook the egg, just like frying it in a pan. It's the crazy-hot pizzajuice that will mostly cook the egg, from the bottom, far faster than the hot air will from the top.
I haven't tried this, though: this is just a guess. And it's unintuitive, since it seems like the longer the egg is in there, the more it should cook, right? It's all about Specific Heat Capacity, though. Cheese and sauce can store more heat than air ever could.
So, I'm interested in whether you perform this experiment, and whether it works.
===
If that still doesn't work, then once the pizza is done, you could just pop it in a microwave for an additional few seconds to finish the egg.
A pizza with an egg on is a UK "Pizza Express" standard ("Fiorentina" IIRC). It's made with fresh pizza dough, vegetables, mozarella and raw egg on top and straight into a hot Pizza oven. So I'm certain it works, and that the issue is the pizza being frozen and the egg refrigerated.
Right: OP's asking about frozen pizza in a home oven, not about freshmade pizza in a commercial pizza oven. Frozen pizzas are engineered to cook by the instructions on the box: the sweet spot of dough rising and cooking, but not burning; cheese melting but not burning; enough toppings to taste good without trapping the moisture in the dough; etc. If we "customize" our pizza, even just extra cheese, we can get soggy, unraised dough, or burned toppings at best, unless we compensate for it by cooking longer, cooler, and perhaps even poking a hole thru for moisture to escape. Hence my proposal.
Bingo ! This is in fact the answer. Thank you so much! Experiment .. https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125401/how-would-you-recommend-further-improving-this-the-eggs-take-longer-than-the-pi
Another thing to try -- start or end the cooking with some minutes of the toaster oven on "broil". This should activate only the top heating elements, preferentially cooking the egg without overcooking the bottom crust of the pizza.
DUH! WHAT A GREAT IDEA
... but not one I've been able to try ...
Put the eggs in something. Add boiling water (don't boil them on the stove, just pour boiling water over them and wait). Start a timer. Figure out how long you need to to that for before you crack them onto your pizza to get the results you want. Don't wait too long or they will become soft or even hard boiled (or "coddled" as I've seen that method of cooking eggs in hot water called.)
This should be a bit more predictable (and potentially faster, and less cleanup) than the pyrex dish in the hot oven (which is valid, but seems like a pain to do, to me.)
Simpler method that might work - pull the eggs out of the fridge and let them come to room temperature before starting. Or warm them with hot water from your tap, rather than boiling water.
Great thinking! - essentially steep them in hot / very hot water for some minutes. Will try it! Just as you say that's much easier / cleanup than the bowl method. (PS, I generally let eggs come to room temp for a few hrs, already.)
Note that heating the eggs whole means that the egg white is heated more than the egg yolk because the yolk is at the center at the egg and heat is supplied from the outside. In the finished pizza a runny yolk is usually perfectly fine but you want the egg white properly cooked so this is probably not an issue.
Just the room temperature alone might already suffice, or put the eggs in warm water (aka more than room temp, but not enough to boil) to give them a head start
You can dial in this approach a bit faster by heating each of the 3 eggs for different lengths and tracking the results (e.g., set the timer to 10 minutes and add eggs to the pot at the 10, 8, and 6 minute marks). You'll lose a bit of accuracy (adding an egg will cool the previous eggs), but probably still a win. Mind you, I'm not sure it's a problem if you're "forced" to make more pizza to figure this out.
FYI @Hobbamok at all; as it happens I never eat eggs, at all, or use them in any way, unless they've come totally to room temperature (say, 1 hr min. if unfortunately they've been in a fridge).
heh pretty clever @Brian :)
I think the biggest issue you run into is thermal mass. The pizza is frozen, which is absorbing heat that the elements are trying to radiate onto the eggs, but the eggs are being chilled from the bottom during that time.
Partially cooking the pizza before the egg may be one approach, but then you run the risk of burning the bottom of the pizza by the time the hot pizza top and oven elements can cook the egg.
Would you mind testing to see if the thinness of one egg would cook adequately on the frozen pizza surface?
FTR I tried poking the yokes a bit with a pointy knife and spread the yolk/white around a little; ... I'd prefer to not do this
Is this a taste preference, to the egg preparation?
And heating a bowl of eggs in the mini oven will make a different texture than on a frying pan because of where the heat is coming from. A frying pan is a hot surface that can conduct heat directly into the egg material rapidly, where a mini oven uses radiation and a bit of air conduction, that generally cooks the egg slower. This results in a different texture.
DAMN - it occured to me. if you crack eggs in to just a pyrex bolw (room temp bowl, not frozen) and put them in an oven 400° ... they do take a long long time to be cooked .. suiggests it may NOT be the frozen-base issue ? experimenting!!
Isaac, "Is this a taste preference", no as I explained, I thought it might help with the issue at hand; I thought it might make them cook more quickly. Does not seem to help much.
I think most of the problem here is heat distribution. Your tiny oven may only have elements at the bottom, and you need good heat transfer to cook the eggs. Top elements in the oven should cook the eggs pretty well in the 13 min you mention. As I see it, you have a couple of options:
The first I would try is to crack the eggs as normal, then give a light spray of oil over them. This should improve your heat transfer to them. If that doesn't work, try the one below.
Have something heat-proof under the pizza to start with, then remove this later to allow crisping of the base. I would use something like a pizza stone that can take a bit of steam without making the base soggy, or possibly a rack on top of an oven tray (rack to lift the base off the tray and prevent moisture from making it soggy, tray to prevent direct heat).
place pizza on heat proof item
crack eggs onto it (spray with oil?)
place in oven until egg partly ready (~10 min?)
remove heat-proof item
cook for remaining ~10 min directly on the wire rack.
The risk you run here is any steam generated might make the base a bit soggy, which is obviously not the desired product. Spraying the eggs with oil again might help speed things up, but would need a test to see.
The 3rd option is to cook at a lower temp for longer, though I don't know what this might do to the defrosting base, so it might sag unless on a base of some sort.
A wooden chopping board in a 420°F oven...hmmm. That should be interesting.
@Ecnerwal good point! Wasn't thinking about the temp they'd mentioned - provides a 3rd option!
@Ecnerwal I dunno - a wooden board could be a great way to add a smokey flavour :)
A suggested method:
Cook the pizza from frozen as you usually do.
Take the pizza out about 3-5 mins before it's due to be finished.
Crack the eggs onto the pizza.
Put it back into the oven until the eggs are cooked to your liking (within another 6-8 minutes). You also could experiment with reducing the oven temperature while the eggs are cooking.
Why:
As mentioned in other answers, the eggs are being cracked onto a frozen pizza which means it's losing heat to this mass, despite you putting them in room temperature before hand. So the eggs take much longer to cook.
It takes eggs about 7-10 mins to cook in an oven at 375 F for shakshuka (a dish with liquid base, usually tomato-based, which features poached eggs, which is a bit similar to the pizza base with eggs on top).
So better to cook them at the end, when the pizza is already mostly cooked and not going to take heat away from the eggs. You can use the top heating element only, if you’re afraid of the bottom of the pizza being overcooked. And the pizza should be ok with the extra cooking time – since it's been taken out of the oven and cooled down a bit in between, so it will need some reheating.
Other reference recipes with eggs over a soft, cooked mass:
You could probably look at shakshuka recipes to get reference times for cooking eggs onto a soft/liquidy cooked base. This dish often features eggs cracked into a tomato-based mass, and cooked until the eggs are poached. The eggs can take 7-10 mins to cook in the oven at 375 F, from an example shakshuka recipe here
You will probably want to experience with the timing to see what works, to balance the cook on the pizza and the cook on the eggs. I.e. when to take out the pizza to crack the eggs, how long to cook the pizza with the eggs on top. Cooking is experimentation!
BINGO - I think this is it in a nutshell. See new question for some experimentation! I won't close out the question yet as others are still answering !!!
I'm unconvinced that the answer is prewarming the eggs, simply because it doesn't change the fact that you're putting the eggs on a frozen pizza - all that thermal mass means the eggs will still be cooled to a chilly temperature before they've had a chance to start cooking (though perhaps if you had a sous vide machine that could precook the eggs to a uniform parbake, this approach would work). Prewarming the pizza also runs the risk of the pizza burning before the eggs are cooked.
My thought is to ignore the package instructions entirely. Crack the eggs onto the frozen pizza, then put the pizza onto a pizza steel or sheet pan* and into a cold oven. Let the oven, the eggs, and the pizza all come up to temperature together. That way, everything should warm and then cook at roughly the same rate.
My only concern with this approach is that the crispness of the pizza might be lost, but that might be mitigated by moving the pizza onto the rack once the oven has come up to temperature. I wouldn't put the pizza directly on the rack from the beginning only because the pizza would end up directly over the heating elements the entire time the oven is coming up to temperature which could result in the bottom being burned before anything else even starts cooking.
It's hard to argue with the first long sentence here !!! Yes, looked at that way prewarming the eggs is doubtful :/ ...
One thing that might be worth trying is baking at a higher temperature for a shorter duration. I find for my preferred brand of frozen pizzas with my current oven baking at 485 for 7 minutes works better than the suggested cooking time/temp. At my previous home I could cook the same pizzas in that oven at 500 in 6 minutes. A smaller toaster oven such as yours might have a harder time maintaining a higher temperature, and of course this might not work with eggs on top at all, since the interface might not get thoroughly cooked.
If you do decide to try this, be sure to monitor your pizza more carefully than usual until you've found a the method that works best for you.
Finally, do consider also combining with @ecnerwal's suggesting for pre-warming the eggs.
I'd suggest thawing the Pizza to room temperature, and also letting the egg warm to room temperature. This should minimize problems caused by slow penetration of heat between the frozen pizza and the cold egg.
Obviously the necessary cooking time will be reduced, so the first time you will have to check frequently.
A gently fried egg on top of a pizza probably tastes the same. (Use a non-stick pan and very little oil to fry the egg). Not as pretty, but faster from freezer and fridge to eating.
Preheat the oven while preparing the ingredients.
Start cooking the pizza first, as it typically takes less time.
While the pizza is cooking, prepare and cook the eggs separately.
Coordinate their timing so that both are ready to enjoy at the same time.
another answer that entirely misses the point of the question (and on second glance, doesn't even make sense: start cooking the pizza first because it takes less time? how would that make any sense?)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.308738
| 2023-09-24T19:07:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125313",
"authors": [
"Brian",
"Chris H",
"Criggie",
"Dewi Morgan",
"Ecnerwal",
"Esther",
"Fattie",
"Flater",
"Hobbamok",
"Joe",
"Joshua",
"Michael",
"Robbie Goodwin",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22246",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28796",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44854",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84365",
"nigel222",
"njuffa",
"quarague"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
59948
|
Basil lookalike that tastes like aniseed.
I bought a herb on the market, thinking it was fresh basil. What I know for sure now, is that this isn't basil. It has a taste that reminds me of anise and fennel. It stays a bit firmer than basil when put on spaghetti. What did I buy?
You bought thai basil. It's used a lot in south east Asia, and an anise-like taste is one of its qualities.
I don't use it often, but I always have some in stock in the freezer, for some thai or Vietnamese curries or soups.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.310527
| 2015-08-16T09:29:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59948",
"authors": [
"Graham Swain",
"Kumar Ayyagari",
"Sally Said",
"Stuart Ayris",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143377",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143378",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143379",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143383"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
92419
|
What happens when chocolate is overheated further than 50C/120F?
I've been googling about this for a while, and it seems to be a common practice to avoid overheating chocolate in the context of tempering. Here's an example source mentioning the fate of overheated chocolate: How to Fix Overheated or Seized Chocolate
Dark chocolate should never be heated above 120 F, while milk and white chocolates should never be heated to above 110 F. It is quite easy to exceed these temperatures if using a double boiler with boiling water, or if microwaving on full power.
Overheated chocolate will lose the silky shine of melted chocolate and become thick and muddy.
Considering the beans are roasted in way higher temperatures like ~ 130C/270F. I don't see why this should be avoided, or whatever the problem it would cause, should be reversible.
I would think the only problem would be about fat bloom or breaking the suspension (or emulsion if any). But I think, a good blender should fix the issue. But is there some other thing happening physically or chemically when chocolate is overheated to say 80C/180F?
Considering the smoking point of cocoa butter is 187C/370F, smoking or burning of the cocoa butter can not also be the issue.
Sounds like an easy experiment to carry out, unless you're looking for an expl involving the chemistry, or actually asking "why" instead of "what". All the overheated chocolate I've seen separates into oil and a crumbly substance that doesn't taste good
What you get is something like a Hershey chocolate bar:
To someone who's only ever had Belgian or Swiss high-quality chocolate his entire life, and tries a Hershey Chocolate bar late in life, it'll taste "burnt" and not nice at all, whereas if that's what you grew up with, it'll taste "normal"...
As you're wondering why, you seem to have grown up with that taste, so you don't see what all the fuss is about, whereas any Belgian or Swiss national will not like your product (and why Hershey is not very popular in that region).
There is no way to fix overheated chocolate to the chocolate connoisseur except to throw it away and start anew.
is the taste about the roasting temperature of the beans the or the melting temperature?
Melting T° because roasting T° is irrelevant as that is before the cocoa mass extraction.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.310615
| 2018-09-23T00:19:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92419",
"authors": [
"Caius Jard",
"Fabby",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68275",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69408",
"zetaprime"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
99743
|
Ganache alternative for "Nanaimo bars"
Introduction
I'm making Nanaimo bars for my coworkers. Some of them don't like chocolate, so I'm going to make a second, terribly non-traditional batch with different flavours (I'm thinking maple syrup is the obvious choice, dried apple, and cinnamon).
I need an alternative to chocolate ganache for the top layer.
Replacement Criteria
Taste
I think that my coworkers who dislike chocolate dislike its bitterness and "chocolatey" flavours. If possible, I'd also prefer to avoid the flavours of white chocolate, either by covering it up or using something else.
Texture
The replacement should be something with a bit more tooth to it than icing, since it has to contrast the middle layer, but not something sticky like caramel or hard like crème brûlée.
Relative importance
The most important part is that the replacement doesn't taste like chocolate. I think the contrast in texture is important to the experience of eating a Nanaimo bar, so keeping the texture close to ganache is the next most important part.
Original Ganache Recipe
I am planning on using this Nanaimo bar recipe. The portions of the recipes that deal with the ganache layer are quoted below:
Ganache Ingredients:
4 (1 ounce) squares semisweet baking chocolate
2 teaspoons butter
Ganache Instructions:
...melt the [4 ounces of] semisweet chocolate and 2 teaspoons butter together in the microwave or over low heat. Spread over the chilled bars.
Additional Comments
I also considered this ganache recipe by Ina Garten. However, I doubt it will be dense enough, so I'll probably end up using the one in the Nanaimo bar recipe.
Would dulce de leche work? I haven't worked with it before so I don't know the consistency.
Thanks!
Welcome to Seasoned advice, justforplaylists.
I appreciate that you specify a number of desired characteristics; it makes it easier to answer this question. You can make it even easier by adding any other criteria you have for a "best" alternative. (For example, is it more important to get closer to the texture of chocolate ganache, or is it more important to have something that can be easily flavored as long as it meets your textural requirements?)
Are you willing to elaborate on why your coworkers do not like chocolate? As I understand it, the current question rules out a white chocolate ganache, which may not have the flavors that they dislike and have a texture similar to that of a to a milk or dark chocolate ganache.
Would it be convenient for you to post the chocolate ganache recipe you plan to use for the other batch that you want to replace? When I searched for "ganache recipe", the first three results used a weight ratio of about 2 parts chocolate to one part of heavy cream; when I searched for "nanaimo bar recipe", the first recipes used ratios from 4:1 to 6:1 chocolate to butter. I expect significantly different results from the two approaches, but it is not clear to me which one you want to use.
Added answers in the question.
Dulche de leche will not work. It never stiffens up, it's always a gooey consistency.
I would suggest a dark, dry caramel. If you make a dark caramel and add just a tiny bit of cream or butter to it at the end, it will be firm and dry (at least, as much as ganache is) and not "sticky", as you say in your question. The trick will be adding enough butter or cream that the caramel remains pliable, but not so much that it is sticky; you may have to experiment some here.
A dark caramel will also add some bitter notes and contrasting flavors that would otherwise be missing in the chocolate-free bars.
Experimenting with the approach described by FuzzyChef, will probably be faster and more convenient than the approach suggested in this answer; this answer is mostly a record of my experiments.
Caramelized White Chocolate Ganache
Many if not most white chocolate varieties use deodorized cocoa butter, so most of the flavors present are from milk solids and vanilla, with relatively little "chocolatey" flavor. Caramelized white chocolate is heat processed in a way that browns the milk solids and sugars; the end result is chocolate that tastes similar to milk caramels like dulce de leche.
Caramelized white chocolate behaves like other chocolates; as far as I can tell, it produces a ganache that is relatively close to one produced with dark chocolate.
Executive Summary of Recipe and Results
Recipe Summary
Melt 4 parts of caramelized white chocolate per one part butter (by weight) over gentle heat and stir until combined. 2 tablespoons is about one ounce of butter, so the ratio is 2 ounces of chocolate per tablespoon of butter.
Texture
Caramelized white chocolate ganache is noticeably grittier than a ganache made with the same amount of dark chocolate and butter. Out of the refrigerator, it is slightly harder than dark chocolate ganache, but, after enough time spent at room temperature, both soften to similar textures.
Taste
Caramelized white chocolate ganache will taste like the chocolate used. Especially when deeply browned, caramelized white chocolate can taste like milk caramels (for example, dulce de leche).
The process of caramelizing white chocolate at home does not appear to introduce or intensify any dark chocolate flavors, though it also does not completely remove vanilla flavors if they were present in the white chocolate before caramelization.
Between the caramel flavors and vanilla, ganache made with caramelized white chocolate will resist further flavoring.
Logistical Difficulty: Acquiring Caramelized White Chocolate
Unfortunately, obtaining caramelized white chocolate may be inconvenient. It is available for purchase from some vendors, but the most readily available option is probably making it yourself from white chocolate.
Buying Caramelized White Chocolate
Caramelized white chocolate is a specialty product; it will likely be only available at specialty stores or online, and at a markup compared to similar white chocolates. Two examples of caramelized white chocolates available online are:
Valhrona's Dulcey
Fruition's Vanilla Bean Toasted White
Caramelizing White Chocolate at Home
It is possible to make caramelized white chocolate at home.
If you have an oven, you can caramelize white chocolate by cooking it in a 250F (120C) oven four about an hour, stirring every 10 minutes. There are more details in this recipe by David Lebovitz.
It is also possible to caramelize small amounts of white chocolate in a microwave by microwaving in 15-30 second bursts, stirring thoroughly between bursts. This method may take as much as 45 minutes for 4 ounces of chocolate and requires close attention; I find it tedious and recommend the oven method. Note that the chocolate will still reach temperatures around 250F before it starts appreciably browning; use a sufficiently heat-proof bowl.
Choosing the Right White Chocolate
Since you want to avoid the flavors of dark chocolate, you should avoid white chocolated made with non-deodorized cocoa butter. Deodorized is usually the default; El Rey is the only producer that I know of that sells bulk white chocolate made with non-deodorized cocoa butter.
In the US, Ghirardelli and Guittard are two brands that make relatively common white chocolate (*and non-chocolate "white chips") bars and wafers for baking. The varieties that I know of are produced with deodorized cocoa butter.
"White Chips"
The recipe by Lebotitz also links to an article that makes the distinction between "real white chocolate" and similar candies that use fats other than milkfat and cocoa butter (cacao fat). This distinction is also maintained by some regulatory bodies, including the United States FDA.
The term "white chips" is used for some of these confections, which are sold alongside other chocolate chips. The presence of fats other than cocoa butter and milkfat means that these chips may have textures and melting properties slightly different from those of white chocolate. On the other hand, the smaller amount (or absence) of cacao product may be desirable if you want to minimize the possibility of introducing chocolate flavors.
In this application, caramelized "white chips" may be close enough to the real thing. Ganache produced with 4:1 caramelized white chips:butter seems to have a similar texture; I find it slightly waxy compared to a ganache prepared with white chocolate, and, when both are brought to room temperature, the ganache made with white chips seems slightly harder than a ganache produced with white chocolate.
However, compared to white chocolate, "white chips" seem more prone to burning or producing large, crunchy pieces when caramelized in a microwave. This can be somewhat mitigated by caramelizing in larger batches (at least 2 ounces or 56g at a time). I was not able to test caramelizing white chips in an oven; the gentler heat of the oven may make this tendency a non-issue.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.310843
| 2019-06-26T03:24:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99743",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76206",
"justforplaylists",
"user95442"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
95059
|
What does it mean to overmix?
I have a cheddar bay biscuit mix made by Red Lobster. On the instructions, it says not to overmix the grated cheese, water, and biscuit dough, but it says to mix it. What does that mean? How do I know how much mixing is too much?
I did read the other questions that have to do with overmixing. But they mostly concern muffins, and I'm not sure if it is the same with biscuits.
Mixing strengthens the gluten structure in recipes that use wheat flours. In breads, for example, this is a good thing, as that structure is what allows gasses to be trapped inside, and provides the pleasant chew that we associate with a well-made loaf. However, when making biscuits (or other baked goods where a softer, more crumbly texture is desired...pancakes also come to mind), it is advised to mix ingredients until just incorporated (or...don't over mix). This is so that you don't develop the gluten structure in your dough. So, just mix gently and minimally until the ingredients are well-dispersed.
It will be easiest, I think, to mix the cheese and the flour together before adding the water. Then stir the water in with a fork just until the moisture is absorbed. You may need to scrape the sides and bottom of the bowl with a spatula to get the last bits of flour/cheese mixed in. It may also be best to use a drop dough technique instead of rolling and cutting (but of course that is entirely up to you).
Looking at how it's named, is the drop dough technique where you take a spoonful of the mixture and drop it? Why would the two different ways differ from each other?
Rolling and cutting the dough affects it's texture. It's fine with a dough that has a large amount of butter in it because the butter is incorporated in such a way that it creates flakey layers. But your recipe calls for less handling. So, the drop method will be a better alternative.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.311589
| 2018-12-22T14:26:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/95059",
"authors": [
"Sweet_Cherry",
"elbrant",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70026"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
92374
|
What is the appearance of expired brown sugar?
I have a bag of brown sugar that I never noticed in my cupboard, and I needed it for a cookie recipe that I decided to make today. The brown sugar has been there for about a year, and it looks really packed together. Is it safe to use?
Does it have an expiration date?
I can't seem to find it. I've looked all over the package.
Sugar (and salt) don't require expiry dates in many jurisdictions.
Did you know that brown sugar is nothing but white sugar with a tiny bit of molasses added? When the water in the molasses evaporates, the sugar clumps together and gets hard.
Sugar never expires unless you keep it wet (where yeast can potentially grow) but even then you'll only generate alcohol which depending on your point of view is not "expiring" (if left longer the alcohol may "expire" to become vinegar which will then last almost forever)
Being packed together is typically safe to use, just inconvenient. Brown Sugar doesn't really "expire." However, it can absorb excess water if stored in a humid environment and lead to bacteria fermenting it (It would have an alcohol style smell and turn goopy) or pick up odors from its packaging or things that are nearby. For example, if it's stored in a musty basement in just a plastic bag, it can pick up a mildew type smell. If near strong smelling spices, it can pick up odors from those.
The most common issue is it just dries out though and clumps or turns hard. You can usually loosen it by just warming it up and moving it around. Try gently massaging it in the bag to use your body heat or break it in to pieces and use a microwave like moscafj suggests. Short bursts of heat and stirring often in between should do the trick.
If you want to prevent it from drying out, wrap your sugar in heavy duty foil when not in use to stop air transfer and moisture loss.
Any package date would be a "best by" date, which would indicate quality, rather than safety. Really, the only risk is that the flavor has degraded. If the sugar is hard, you can put it in a microwave-safe bowl with a damp paper towel. Cover the bowl and microwave in short bursts (10 - 15 seconds), breaking up the hard lumps with a fork in between bursts. Be careful not to melt the sugar. Then use as you wish.
You can achieve a similar effect if you put the butt piece of a loaf of bread in the brown sugar container overnight. The bread will be rock hard in the morning and your sugar will be nice and soft.
Where would I put the paper towel?
@Sweet_Cherry place sugar in bowl, cover with damp paper towel, cover bowl with plastic or even a kitchen towel. Use short bursts in microwave.
High sugar (and salt) concentration causes osmosis from bacteria so they loose their water and die - this is why sugar and salt are great preservatives (eg. jams, salted meat, etc.). And this effect makes sugar (until it doesn't get wet) can not deteriorate. I'm sure you can use that old brown sugar safely.
In my country (and I think in the whole EU) sugars are marked as 'Safe for infinite time'.
In the UK, sugar doesn't have to be marked with a "best before" or "use by" date, but I've never seen packets explicitly claiming that it's good forever.
It is "good forever", but only if you apply common sense to storing it. Any labeling which implied it was indestructible would be not only pointless, but wrong. And a page of objectively correct caveats about temperature range, relative humidity, possible contaminants, etc would just be a crackpot magnet.
I want a refund. Turns out the sugar that I stored for five years in a nuclear reactor core wasn't good anymore, it gave me cancer!
My UK brown sugar is apparently best before March 2020, and I probably bought it for Christmas baking last year, giving it nearly a 3 year stated life. The various white sugars I have are undated. (@DavidRicherby - Lidl's granulated does state 'natural preservative... cool, dry place... will keep indefinitely')
@leftaroundabout If you’d left it in the reactor, it would have given you cancer and radiotherapy at the same time. Your application for a refund is rejected.
I live in Hungary and here sugars are mared as "Minőségét korlátlan ideig megőrzi", which means "Keeps its quality for unlimited time" (sadly I'm not a translator). But we are on the Wilde Wilde East so maybe our digestive tract is little bit more trained :)
Brown sugar bought in US and kept in an airtight package is totally good upto 2 years. I recently used a package which I had bought at Meijer 2 years back. I also saw this website that states that best quality is within 2 years, and if stored properly lasts forever.
http://www.eatbydate.com/other/sweets/how-long-does-brown-sugar-last/
My best guess that I am giving based on an experience from a normal sugar is that it should have melted or should feel like a sticky in hand
I don't understand what you mean. Sugar should have melted? Sugar doesn't melt until something like 190C (375F).
Yep it will melt and u will some sticky feeling once u touch it..pls try once and add a comment
No, really. Unless my cupboard gets up to about 190C, my sugar isn't going to melt. It may become sticky but that's because it's absorbed some water and has nothing to do with melting.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.312056
| 2018-09-20T23:04:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92374",
"authors": [
"Brad",
"Chris H",
"David Richerby",
"Rob Lewis",
"Sweet_Cherry",
"alephzero",
"dr.engg",
"hellsing",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21659",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29028",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69385",
"leftaroundabout",
"moscafj",
"paparazzo",
"slebetman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
73693
|
Is it safe to reuse steamer water?
My youngest is a fussy eater, and we have problems getting him to eat vegetables. Recently we've tried using a wide steamer and he likes it, because its wide enough to keep all the carrots from touching while cooking (yes - that's his reasoning)
However he also only eats carrots and broccoli when there's a trace of sugar in the steaming water - a teaspoon or so.
My wife is happy to leave the water in the bottom pot and let it cool, then reheat it the next evening. I feel this is a bad idea but can't put my finger on why.... The water boils so it reaches temperatures that should kill anything bad.
What have we missed ?
In addition the water doesn't touch the food until it has evaporated, but it still feels like a little wrong. (If any bad stuff grew overnight it might splash onto the food before boiling. Do you know how he can tell if there's sugar? It doesn't really smell and doesn't evaporate so never gets to the food.
@ChrisH He can tell by taste if the spoon used to make a hot milo (chocolate drink) was used to stir coffee while making his drink - super sensitive taste sense. And the vegetables definitely taste better cooked this way with a touch of sugar in the base. If we use honey instead, it tastes "wrong" to me, so its definitely getting up to the food. via the steam.
That definitely sounds like there's some liquid water traveling from the pan to the vegetables then.
Your wife probably thinks "It's just water and thoroughly boiled, so all is well.". Unfortunately, it is not.
If you look into your pot after the first use, you'll notice that the water contains traces of the vegetable, meaning it technically falls under the "food that becomes unsafe after 2/4 hours at 40-140 °F (4-60 °C)" category and should be refrigerated quickly or discarded. More on this on our canonical post on the topic.
Perhaps you argue that cooking will kill any "nasties" that might have grown since the day before, but while this may be true for most bacteria and fungi, it does not work for some of the toxins they produce. Boiling does not make unsafe food safe.
Weighing the cost of a bit of water and sugar agains the the risk of a child's health, I'd dump it and clean the pot every time.
You could put the pot in the refrigerator, but must heat and cool it as quickly as possible (keep in mind that the time is cumulative) - which sounds to me like a lot of excess effort and takes up a lot of refrigerator space.
Yup. Treat it like 'soup' or stock. There's no problem pouring it off into a container and refrigerating it when it's cool to handle. I do this when i steam celeriac since a lot of flavour ends up in the steaming water and it makes good stock.
Can the toxins rise up with the steam?
@Agos would you want to risk it? Note that aromatic compound do rise (steaming over wine or herbs), so can off smells. And steam can carry things with it.
Also, steamer water tends to gather all the bitterness it can :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.312506
| 2016-09-04T10:24:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73693",
"authors": [
"Agos",
"Chris H",
"Criggie",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18447",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42017",
"rackandboneman",
"worthwords"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
64029
|
What has a cooler got to do with sous-vide cooking?
Kindly explain paragraph 3. I can't see link between this device for sous-vide cooking and coolers? What does unmatched versatility mean here?
This is the Chefsteps Joule sous-vide cooker
As a note, this use of "coolers" for hot liquid is not limited to sous vide. As a home brewer, we use coolers (10 gallon water coolers with spigots) to keep our mash tun and hot liquor tanks hot over the 1-hour steeping time. These are extremely popular amongst small batch (~5 gallon) all grain brewers and are regularly sold in kits. The reality is that the coolers are really "insulators" that happen to be commonly used to keep things cold. Though it is worth noting that most won't be able to handle temps near boiling without melting or deforming.
Coolers (chilly bins) are ideal sous-vide cooking vessels as they are well insulated, and thus conserve energy and avoid temperature varying across the water bath.
Most sous-vide cooking happens at less than 80°C (176°F), so the plastic will stand up fine.
Many commercial clip on sous-vide cookers are only suitable for fish tank style containers (thin walled). These tanks look pretty, but waste a lot of energy, and can struggle to keep the same temperature throughout all the water. An interchangeable clip, or wide reach clip is more useful for coolers or other insulated vessels.
Specifically with the Chefsteps Joule sous-vide cooker: it seems to have a powerful magnet in its foot, so if you place a sheet of coated steel on the bottom of your cooler, you won't even need a clip.
"unmatched versatility" here means "you can clip it onto (pretty much) anything."
For two steaks the temperature accuracy may be fine, but when you load up a whole party things go wrong. With plenty of packages in a vessel, water loves to isolate itself in heat patterns, even with a circulator. The Joule should be better as it has the circulator exit at the bottom of the vessel, not halfway up the side.
You can use two same sized deep lexan trays to get decent insulation. It's not a matter of temp accuracy really, just how much energy is used to maintain the temp. If you set the thermostat to keep it at 176F it will no matter what unless the cold is stronger than the heat.
@Escoce That's addressed by TFD's previous comment, I think - it's not about the accuracy of the thermostat, it's about what happens when the circulation doesn't reach as well everywhere. If it's well-insulated, it'll stay closer to the right temperature.
For what it’s worth, the inlet is on the bottom of the Joule. The slit of the side is where the water comes out of it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.312794
| 2015-12-02T05:20:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64029",
"authors": [
"Adam Thopliss",
"Angie",
"Ashraf Nassour",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Charlie Geldart",
"Desirre DeLorge",
"Escoce",
"Gail Warnick",
"Jabu Maphumulo",
"Lara Berendt",
"Marie Mein",
"Ming",
"Preston",
"Rosemary John",
"TFD",
"Tracey Fischer",
"Wendy Askew",
"Zoe Knott",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152526",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152527",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152529",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152530",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152538",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152570",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"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/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
66960
|
How do you cook boneless chicken thighs?
I can cook beef steak and chicken breasts pretty good, but boneless chicken thighs is where I have some issues.
First it is uneven in width, making it hard to properly cook the insides without overcooking the outside.
Second I do not know how to work the chicken skin. By the time the chicken is properly cooked, the skin is scorched - not crispy.
Third is that I do not know what kind of liquid goes well if I want to deglaze the pan. I am looking for a tangy, savory sweet gravy but I do not know what kind of ingredients will get me there (just basic deglaze knowledge).
I hope you guys can provide some guidance as to how to nail boneless chicken thighs and solve these problems I am having because YouTube and Google have not been my friends today.
EDIT: I have noticed some confusion about what is a chicken steak, so here:
EDIT V2: Using what the comments have taught me, I have changed from "chicken steak" to "boneless chicken thighs". I will keep the picture to avoid further confusion.
Very good question! Steak is a primarily Western style meal, but Western countries usually don't sell chicken steaks at all, so if somebody has developed a nice way for doing them, I'd be glad to hear it.
What is a chicken steak?
@GdD It's top blade steak. It's pretty good, but it has a tricky line of gristle right down the middle. I've seen it threaded on skewers. http://esq.h-cdn.co/assets/15/06/nrm_1423263686-01-chicken-steak-0810-lg.jpg
Chicken steak is a beef cut. How does chicken skin play into that?
I think the OP is actually referring to a chicken fillet (which is indeed uneven), but then again: Unless they're still attached to the breast, they usually come without skin (and are then usually not sold as fillets).
@Jolenealaska, you are saying its a particular cut, not chicken fried steak?
@BarAkiva, could you please elaborate? Its fair to say there's confusion on what you mean.
@GdD I have provided a picture. It's got a popular name in Hebrew and I had real difficulty to find a name for it in English. Even English chicken cut info graphics did not provide something similar so maybe it is a regional cut? It was always too tasty to believe the rest of the world does not know this cut :)
Looks like thigh meat with the bone removed.
@Catija: I think it is. With a nice, tube like, thinner part in the middle where the bone used to be.
@Catija sold as "thigh fillets" in the UK. That's what it looks like to me.
Yeah, in the US, they are simply called "boneless, skinless chicken thighs". We don't come up with fancy names for them, we call them what they are.
I do not know if there is a board game of what country uses less BS fancy names or terms, but if there ever was such a game I believe every country that still uses the Imperial System would automatically lose...
Regarding width: the chicken breast needs to be flattened. Here's a video of a home cook doing it to give you an idea. I don't use the hammer, I smack it with the bottom of a skillet. When I worked in a restaurant, the Chef had me flatten chicken with a smack from the side of a heavy cleaver.
Regarding the skin: I like to brown in a 50/50 olive oil and butter. Get it hot, then add the chicken skin down. Cook it, nudge it gently with tongs on occasion, when the chicken moves freely with a nudge, the skin is crisped, and you can turn it over.
Deglazing: I like a 50/50 mix of white wine and chicken broth. Shallots is are ideal, but I usually end up with onion.
This is clearly not chicken breast. It's chicken thigh.
This is my favorite cut: the boneless, skinless chicken thigh. I generally sear it in a pan that already has oil and spices in it, to seal the meat, and then reduce the heat to the higher end of Medium to cook it in an open pan. If hovering over it while it cooks isn't practical for you, try spicing and breading it before you fry it. The coating makes the meat more forgiving about when it is turned, etc., and helps to seal in the moisture.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.313085
| 2016-02-29T11:28:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66960",
"authors": [
"Amy Markopoulos",
"Bar Akiva",
"Batu",
"Catija",
"Chris H",
"GdD",
"John Glenn",
"Jolenealaska",
"Judith Welty",
"Linda Mazzei",
"Myron Wells",
"Samuel Ray",
"Travis Price",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160574",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160575",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160576",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42285",
"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
}
|
67528
|
How do you finely dice an onion without crying?
This question addresses onion crying
But no one seems to say what should you do when you finely chop an onion. See, not cutting the onion core, using the Gordon Ramsay technique and generally pivoting away from the onion helped so far. But now I have upped my dicing skills. I can chop finer, but alas I am a victim of my own success where the smell of the fine onion is almost like the obscenity of grated onion (horrible).
Sharp knife, not cutting to the core, pivoting away etc all stop working when you are good enough to fine dice an onion. Short of goggles, what do you do?
I think this is still a duplicate of the linked question.
@ Debbie M. I agree. Finely chopping onions and just chopping onions is absolutely the same thing.
@debbiem. not quite since the more finely an onion is chopped the more severe is the tear gas it is spreading.
They're not exactly the same thing -- when dicing the onion, I also take a few other precautions: (1) prep the onions (take off blossom end, peel, cut in half and place cut-side down on cutting board but do not cut the root end). (2) do the initial cuts (I tend to do diagonal rather than vertical & horizontal, but whatever you like ... the goal is to keep the onion together). (3) do the final cross-cuts, but keep the onion together (this requires a really sharp knife, and holding both sides of the onion as you're cutting). ... the goal is to not expose cut, wet surfaces.
TL;DR from the chaotic set of answers to the linked question: Crush cells as little as possible. Do so by using sharp and thin tools.
Breathe through your mouth.
The tear-causing chemicals in onions are absorbed through the nasal mucous membrane. By breathing through your mouth, they don't get much contact with the fumes and won't absorb nearly as much.
I'd actually rather see this as an answer on the linked question, because it's equally relevant to chopping onions in general.
@logophobe I'm pretty sure a diamond-mod (contacted by flagging for mod intervention) can move the answer over. Philipp however cannot, except by pasting it in as a new answer. [Not doing myself as I have no idea if its a good answer—note the other question has an answer saying the opposite!]
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.313463
| 2016-03-18T06:00:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67528",
"authors": [
"Adam Haugh",
"Bar Akiva",
"Debbie M.",
"Eileen O leary",
"Holly",
"Joe",
"Pork Chop",
"Sian Basse",
"Terra Stamy",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162113",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162139",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162140",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"logophobe",
"lucas rosol",
"rackandboneman",
"xtropicalsoothing"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
66042
|
Why my meatballs sweated all of their fat?
I have made simple meatballs with red onions, some eggs, drizzle of olive oil and chopped scallions. Put them into the oven at 220c (440f) and this is what came out:
They sweated all of their fat and juices. What was left was very dry meat with almost no flavor. They weren't in the oven that long at all. Why did my precious meatballs sweat all of the fat they worked so hard to gain at the farm?
A lot of this is not fat but protein. Milkier while it's still hot, stiffens to a different consistency afterwards. See http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17648/ for a longer explanation. You can't keep it all in, but they are indeed losing more than I'd expect.
Some dry bread crumbs, or even flour will keep more of that flavorsome goo inside your meatballs.
Regarding the chemistry of what happened here, @rumtscho's comment addresses that very nicely. Quoting from the relevant portion of the linked answer:
This scum is made from proteins. Meat contains muscle fibers (the proteins actin and myosin) as well as some loose proteins swimming in the fluids within the meat (the cell plasma). When you cook meat, the protein-rich fluids are expelled (that's why overcooking makes meat dry). Under hot temperature, the proteins in the fluid coagulate, making it firm.
As to why that occurred in this case and what you can do about it: you've provided a list of ingredients that includes a lot of moisture, with very little to help bind everything together. Eggs contain a lot of water, and onions will release quite a bit as they cook too. This exacerbates the problem of fluid expulsion noted above. This is why you will very often see breadcrumbs (and sometimes a dry cheese such as parmesan, especially in Italian recipes) included in meatball recipes. They're not just filler; they help to absorb the juices expelled by the meat itself as it's squeezed out by the cooking process. It's a little counter-intuitive, but the dry breadcrumb helps to keep the meatballs moist and shapely as they cook.
Next time consider reducing the amount of egg (you don't specify how much you used, but I rarely use more than 1 egg per pound of ground meat) and adding a bit of breadcrumb to your recipe: perhaps 2 tablespoons per pound of meat as a starting point, up to about 1/4 cup depending on other ingredients. Given the onion and other things here, I would err on the high side of that.
Very helpful answer, nice explanation and advice. You're missed in chat!
I also think you missed the breadcrumbs mince is very fatty and all other ingredients contain a lot of water. I have made this mistake with meatballs and burgers sadly but you will find they are better next time
Welcome to Seasoned Advice. Please fix the grammar and spelling, your post will be much easier to read and more helpful for others.
Agreed. Some sort of binder (breadcrumbs, oats, etc) will help to retain any liquid that might be exuded.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.313798
| 2016-01-30T21:14:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66042",
"authors": [
"Coach",
"Jason Nitzsche",
"Joe",
"Johannes_B",
"Jolenealaska",
"Percy Roberts",
"Sandy Langan",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158019",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158029",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"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
}
|
67216
|
For patting dry meat, what is a substitute for paper towels?
Patting dry with paper towels is really wasteful. I would like to pat dry meat with something reusable like a kitchen towel, yet I fear some of the bacteria will remain on it and make it contaminated.
Is there a substitute for paper towels?
Also, do not confuse this question with: Do you use paper or clothe towel
This is about the safety of using a reusable drying material, not it's culinary efficacy.
IMO, using muslin is about the same thing a using a kitchen towel, you still have to handle it, clean it, desinfect it...
@Max: Technically yes, but I think a muslin is less likely to leave behind any fabric ("hairs", "fluff") than a kitchen towel, hence the suggestion. I've never tried it though, that's why only left it as a comment. You can cook in a muslin, which I wouldn't do with a kitchen towel.
I've never tried it but rubbing salt over the meat should work. I don't know now if this would be less wasteful though.
Sorry to necro, but I have to add something to this thread in case anyone is dumb enough to be inclined to do what I tried. DO NOT USE TOILET PAPER. I know this is obvious, but I decided to test it anyway. Even if you get toilet paper that has no added chemicals (like eucalyptus), there’s a key flaw. Toilet paper is actually made up of multiple extra thin sheets. When you lay the paper upon the meat, the layer closest to the meat will fuse to the meat. It’s basically impossible to remove. Thankfully I used cheap meat to test this, wouldn’t want someone to try this on a better cut.
There are only four ways that I know of other than towels (paper or otherwise) to dry meat:
Air circulation
Time (in a relatively dry environment).
Heat
Momentum
Most people avoid the heat approach, as you'll start to cook it once it's hot enough to be safe for long-term storage of meat. Some recipes may start in a low oven to dry the surface, then remove it, let the oven pre-heat to a higher temperature, then finish cooking. (as it's difficult to give recipes that know how quickly your oven heats up).
For momentum, you basically have to flick the meat such that the water gets flung off. Which is prone to lots of problems (letting go of the meat, plus the spraying of contaminated liquid everywhere). You could use a salad spinner, but if you did, I'd recommend keeping a separate one for meats, as you don't want to risk contaminating other ingredients that would be eaten raw.
For the airflow, you can set it under a low speed fan ... avoiding high speeds so you don't end up aerosolizing the moisture and flinging it through the kitchen.
Or you can place the food in a ventilated container and leave it in your fridge overnight ... possibly with a battery powered fan in the fridge to improve airflow.
As all of these ideas have drawbacks (food safety, time, etc.), most people just accept the waste of using paper towels. There are a few times when one of the others might be used (food dehydrating, trying to get a glaze to set up (eg, peking duck), dry brining, etc.), but they're relatively rare.
This is a good answer but it might undersell the airflow/time solution a bit, depending where you live. In my area we have a very dry and warm climate for most of the year, so a steak (for example) straight out of a wet package set out on a cooling rack (for circulation) will usually dry sufficiently in the same time it takes to come to room temperature.
if you use a kitchen towel to pat-dry meat, then you have to discard (wash) it after a single usage, not really practical if it is not wash-day at your house. or if you decide to wash it (more or less) on its own, then it is a waste of water/detergent/energy.
If it is about safety, use paper towels; dry the meat, trash it.
It it convenient cheap, safe, (more) ecological if made with recycled paper.
Instead of using "white" paper towels, you could use brown paper rolls, which are cheaper and do the same work.
Wouldn't using brown paper rolls leave the OP with the same problem: It's wasteful?
@WillemvanRumpt : yes, but the energy to produce them is lower ... so unless they have to ship them in from further away, there's less energy wasted.
@Joe: Yeah, I understand, but to my mind if you're worried about the waste produced by kitchen paper, replacing it with brown paper is hardly an improvement. Although that's up to the OP to decide, of course.
@WillemvanRumpt : and you have to consider what the cost of hot, clean water is to clean a fabric towel. There are going to be some areas where paper towels are actually less wasteful than washing a cloth one.
@Joe: True. And you have to consider what the cost of recycling used paper is. There are scenarios where boiling water is actually less wasteful than recycling paper. Not saying it to create an argument, but the amount of variables for both operations are so complex, that it's pretty much impossible to come to any Recycled-Paper-Beats-Boiling-Water conclusion (or vice-versa).
If you have a family of a certain size (or just a single toddler), every day can be "wash day" at home!
For safety concerns alone, I would check the local health code for restaurants for meat manipulation.
I would say you have two options:
1. Buy cheap paper towels made of recycled material, and then recycle those after they've been used.
2. Plan ahead. Put an open box of baking soda in your fridge and leave it there. Remove the meat from its wrapping at least an hour to an hour and a half before you plan to put it in the pan. Place the meat on a wire rack in your fridge and let the cold, dry air remove moisture from the surface of the meat. Et voila! Bone-dry meat avec no paper towels.
Don't add food contaminated paper into the recycling stream -- the recyclers really hate that. You might be able to compost them in a commercial or community composting program (where they monitor it to ensure that pathogens have been cooked off), but I wouldn't suggest home composting of meat-contaminated materials. The baking soda to help keep the humidity down in the fridge is a good idea, though.
@Joe All of my used kitchen paper products go into my composting stream along with all other food products. But I don't compost in the manner that's most familiar to American compost enthusiasts, I bokashi
Although I haven't tried it, I think using a muslin to pat the meat dry would be a good solution. It's a nice, clean material, with little to no loss of fibers ("hairs", "fluff", don't know what term to use exactly) than a kitchen towel, and I imagine it would still get the job done.
To clean it, you would have to put it in boiling water, and (perhaps?) add a drop of bleach to it, so it's sterilized again. A good quality muslin will has plenty of life in it, and take quite a lot of abuse (including cooking, and using it as a wringer for squeezing out fluids).
Brown Paper lunch bags will dry your meat. Crumple it first to soften. Even better, place the chicken in the bags and press lightly.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.314091
| 2016-03-08T08:41:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67216",
"authors": [
"Adam Kot",
"Air",
"HandsomeGorilla",
"Joe",
"Karl Pickard",
"Kenneth Bankster",
"Lori Young",
"Maryan Reynolds",
"Max",
"Mila Free",
"Ross Ridge",
"Vivian Krueger",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"Zei",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158645",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161255",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161256",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161274",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161284",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161408",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162262",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44085",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"juanm55"
],
"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
}
|
65582
|
How to reduce microwave power to prevent burned popcorn?
I got a Nordic Ware "microwave popcorn bowl" for Christmas, that my dad and sister had been raving about. I usually make stovetop popcorn in my Whirley Pop popper, which does a great job, but wanted to give the microwave one a try.
Unfortunately, my 1100 W microwave seems far too powerful and tends to end up with either burned popcorn, or having to stop the process with a LOT of unpopped kernels. I was going to give up on the thing but tried it at a vacation house we rented where the microwave was a lot less powerful. It produced amazing popcorn!! Absolutely delicious, tasted more flavorful even though I used way less coconut oil.
I've tried using reduced power setting on my microwave but it doesn't seem to help, the fact that reducing power just makes it shut off for brief periods (see this question) seems to mess up the popping.
Is there something else I can try, like maybe putting a glass or two of water in the microwave with the popcorn? That might help absorb some of the microwave energy. Perhaps I will experiment...
I completely forgot that I'd posted this question! Through experimentation I was able to make the the Nordic Ware microwave popper work very well with my overpowered microwave. We have used it 1-3 times/week for the last 6+ years. Here's the best method I found:
Even though the instructions say 1/3 cup of kernels max, I use a little more than 1/2 cup. More popcorn helps absorbs the energy.
I do not use any oil during popping. None. Instead, I add 1/4 cup of boiled water from the kettle to the kernels immediately before putting it into the microwave. (Note that it will all turn to steam; the popcorn comes out dry.)
With all that water (even near boiling), the popping time is increased to about 5:30 - 6:00, with my microwave.
I let it pop like crazy, spilling out of the bowl somewhat. But if I let it go too long it will burn, so I do stop it and take all the popped popcorn out.
The unpopped kernels go back in the microwave with a little water added to the recessed part of the lid. Popping time: ~2 minutes.
That's it! Once popped I add lots of butter, and salt of course.
That approach sounds fine, but I really don't think the water is gaining you anything. In a closed container, the kernels are going to be limited to 100°C until the water all boils away. That is, it delays the cooking, rather than slowing it down.
@Sneftel the Nordic Ware popper is not closed; it has a very loose-fitting lid with air gaps. Besides, since the amount of water I use is not enough to immerse the kernels, I think some of the microwaves will hit the kernels directly without impacting any water or water vapour. These microwaves will heat up the kernels the same way as without any water. The water, however, absorbs some of the microwave energy so that the kernels / popped popcorn doesn't get burned. Also, I think once all the water has boiled, the steam in the microwave still absorbs some of the energy.
A glass of water in the microwave will result in less microwave energy reaching the popcorn. I use a large glass of water (8 - 12 oz.) when I'm softening butter because I want the water to absorb most of the energy. For popcorn, you may get by with 2-4 ounces of water.
I've also found that the amount of oil makes a huge difference. I sometimes pop popcorn in a paper lunch bag. If I don't use any oil, I get the combination of burnt and unpopped you described. With a teaspoon of oil added to 1/3 cup of popcorn, results are a lot better. Perhaps you just need a little more oil to get great popcorn.
I had tried using more oil but it didn't seem to help much. However, a very small glass of water (guessing I used about 3T or 1.5 oz) worked very well! Almost the equivalent of the lower power microwave. I still used some oil of course (for flavour, and it probably helps prevent burning too).
I'm really glad that worked. Thanks for sharing the result!
Just don't let the water boil away! I mistakenly used a bit less water in one of my batches yesterday and it popped great until the very end when the water finally all boiled away, then some of the popped corn got burned!
I tried adding 1/3 cup of water but this did not work for me. The water was exploding a bit and the popcorn was not popping at all. I had to stop it. Maybe I did it wrong.
@user100013 Try moving the cup of water farther away from the popcorn. Also try using less water.
I make plain popcorn in paper sandwich bags all the time. I find that if I soak the kernels in water for 10 minutes before draining and popping them they don't burn and actually pop better (lighter and bigger).
I experiment a lot with microwave recipes including popcorn and my suggestion is to stop the microwave before any burning starts, remove the popped kernels from the dish and and put the unpopped kernels back in the microwave for some more popping. This will prevent the already popped corn from scorching.
Will, welcome to the site! Please note that all Stack Exchange sites work differently from most forums you might be familiar with. (Start with taking the [tour] and visit our [help]!) I edited your post to keep the advice and remove the "visit my blog" part. You may of course link to your blog on your profile page...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.314664
| 2016-01-18T22:38:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65582",
"authors": [
"Angela Hilgendorf",
"Dalton Harvey",
"Ellie Jensen",
"Michael Lucas",
"Patricia Lynn Sefton",
"Rodney Talley",
"Sneftel",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156781",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156783",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158956",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42606",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"mrog",
"shalene Ranae",
"user100013"
],
"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
}
|
71130
|
What does each setting on the oven mean and what should you use it for?
What do they mean, what is the best usage for each setting, and why?
Did you check the manual?
I’m voting to close this question because it has nothing to do with food and an answer can easily be found in a manual
Depending on which manufacturer they may have differences in operation. It would be best to check that manufacturer's website for a explanation, or the instruction manual.
example 3 page guide
You should find a wealth of information by searching "Oven Settings Explained"
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.315089
| 2016-07-01T15:53:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71130",
"authors": [
"Divi",
"Robert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20624"
],
"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
}
|
70905
|
How to prevent chicken from having a chalky texture?
Even after brining, filleting and cooking to perfect temperature (68 to 71 c) my chicken texture (whole and breast) sometimes comes chalky. Mind you, the chicken can still be juicy while being chalky. Here is a picture:
I have tried different combinations of brining solutions and cooking oils - nothing seems to give a consistent result of juicy, smooth textured chicken:
Mind you, this is not a duplicate of "why my chicken is dry" because many times I can get a moist but chalky chicken.
Do you always buy the chicken from the same source? If you are having varied results while getting the techniques correct, the easy explanation might be that you have inconsistent quality meat to begin with.
Are you letting the chicken rest a bit before cutting/consuming it? Letting it rest a few minutes will let the juices re-absorb. Also, Agos is correct. Try consulting cooking charts for meats. You can cook meats to lower final temperatures if you keep the meat at that temperature for the proscribed time (which is temperature dependent).
Your temperature of 68 to 71 Celsius is very high for white meat. This is what makes the mini clumps in the breast you perceive as "chalky". If you cook it to a lower temperature, you will not have this effect, 60 to 65 Celsius makes "medium" doneness chicken meat.
Note that food safety is a separate consideration, chicken is considered safe starting at 73 Celsius (https://www.foodsafety.gov/keep/charts/mintemp.html). So you are lowering the temperature at your own risk.
food safety is not only a function of temperature: time should be also taken into consideration.
Agos, food safety rules don't take time into consideration, they are written for an instant read.
@rumtscho : I think Agos is trying to say that you can pasteurize the meat by holding it a lower temperature for longer, mitigating the safety concerns ... although many people's stomach will still turn at overly pink chicken.
I cook chicken on a daily basis, and indeed the chicken temperature is important. Even just a little too high and it can be very chalky. One time the thermostat on my stove malfunctioned so I had to replace it and the new one was off by a few + degrees, and I noticed it and had to subtract a little to get back to the right "range" (sorry bad multi-pun).
I've experienced the same and have found that a shorter brine time yields a better texture. I prefer to dry brine boneless chicken to avoid that chalky texture. No more than 30 minutes for small boneless chicken to and hour for large bone-in chicken breasts. A large whole chicken can brine for about 3 or 4 hours.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.315174
| 2016-06-23T11:12:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/70905",
"authors": [
"Agos",
"JS.",
"Joe",
"Richard ten Brink",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101361",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"osirisgothra",
"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
}
|
82097
|
How do you prevent pesto (basil) from becoming bitter?
Here is my go to pesto recpie:
Serious Eats Pesto.
It has been a hit but lately whenever I make it, it has a bitter aftertaste to it. It's not as pungent or umamied, but bitter and leafy.
I use the same proportions (but not the same brands of olive oil or same basil leaves). What in the processing or ingridients might be responsible for the bitterness?
And you really use the mortar and pestle as specified in the recipe?
Yes I use a mortar and pestle. Could it be I may be crushing it wrong? @rumtscho
Probably not. I wanted to make sure you are not using a blender as a shortcut, because olive oil is known to get bitter in a blender, but that is connected to the high speed, I don't think you can trigger the same effect with manual implements.
Try tasting your olive oil; many of lower quality do have a bitter flavour rather than fruity.
Taste the basil, too; many plants if they get stressed out (due to lack of water etc) will get bitter. Cucumber is notorious for this, but I've had it happen to herbs as well. Basically, taste all your ingredients individually (every time you make it) and it might help narrow down the culprit.
There's also something called 'pine mouth' https://www.fda.gov/Food/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm247099.htm . I've not had this for a while but experienced it several times when Italian pine nuts were starting to be replaced by Chinese imports in the UK. The unpleasant taste could affect everything eaten for about a week.
immediate consumption
You make genoese pesto
(indeed the linked recipe is ok for genovese pesto and not simply a genoese pesto-like green sauce)
for an almost immediate consumption.
In such a case each of the ingredient can be responsible for a bitter taste or note. I would suggest checking each of them for their own taste. Some`hints are given by commenters.
Pine nuts can be sweet and well kept, or rancid (they have fats/oil). They can be perfect as those called "from Pisa" or less valuables. Check them and find the best from your local stores.
Extra virgin oil can be of extremely bitter taste. Extra virgin mostly refers to the extraction, not to the organoleptic characteristics, of course. But this should be clear for you as you probably use oil for salad etc.
Pecorino sardo (romano as by official definition) can be more or less salty and quite pungent. Traditionally, when it goes into pesto formulation, is very old and harder than parmigiano to give an idea. This can be overly tasty to many. In this case reduce its amount and increase correspondingly that of parmigiano reggiano (or grana padano).
Now comes the core: basil. You cannot easily taste it alone but relies on parfum. It should not be minty or herbaceous at all. The best leafs are small and pale green.
Here in Genova the basil is collected when the plants are young and less than 12 - 13 cm tall.
Not sure about how many varieties of it can exist as obviously I stick to what is growing in my neighbourhood but for sure the tallness of the plants is s crucial point as for the biochemistry of the plant change after a certain level of maturity. Note that this has chemical basis. I.e. the essential oil composition change after a certain size.
However, rather than bitter a too big basil plant imparts a mint and/or herbaceous taste.
I suggest tasting the oil (if not done) as it seems to me the first suspect ingredient.
Related to oil: if you are using a blender (OP doesn't but let me stay general) be sure to work by very short pulses as for blending at high speed can microscopically rise the temperature to "burns" ingredients. This is felt by some as a bitter/burned note indeed.
Later serving
In case you make pesto for a later consumption: this is somehow detrimental as for oxidation is basically unavoidable. You will always see pesto getting darker and less scented to some extent.
Unfortunately pesto is a delicious condiment only when is almost perfect. That is why long storage pesto items are disgusting as compare to other sauces in the supermarket shelves.
Nevertheless a home made pesto can be used within days if immediately frozen. Many families do that. A nice trick is to use ice cubes racks so that the needed portions can be used at times.
In this case is clever to skip the cheese while blending. Grated cheese is very prone to oxidation or perhaps microorganisms attack (not sure exactly) and gets pungent and bitter very quickly.
So for postponed consumption better to prepare a cheese-free pesto and mix-in the cheeses just at the last moment, carefully working with a fork.
Extra notes:
once I read here that somebody warm up pesto in a quick cooking fashion. NO and NO.
pesto "has an ingredient" that is never mentioned because does not enter the mortar (or mezzaluna or blender) step. Just before serving the pasta, a very little nut of butter and drops of cooking water shall be added to each portion in order to get a more pleasant creamy texture of the sauce.
Buon appetito from Genova.
Where do you live? What is the source of your basil?
As the comments point out, there could be more than one source of your pesto bitterness. However, since you imply that you have been successful before, my theory is that your basil is the most likely culprit.
When I grow basil (and other soft herbs), I notice that as the season progresses, especially near the end of the growing season, most soft herbs take on a more bitter/astringent note. I would pay attention to the main component of your pesto as your source of the issue.
Weather has been quite wonky this year, and Basil notices.
Pesto made with basil leaves of plants already with flowers will be bitter. Use only leaves before blooming begin.
Agreed. If you're growing your own, I always try to snip off the flower structures when they appear, but before they start to flower. It'll cause it to bush out sideways, too.
Dont use entirely just extra virgin olive oil... use half EVOO with a more neutral oil or just use all olive oil (not extra virgin).
EVOO in large amounts can be "bitter" sometimes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.315402
| 2017-05-30T16:19:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82097",
"authors": [
"Bar Akiva",
"David Marshall",
"Joe",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho",
"technophile",
"wumpus D'00m"
],
"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
}
|
65749
|
Why add lupin flour to white bread?
We buy ordinary, American-style white sandwich bread from a national supermarket chain. I just had a look at the ingredients and was surprised to see that, in addition to wheat flour, it contains lupin flour (Lupinenmehl in German):
I know that lupin seeds are edible when prepared properly, but what are they doing in ordinary white bread? I can't imagine that they're any cheaper than ordinary wheat flour. And this isn't some sort of fancy artisanal bread where the use of exotic grains is a selling point; it's just the regular store-brand sandwich bread. Does adding lupin flour in white wheat bread have a particular benefit in terms of taste, texture, preservation, etc.?
From a seller's product description1:
In der Backindustrie verwendet man Lupinenmehl als Zusatz zu Brotmischungen, da es das Brot aromatisiert, elastischer und länger haltbar macht.
(The baking industry uses lupin flour as additive in bread mixes because it makes the bread more aromatic, elastic and increases shelf life.)
Another description2:
Das Mehl kann in Brot, Kleingebäck und Teigwaren verarbeitet werden. Lupinen-Mehl bindet relativ viel Wasser.
(The flour can be used in bread, pastry and pasta. Lupin flour binds comparatively much water.)
So it boils down to lupine flour being used as a dough enhancer, the content in your example being 1.5% or less of the total bread weight suggests that it probably is not really "tasteable", but influences either the manufacturing process or the texture of the bread. If lupine flour is used to alter the protein / carbs ratio, up to 15% of the flour is replaced by lupine.
So my guess is that the manufacturer benefits by being able to incorporate a tad more water (which is sold, too) and possibly a bit less gluten formation, making the dough easier to handle and giving it the "fluffiness" that a German customer expects from what is labeled as "American Sandwich" bread.
They make tofu out of lupin flour, so it must behave somewhat similar to a legume flour .. and such are commonly used as egg replacers, which would agree with the use as an elasticity enhancer...
Correct. Lupine is sold as "European soy", so to speak. In this answer I was focusing on explicit baking applications, not on "lupine meat" etc.
Lupins are edible? Bah, that makes this old Monty Python sketch slightly less funny. (skip to 4:25 if you're in a hurry)
@Joe your standard garden variety lupin contains toxic alkaloids and need special treatment before they can be used as food. The lupins discussed in the question are a special breed with little to no alkaloids.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.315989
| 2016-01-23T18:00:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65749",
"authors": [
"Dan Foltz",
"Joe",
"Josh Roob",
"Matt Brown",
"Sophie Conners",
"Stephie",
"deb Cullen Cullen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"megan galuidi",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
66668
|
Is sambal generally more, or less spicy than the pepper it's made of?
I recently bought some Sambal Jolokia Badjak, which is made from the Bhut Jolokia and thus quite spicy.
I couldn't find any Scoville rating for it, but the Bhut Jolokia (Ghost Pepper) is rated at somewhere from 855,000 - 1,041,427 SHUs, according to WikiPedia.
So I was wondering, how does the Scoville rating of sambal compare to the peppers it's made of? Is it generally more, or less spicy?
There are different types of sambal -- cooked, uncooked, with sugar, with other ingredients, etc. Badjak is cooked & has other ingredients in it, so I'd expect it to not be as strong as oelek.
Oelek is the process. Effectively, 'crushed'. It doesn't actually say anything about the pepper that went into it -- it's whatever's typical for that region. It's like saying 'salsa verde' ... okay, it's green, but that tells me nothing about the heat level. I'd expect a sambal oelek made from bhut jolokia to be hotter than a sambal badjak made from bhut jolokia.
By logic, I would assume the Scoville rating of any sambal to be at most the same as the peppers it's made of. It can never get hotter than it was, and in general, and certainly for store-bought sambals, there will always be stuff added, lowering the (perceived) hotness.
Badjak always implies fried peppers.
It also tends to include onion and garlic, and whatever else the local tradition or family recipe dictates. And it tends to be milder than the Oelek (or Ulek) variant, both because of the frying, and because of the additions.
The Oelek/Ulek variety is plain, hardcore, grounded peppers, with most likely a touch of salt and a souring agent for preservation. Oelekan/Ulekan actually is the "pestle" part of a mortar and pestle. For store bought oeleks, I simply look at the ingredient list and percentages, and take the one with the highest amount of peppers, and least amount of additions. Current record is 96%, with salt and vinegar making up the remaining 4.
Wikipedia actually has a very nice article on sambal.
"It can never get hotter than it was" - that's not so. It would only be true under the assumption that 1) the ratio of pepper fruit parts used for making the sauce is the same as the ratio in a whole pepper fruit, and 2) the sauce was not subjected to any treatment which might concentrate it, such as pasteurization. Both assumptions are unlikely for a commercially produced sauce.
@rumtscho: We're talking about sambal here. If you want to include customized industrial preparations of sambal, or, really, anything, feel free to ask a separate question.
I am talking about the sambal the OP bought, which was clearly not homemade. We cannot know how it was processed, so it is very much possible that it has a different capsaicin concentration than the average jolokia pepper.
Which I answered. And I'm positive my answer holds true, although scientifically, and without knowing the actual production process, I can't be sure of it. Feel free to add your own more accurate answer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.316226
| 2016-02-19T18:52:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66668",
"authors": [
"Ashley Perez",
"Bernetta Corty",
"Joe",
"Majella Slattery",
"Mark Hoffman",
"Pamela Hutt",
"Phillipp Pursey",
"Rhonda Owens",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"Zach",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159754",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159755",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159760",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159825",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159827",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159828",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159829",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho",
"user159760"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
87472
|
Why are my roast potatoes not coming off crunchy?
Besides the first time making them, they always come off with a soft,straight surface rather than a crunchy, craggy surface full of blisters.
Here is the recipe. The thing making the potatoes crunchy is a slurry (after parboiling the potatoes, you toss them with some oil. Their surface then gets ripped, making the slurry) that coats the surface. Here is a picture before cooking:
Here is a picture after cooking:
Its smooth and not crunchy. Any idea how to make them crunchy next time?
Are you using the same type of potatoes recommended in the recipe? Have you checked your oven temperature with a thermometer?
I'd let the potatoes dry out more before coating them with the oil; they should have a dry surface.
@Catija Yukon Golden is not available here in Israel
@Max You mean after parboiling yeah? Because the author only lets them sit for 30 seconds before tossing them in oil.
Then what did you use instead? The article attached to that recipe is very clear about which types of potato will give good results and which will not.
Yes, he's very specific about the the potato variety. I also use more oil than he calls for sometimes putting more on halfway if I don't like they way they are cooking. What oil do you use? I usually use olive oil, but have used some bacon drippings too with good results.
Steam is your enemy: enough room in pan and oven?
@SteveS. What more oil will do in terms of crunchiness?
@Catija I think winston potatoes or russet. I have no idea since they don't label them in Israeli supermarkets
@BarAkiva So the store will just write “potatoes” on the labels or do they give some indication of type? Either a name of a variety (like for apples), or something about the intended uses/dishes or, generic cooking properties?
Your result looks like too much water, and too high a roasting temperature for an even, golden crust. (The ones illustrated in the recipe don't look as if they achieve that, either).
My way: Choose a floury, not a waxy, potato variety.
Par-boil from cold in salted water, until 3/4 cooked, a skewer should meet resistance before reaching the middle. (about 9-10 minutes, your size.). Drain in a colander, and leave to dry completely, but not cool.
Pre-heat your fat in the roasting tray, a thin layer. Transfer the potatoes to half-fill a dry bowl, pour over the hot fat, and shake gently to break up the surface. The roasting tray should be big enough to give the potatoes room to breathe, they shouldn't be crammed in.
Roast at about 180C (fan) for 40 minutes or so, turning once or twice. If your oven gets steamy, open the door a crack every now and then to let the steam out. Before serving, keep warm, uncovered, somewhere that doesn't trap steam, on paper towels to wick away excess fat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.316501
| 2018-02-02T17:51:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87472",
"authors": [
"Bar Akiva",
"Catija",
"Max",
"Pat Sommer",
"Stephie",
"farmersteve",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55005",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
82049
|
Is it true that moldy jam/pickles are good to eat if you mix the mold into the rest of the mixture?
Everyone in my family says that when you see white mold on jam or pickled goods, you shouldn't bother with throwing away or removing the mold. All you have to do is to mix it back into the rest of what's in the pot. Here is an example:
I would like to know if it's a myth, because I feel something evolutionary in me that tells me simply mixing it back into the water is a bad idea.
This is one family tradition that needs stopped before someone gets seriously ill or worse. Simply, no, please do not do this. Do not think it is OK. Do not even hint to others that they can do it.
I would say that "everyone in your family" are wrong regarding this...
It seems like this family has evolved to cope with the method!
@VolkerSiegel It only takes one instance of a more harmful strain for tragedy to strike, very similar to people who have reused canning lid, left potato salad un-refrigerated, and raw meat on the counter overnight for years with no problem. Play the odds long enough and you will lose.
@dlb "Raw Meat on the counter overnight for years" Did it eventually grow back into a sentient creature and walk out?
Trust me on this. You don't want to know this for the same reason I know it: Do not eat anything even slightly moldy. Just don't.
I fail to understand why this is an issue at all. Is this some kind of immortality jam, or super-powers-giving jam? Other than that I honestly cannot comprehend why someone would save some jam taking the risk to be sick, or ill, or to die (by hand-waving that it is probably safe to do this or that with the mold). Do not even breathe it in.
Something I think everyone should remember: The concern here is not whether molds are dangerous threats to the sanctity of health and diet. The concern is whether eating an unidentified but apparently fungal substance is hazardous or not. Many fungi are harmless or even edible; others are deadly and almost untreatable. Also, people have varying susceptibilities to the various proteins and mycotoxins produced by fungi.
Furthermore, as a more general comment, it should be said that scraping off the visible fruiting bodies of a fungal colony does nothing to the almost invisible mycelia innervating the substrate — pickles, wads of fruit jam, whatever. Indeed, you should always use the odor of a foodstuff to assist you with ascertaining its edibility.
@can-ned_food: I was with you until "you should always use the odor of a foodstuff to assist you with ascertaining its edibility". First, one should never breathe mold in. Then your nose is not a good indicator of anything. We have evolved to avoid certain odors and tastes (fecal, bitter, ...) but this is more a last safety net than anything else.
@WoJ Breathing mold: especially the spores. Good point. Even fungi that wouldn't survive in your nasal or bronchial membranes could cause epithelial distress and irritation. And if you inhale large enough droplets from anything, they could always carry bacteria or other microbes. I meant if there were no visible spores or fuzz, then sometimes the odor of fungal or bacterial activity could be detected: alcohols and acids and such pieces that they excrete when they digest larger molecules.
If you are obtaining the odor from an iffy item in a jar, be sure not to insert your nose directly in the mouth. It is better if you don't even position your nose over the opening at all, but off to the side. Use your hand to waft some of the vapors out of the open container.
Unless there is good reason to assume it is not mold/bacterial colonization, but some other precipitate as explained in other answers:
There is no scientific reason at all to assume that such a method is safe, certainly not for any random pickle made by any random recipe spoiled by any random white mold found in any random environment. While some very acidic pickling liquids might kill the mold or bacteria, it will not deactivate existing aflatoxins or bacterial toxins.
As a side note, mold will often only be on the surface of the jams or pastes, so it's usually safe to scoop the mold on the surface and use the parts that are not touched by air. (sorry if the sentence sounds odd, I couldn't find the exact words to describe it) Also, mold will often times just stink and stink really bad. So... If it stinks, I send it into the trash bins.
@John Hamilton Separating a spoiled layer and discarding it (as you suggest) is the opposite of mixing it into the food (as the question suggests)....
@rackandboneman: That's probably why John introduced his comment with "As a side note, [...]".
rackandboneman Easy to explain why trival matters get so many upvotes - people read the question, not believing someone is really asking that and then in horrified amazement click on upvote, in the hopes NO one will ever EVER think it's okay to do this! I also got a big belly laugh at some of the other humorous comments. I needed that today! :D
@JohnHamilton but if the top is covered in mould you won't get the bits from round the edges, at least without contaminating the bulk
@ChrisH If the amount is small enough it won't matter all that much if it's mixed in properly. Though this will mean that it'll go bad faster than last time, so better get to consuming the whole jar.
@JohnHamilton yes, it will go off very quickly again
@JohnHamilton All the recommendations I've seen are that one shouldn't just scoop mould from the surface of soft foods, because the mould can penetrate deep into the food. Perhaps the high sugar content of jam makes this safe but, for example, fruit with surface mould should be discarded.
The perverse approach of that tradition might be one of dilution vs tolerance... atrocious idea I'd say :)
Dilution? I can see how that manner of thing would come about. Of course, as you know, they aren't actually diluting anything but the visibility, but that does help explain it.
Even more nefarious, the idea might be "if X gram of Y makes you acutely sick, dilute it to a fraction of X".
@rackandboneman - Pretty sure you are getting into Holistic territory there...
Well, let's start from the top. You mentioned "Jam and Pickles," but these are actually two very different environments for the growth of things like molds and bacteria.
In terms of jams (but also mold on foods in general)
Some people have already mentioned that you might be seeing something other than mold. If it IS mold, the USDA recommendation is to chuck it due to potential mycotoxins.
The USDA actually has a lovely table drawn up of recommendations for what to keep and what to toss when you do see actual mold in your food.
Jams and Jellies
Discard
The mold could be producing a mycotoxin. Microbiologists recommend against scooping out the mold and using the remaining condiment.
Personally, I recommend following the USDA's guidelines on eating (or more generally, not eating) food with mold. This doesn't mean I always do so myself (often if it's just a very small spot, I get annoyed and end up carefully scooping it out, even knowing I shouldn't), but it's what I'd be comfortable recommending to someone else. Honestly there's enough other ways to get food poisoning that are risky but may be deemed worth pursuing for achieving something you can't really get without taking that risk (and, ideally, ways to help mitigate those risks, like deep freezing with sushi, etc); I'm not really sure trying to not throw away some jam is one of them.
Granted, the picture doesn't look like mold to me, and I would tend to agree with the other comments regarding the picture in question likely being pectin or crystallization but it's honestly hard for me to tell for sure from that particular image, personally.
Pickles: mold or… Kahm?!
Obviously, when talking about pickles, you shouldn't be seeing pectin on the surface. But what you might see with a pickling process that can sometimes be mistaken for mold is yeast! Kahm yeast, to be precise, is a somewhat common pickling issue when things don't quite go perfectly. If it is Kahm yeast, it's considered harmless.
Still, most places recommend scooping it out as much as possible (within reason) rather than mixing it back in. Not because it's going to hurt you, but because it will affect the flavor if you stir it back in.
So that seems to be another point against the "always just mix it back in!" myth, if we start from the assumption that it formed based mostly on the mistaken identity of things like Kahm that aren't actually mold.
So how can you tell if you have mold or yeast? (or both??)
image credit: Cultures for Health - White Film on Cultured Vegetables
Mold usually distinguishes itself by appearing "fuzzy" (growing up from the surface a bit with fuzzy tendrils) as well as growing tendrils into whatever it is growing on/in (often these are not very visible, depending on the stage of growth, which is another reason to throw certain things out when they get mold infested, because it will be more than just on the surface). Kahm yeast, on the other hand, is usually described as looking like a relatively flat coating (that may have bubbles or ridges formed under it due to the fermentation process). Kahm yeast is always translucent (depending on thickness) white to light cream in color. Thicker cultures of Kahm yeast may appear less "flat" and more rough, but the basic principle still applies: it's not "fuzzy" like mold.
I did actually find one interesting picture that shows the growth of some mold on top of a culture of Kahm.
If you actually do have mold growing on something
…and not just some part of your jam separating out or Kahm yeast growing on your pickles, then no, stirring it back in is about the last thing you would ever want to do. If the mold is creating mycotoxins, you've just mixed them back in to the rest of the jam. Even if you did manage to kill the mold, the laced food could still poison you: mycotoxins are toxic chemicals produced by the mold and won't go away simply because the mold itself is (or appears to be).
Also, you've now helped the mold spread, even if at first it appears to be gone from the mixing process. Where there's mold you CAN see, there's usually mold you can't see yet. This is part of the reason for the recommendation to cut an inch around any mold growth on foods that are generally considered to be safe to eat after the mold on them has been properly removed, like cheese.
I'm glad you included the quote about discarding jams and jellies with mold. People think if the remove the moldy part, it's safe. But mycotoxins produced by mold is never safe.
Cut an inch around the mold on cheese? Unless it's a nice large wheel there'll be precious little cheese left :-(
@TomGoodfellow The USDA req is: "Cut off at least 1 inch around and below the mold spot." I tend to cut shallower (shhh), but I do cut at least the surface away starting at least an inch away from the mold colony. Partly, this helps slow/reduce the recurrence of mold, from spores that aren't visible but are present around the main colony. Often if it's an uncased hard cheese, or a surface with the casing or rind removed, I'll just shave that entire surface after removing the main mold colony itself. And change out whatever it's being kept in. It's rare that I need to, but life happens!
I have no idea about pickles, but if your jam has mold on top, the last thing you want to do is mix it into the rest of the jar.
If you just have a couple tiny spots of mold on top of the jam, or on the jar above the jam, you can even completely remove the mold (generously - i.e. excise a little bit extra all around the moldy patch too), & the rest of the jam can be still good.
However, your picture is of some odd looking mold. I wonder if it is really mold and not some other substance.
If that is jam - marmalade? - that white stuff might be something else that separates from homemade jam if it is old. Some kind of pectin or sugar content coming out of solution. It's often a little crunchy, and does not smell or taste moldy, nor is it ever "furry". Whatever that substance is, (not mold but other whitish exudate from jam) I do mix it in with the rest of the jar. But you have to be sure it's not mold, or that would ruin the whole jar.
If your picture is of pickles...I don't know what that white stuff might be.
Agree re surplus sugar precipitating out / crystalizing in jams & marmalades, and that's what this one looks like. Perhaps in some pickles salt can precipitate out similarly?
@fluffy I think the idea is that we just sit in our dark basements staring at the computer all day and night, not having time to make sure we get rid of spoiled food. Or that we're so involved with the computer that we can't keep our fridge in order. Or, I have no idea. I edited it out of the answer, in any case.
I'd be careful about recommending just cutting the mold out, as it depends so much on the moisture content and porousness of the food. Mold is not always visible, and depending on the food, invisible parts can survive under the surface. For example, it's relatively safe for hard cheeses, but definitely not for bread. Others like jam are somewhere in between; some say it's ok, some others (including the USDA) recommend throwing the whole lot out.
You assume it is mold, but actual mold in jam bottles are rather rare. What you more often get is Congealed Pectin or crystallisation of the sugar crystals.
Remember that sugar is very much a preservative just like salt. If you use the correct amount of sugar than the sugar will inhibit mold growth to a large degree.
So unless there was truly negligent cooking going on, it probably isn't mold.
I've certainly had jam go mouldy outside the fridge.
How do you then know what is mold and what is sugar?
You could always put a bit of it into some warm water and stir it. If it dissolves, it's sugar. If it doesn't, it's mold.
@Bar Akiva, experience. ...Mold tends to grow in discrete patches on jam, starting out as dots, which become bigger & somewhat furry over time, and often have some color other that white (gray, black, bluish..., etc.) Whereas this sugar or pectin phenomenon occurs in more of a film pattern on the jam surface, is only white, and has a crispy brittle appearance (never furry). When disturbed, it sort of cracks a little sometimes. [I've made a thorough study.] ..it also doesn't have odor or taste.
"If it dissolves, it's sugar." To anyone going by this rule, note that when something dissolves, the resulting mixture (solution) is always clear (unless it's too dark to see through). If you end up with a cloudy mixture, that indicates that the solid has not dissolved. So, for example, flour does not dissolve in water.
Mold used to be rare in jams, but with modern food trends (low calories, no preservatives) this is no longer the case.
Twice in as many years I've opened a brand new jar of commercial raspberry preserves and found a patch of mold growing on top. The standard, full-sugar, non-organic, US grocery store type, opened within a few days of purchase (and well within the "best by" date).
@MSalters I'm not sure there was ever a lot of preservative in jam, besides the sugar. More significant in this case is that people now tend to keep their houses warmer and modern houses tend not to have a cool, unheated pantry for food storage. So, now, your only choices are cold in the fridge or distinctly warm in the rest of the house. But I agree that things like ketchup have had preservatives removed from them.
@1006a You really need to report that to the appropriate regulatory agency/agencies.
For the jam (and honey), if it's crystallization, you can also heat the whole jar gently in a double boiler. Put the jar in a sauce pan with enough water to go up to the shoulders of the jar. Heat gently. Very gently. Stir if you can.
This is iffy with commercial products because you can melt the plastic containers (and also of little value because they're usually not worth saving), but a good preserved fruit or a good honey is worth putting a little effort into keeping. Be careful to just heat it enough to break up the crystals (don't get it anywhere near boiling), any heat at all will do a little cooking which it really doesn't need (storing it in Tennessee over the summer is enough to cause deterioration).
Useful advice on storing jam from Nigella's site:
Home-made jam should be stored in a cool, dry place away from direct light and used within 12 months of making. Once opened the jar should be stored in the refrigerator and used within one month. We would suggest discarding any jars of jam that have mold growing on top.
Tom Goodfellow's comment is incorrect. While some types of cheese are deliberately infected with mold as part of the maturation process (for example Blue Stilton) and are perfectly safe to eat. Eating other types of cheese which have had mold growing on it is a bad idea because this type of mold produces toxins which spread throughout the cheese. Cutting off the moldy parts will not remove the toxins. I was told this by a food scientist.
For food in an aerobic environment it’s probably always the case that these should be thrown away because of the health consequences that it can have on you.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.316796
| 2017-05-28T13:54:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82049",
"authors": [
"1006a",
"Amazon Dies In Darkness",
"Baard Kopperud",
"Bar Akiva",
"Chris Cirefice",
"Chris H",
"David Richerby",
"John Hamilton",
"Jude",
"Lorel C.",
"MSalters",
"SeanR",
"Sidney",
"Sophie Swett",
"Todd Wilcox",
"Tom Goodfellow",
"Volker Siegel",
"WoJ",
"abligh",
"can-ned_food",
"congusbongus",
"dlb",
"fluffy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26657",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33955",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37078",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37445",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40416",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51264",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51941",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53011",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8672",
"rackandboneman",
"ruakh",
"taswyn"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
65922
|
Sous Vide Beef steaks look overcooked at 59°C and 56.5°C
I have just started cooking steaks in my sous vide machine.
I am getting results when cooking sous vide that do not agree with the theory and instructions I have read.
For my experiments I have cooked “rostas,” which is a beef part close to the filet (see link). I cooked two pieces for 1½ hours. One at 59°C and one at 56.5°C.
Result at 59°C:
Result at 56.5°C:
The white balance is off, but there was only a slight hint of red meat inside the piece cooked at 56.5°C.
What could be wrong? I get very different results from e.g. this page. I have checked the temperature of my sous vide machine and it seems correct.
What was your entire process? Did you marinate your meat?
I cook most of my steaks to 50, let the meat rest 10 minutes (to lower the temperature slightly) and then finish on a very hot carbon steel pan. I think you overcook it. Only exceptions are well aged entrecôte which I cook to 53 and tougher cuts, which get around 54.5.
For this experiment, I added nothing to the bags. No salt, spices, nor marinade.
If your sous vide machine is cooking to the right temperature then your steak is not overdone. That's the beauty of the process, your meat will go up to the temperature you set and no higher. You need to take the temperature of the center of the meat when you take it out. If the temperature of the meat is higher than you set the machine to then something is wrong with your machine. If the temperature is right then that is how the meat looks when cooked, unless you have marinated it or it's getting coloring from something in the bag. Maybe it's old, or hasn't been aged at all.
Different cuts of beef have different textures and colors before and after cooking, and depending on whether the meat has been aged or not, how it was aged if it was, and if it's close to spoilage. It's very hard to say in this case, what you need is data.
Thanks. I am pretty sure my machine cooked to the right temperature. (The meat tasted good as well). I suppose this is how this meat looks when cooked, then.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.318409
| 2016-01-27T00:16:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65922",
"authors": [
"Kaylee Morris",
"Max",
"Ming",
"Mr Johnston",
"Petter",
"Phyllis Levi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157698",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157700",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157721",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42887",
"van owen"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
66189
|
Why won't my bread rise much during baking?
I'm trying some bread making for the first time and am having a hard time getting my bread to rise during baking. Here is the recipe I'm following: http://www.food.com/recipe/5-minute-artisan-bread-325571
(FYI I'm at 5,200 ft above sea level)
I followed the recipe exactly, except for the following modifications or problems:
The steam part didn't work since I have a gas oven so all the steam just got exhausted out
I baked the bread at 440 rather than 450 to compensate for the higher altitude (I've heard people say that you should subtract one degree for every 500 feet)
I forgot to do the little decorative slashes on top
The dough rose really well right after I made it. And it rose a bit while resting 40 minutes prior to baking. But it hardly rose at all in the oven (sitting in a glass baking dish), and the finished loaf is barely two inches tall. Any idea what went wrong? It was still plenty tasty… just a bit flatter than desired!
]1
As a note, the slashes aren't just decorative...
In order to understand what's going wrong you need to understand what's happening in the oven.
Bread rises in the oven because the yeast gets a boost from the heat before it is killed by it, and by the expansion of gases (O2, CO2, and water vapor) trapped in the dough. Well-developed gluten will trap air well, under-developed gluten will allow it to escape. Moist air keeps the skin from hardening, allowing pressure to expand the loaf and open the texture. The slashes on the top are not just decorative, they act like folds on a concertina, again allowing the dough to expand and open the texture. Look at the pictures at the top of your recipe and you'll see that a 1mm slash widens a lot during baking. When baking your bread first expands, then the skin hardens as the inside cooks solid, trapping the air in the structure.
There are many factors which could result in your bread not rising in the oven, or it could be a combination:
Bread dough too dry: if there is not enough water in the dough then the yeast will not be able to function as well, your bread won't have as much water vapor to help expand it in the oven, and the crust will dry and harden faster in the oven. High altitude saps moisture quickly, so adding a bit more water makes sense to try. You don't need much, 10-20 ml can make the difference
Bread overproofed: bread dough proofs more quickly at high altitude. This may seem like a bonus, but it actually is bad for gluten development and flavor development. Yeast does not just create CO2, it also develops gluten and makes your dough stretchy, the more time it takes for this process the better it does. If it goes too quickly the dough could also collapse because the structure is underdeveloped. Try slowing down your yeast by reducing the yeast in the dough by half, and using cold water instead of warm water at the start. Proofing in the refrigerator is already called for in the recipe, but is a good idea for most bread making at altitude
Dough mis-handled: The recipe calls for stretching the dough, if this was done roughly then you could squash the air bubbles out. Less air in the dough is less air to expand
Oven temperature wrong: If your oven is too cool the air in the dough will be able to escape before the structure hardens to hold it in place, if it is too hot then it will solidify before the air can fully expand, and kill the yeast faster. Ovens cook by convection, less air means less heat transfer, so reducing the temperature would mean much less heat for your bread. I've never seen high altitude recipes call for a cooler oven, always the same or hotter. High altitude bread advice seems to call for the same temperatures at sea level, at least up to 6000ft above sea level, and if anything increasing rather than decreasing. Try keeping your oven at 450f next time.
Oven too dry: Water boils away very quickly at altitude, it's not your gas oven causing it, but physics. You need to have a deep pan of water in the oven, not a shallow tray, and supplement it with a spray bottle of water. You spray water in and close the door right away (make sure it's water in the bottle, once I mixed up my water bottle with surface cleaner and got a faceful of fumes - awful!). Even that may not be enough, which is why my advice would be to bake in a covered pot. The ideal thing to use would be a cloche, which is an ceramic pot used specifically for trapping in moisture when baking bread, however a covered dutch oven or large covered casserole works just fine - I use a large Le Creuset, never seen a cloche outside of pictures. You bake lid on for the first half of the cooking time, then remove the lid to allow the crust to harden and crisp. There's no need for a pan of water if you use a covered pot
For maximized oven spring, a dutch oven is the safe way to go. Pre-heat well.
Very nice! The recipe I use for ciabatta actually recommends lightly misting the top of the dough with water three times within the first five minutes, to keep the crust from forming too soon and preventing the full rise.
That might work @Catija, I use that method for making Focaccia as well.
I realize this post is years old but this answer wasn't given and someone else may be wondering. If you did everything correctly, then it's probably as simple as your loaf pan was simply too big for the loaf and it expanded outward rather than upward. Or you didn't use a loaf pan at all and formed your loaf too wide and long. Loaf size makes a huge difference and not something people usually give as a reason for short flat bread, but it is one of the simplest and biggest reasons.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.318750
| 2016-02-04T00:09:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66189",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Fred Alluso",
"GdD",
"Joe Powelson",
"John Nowotynski",
"Sarah Powelson",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158406",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158408",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
124052
|
Can an induction hob heat a wok as much as a gas burner?
I have often heard it said that it's essential to use a gas burner for cooking fried rice because you need to get the wok very hot, and only a gas burner has that kind of heat. (they're referring to those jet engine kind of burners)
However, I have an induction hob at home, and it has a "Power" setting, which can be used to get a pan of water boiling very quickly. The power of that setting is terrifying, but I don't know exactly how many Watts it's delivering.
I wonder if an induction hob shaped to match a wok, like this one, might actually have as much heating power as a gas burner:
My questions:
How much actual power (in Watts) is delivered by a wok gas burner? I.E. If I added 1 litre of water to the wok, how long would it take to raise the temperature of that water by 1 degree?
Does anyone know if these wok induction hobs are actually used in practice, cooking fried rice for the kinds of people who would notice if their rice wasn't fried properly?
Does this answer your question? Induction range vs gas. In addition there are a ton of these questions already - use the search bar and have a browse through them to see if any suit. The answer to 1 is it depends entirely on the exact make and model of the hob and 2 is if they sell them, then people do use them...
@bob1 Woks are a unique situation, because of the unusual (and potentially problematic for induction) shape, and because the power requirement is so far above any other cooktop situation.
I don't think this is a duplicate. None of the other questions specifically talked about the specialized induction wok burners.
@Sneftel I appreciate that; as I am sure you know, the major difference between gas and electric/induction is the ability of gas to significantly heat the sides of the wok beyond the contact area. I don't see that this question changes that. Induction could work for the heat requirement (I think, not being much of a physicist), but not the spread of heat, which is the major issue here and for flat bottom "woks".
@bob1 - Thanks, but my question is not a duplicate of your suggested question. I'm interested in the actual amount of power delivered by the two types of hob. The other question only addresses subjective experience of using the two types of hob.
Power ratings or heating applications is usually measured in British Thermal Units (BTUs), not watts. I don't know what the conversion is, but gas burners are typically rated at less than 10,000 BTUs.
Like I said in my comment - this is unanswerable as it depends entirely on the output of the hob; which will depend on the make. A professional kitchen gas wok hob in a restaurant in Hong Kong will have a different output to a home electric hob and that's about all you can say - note that even @FuzzyChef 's answer doesn't go into specifics and asks essentially "what power output do you have or can you achieve?":
@bob1 - Although we can't give very specific numbers, it must be possible to give some ballpark figures. For example, if I was comparing hair dryers with kettles, I might say that hair dryers are typically in the range 1500W - 2100W. And kettles are in the range 1500W to 3000W. Our conclusion would be that hair dryers have a similar power to low end kettles, but not as high as high power kettles. Surely we can say something similar when comparing induction vs wok gas burners.
@bob1 I disagree; one can totally compare heat outputs on induction and gas. I did that for a couple months when I was buying my new stove. One just has to keep in mind that energy output is only one of several factors that define the cooking experience.
@FuzzyChef I think we are arguing at cross purposes - of course you can compare outputs, but that wasn't the question asked, which was: How much actual power (in Watts) is delivered by a wok gas burner? to which the answer is "it depends on the hob".
"Find the burner's BTU and apply this formula ( ( BTU / 3.41 ) * 0.4 ) for effective delivery watts" also works.
I had a chance recently to measure the power delivered by a reasonably high power gas burner. A professional Taiwanese chef was using it to cook egg fried rice, which everyone agreed tasted delicious, so I am going to assume it was of sufficient power.
I placed 500g of water in the wok and let the temperature equilibrate for a few seconds, then measured the temperature. Then I put the gas burner on full blast for 10 seconds, then switched it off and let the water equilibrate again for a few seconds.
The initial water temperature was 22.8ºC. After heating, the water was 44.3ºC; a rise of 21.5ºC.
The specific heat capacity of water is 4184 J/(kg K), meaning that approx 45 kJ of energy had been delivered to the water, over 10 seconds. Or 4.5kW of power over that period.
Most consumer induction hobs only seem to go as high as 3kW (presumably measured on the wire, and not as actual power delivered to the wok) so probably aren't delivering as much power as this gas burner.
However, some commercial induction hobs designed for woks, like the Target Catering Equipment range can go as high as 5kW. However, it's not clear if that's the maximum power consumed by all the rings together, or the maximum power that a single ring is capable of.
In conclusion, consumer induction hobs aren't far off the power, but don't get as high as needed, but some companies may produce hobs with enough power.
TL;DR: you can make this work, but it will require adaptation, and you need to get a high-powered burner
Despite not being Asian, I cook in my woks a lot. When I shopped for a new stove, I chose to get gas, and making wok cooking easy was one of the reasons. Several wok cooking techniques rely heavily on being able to move the wok while continuing to heat it, and only gas permits that.
However, there are folks who disagree, such as Jon Kung. In a video, he demonstrates that you can definitely make fried rice in a wok over induction. You'll notice that his technique is different, though; it's all spatula, and pretty much no shaking the wok. So clearly, it can be done, although I'll note that quality wok induction burners are quite expensive.
"How fast does water boil" is pretty much the exact wrong measure for whether a burner will work for a wok. One rarely, if ever, boils water in a wok. Instead, you need to know:
What's the maximum temperature that the burner supports? Wok-frying needs to go to at least 500F (260C), and many induction burners stop at 400F or 450F.
How quickly does the burner return the wok to temperature after ingredients cool it?
It's the latter part that makes conventional electric elements fail for woks; no matter how hot those resistance elements get, they take a long time to get there. Induction is much more promising.
As for heat equivalents: the coventional multiplier for converting electric watts to BTU is 3.41. Thus, the induction burner that Kung recommends would be about (1500 x 3.41) the equivalent of a 5000BTU gas burner, which would be pretty low. However, as you note, a lot of heat is lost by gas burners. Induction is around 90% efficient, whereas gas is as low as 40%.
So that 1500W burner would be equivalent to ( 1500 * 3.41 * (90/40) ) a 11500 BTU gas burner. Still pretty underpowered for stir-frying, though; notice that Kung gets around this by making very small batches. For comparison, I use a 25000BTU gas burner, and restaurant ones go up to 150000. So you're going to want an induction burner that's at least 2500W, which is more easily done in Europe than in the USA, where it would require special wiring in the kitchen.
Thanks, this is a good answer with some useful numbers to compare the power delivery. However, I must disagree about the water boil indication. The maximum possible temperature of the wok, and the time taken to return to temperature after cool ingredients go in are both affected by the power delivered to the wok by the hob. One way we can measure the actual power delivered to the wok (not just wasted as hot gas) is to time how long it takes to heat up some water.
One Watt of power equals one Joule delivered per second. 4190 Joules of energy heats up one litre of water by one degree. If it takes 10 seconds to heat the water from 20 degrees to 30 degrees, then we can see that the hob is delivering 4190 Watts of power.
@Rocketmagnet sure, it's one way, but it's a bad way, if what you care about is not a water-boiling vessel. The "how long does water take to boil" test was introduced by vendors of electric stoves, because those do OK at boiling water while they fail at other tasks. The "boiling water is a test of heat delivery" ignores the fact that no stove is a perfect energy-to-water system, and as such HOW the heat is delivered makes a huge difference if you're trying for specific cooking techniques.
If you want why it's bad in scientific terms: water has a very high thermal inertia. As such, it's a very poor way of testing how quickly heat is delivered because the difference between a rapid blast of heat vs. more gradual, but still powerful, heating is erased since the initial heat is absorbed by the water. But whether or not you have that rapid blast of heat is an essential question if you're making, say, crepes -- or fried rice.
If you want an analogy: consider two cars. Both have top speeds of 150mph. But car #1 has a 0-60 of 4 seconds, and car two takes 19 seconds. On a cross-country 1000mile race, the two cars are on equal footing but in a 1 mile drag race car #1 will win every time.
By "Thermal Inertia", I assume you mean Specific Heat Capacity.
The specific heat capacity of the water is exactly what allows us to measure the power transfered to the food from the hob. The rate at which the water temperature increases is proportional to the power delivered by the hob, and this will let us determine the difference between, as you put it: "a rapid blast of heat vs. more gradual, but still powerful, heating" I don't mean to offend, but I honestly think you're misunderstanding power and heat capacity.
I think the crucial difference between the performance boiling water and the performance frying stuff will be the temperature of the pan. The heat transfer from the gas to the pan will be proportional to the temperature difference between the gas and the pan, so will be less efficient at frying than boiling water. An induction hob would be about equal efficiency.
@Rocketmagnet you came to SA looking for feedback from people who have more experience cooking in woks than you do. But once those folks share their experience, you argue with it and say it's not valid. That says to me that you don't actually want a real answer for your question; you want the answer you already believed in.
@User65535 did you mean "more efficient at frying"? Otherwise I don't quite understand your argument.
@FuzzyChef If the gases of the burner are at 800 C, the frying pan is at 400 C and the water pan is at 0 C the gases will impart roughly twice the energy into the water than they will into the frying pan, because the temperature gradient is double. The induction hob would impart about the same energy into both.
Er, no? I mean, first, not a physicist but I'm pretty sure that thermal gradients are more complicated than that. Also, a natural gas flame burns at around 1900C. Also: nobody does this test using ice.
@FuzzyChef - I don't wish to get off on the wrong foot here. I don't doubt that you know much more about cooking than I do. But let's think about the physics here. The hob is transferring energy to the wok at a certain rate, and over a certain area of the wok. Those are the only two variables we are interested in when comparing gas and induction's ability to get a wok up to temperature. In a both hobs, the maximum temperature that can be reached by the wok is the equilibrum temperature when the heat energy leaving the wok by radiation and convection equals the energy entering the wok.
@FuzzyChef - Assuming for the sake of similicity that the area of energy entering the wok from both types of hob is roughly similar, then the only variable we're interesting in is the rate at which energy is being transferred from the hob to the wok. This will determine the equilibrium temperature of the wok, and the rate at which it can be heated (including how quickly it recoveres after cold food is put in it). The energy rate is called power, and is measured in Watts.
@FuzzyChef - Whatever a wok is normally used for, we can measure the power transferred from the hob to the food be measuring the rate at which something in the wok heats up. It's very convenient to use water for this, because we know its specific heat capacity, and it makes good contact with the surface of the wok. You could use an oil instead. This simply allows us to compare the difference between types of hob with regard to the power transferred (which in my opinion is the main variable relevant when people talk about induction hobs not being powerful enough).
@FuzzyChef - If you know of another variable that's relevant to the question of induction hobs being powerful enough compared to a good gas burner, and a way to measure that variable, then I'm genuinely interested to know.
Why not measure the temperature of the surface of the wok? That's what you care about, after all. You'd want to know it both over time (at, like 10s intervals), and over a map of the surface (gas will be more spread out).
Anyway, this sounds like it should be its own separate question (regarding the best/worst way to measure real stove output).
@FuzzyChef - No, I'm less interested in the temperature of the surface of the wok, and more interested in the power delivered by the hob to the wok, as was described in my question.
So, you want that information, even though it's irrelevant to actually cooking in the wok? I can't help you then.
Completely by chance, I came across this video by J. Kenji López-Alt, talking about different types of wok burners. In that video, he mentions the technique of judging the power of a burner by timing how long it takes to boil water. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpoSvprBJpE
You may have noticed that you're not getting any other answers to this question. That isn't a coincidence.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.319289
| 2023-04-30T20:04:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124052",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Nello Lucchesi",
"Rocketmagnet",
"Sneftel",
"User65535",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97169"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
125695
|
How can I make my Tonkotsu broth less fatty?
I sometimes make a Tonkotsu broth for Ramen, but whenever I do, it seems to turn out very fatty (and basically tastes like gravy). It's so fatty you can feel the fat all over your lips after eating a bowl of it. But when I eat Tonkotsu ramen in a restaurant, it doesn't feel that way.
To try to reduce the fattyness, I always pour the broth into tall glasses, let it cool, then spoon the fat off the top, but it's still too fatty. What am I doing wrong?
To make the broth, I go to my local street market where the butcher has a stand, and buy two bags of miscellaneous pork bones, I blanch them to remove the blood, then boil them for about 10 hours.
Questions:
Is there something I can do to reduce the fattyness of my Tonkotsu broth?
Would is be less fatty if I used a specific part of the pig (e.g. the trotter as called for in the recipe?)
You are basically asking how to make your ramen worse. The reason the restaurant one isn't like yours is because it's quickly made mediocrity.
Can you share the recipe that you used? Someone who’s more familiar with making tonkotsu might be able to tell if it’s a typical variation or not, or see any steps that might not be explicitly mentioned
@eps de gustibus non est disputandum
@eps - I've had Ramen a number of times from what I understand are good restaurants. One of them is A place in Taipei, which the locals told me is good. Another is a chain called Tonkotsu in London.
@Joe - The recipe I'm following (although he uses trotters, and I'm just using a bag of random bones from the butcher) is Tim Anderson's Tonkotsu recipe from his book Nanban. Tim won Masterchef in the UK, and specializes in Japanese food, especially ramen.
@Rocketmagnet : I don’t have that cookbook, and have only found his miso ramen recipe online. You could try comparing the notes/recipe from Serious Eats to see if anything stands out: https://www.seriouseats.com/rich-and-creamy-tonkotsu-ramen-broth-from-scratch-recipe
How big (in kg) is your "bag of random bones" from the butcher, and how much broth do you have (in L) at the end of your 10h process? It might be that you aren't adding enough water for the amount of bonestuffs you have.
It sounds like what you're describing as "fattiness" is really gelatinousness. Your long-simmered bones will release a lot of gelatin, which gives broth a thick, sticky, unctuous texture. It's definitely my preference for ramen, but it sounds like it's not yours.
To reduce the gelatin content, use fewer bones, simmer them for a shorter amount of time, and use meatier bones and other ingredients to make up the deficit in flavor.
Agree - and the mentioned trotters would result in an even more gelatinous broth.
So, I should use more meat and less bone. How about using something like a slow cooker? Would that change the amount of gelatinousness?
@Rocketmagnet Possibly, though it doesn't strike me as the most obvious thing to change.
Hocks and shanks are generally my preference for a (non-gelatinous) broth, ~2 hours simmered.
If it is truly the fat that is an issue, chill your stock in a large container over night in the refrigerator. The fat will harden on the surface. Then, carefully spoon off and discard the hardened fat.
These types of stocks generally contain a high amount of gelatin from the cuts of meat that are used. The gelatin contributes to the richness and mouthfeel, and is generally supposed to be present.
Thanks. I already do this, but it doesn't seem to be enough to stop that fatty face feel.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.320428
| 2023-10-31T08:48:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125695",
"authors": [
"DotCounter",
"Joe",
"Rocketmagnet",
"Roddy of the Frozen Peas",
"Sneftel",
"Stephie",
"eps",
"fectin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99055"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
69334
|
How can I bake these cheese and pimento rolls so they're not gummy inside?
I'm using a recipe for rough puff/quick puff pastry as the dough. The filling is cheddar cheese and pimentos. After baking at 350 degrees F for about 35 minutes, they are a little over done on the outside and gummy on the inside. I've baked these before with different fillings without this trouble. Is the cheese the culprit? Is there too much fat involved? Any suggestions on how to make this work with some modification?
One picture shows the outside of the rolls. The other picture shows the inside when it's cut in half.
When you did different filings before, I suspect they took less heating up, and that your cheesy filling is stopping the internal temperature getting as high as it should. This could be because the cheese goes on fridge cold and has a higher heat capacity than whatever you used before. The water content of the pimentos and cheese may also not help.
In terms of a solution you need longer for the heat to reach the middle. I doubt just starting with the cheese at room temperature would be enough. To avoid browning too much you'll need to reduce the oven temperature, but not by too much or the pastry will be too pale and again not cooked through. This will take a little experimenting, especially if you take the approach of preheating the oven to the current recommended temperature and reducing the temperature when you put the food in (which can work well but depends on how well your oven is insulated). I work in Celsius but rounding my guess you might turn it down to 320F when you put them in.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.320755
| 2016-05-28T22:50:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/69334",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
105343
|
What is this hot dog grilling machine called in everyday spoken English?
People love hot dogs.
What is this hot dog grilling machine called in everyday spoken English?
Native AmE speaker here. For real, I'd call that, "one of those hot-dog roller griller thingies". I'll try to give you a better answer after looking.
Not enough for an answer, but I think it's probably better to specify it as a "hot dog" grilling machine, rather than a "dog grilling machine", just to avoid misunderstandings when people don't have a visual.
Thank you for this question! It reminded me that I've intended for awhile to have it on my Amazon wish list along with this - and then my kitchen will be complete!
After looking at a few examples on Amazon, I'd go with "hot dog roller grill". There isn't any correct or non-correct way to say it, but any American would know what you mean.
Just plain "roller grill" is probably enough; they're often used for other similarly-shaped food.
@Chrylis-onstrike- It looks like Roller Grill is a brand, that makes all kinds of machines and accessories related to cooking. They do make the machine OP is asking for, and call it a Professional Sausage Heater with various number of rollers.
@LarsKristensen I've always heard it as "roller grill" when convenience stores are advertising the types of food cooked and served on them, so I suspect the name has become genericized, much like Xerox and Kleenex.
Reading the question in the sidebar: roller. I personally wouldn't include the "grill".
Source: Native speaker who often craves gas station hot dogs.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.320920
| 2020-02-16T04:05:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105343",
"authors": [
"Allison C",
"Cubic",
"Jolenealaska",
"Joshua Drake",
"Lars Kristensen",
"chrylis -cautiouslyoptimistic-",
"davidbak",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70625",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81173",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9172"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
68814
|
Weird russet potato?
I'm supposed to be boiling it, but this russet potato has this one smooth spot on it. It's not like the rest of the potato's texture, it's almost as smooth as my phone screen. Not oddly colored. Is this okay to eat?
(Click to enlarge)
I would guess it might just have leaned against a stone as it grew, the texture difference would be from the skin reacting to something pressing on it if so. Or it might be a scar that's healed over. I've seen lots of garden-grown potatoes with imperfections, they're usually not a problem.
It is probably safe to eat if there's no interior discoloration or other signs of trouble. If you're really unsure, you can peel the potato, or just slice the peel off in that area.
That was exactly my first thought too; that potato wouldn't bother me in the slightest unless it also seemed weird deep inside the peel.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.321186
| 2016-05-05T23:40:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68814",
"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
}
|
66980
|
What is this citrus fruit?
I had this delicious citrus fruit today that I'm having trouble identifying. I think it might be a tangelo, but I'm not sure. It was seedless and had a tangy/sour taste. Unlike a clementine, it did not peel very easily. It came with a delivery of other assorted fruits, so I don't know its geographical origin. In terms of size, it was about as big as a lime (too small to be a regular orange).
There are so many different types of citrus fruit... particularly so many varieties of oranges/clementines/tangerines... It would be miraculous if anyone could possibly pin this down exactly and know that they're correct. You've included a lot of good information to help, which is great... it may still be very difficult to pin down.
Thanks, Catija. I know it's a long shot, but I figure it couldn't hurt to ask.
Looks like a tangelo to me, but I'm not game to say i'm 100% sure.
It looks like a honeybell. Also known as a tangelo.
Agree. Definitely looks like a Honeybell.
It could help to describe in what ways this fruit resembles a tangelo (the bump at the stem end; possible to peel although not as easy to peel as, say, a clementine; smaller than a navel orange, larger than a clementine; tart, aromatic taste; seedless, although I've met tangelos in both seedless and full-of-seeds varieties, sometimes in the same bag).
Also know as Minneola in my area.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.321298
| 2016-03-01T00:47:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66980",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Cindy",
"Jim Cisler",
"Jim Hingey",
"Lisa Elliott",
"Marti",
"Ming",
"Norman Heimer",
"Onepotmeals",
"The Unknown Dev",
"anisa strong",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10058",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160592",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160593",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160598",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43827"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
67648
|
Will chocolate eggs inside a cupcake melt when baked in the oven?
Easter is coming and I was interested in baking some cupcakes with a solid/praline-filled chocolate surprise inside. Please refer to the image below. Little side note: I will put smaller chocolate eggs inside and don't want them to be visible, they will be totally covered by cupcake batter, as opposed to being as you see them in the image.
I was wondering: if you put chocolate eggs inside the cupcake dough and let it bake in the oven, will they melt? And how badly?
If it's possible to avoid melting, how? Do I need to freeze the eggs first? Will any kind of chocolate egg do? (I was planning on solid/praline-filled eggs.)
I was hoping for some advice how to have a bit of a chocolate egg surprise in my cupcakes, instead of some melted chocolate 'cream'.
The images were taken from Pinterest, but I didn't do any reverse image search, like @Catija did apparently. As shown in all images, especially the first, the solid chocolate egg keeps it appearance. What I notice from the comments is freezing the eggs is key to keep them their appearances? A little side note: Do you need special eggs or any frozen chocolate one will do? That at least gives a smart insight. Thanks
Removing discussion. It's clear that it's possible to put the chocolate eggs inside a baked cupcake. The question is about details: do the eggs need to be frozen, do they melt into the cupcake below what you can see there, and so on, do only some kinds of eggs work, and so on.
A few example links were supplied in now-deleted comments, including what appears to be the original source for the image in the OP and one that mentions freezing.
Whether the chocolate melts will depend on which chocolate you use. One with more cocoa butter will melt, while one made with more soy lecithin will retail its shape. That is why most chocolate chips contain soy lecithin. You will need to choose your chocolate according to what you want it to do in the oven.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.321459
| 2016-03-21T16:45:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67648",
"authors": [
"AndyMo",
"Ayesha Amilon",
"Cascabel",
"Dianne Merritt",
"Gemma Merry",
"Marius",
"Martin Halligan",
"Okiria Daniel",
"Sander Schaeffer",
"evelyn mclare",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162404",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162406",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162408",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44396"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
68002
|
Ceramic Cooktop (non induction) getting damaged after use
We just moved into a brand new unit(just constructed) and it has a Ceramic cook top. We have only been there 2-3 weeks, and cooked maybe < 10 times.
After a few of our cooking sessions, I am seeing some white coloration around the edge of the cooking circle. It appears to be below the surface, I cant feel anything different around that area. It was below my cookware and I dont think anything splashed on it.
It might be due to the following cases
We used oversized cookware which was actually sitting on the raised edge of the stove and perhaps not actually touching the glass surface.
On a different occasion we used a different situation we used a vessal with a smaller base than the smaller circle, and thus possibly the edges of the circle got overheated or something..
We are very new to ceramic cook tops, mostly experienced with gas, minimal experience with induction. I notice some places suggesting that the cookware base is recommended to be >= size of the circle, is this the cause of our problem?
Is there a way to rectify or is this permanent??
Update: These stains are disappearing/Moving with regular use, I would guess just a new stove phenomenon.
Have you tried cleaning it? If so, how?
I can't tell you the reason behind the spot. But this doesn't seem to be induction. If it is not (non-induction glows when turned on and works with non iron/steel pots) you absolutely need contact between the bottom of the pot and the hob, you can't let it rest on the sides. You'll have to stop using your larger pots.
I've seen that look from starchy water boiling over when making potatoes or pasta. A little hot water & scrubbing usually works. (dish soap doesn't help as much, as it's starch, not fat)
@rumtscho it is a non induction stove indeed. So can not touching cause this? esp in the case of smaller pots? Is size matching that critical?
@Stephie I have tried soap and scrubbing, and again as I mentioned, I dont feel any gunk or residue in those spots, the glass barely feels any different, thus I dont feel this is on top.
@joe atleast the top one was for sure not water boiled over, it was under a pan which was far bigger than the circle, thus no chance of any spillage there..
I don't know if not touching is the cause for this, but touching is really critical for non induction stoves. If the pot is not touching the stove, you are wasting energy, overheating the hob, and probably getting badly cooked food too. It is OK to have a pot which is somewhat larger or somewhat smaller than the circle, but if the pot is hovering a few millimeters over the glass, that's the worst possible constellation. The whitening can be a result of this or unrelated, can't say anything about that.
@rumtscho what I am asking is is it critical from a energy efficiency and cooking speed standpoint, or critical for not damaging the hob permanently in anyway? Is there anything beyond energy I am losing by using a smaller pot?
Also do ppl make adapters which can be used to place small pots on big circles? does that even make sense? I presume this might need to be its own question.
you are not damaging it by losing a smaller pot, as there most of the energy is still going into the pot and it is not overheating too badly. If you are losing a pot so large that it is sitting on the alu frame around it, you have a small gap of insulating air between the pot and the whole surface of the complete circle. This makes most of the heat stay in the hob and can very well damage it.
@rumtscho just tested, even my big pan is touching most of the circle, I guess it is just curved enough to do so, abt 80% of the Circe is touched, could the untouched 20% be getting damaged?.
It looks suspiciously like water that's been burned off at the edge of an overboiled pot.
On ceramic tops you get two kinds of stain. You get grease/food burned on, and that'll turn black like the inside of your toaster over, and you get the white mineral stains which comes from water drying around the edges.
The center usually stays clean because it gets super hot and will burn most anything away, but the edges don't get as hot as easily.
The way I clean them and it's considered rather unorthodox is to turn the burner on while the stovetop is bare. Let the edges get hotter than they would if a pan were keeping them cool, and much of this will burn away. After you see no further progress, turn off the stove and let it cool a little, but still above booling point of water, then use the green face of a scotch brite sponge to scrub any residue left over.
You can also try lye, but I am not a big fan of lye cleaners.
Would it be very obvious to the touch, the white stains? Because the ones on mine are not at all obvious to the touch.
Obvious as in like bumpy or relief? No, but you may still be able to feel it.
I cant feel anything at all.
Then it's minerals or starch dried to the top. Have you tried to heat treat it like I mentioned yet? If that doesn't work, use lye...I just really hate using the stuff because it's dangerous and my lungs aren't the best to begin with. Oh, you could try vinegar first, see if that eats it.
I was having minimal help with Vinegar, but over time/use the patches are dissapearing/moving, so it is either as you say the stains "burning away" or some sort of new use issue..
My ceramic stovetop came with a small bottle of cleaner called "Cerama Bryte." cooktop cleaner. You can go to CeramaBryte.com for more information. I have used
this on my stovtop ever sense. It will remove the white spots and also any grease or oil splatters that might have burnt on, It is like magic and my stovtop looks like it did when it was brand new. Barbara B.
Schott Ceran (one of the manufacturers of the glass) webpage they say not to use aluminum or copper cookware because it can cause permanent traces known as "burn in" on the cooktop, that can not be removed. I wish I had known this many years ago before I also ended up with those marks just like the one in your picture. There was nothing at all I could do to remove them from my brand new stovetop. I will try to paste a link here. http://www.schott-ceran.com/us/english/syn/variety/index.html
The ceramic of a hob is very hard. When we fitted one of came with a scraper - a mounted razor blade. This is excellent for getting any surface muck off. You can buy "glass scrapers" which are the same and not expensive. There shouldn't be any chance below the surface.
Glass scraper is not recommended. I have seen burned on gunk end up pulling chips of ceramic out of the stove top. I feel VERY lucky that the top didn't shatter when it happened.
@Escoce it must depend on your manufacturer then. Mine supplied one and said it was preferred over anything except soapy water.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.321677
| 2016-04-04T09:10:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68002",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Escoce",
"Joe",
"Karthik T",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
68185
|
How to taste a real ranch dressing outisde of the US
When I have been to the South Carolina, US, I fell in love with the popular american Ranch dressing. As an foreigner, I do not know much about this dressing, its origin and sorts, and never bought it in supermarket, but I really liked this one, which was served in McDonalds:
After coming back to Almaty, Kazakhstan, I made several attempts to find this sauce in my home city and feel this taste again. However, they all have failed - there are hundreds of sauces and dressings here: from mustard to caesar dressing, from local manufacturers to Heinz, but there is no ranch - I am not sure if it is simply not popular here or it is just perishable. Even McDonalds Kazakhstan doesn't serve the ranch.
I have only found ranch in a store once, in a plastic, but it was really AWFUL. It was something like horseradish with tons of vinegar and mayonnaise. I was really dissapointed. I am not quite sure if it was deteriorated or it should have tasted like this.
I have several possible ways to obtain ranch dressing now: I can order something through the local import store. They offer this manufacturer (image). I can order Hidden Valley ranch dressing (image) from Amazon. However, I don't want to spend money, wait for a month or two, and get disappointed again.
Now, I have several related questions, that would really help me. I strongly believe that you can know the answers, because you live in this country and some of you buy bottled ranch in supermarkets.
So, does McDonalds ranch somehow differ from the bottled, sold in supermarkets? What kind of ranch dressings do taste the same, fresh and tasty? Is there a chance to order ranch from the US from Amazon and receive it until it deteriorates?
I would like to have the most possible information about this lovely thing.
Hidden Valley started the ranch craze. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranch_dressing) Back in the day you could buy a powdered mix that you added to buttermilk and sour cream. These days an awful lot of sour-cream-thinned-with-milk is sold as ranch dressing. Your best bet is probably to search for a recipe for home-made ranch dressing and then try to source the ingredients locally or by mail order.
@KateGregory You can still buy the powered mix, AFAIK...
Hidden Valley won't disappoint you. Everyone else is a copycat; they're the original.
Thank you all. I will both order Hidden Valley ranch dressing and try to prepare it myself using the recipe from @Shalryn.
I use this copycat recipe to make it at home. Depending on who's coming for dinner, I change up the herbs and the type of vinegar I use, and I usually use half black pepper and half white pepper. Other than that, just use it as is.
Link goes to a page that charges a fee to 'unlock' the secret recipie.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.322222
| 2016-04-11T12:09:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68185",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Chris Bergin",
"Kate Gregory",
"MarsJarsGuitars-n-Chars",
"Yeldar Kurmangaliyev",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44946"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
69082
|
What do I have to worry about when using a stainless steel pan as opposed to nonstick?
I've been using nonstick pans exclusively all my life. Most recently, after doing a lot of research, I decided to buy a stainless steel sauté pan (IKEA).
Do I need to handle it differently during cooking? Do I have to be careful when washing? What are some things I will have to watch out for since I'm used to nonstick pans?
EDIT: I decided to split this question about cast iron and stainless steel pans into two questions. The question about cast iron skillets can be found here.
Food will easily stick if you're not careful.
That seems a little obvious and facetious, but it is a separate concern than cast iron vs. nonstick. With cast iron, a good seasoning reduces sticking; you just have to be careful to maintain it. There's no comparable treatment for a stainless pan (the closest thing is, well, a non-stick coating) and so you are almost inevitably going to get some adhesion, especially when cooking proteins.
This is not always a bad thing. A pan sauce, for example, requires some degree of sticking so that you can deglaze the pan and utilize the good stuff in the fond. Many proteins will also "release" once the outer layer is well-seared, and be easier to remove without sticking, assuming you can let them go that long without overcooking as a whole. You must generally take care to use enough fat, and you'll likely have trouble no matter what with delicate fish, eggs, and thinner cuts of meat (keep your non-stick pan around for those). I also recommend finding a decently thick pan with good heft, as a very thin bottom layer won't diffuse the heat of the burner as well and produce hotter/colder spots on the cooking surface; this can cause problems with inconsistent sticking and release.
Stainless can also develop a sort of "haze" on the bottom of the pan pretty quickly, which seems to be a mineral buildup of some kind. It doesn't really affect the performance of the pan, and it's easily cleaned off, but it can mar the shiny beauty of nice stainless.
Thanks for your answer. You advise to use enough fat, which is the only thing related to "being careful". Are there other things I should pay attention to to avoid (unwanted) food sticking?
Make note of my comments related to delicate foods, too; some things just really aren't suited for cooking on stainless. Other than that, it's a quite durable cooking surface. You don't have to worry about scratching or ruining the finish like you do with other materials, and it cleans up pretty easily.
Cooking:
Sticking will be the most noticeable issue. It takes some getting used to, here are some starter advice:
If you are frying, make sure your meat/fish/veg is properly dry. A wet food will only worsen the sticking.
Once you put the food in the pan, let it brown for at least 2 minutes before trying to move/shake it. This will allow to develop a brown coat and will help release the food relatively easily.
Washing:
Its more forgiving than a non-stick pan. A metal wool can take out most tough stains. Every once in a while, a cleaner like Barkeeper's Friend will help keep the shine.
If you haven't bought already, please take a look at try-ply clad or tri-ply base steel cookware, they are better at heat dissipation and usually of better quality.
Thanks for the response. If I understood correctly, "try-ply" just means that there's a "sandwich" bottom consisting of an aluminum layer between the stainless steel, right? In that case, I believe this one would be good enough (for a budget solution), correct?
Exactly. And yes, this one will be better to cook than a steel only or aluminum-only cookware.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.322473
| 2016-05-18T18:31:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/69082",
"authors": [
"Huy",
"Ron",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44475",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44963",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
69084
|
What do I have to worry about when using a cast iron skillet as opposed to nonstick?
This was originally part of this question about usage of stainless steel and cast iron skillets, but I was advised to split it into two different questions.
I've been using nonstick pans exclusively all my life. Most recently, after doing a lot of research, I decided to buy a cast iron skillet (10.25'' Lodge).
I know that I need to season and reseason the cast iron skillet, and avoid soap when cleaning it. Do I have to handle it differently during cooking. Anything else I might not know yet, since I'm used to only using nonstick?
First, use oil. Many people use no oil at all on nonstick, but it won't work that way on a cast iron pan.
Second, preheat it properly. With iron, it takes a long time. If you have a resistive electrical stove, it will be quite longer than you expected.
Third, you might want to steer away from non-bound starches in the beginning, until the seasoning has set through use.
Arm fatigue.
They're heavy enough that you'll need to consider how you hold them as you're dumping food out of them. You'll often see chefs on cooking shows grabbing the handle in a strange way, where the grip is from underneath, and then they hold it with the handle at the top and the pan almost dangling below.
Learn this technique, and you won't end up straining your wrist from trying to hold the pan out in front of you as you scrape the food into a serving dish.
... Also in a similar fashion -- if you're used to being able to flip your food without needing a utensil ... it might take a little bit of strength training before you're ready to do that with cast iron.
Is there any chance you could include a link for a video that shows how a chef holds a cast iron skillet (which I should adopt)? I haven't seen a lot of cooking shows and when I do, I have a hard time identifying which pans are which material.
I'll have to try to dig one up ... I know Alton Brown typically held pans when plating the way I'm talking about ... I think Nick Stellino might as well.
Mine lives on the burner only moved if all 4 burners are occupied.
Once sticky food is dished out, it gets an inch or two of water and brought to boil. drain, wipe, done.
Great in oven as well. Just not so much for iron-flavored berry pies.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.322780
| 2016-05-18T18:52:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/69084",
"authors": [
"Huy",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44963",
"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
}
|
68269
|
How do you make the shell for this dinosaur egg dessert?
I found this very interesting dessert online:
How can I make this? In particular, how would you make the eggshell?
Welcome to the site and congrats for making the Hot Network Questions list! Don't forget to take the [tour] and visit our [help] to learn more about this site. And would you please [edit] your post to include the source of your pictures, thanks?
That's literally too cute to eat. As someone with a pet bird, I would feel uncomfortable if this was served.
This seems to be a version of the chocolate ball, only not intended for melting.
The standard chocolate ball is made by covering the inside of a spherical mold with tempered chocolate, then melting away the bottom so it can be placed over a scoop of ice cream. For the detailed process, see this video.
This version seems to use white chocolate instead. It is impossible to tell what the dots are, exactly, my best guess would be Oreo cookies ground to fine crumbles. An alternative would be ground (unpeeled) nuts like hazelnuts, or some poppy seed (that's probably not what the picture uses, but it would work well when you recreate the recipe).
The biggest problem would be the mold, I have no idea where you can source one. There are methods for making your own silicone molds from mixing caulking silicone with cornstarch, but I wouldn't consider them foodsafe. Maybe you can get away with using the paint-a-balloon method, but the shape won't be completely egglike. You may be able to hide this by using a more egg-shaped balloon, like the ones with a bit of a tube before the round body, and melting some more of the base away (where the balloon's tube is).
The egg in the picture looks like the ice cream is larger than the base. For that, you may need to work in two halves and glue them, which would be very fuddly work.
The nest looks simple, just use whatever form of chocolate sprinkles and shaved chocolate you have.
I don't know were she got it but my mother has a plastic mold that looks similar to the picture (might be one that a store brought one came in). She covers both halves in chocolate - lets them set, then puts ice cream of some sort in and the another chocolaty filling(maybe truffle) then presses the halves together seals with more of the shell chocolate. She makes this on easter.
The dots look like the dots you get in some products flavoured with vanilla
Use a 3D printer to make the mold.
The eggshell is white chocolate with what looks like crushed cookie mixed in it to give the black speckles. The melted white chocolate mix is the poured into 2 molds (probably silicone) to give it that shape. Once cooled the two halves of the egg are joined together using a food glue or melting the edges of the egg halves and pressing them together.
It's served up on a bed of shaved chocolate in that picture but you could use crushed cookies, whole cookies, or anything edible that gives that effect.
This might be a good time of year to pick up easter egg moulds on clearance. The dinosaur inside was probably bought.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.322973
| 2016-04-14T16:29:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68269",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Gilsham",
"JDługosz",
"SGR",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45066"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
73139
|
How should "vegetarian duck" (seitan) be pre-prepared to substitute into a duck recipe
So, I have a large can of "vegetarian roast duck" (actually braised gluten), and while I can find many recipes to put the stuff into, I'm wondering about how important the physical properties tend to be in cooking duck, and if there are any tips for how best to prepare the gluten, in order to successfully substitute it into a recipe that calls for real duck.
For example, many recipes start with rendering fat out of the duck, which I'm assuming is not necessary here. Also, steps to encourage crispy skin probably won't be helpful. On the other hand, such meat substitutes tend to be quite lean compared to actual meat, and often need fats added back into the dish... being unfamiliar with actual duck, is there a way to tell how much fat (or what kinds) I should be adding back? How much fat I should add if the recipe didn't render the fat out from under the skin first? Will I need to adjust cooking times, since the gluten is essentially precooked (I don't care about saving time, just if the recipe will suffer for it)? Are there other common places in a recipe where the physical properties of a duck need to be accounted for, since the gluten doesn't have those properties?
It is fairly easy to find recipes, that isn't the issue - I'm wondering if there are any extra steps I should add to offset any difficulties that might happen because I substituted the gluten in for the actual meat. I am not at all familiar with actual duck meat, to figure out how to tweak the recipes around the lack. I'm hoping someone on the site might have enough experience with the real stuff, and the gluten, to suggest ways to avoid problems. This particular can is already "roasted", so I could just pick a recipe that skips those processes - but I've seen non-roasted varieties available, and I find many recipes interesting enough to try, so any hints for how to deal with this with those recipes that do call for such steps would be appreciated.
The image below isn't exactly the same as mine, but it should give an idea of the kind of product I'm referring to.
...to substitute duck in what kind of duck dish? A stir fry, a red braise, a curry, and peking duck would each need different techniques ;) Something to keep in mind with all seitan: Careful with high heat. It needs less heat to brown, and overbrowning can LITERALLY make it inedibly dry and hard.
@rackandboneman - I have a couple different recipes in mind, one of the reasons I was hoping for advice that's a bit more ingredient based or generic rather than recipe-specific. But I've my eye on a pastry recipe, and a dumpling one, and one roasted-in-sauce recipe, and one slow cooked in sauce - and which I choose (this time) might depend on what problems I see. Being careful with high heat is exactly the kind of advice I'm looking for.
Oh, you might want to squeeze out some of the brine to fry it ... otherwise, the stuff is quite ready to go - cut, squeeze, saute, add to dish.
It's often a good idea to drain mock duck and bake it in the oven to slight crispiness (10-15 min at 180°C). You can add some cooking oil of your choice (something refined and smell-free is better) to make it fatter if you don't mind extra fat. If your brand of duck is not spiced, you can also try to add some white pepper/five spice mix or something you like there. If liquid in the tin does not smell good, you can soak chunks of duck in some stock of your choice prior to baking.
There is almost no way to make it fool a meat-eater that it's a real thing except in some very spicy dishes where you can't really make out any individual ingredients. That said, in Thai noodle soups and curries or fried with vegetables or in gravy it is less recognizable than being fried without additives.
So try different recipes and see what feels better. I certainly recommend you to try Thai and Chinese recipes, those guys are expert in mock meats. Not that there're not some very nice Vietnamese, Cambodian, or Malaysian dishes.
For example, I find mock duck the most suitable for Guay Teow/Kwai Teow (has different variations in Chinese and every SE Asian cuisine, you can google lots of them, or try some variation of it in every single vegetarian restaurant in Thailand and is super easy to make with just a few special ingredients and ready stock), at least much better than mock chicken (which is better in Tom Kha or curries). Hopefully, you will find something suitable.
Note that after baking mock duck doesn't really require much cooking, add it one of the last when frying, or even directly to the serving bowl for noodle soup.
Thai curry (red or jungle especially) is a great pond for a mock duck :)
Well, I'm not that big a fan of Thai curries, I prefer stir-fried stuff (essentially the same thing but less gravy, more veggie juices). But yes, duck should one of the best mock meats for a curry.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.323242
| 2016-08-14T20:04:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73139",
"authors": [
"Ivan Anishchuk",
"Megha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
73720
|
Can raw egg yolks gelatinized from being stored be saved by blending and for which uses?
I had a recipe that called for four egg yolks, and I was saving the yolks in a little dish over a couple days until I had all four. By the time I got the last, the first couple had dried a little and gelatinized - since it took time to use up the whites seperately. I'm not sure if the problem was just being a bit dry, or exposure to the air.
In any case, I added a bit of water to loosen them up, and mixed them together (the dish asked for the yolks to be whisked anyway). When there were still lumps, I blended them - I have a little milk frother that makes a fair tiny-sized immersion blender when working with small quantities. so I have something that looks like beaten egg yolk.
What I'm wondering is, is there any way of knowing if or how the properties of the egg yolks changed from being set and re-blended? I'm not worried about safety, I am pretty sure they would have been fine if I'd had a better lid or more moisture. But I was wondering if the sauce made with them will now fail - because something that helped the emulsion or thickening when heated won't, since the egg yolks had already set up once.
There were some questions about freezing eggs which mention gelatinized egg yolks, but simply describes them as unusable or undesirable (which is fair if someone wanted a whole egg). It doesn't mention whether blending them smooth again will do any good if someone was thinking of a recipe calling for blended egg or yolk - especially since I'm pretty sure mine were kinda dried and exposed to air, not just cold-set (so just heat might not do).
What are you making? If the egg yolk is central to the dish, I'm not sure that I would use those. But, if you want them for the thickening and enriching properties, they would probably be fine.
@Jolenealaska - I'm making a savory custard sauce, where the egg yolks are whisked with spices, tempered with heated cream, and the yolks blended to the cream and heated until thickened. I think the flavor profile should be fine, I was mostly wondering about the thickening.
I'm not going to answer because I don't know except anecdotally. I've done a similar thing with egg yolks as you describe and it turned out fine.
@Jolenealaska - even anecdotally, it's helpful to hear it. Thanks for sharing :)
Finally reporting back, once I noticed I hadn't written this up yet.
The reconstituted egg yolks work, with a few quirks.
After blending them with water, I had let them sit for a while - to make sure all the yolk from inside the lumps had a chance to re-hydrate. After a while (half hour or a bit more), I noticed the mixture had become thick. I added a bit more water - I thought I had added less before, after all I didn't remember offhand how much volume four egg yolks was supposed to be and maybe I had underestimated them.
All told, the yolks took up maybe half a cup of water more before I was really, really sure that it was more water than the yolks would have started with - and they were still settling at a thick paste, given time to sit. At that point, I said never mind and just made the sauce.
The sauce in question used a cupful of cream and some spices. I made it, heated the cream, added to the yolks and spices, then heated the whole until it until it thickened (as the recipe required). It worked just fine, giving a nice, flavorful, runny sauce.
About a half-hour, forty-five minutes later, it had thickened again.
So, the egg yolks definitely did not lose their thickening power. On the other hand, they thickened a lot more than regular egg yolks - four egg yolks in a cupful of cream (and perhaps half again as much water) would normally not set up as a thick paste... at least, it didn't the next time I made the recipe, it's usually fairly pourable as a sauce.
This was not a problem for me, in my recipe. I didn't mind the thicker sauce (it clung better), and anyway it stayed thin long enough to serve and plate when made, and re-thinned easily with a few spoonfuls of water each time I tried if I had needed, or wanted, the sauce to be thinner - it just didn't stay thin - and it didn't interfere with the flavor profile at all. Even with the extra volume, it didn't taste watery or weak-flavored (perhaps because the water was locked away in the paste). And while it looked just a bit gritty or grainy, it didn't feel like it on the tongue. So I was pleased by it, and the fact that the sauce slathered rather than poured just made it easier to control.
So, egg yolks that have dried out and gelatinized can, in fact, still be used - for flavor, for thickening if one doesn't mind a tendency to keep thickening up, for emulsification, and so on.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.323718
| 2016-09-05T09:15:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73720",
"authors": [
"Jolenealaska",
"Megha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
74549
|
Saffron and coloration - is there a way to know why it gave the wrong color?
What would make saffron (or something) color pink, instead of the more usual yellows and oranges that saffron is known for?
I had, a while ago, picked up a container of saffron from an ethnic store. On reflection, it didn't look like it was too high quality (the color was a bit pale and I could see a few yellow ends), and it smelled like saffron does when I checked, maybe a bit mild or weak. I didn't mind too much because it was also relatively inexpensive, and I figured it would still be worth it to use up the container in some experimental recipes.
A couple days ago, I was making some rice, and randomly decided to season it with saffron - when I dropped the strands in the heating water, they looked like the color coming off them was a bit dark, reddish - but I wasn't sure, maybe it was the lighting. By the time the rice was done, I was certain - the saffron had colored the rice pink, not yellow as I expected. I have seen saffron color orange, in high concentrations, and of course it looks red still as threads - but I have never seen it color pink. I didn't notice this when using the saffron previously, but then again I only used it once or twice, in complex dishes with many colors - the pink might not have showed up clearly, especially if I wasn't looking for it, while white rice doesn't have a lot of distractions.
So, my question is, is there any reasonable guess as to why the threads gave off a pink color? I'm thinking either they were dyed (or treated somehow) so that the color looked darker than it was, or else it wasn't saffron at all. I am aware of safflower and its frequent confusion with saffron - this was not a mere labeling error - but even safflower gives a yellow color, from my understanding (if it can be substituted for color purposes at all, as I have read).
I especially want to know what might have caused the color change because I want to know what I can do with what I've got left in the box - if it is the result of potentially toxic dyes, I would want to treat it rather differently than if it was some merely fraudulent but nontoxic treatment or substitution.
The first pic is the saffron that's been colored. Second pic is some good saffron I had on hand, for comparison.
This ethnic store didn't happen to be Chinese did it?
@Chloe - it was an unspecific oriental store, so they had Chinese stuff, but also some Indian, middle eastern, all of that - it was a very small store, but the only one in town so it had whatever they thought would sell. The saffron was marketed as Iranian, if that helps? Is there a known issue with saffron from Chinese stores?
@Lilienthal - It's a gram, the box is a gram's worth, it looks like more because the photo is close up, and the saffron was kinda fluffed up and teased out for a better pic. Its actually a pretty thin layer, not much depth to it. The bottom picture is saffron I'm quite sure of, not only is the scent correct and very strong, I've used it before and it colors, tastes and behaves identically to the high-quality saffron my parents have from Turkey.
Interesting question. I have never experienced it myself, but I took a littlelook around to see if the answer was floating around somewhere.
Perhaps the answer is as simple as this quote from Wikipedia suggests?
Despite attempts at quality control and standardisation, an extensive history of saffron adulteration, particularly among the cheapest grades, continues into modern times. Adulteration was first documented in Europe's Middle Ages, when those found selling adulterated saffron were executed under the Safranschou code.[35] Typical methods include mixing in extraneous substances like beetroot, pomegranate fibres, red-dyed silk fibres, or the saffron crocus's tasteless and odourless yellow stamens. Other methods included dousing saffron fibres with viscid substances like honey or vegetable oil to increase their weight. However, powdered saffron is more prone to adulteration, with turmeric, paprika, and other powders used as diluting fillers. Adulteration can also consist of selling mislabelled mixes of different saffron grades. Thus, in India, high-grade Kashmiri saffron is often sold and mixed with cheaper Iranian imports; these mixes are then marketed as pure Kashmiri saffron, a development that has cost Kashmiri growers much of their income.
Especially the coloration of the saffron with beetroot might offer a plausible explanation for your pink rice.
Huh... I suspect you might be right. Beetroot would give the right color for both the almost maroon of the darkest of the dried strands, and the pinkish color it gave to the rice. Possibly to darken a weak color or cover up a percentage of yellow stamens. I'll check and see if there's maybe a bit of beet scent to the strands - though since they must have some saffron in there to have that scent, too, it might be hard to pick out.
Easy: it wasn't saffron. Saffron are the stemen of crocus flowers, collected by hand. It's very expensive, and anything expensive will always have cheap knock-offs. A very common one is dyed safflower, which looks close but isn't any sort of substitute. Dyed corn silk, shredded onion skin, and other things are used. Basically if it's cheap it is almost certainly fake. Even if it's expensive it can also be fake.
The best way to identify fake saffron is to smell it. Saffron is very distinctive, the counterfeits probably have no smell at all. If you can get a small sample, even just a single strand, put it on the palm of your hand, then wet your finger and crush the saffron against your palm. You should get a very vivid patch of yellow-orange which is also hard to copy.
No, saffron does not derive from the stamen of the plant, but rather primarily from the red stigma which sit atop the yellow style (which is sometimes debatably included). The yellow stamen is of no use at all.
As a person who is in the business for Saffron, I could tell it is fake just by looking at it. It seems like real Saffron is mixed with something else, most probably colored corn threads (from what it looks like in the picture).
Please buy from a trusted store. Saffron is an expensive product, it cannot be cheap. if you find a store selling it cheap, that should be a red flag!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.324131
| 2016-10-07T08:47:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/74549",
"authors": [
"Chloe",
"Megha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9679",
"tchrist"
],
"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
}
|
70477
|
Steamer with single vent instead of bottom holes
My family has owned a stainless steel steamer for a long time with a single raised vent to let steam into the upper compartment. It's great because there's no way for food to get into the bottom compartment so it (mostly) never has to be washed. It only ever contains water.
I really want to buy one of these but the only steamers I can find for sale have a perforated bottom in the upper compartment. Does anyone know where I can buy one or if any company still manufactures these?
I have a stainless steel steamer/juicer similar to the one picture w/o perforation. It has a tube that dispels the juice into any container you choose right from the middle pan as it extracts. I purchased mine from Amazon and it is a product of Cook N Home.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.324649
| 2016-06-05T05:00:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/70477",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
121317
|
Why does my Indian food taste bland?
I recently tried an Indian recipe and event though it was spicy hot, it didn't have much flavor which surprised me for how much seasoning I put in. Does anyone know why this might be so bland?
1 pound boneless skinless chicken breast cut into bite size chunks
1/2 onion finely minced
2 tablespoons butter
3 cloves garlic minced or grated
1 tablespoon freshly grated ginger
2 teaspoons curry powder
1-2 teaspoons Thai red curry paste
2 tablespoons garam masala
1/2-1 teaspoon turmeric
1 teaspoon cayenne pepper, use less if you are not a spicy person
1/4 teaspoon salt
1 (6 ounce) can tomato paste
1 (14 ounce) can coconut milk
1/2 cup greek yogurt
1/4 cup half and half or heavy cream
cooked white rice for serving
Fresh homemade naan for scooping (a must!)
In a large glass measuring cup or bowl mix together the coconut milk, greek yogurt and cream. Stir in the tomato paste, garlic, ginger and all the spices. Mix well.
Spray the inside of your crockpot bowl with cooking spray or grease with olive oil. To the bowl sprinkle the onion over the bottom. Add the chicken and then pour the coconut milk mixture over the chicken so the chicken is completely covered. Add the butter and place the lid on the crockpot. Cook on high for 4 hours or on low for 6 to 8 hours.
Have you taken a test for a certain widespread disease that commonly affects the sense of smell (which is most of the sense of taste) recently....perhaps you should. Stale spices can also be an issue.
@Ecnerwal COVID-19 isn't Voldemort lol. It's okay to say it
There was a similar question, recently Why does my curry taste flat
@Ecnerwal lol, no I do not have it (90% sure), but I was momentarily concerned.
@Ivo Though Voldemort doesn't have a nose and hence may suffer from lack of taste ...
I've copied the recipe over, to save people having to scroll past 432 nearly identical pictures of what a curry looks like.
I'd second the points that simply say that this is avoiding most of the techniques that go into making traditional curries taste good. I'd guess it was missing fenugreek and some other aromatics. Fry the spices, which will help. Fry the onions, ginger, garlic and curry paste (can be done together). Fry the tomato paste. I'd have a look at Vivek Singh's recipe for it too - https://www.viveksingh.co.uk/march-old-delhi-style-butter-chicken/ - don't have to make it exactly like this, but he's pretty good on techniques (though his recipes can be tough)
I had to google for "1 pound in kg". Couldn't the world just use the metric system?
@Nav I'm American, and I wholeheartedly agree with you.
The recipe provided doesn't provide enough salt.
Taking just the pound of chicken breast (454 g) and 1/4 tsp salt (~1.5 g) you have a salt content of approx. 0.3%; but, factor in:
1/2 onion (85 g, medium)
3 cloves garlic (12 g, small)
6 ounce can tomato paste (~170 g)
14 ounce can coconut milk (~340 g)
1/2 cup greek yogurt (~140 g)
1/4 cup half and half or heavy cream (~120 g)
...and you have an additional ~870 g of food for approximately 1,320 g total, diluting the added salt content to ~0.1% without accounting for salted/unsalted butter.
Try adding a bit of salt, a small pinch at a time, stirring thoroughly to mix and tasting after each addition. Even better, use a liquid source of sodium with other flavour compounds - soy sauce, fish sauce, Maggi seasoning, etc. instead of salt.
From Strategies to Reduce Sodium Intake in the United States - SALT FLAVOR EFFECTS:
Salt imparts more than just a salt taste to overall food flavor. In work with a variety of foods (soups, rice, eggs, and potato chips), salt was found to improve the perception of product thickness, enhance sweetness, mask metallic or chemical off-notes, and round out overall flavor while improving flavor intensity (Gillette, 1985). These effects are illustrated in Figure 3-2, using soup as an example. In the figure, the distance of each of the points (e.g., “thickness,” “saltiness”) from the center point represents the intensity of that particular attribute. This figure shows that when salt is added to a soup, not only does it increase the saltiness of that soup (compare closed circles with open triangles and open circles for saltiness), but it also increases other positive attributes, such as thickness, fullness, and overall balance.
Figure 3-2 referenced - Gillette M. Flavor effects of sodium chloride. Food Technology. 1985;39(6):47–52.
Sure, there's not enough salt - but that's not nearly the half of it. It's a truly terrible recipe, with zero method. It's going to be under-salt, over-perfumed, almost soup consistency with chicken like bullets.
Yes, the recipe is suboptimal - that I agree with wholeheartedly. Given that @Brandon Kauffman already made it and only complained about blandness, correcting the salt content would be the first and easiest step in salvaging any leftovers.
Adding on to that, he could also properly fry an additional batch of alliums and toast spices, as you described for proper technique, to add in to the current batch if the flavour is still weak.
A tarka might give it a bit of a refresh, yeah, but it's going to take a lot to mask all that garam masala & the bitter depths of the tomato paste.
Also depends a lot on what kind of salt you use. So called "kosher salt" is much less salty in flavor than your typical table salt, so you need to use more of it to compensate (this also allows you to be more nuanced with it). I've seen high level chefs make this mistake because they often use kosher salt exclusively in their profession, so when working in a non-professional kitchen with regular salt, they tend to over-salt because they're so used to the less-salty salt.
AFAIK kosher salt is just less salty because it has more air in it. It's the same saltiness by weight, but less salty by volume.
@unlisted How do you come to that conclusion? Not attacking, genuinely curious; teach me lol.
@Daevin - making a decent facsimile of a BIR curry was something that eluded me for 20 years, no matter what I tried [this was not helped at all by a move from the North of England to London, where very few BIR curries are anywhere near as good as where I grew up]. By the time I finally got it, it all just fell into place. Have a look at the link in my answer below - that boils down a lot of technique into an easy to follow structure.
@bdsl May be the case, but given the recipe has everything measured by volume (teaspoons, tablespoons, cups) and not by weight (grams, or more likely ounces since it's using Imperial units), this is still a possible source of error.
@DarrelHoffman - there's enough slack in a curry recipe to not get over-worried about teaspoons vs grammes precision, so long as the ingredients are in the ball-park & there's some method involved. Two tablespoons of garam masala, though, is bordering on a crime against humanity.
You just don't make a curry by throwing all the ingredients in a pan & heating them for a while.
Even using good ingredients & putting enough salt in, that recipe will come out bland. I'd also imagine it would be a little bitter too because of the tomato paste thrown in 'raw' & the amount of garam masala is complete overkill.
Curry is all about method as well as ingredients. Two different people given the same ingredients will make two different curries, on method alone.
The onions, garlic & ginger should be fried, the spices should be fried, the tomato paste should be fried [if you don't, it will be bitter]. The coconut milk & cream should go in near the end, so should the garam massala.
The butter should be ghee - different flavour profile.
See https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/121074/42066 for more detail on general curry methods.
It's honestly just a lazy recipe - as comments indicate, it's a clickbait recipe. It doesn't belong on anyone's list of 'how to make curry', of any sort.
The more I look at even the ingredients list, the more I worry about it. It's a truly terrible recipe.
Even if we're using generic supermarket curry powder, there's nowhere near enough. There's also far too much garam masala [possibly to try cover for the fact it's going to be cooked into submission rather than added late so you can taste it].
There's not enough onion to make the sauce properly, so it's making up 'gravy' with a lot of additional liquid ingredients. I've never known quite so much 'wet' in what purports to be an "Indian" curry - coconut, cream and yoghurt. Maybe one of those, not all three.
…and cooking skinless chicken breast for 4 hours is going to come out like bullets.
So… under-salt, under 'curried', over-perfumed, consistency of soup & inedible chicken… what's not to like? ;)
If you read the comments under the online recipe, then once you get past the 'paid to give it 5 stars' reviews, you find complaints about each of these points.
+1 The recipe is terrible, it looks like a standard SEO clickbait recipe that was written (or generated) first and foremost so that it would float near the top of google search results. I wouldn't bother trying to fix it. The most significant problem is the big lack of salt borkymcfood's answer gives (I'd start with 1 tsp for the volume of ingredients given). Another big one is cooking boneless skinless chicken breast for 4 hours. Just find a better recipe.
@DanC - yup, I just added another para about the abysmal balance between ingredients. I've never ever tried slow-cooking chicken breast so idk how much like pencil erasers it's going to be after that kind of time, but yup, you'd just drop it less than 10 mins before serving, so it's still actually chewable ;) [The comments underneath the recipe are funny too, apart from the 'friends glowing reviews', the rest mention watery, tough chicken, way too much garam masala...
I'm a little confused by the commentary here. Does the ingredient selection somehow help with SEO? Or are we only suggesting that a junk recipe was filled into a heavily SEO-optimized template without heed to quality?
@KarlKnechtel - You'd need an expert on SEO, not a cook. If you read the page, it's typical of this style of 'cooking' clickbait. It's mostly pictures & descriptions of how easy it is, how much it invokes feelings of well-being, how 'healthy' it is… rather than getting on with the food. It is also, when you do finally reach it, is a truly terrible recipe, with a method that will produce, as the OP discovered, flavourless pencil erasers.
A recipe designed by someone who ought not to do this for a living & one that we could hope would fall to the bottom of any search engine's list, never to be found again by unsuspecting beginner cooks who don't yet know how to read a recipe to know whether it will be good or not, without actually making it.
I think the "Healthy" recipe title says it all here - although with the butter and cream components I think the author was stretching that point somewhat!
Seriously though, many healthy recipes are just reworked "Unhealthy" ones with reduced salt, sugar or fat content. These three ingredients are why so much processed food tastes so good, and why our taste buds crave for more.
As you have discovered, even a heavily spiced dish can taste bland if there is not enough salt or umami flavouring.
In the case of your Butter Chicken recipe, first of all I'd ensure the spices you use are fresh, and clearly have an aroma. Stale spices won't taste of much.
Secondly, a good dish is a balanced dish. Each flavour should compliment or contrast its neighbour. That is why chilli and chocolate go together. In the BC dish, there is a lot of richness to cut through, the danger here being that the dish ends up too rich or "Sickly". I'd be tempted to add some lemon juice or dry white wine at the end to cut through all the fat and cream. Another possibility would be to increase the amount of yoghurt and decrease the cream content etc.
Finally, the biggest issue with this dish. It is barely seasoned, and that explains why most professional recipes add "Or to taste" to salt measurements etc. It is a tricky one though, some people are more/less salt tolerant than others. The best guidance recommends tasting everything for seasoning before serving, and adjusting accordingly. If you must stick to such low salt levels (e.g. for health reasons), you could try increasing the salt level a bit but using a low sodium salt instead. Alternatively, you could add some MSG (monosodium glutamate), but I don't know what health implications this would have for someone on a low sodium diet, negative I presume.
The answer seems to suggest it's impossible to make a good-tasting and healthy version of the dish. I question whether that is the case. Although of course healthy is subjective.
I've always been led to believe that a good BC is deliberately decadent, and not a dish for everyday consumption due to the sheer amount of calories etc. I'm sure there are healthy variations out there, but they will always be a compromise of calories and ingredients versus taste, which is just as subjective.
@MichaelMior There's plenty of delicious healthy meals one can make but you can't just take the "unhealthy" bits out of dish and expect it to work.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.324773
| 2022-08-10T21:49:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121317",
"authors": [
"Bernhard Döbler",
"Brandon Kauffman",
"Daevin",
"Dan C",
"Darrel Hoffman",
"Ecnerwal",
"Greybeard",
"Hagen von Eitzen",
"Ivo",
"Jack Aidley",
"Karl Knechtel",
"Michael Mior",
"Nav",
"Someone",
"Tetsujin",
"bdsl",
"borkymcfood",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52058",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52880",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74014",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83173",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99917",
"lupe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
70807
|
Is it possible to bake bread or the like using a stovetop tagine?
I have a Moroccan style tagine, and I usually use it on the stovetop. The recipes or guidelines I have found for baking bread in a tagine usually depend on using it in an oven - something that is problematic for me in my particular oven (because of its height). I'm interested in knowing if there's some way to adapt techniques to make bread (flatbread, biscuits, I'm not too picky) using the tagine on a stovetop.
An answer to this question here suggested looking at dutch oven recipes. Some of them require the use of an oven, like the tagine recipes. Others, the camping versions, seem to require techniques I am not sure would translate to a stovetop tagine - that kind of quick preheating, while fine for thick cast iron, would likely cause temperature shock in the tagine (since it is designed for consistent slow temperatures).
So, on to details. Preheating the tagine should put the camping dutch oven recipes back into play. I'm pretty unsure about leaving it on the stove to preheat while empty, especially since it will take a while (half hour or more) to get hot - having been warned against heating up pots without at least a little liquid in them. Having water or oil in there while it preheats, though, is likely to affect the finished bread since the extra water/oil will coat the bottom. On the other hand, the reasons it is unwise to heat pots empty might not even apply to a tagine, since it is a thck clay dish, kept on very low heat, is supposed to absorb a lot of heat slowly, and is a largely sealed environment anyway - if anyone knows, that would be helpful.
The alternative to preheating the tagine, would be to put the dough in it while still cold, and let the dough be heated up at the same, slow rate. I'm not sure what all of the effects would be - it might create a final rising before it reaches baking temperatures, so I would maybe avoid those recipes where the timing has to be precise... actually, figuring out timing is likely to be difficult for tagine baking anyway, most of the recipes for stews and such are really flexible. I think it's unlikely to burn or something equally dramatic, but it will probably affect the texture, and I'm not sure which kinds of dough might be able to tolerate the technique.
So, in case that was too long and chatty, what I am looking for is any techniques that might be helpful in either baking in a stovetop tagine, like how to preheat the dish, or in adapting the recipes to work with the limitations of the tagine, ie, perhaps a drier dough because less moisture escapes, or because there's a little left from preheating with water in the container.
This isn't urgent, since I do have an oven capable of baking - but I've wanted to bake bread in it since I got the tagine, if I can figure out how. It might have the beneficial side effect of letting me make bread with thinner, softer crust, since mine tends to come out rather crusty.
As per request, here's an example tagine picture, so it's clear what kind of pot I'm talking about. A short article on how to cook in a tagine can be found here, so there's an idea of what kind of adaptations might be useful.
Hi Megha! Would you mind linking to a picture or information about a tagine? I've never heard of one. Generally I'd add a link myself and not bother you, but when I Googled it I didn't find something that I knew would be correct! By the way, thanks so much for being a rock-star voter!! It shows genuine caring for the site, and sets an awesome example!
@Sue - added the pic and a couple links, I hope they're helpful enough. I'm glad you mentioned it to me, I hadn't thought about how hard it might be to find information without the proper context to know which was right! Thanks for the heads up and also for your kind words :)
Tagine cooking is a marvelous method, and there are some great ideas here even if someone doesn't have one.
I've cooked bread on the stove many times. My setup was a cast iron pan with a metal trivet inside and a small pot inside that, which is what the bread dough was placed in. I then had an old rice cooker pot inverted over the pan. That essentially created a small stovetop oven. The small pot was on the trivet so the pot didn't get direct heat from the cast iron pan - otherwise, the bread would burn on the bottom. I did this for many years to make one or two servings of bread every morning for breakfast.
You could likely do something similar in your tagine. Figuring out the timing for the bread was trial and error. There's just no other effective way.
As for flat breads, I cook them using my cast iron or carbon steel frying pan. I've tried baking naan, but we don't like the texture of it, so frying is the way to go for us.
Thanks for your suggestions, it gives me some ideas! Did you preheat the cast iron empty, for your stovetop oven, or with the trivet and pot in place? Or were you heating it the first time with the dough already inside? Sorry, just trying to figure it out.
Happy to help. :) I didn't preheat. The baking environment is so small that it only takes a few minutes to come to full heat.
I have done some tagine baking at last, and it was pretty successful! I started with a pre-made spinach and herb dough, just so I could try the mechanical baking without worrying about the variables of my recipe.
For my first try, I used half the dough. I rested the dough, according to the package, folded some feta into it just because, shaped it and let it rise in the (oiled) tagine, then put the whole thing on the stove and started heating. It was edible, but a little disappointing, it ended up dense and felt a little doughy in texture, even though it had been cooking for some time (couple hours) and had definitely cooked through. The bottom was lovely, deep, golden brown, but the top was pale and soft.
I thought perhaps I had overestimated how much dough should be baked like this, perhaps the issue was uneven heating. For my next two tries, I used half as much dough (a quarter of the original ball), rolled it out and folded over a couple layers with corn kernels and cheese, and let rise on the countertop (fewer variables because similar recipes, and also tasty food).
This time I preheated the tagine (already oiled) for about a half hour, or until it was hot to the touch before I put the layered bread in (I figured it wouldn't be hot enough to cause whatever damage I was worried about if it was still that cool). I kinda...forgot it on the stove, and only checked a couple hours in. The bottom was beautiful golden brown, although a bit hard and dry, and the top was puffy and looked cooked, with a bit of cheese bubbling out the sides. I flipped it so the top would brown as well - which had the effect of softening the top back down to a really good consistency, with the trapped moisture and the extra time. Overall, quite a success.
Third try, I didn't preheat the tagine, but put the layered bread in the oiled tagine while still cool, and heated it on the stove all at once. Again, the bottom was deeply brown when I flipped it about a half-hour in, and that bottom crust softened back down with moisture while the top browned. This one was cooked much less time (perhaps an hour and a half total, with half an hour of that spent getting up to cooking heat), and still came out really successfully.
Lessons of baking in a tagine:
First, to use much less dough, since the heat is directional, and cooks from the bottom up. It can be flipped to brown the top, but that setup is better suited to focaccia or flatbread, rather than rounded loaves.
Next, preheating the clay tagine works just fine. Probably the lesson I was taught was about dangers of metal pots at high heat, but the tagine is made to absorb heat safely, and it heats slowly, so there wasn't any issue with it heating practically empty. Probably is is safe for the same reason dutch ovens and the like can be preheated empty, they are intended to be sturdy and absorb and hold heat, and so won't be ruined if there's nothing in the pot to absorb extra heat. I was likely worried for nothing.
Third, the bread made in a tagine doesn't burn. Really. It was probably done within an hour (going by trial three), but in trial one stayed hot on the stove for several more hours (total, four-ish?) without burning, and with no negative consequences. The same positives that I like about tagine cooking, low and slow and with no problem sitting longer if I get busy or distracted, also apply to tagine baking. The bottom crust gets deeply browned, and dry, but softens back up when flipped because the tagine traps moisture. Perfect crust, actually, since I get all the flavor of browning, but a soft texture like I prefer.
Fourth, it will probably always stick a bit around the edges. I oiled the tagine each time, but the way the tagine works is trapping the steam so it drips down the sides and back to the bottom where the food is, and presumably this washes the oil down from where the bread touches the pan. The underside comes up cleanly, since the oils collect there, but the very edge always sticks until I can get under it. It isn't a problem, but something to be aware of.
And now that I know something of the mechanical aspects and tendencies of tagine baking, I can try baking with dough I make myself - since I don't have to worry if the problem is the baking technique, or the recipe. More experiments are fun!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.326237
| 2016-06-19T05:43:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/70807",
"authors": [
"LMAshton",
"Megha",
"Sue Saddest Farewell TGO GL",
"dougal 5.0.0",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53089"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30652
|
Using sous-vide oven to make stock or soup (no bags)
I have a sous-vide supreme water oven. I was wondering if I could use it to slow cook large amounts of soup or to make beef stock by slow cooking. The idea is to have the soup or stock directly into it and no bags. As it is easy to clean and is perfectly sealed, I do not foresee any problems but I am having cold feet. Could somehow I manage to ruin my oven? What is the worst case scenario here? Any ideas?
Could you elaborate as to WHY you would want to do it this way? A large stock pot can't hold much less than your unit and temperature control isn't a necessity when making stock or most soups for that matter.
Thanks to all the answers below. Temperature control is an issue when you want to add vegetables. If you place carrots in a crockpot for a long time, they acquire somehow a burnt/caramelized flavor. I want to be able to hold the stock for for a long time so the duck or chicken carcass almost completely disintegrates but at the same time I want to do it in a gentle low temperature (64/65 C.) so vegetables do not acquire that sweet/burnt flavor. I finally tried it and no major accidents.
So if it's the carrots your most concerned about why not bag them and cook everything else in the machine without a bag? The maillard reaction, responsible for browning and those deeper rich flavors, is going to occur over time regardless of whether your temp is 64 or 84, it will just take longer at lower temps.
The Sous Vide machine is wonderful for making stock. I have made both chicken stock and beef stock in it and it performed great. It was a benefit to have it in another part of the kitchen and not taking up space on the cooktop (I keep it on the counter next to the sink). Cleanup is quite easy; i place a towel on the counter next to the sink and put the SousVide machine on its side partially hanging over the edge. I use my water hose to run water in, scrub it as I would any pot (it's stainless steel, after all) and rinse it out. It's meant to hold water and I've had several overflows during my experimentation with it and there has never been any problem.
You certainly could.
I read the PDF manual online at the manufacturer's website, and it appears that this particular machine has no internal circulation device like a water jet or impeller (somehow, fan doesn't seem like the right word under water). It relies entirely on thermal convection to circulate the water bath. In fact, it seems to have no moving parts whosoever. So there is no seal in the bath containment through which ingredients would leak out into any machinery, lowering lifespan.
According to the manual, the bath container is not removable, and the entire device should not be put under water. This means that cleaning it out effectively is not actually that convenient, at least to my mind. Mild soap is permitted, and the bath is made of stainless steel so it could probably stand up to much harsher treatments--the manufacturer just doesn't expect you to need them.
Worst case, you have to spend time carefully cleaning the bath, then tediously transferring water in and out to rinse it. I cannot see any way you would harm the device itself.
Still...
For the applications you have named, you don't need the precision temperature control this device provides. You could do them just as easily in a traditional slow cooker (whose crock should be fully removable for cleaning), or in a normal stock pot on the cook top.
And they would be much easier to clean. And you could brown the stock ingredients directly in a pot with the second method.
So just because you could do it, doesn't mean it is the best method available to you in my opinion.
Its called a pump! And yes, the sous-vide supreme does not have any.
Don't take the risk. You probably could use this for making stock, however what if some part of your stock burns on it? It's an awfully expensive piece of equipment to risk, when you could pick up a used crock pot for peanuts. Plus, it's going to be a pain to clean out, and it will need a load of cleaning after you make stock in it.
One thing I love about the sous vide supreme it is the easiest equipment in my kitchen to clean but thanks for your answer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.326988
| 2013-02-03T02:28:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30652",
"authors": [
"Allison",
"Brendan",
"Jen Beevers",
"Phil",
"Sergio Parreiras",
"Stefan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11500",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71661",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71663",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71682",
"oliversm",
"user71682"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
27305
|
What is the right use of bake and broil?
I look inside the oven and realize that when baking the heat comes from below and when broiling the heat comes from the top.
Although there's a intuition which says that the oven is small and so everything should be at the same temperature from the inside I'm sure that as I have two options there's at least one big difference.
What is this difference between them? Why do I bake a cake and not broil it? Which should I use for all kinds of meats? Depends? If I could extend this question to the default temperature of each, why are they different?
Broiling involves high heat coming from a source very close to the surface of the food. It is appropriate for thin food, or for adding color (via caramelization/Maillard reaction) to already (or mostly) cooked items. I couldn't say what the temperature of the heating element itself is, but the resulting air temperature is usually upwards of 550˚ F (288˚ C).
In baking, although the heating element is usually on one side or the other of the oven,* the idea is that heat is being transferred to the food more or less evenly from all sides. This is part of the reason thorough pre-heating is important -- to make the air in the box all the same temperature before the food goes in. There's no real "default temperature" -- you use whatever will produce the desired results in your food.
With lower heat, coming from all sides, baking will allow the interior of a thick piece of food to cook before the exterior has over-cooked. Putting cake batter under a broiler will likely result in a dried-out or burnt top, perhaps a layer of reasonably well-cooked cake, and a raw bottom. The heat simply won't transfer through the cake fast enough to allow the entire thing to cook.
The appropriate technique for meat depends on the size of the meat. Steaks can do very well under a broiler -- the intense heat allows the exterior to brown and become flavorful without the interior over-cooking. A roast cut or a whole bird, on the other hand, would need to be baked (or "roasted") so that the interior has time to come to the proper temperature. A very thick chop or steak might be started in the oven, then finished under the broiler to give it color.
*Your oven probably has just the one heating element, used for both baking and broiling. There's no reason that an oven couldn't have multiple elements for baking -- and it might produce more even cooking -- but broiling always means heat from above.
The heating element is going to be well north of 1000°F.
@JoshCaswell by "default temperature" I meant that when I select "bake" in my oven the first shown temperature is 350 (Probably F) and when I select "broil" the default is 500 F. Anyway I got the point. Thanks a lot!
When you use an oven to bake, you can control it's temperature. When you use it to broil, it just turns on the element as high as it can go.
For baking or roasting, it is vitally important to control temperature, so don't ever broil.
When doing some veggies or meats (steaks, fish), you may want to broil. It cooks from the outside VERY quickly, so it is good for rare steak and partially cooked veg.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.327349
| 2012-09-20T19:24:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27305",
"authors": [
"Cathy Beck",
"Euridice01",
"Roseann Sandstrom",
"Rudier",
"derobert",
"fabiopagoti",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12629",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61480",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61482",
"rici"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
74163
|
Can you make tortillas/pitas on stainless steel?
Most tortilla and pita bread recipes I see specifically call for cooking the dough in a cast iron skillet. At the moment, I only have stainless steel.
My only attempt at making pita bread in a stainless steel skillet failed miserably. For the first batch I used a thin layer of oil and the dough ended up 'fried' (very crispy and oily on the outside). Then I tried with very little oil and the dough stuck and burned.
Should I expect the same problems with making tortillas, and is there anything I can do differently?
Tweaking your technique, rather than pan choice, may help a bit - people often use whatever is to hand to make recipes, and what you have is what you have as far as pans go. I've used the same techniques on a a cast iron thaava and stainless steel griddle, and it was workable on each of them, for what it's worth.
I usually don't find using a lot of oil helpful when heating tortillas or pitas. The oily/fried crispy outside is a familiar thing, even with a cast iron pan - for some recipes made with tortillas it can be nice, but for making the tortillas themselves it's less useful. Using very little oil, or even using none at all and dry-roasting on the pan, is a better tradeoff for me - though the possibility of sticking and burning is there, and needs some work to avoid.
The oil used should be very little (if it is being used), barely brushed onto the pan, or rubbed on and off with a paper towel (one dab on a towel will last a whole batch). Sometimes, it might be easier to brush just a bit over the tortillas instead and leave the pan dry. If your recipe has oil in it, or if you just don't want the added oil, you can also just dry-roast the tortillas (and probably pitas, but I have less experience with those) - I tend to do it this way the most, since the wrong amount of oil can even encourage sticking by making the pan tacky.
If I'm dry-roasting the tortillas, I find it really helps if the surface of the tortilla is quite dry - perhaps you could lightly dust it with a bit of flour if the dough is on the moister side (and I don't even mean damp, just slightly tacky might let it catch and stick more), you want it just slightly dusty on the surface. When the pan is hot, I sort of sweep the pan with the tortilla for a few seconds at first - that is, lift the tortilla by one side and rest a half or so on the pan for a second, dragging it forward. Then, move my grip to the other side of the tortilla, and repeat.
What exactly this five second dragging-about step does I'm not quite sure, it may dry the very surface just that little bit more, it may prevent sticking while the surface of the dough is warming, but when I do this, the tortilla tends to sit loosely on the surface of the pan, and I can skitter it around with my fingers while it warms up and starts roasting. As long as I can keep it moving for those first seconds, it rarely sticks and never badly, it's always easy to pry up (or tug away from) any little areas that catch before they become problems. Half the time I keep skittering it around with my fingertips as it cooks, it doesn't seem to cause a problem in its cooking and I'm right there with nothing else to do - but once the first few seconds of cooking have dried out the surface enough so it won't stick, you can just as easily leave it alone for the few minutes cooking takes.
It also is usually only the first one or two in a batch that can get tricky, and try sticking... usually once the batch gets going the later ones don't cause problems (though I'm not sure if that's because I've worked out the variables for this batch of dough, or if the pan gets seasoned or heated to the right amount as the cooking goes on).
(I'm not sure if it actually matters, but while I have worked with tortillas, I am actually a bit more familiar with chapati... so my techniques or perspectives may be colored by that background)
@SaurabhCooks - I'm glad you liked it!
Just finished my first attempt. With no oil in the pan (but oil in the dough), I 'skittered' the tortillas around with my fingertips and managed to keep them from sticking. Thanks!
@rcorre - Excellent! It's so much easier to keep them from sticking with fingertips rather than a flipper... it's worth it even if I sometimes scorch my fingertips being impatient :)
My tortilla griddles are 14-16 gauge mild steel, made in Mexico, and purchased at the local Mexican grocery for ~$12.00 each. Each rectangular griddle covers two burners, so workflow is 4 tortillas at a time. There's no need for stainless, cast iron, a nonstick coating, or even oil. If you get the masa consistency right, the tortillas won't stick. Use a thin steel flipper, not one of the plastic ones, so as to get under the tortilla properly. If you can't find one big enough in your area, just cut most of the flipper part of a nylon flipper off, and bolt a 20 gauge piece of flat steel of the size you want onto the handle.
The stuff is tricky. Corn pulls in different amounts of water depending on type of corn, how long you nixtamalize it, how many times you rinse the kernels afterwards and how long you let it sit, mixed and hydrating, before grinding, and how long you let the masa sit before turning it into tortillas. Instant masa is easier but the correct water range is still pretty tight.
@SaurabhCooks It's not that bad. Like bread dough you just need to get hydration right; before you start pressing tortillas. Lot's of amaters, such as myself, do it with great results.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.327651
| 2016-09-23T11:44:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/74163",
"authors": [
"Megha",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12661",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"rcorre"
],
"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
}
|
74624
|
How is bean pasta so protein-rich?
I've seen a number of bean pastas that have pretty close to a 1:1 protein/carb ratio. For example, this black bean pasta has 23g carbs and 25g protein per serving. On their own, black beans have a much lower protein/carb ratio (less than 1:2). Considering black beans are the only ingredient in the pasta, what accounts for the nutritional difference?
I guess whether you even rinse the boiled beans or not will make a big difference - beans lose a lot of sugars to the cooking liquid :)
I support rackandboneman's speculation; I think that once cooked the beans loose a lot of their starch.
I can see three possibilities, though I don't know which is the actual case.
First, it is simply possible that the beans they source are, for some reason, very high in protein. The general nutrition numbers are averages, and can cover some pretty broad ranges - a potentially significant difference might come from testing specific batch of organic black beans from whatever farming processes versus the generic averages of all black beans.
Second, it is possible that the processing of the beans into pasta does remove some of the carbs, for whatever reason - perhaps starches that get left behind in processing (in soaking water?), or the starches and proteins separated and recombined in different, predictable, ratios (possibly to account for the potential variability of bean batches). Something similar is done with chocolate, the single ingredient is separated into constituent parts and recombined in predictable ratios, for a better and more consistent end product.
Third, it is possible that the ratio of carbs to proteins actually changes during the processing. I'm thinking of gluten formation, specifically, where the gluten protein that is formed in the working the (wheat) dough wasn't there in the plain flour - and making something like seitan from it, which is very high in protein, by developing the protein already present and washing away excess starches. I'm not sure of the actual chemistry behind black bean pasta, but it may develop some protein, something, in the processing that wasn't there before, which might perhaps alter the ratios in the bean pasta as opposed to the simply cooked beans.
Thanks for suggesting some possibilities. I'm hesitant to accept as it is just speculative.
@rcorre - Fair enough. I hope someone comes up with a better answer, too, as I'm curious :)
Another option is that the reported amount of protein and carbs is just wrong.
@Agos - that is also a possibility, as is the possibility there was some unreported protein addition - but I suppose I'm trying to offer the benefit of the doubt, and figuring out how the reported amount might be accurate anyway.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.328109
| 2016-10-09T23:15:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/74624",
"authors": [
"Agos",
"Megha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12661",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50207",
"lithic",
"rackandboneman",
"rcorre"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
27383
|
How can I clean white burn marks in the center of my glass top burner?
I have this glass top burner for almost 5 years. It was fine until I cooked food in Aluminum Pot and Aluminum frying pan... the base of these pots leaft white marks on the glass. It looks like part of the glass now. I tried Baking Soda, Cerama Bryte, Soap but no results. How can I get rid of them pr will never will?
I've heard of people having luck using a razor blade (like one for scraping paint from a window). Just be careful, as the glass could probably scratch easily.
My parents have had good luck with a steam cleaner. (Disclaimer: I am not endorsing this particular product, just linking so you know what I am referring to.) They use cerama bryte for standard cleaning and the steam cleaner for the stubborn stains.
Use a mild abrasive compound like a copper metal polish. It will remove a minute trace of glass, but should not leave any visible marks if used correctly
The "Brasso" brand works for me
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.328346
| 2012-09-25T15:26:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27383",
"authors": [
"Anne C.",
"Dot McHale",
"Gringo",
"chicken burger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61676",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61677",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61776",
"jpierson",
"user61675"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
27520
|
How do you make popcorn with "indian corn"
I bought a couple ears of this corn at the farmers market and the woman at the stand said to throw it in the microwave. Does anybody know how long it should be in the microwave for?
What is "indian corn" to you? What country are you from?
@JamesMcLeod: "Indian Corn" could be referring to corn that looks like this: http://www.stormeffects.com/indian_corn.htm whereas plain "corn" usually refers to stuff like this: http://www.hessdesignworks.com/Corn.html Yes, they're closely related plants, but for making popcorn the microwave time might vary (such as if Indian Corn has a different water content than sweet corn, or other varieties).
@FrustratedWithFormsDesigner and TFD - good points indeed. I shall delete my comment.
the corn in this pic http://www.stormeffects.com/indian_corn.htm is not best for pop corn, u can just boil it or fry it over charcoal and eat.
When popcorn pops, it makes a distinctive popping sound (unsurprisingly). I would microwave the ear of corn until the pops come about ten seconds apart - at this point, you're well into the tail of the normal distribution which describes how long it takes each kernel to pop. If the corn doesn't pop after about two minutes, it probably won't pop at all.
Two minutes?!? You would have a microwave full of charcoal! I wait for 2-3 seconds apart and then pull it.
@Sobachatina: 2 minutes might not be so bad on a medium setting, depending on the microwave. My parent's old microwave, 1.5 minutes on Med-High was ok for popcorn, IIRC.
@Sobachatina - I agree, 2 minutes is a long time here. It is more than enough time to hear the first pop, and if no pops occur in this time, the cob is "broken" - more than 2 minutes might well start a fire, 2 minutes may not...
First get a decent size iron karai (rounded heavy pan).Now heat up the pan with low fire continously.Get some clear sand on it,heat up the sand.Now pour the corns and stir softly until it gets popcorn.After that get the popcorns
Could you update your answer with a source for buying clear sand? I don't know where I'd get any kind of sand that I'd want to cook on! Searching for "clear sand" turns up a lot of pool cleaning supplies and veterinary supplies.
Why would you want sand in your popcorn? Sounds like a great way to do dental damage.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.328475
| 2012-10-02T00:04:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27520",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Chris Bergin",
"Craig",
"CubaLibre",
"David",
"FrustratedWithFormsDesigner",
"James McLeod",
"Mirror318",
"Sobachatina",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12803",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62037",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62038",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7501",
"roja"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32241
|
How to use a honey dipper?
I have a honey dipper I thought would be worth making use of. It does great at not dripping honey as I take it out of the jar. However getting the honey out of the dipper is another matter. I've tried holding it at various angles and gently shaking it. How do I get the honey to drip where I want it to?
I imagine it would work well if stirring the honey into a drink. However I am trying to get it on my oatmeal, and it's a pain to clean after stirring it in the oats.
I found that the best place for honey dippers is the garbage bin, for the same reasons you mention. Use a spoon, which you can lick clean afterwards!
Or, use a spoon pre-heated in hot water - the honey will just slide off whole.
Apparently there is an orientation to the thing. (I can't confirm because I never use mine and I don't feel like honey right now.)
While moving in and out of the jar, hold it with the stick up and down. Honey will kind of "sit on the shelves" of the dripper and fall off very slowly if at all. Move it over to your oatmeal and then turn it 90 degrees so the stick is parallel to the floor/counter/table. Now apparently honey will flow out of the slots and onto your oatmeal.
If this works, it could actually be good for getting a thin drizzle which is hard to do with a spoon.
Try it and let me know?
The important bit is that you let the honey drip off it ... you don't use it to touch the item to be sweatened. They also work well for more viscous liquids like molasses and stroop.
Traditional honey dippers are quite large and made of hard wood; these can be used to drizzle honey on things. They're designed to stay in the honey pot. You need a honey dipper that just fits diagonally in your honey pot. You return it to your pot after use, you do not wash it.
The small ones most often seen in modern shops are designed to take honey from a jar to your cup of tea. So it is "washed" in your hot tea. It is quite useless for anything else.
Are you saying that the large ones are also useful for more than putting honey in tea?
@Jefromi Yes, but they "live" in the honey pot. They are a waste of time if you are going to wash them each time
Honey has strong antiseptic qualitites, which is why the dippers can be kept in the honey. That said, the dipper should not be actually put in the tea--it should never touch anything but honey and air. Tea goes bad easily at room temperature, and could cause pathogens to grow in/on the wooden dipper.
@OmniaFaciat Tea goes bad? You let the dipper dry and put it away. What grows on a dry piece of wood?
@TFD The fact that it needs to be a big one is a good answer to the question, so I went ahead and edited it into your answer. (That's more important than the bonus information about washing.)
Honey dippers are to be kept in the honey, of course. Pull it out of the honey, hold it at a slightly tilted angle and twirl it to catch the honey that is dripping from it. Hold it over the cup, bowl or whatever sideways (parallel) and let the honey drip into or onto your cup or bowl. You do not use it to stir with, nor do you wash it. Honey is viscous and does not accept shaking as an accelerator of getting it off the dipper; it has to drip--hence the name. As someone else says, it lives in the honey jar or honey pot. It will live there happily for years and never be burdened with anything at all and is always available when needed. They do come in assorted styles, so pick one you like and use it to your heart's content. I had a wooden one literally for probably 20 years, always kept in the honey jar. The only problem that I encountered was that the honey had solidified pretty well and someone had tried to literally dislodge it from the honey by pulling on it and it and the head finally separated from the stem, rather than softening the honey first. Now I am shopping for a new one.
I would say warming it up would be a good place to start, that'll help the honey flow more freely off the dipper (though now that the honey moves more freely, it might drip more as you take it out of the jar).
I have a small plastic-tipped honey dipper that came with my Cruset honey pot. I do use the dipper to stir my tea but I do not put it back in the honey pot until it is cleaned. I find this a quick, easy way to prepare my tea and, in fact, would love to have a couple more of these dippers.
The key is storing your honey dipper right in the honey jar. If the honey dipper is a separate item you keep taking out of the honey jar, washing off, and putting in the drawer, then you waste too much honey. A great solution is the 'Jarware' Honey Dipper Mason Jar Lid at Mason Jar Merchant. The honey dipper is integrated right into the mason jar lid, and the honey dipper stays in the jar, so you you only use what you want, and put the dipper back in the jar. That way you don't waste any honey cleaning your liquid gold off the end of the dipper. You can find the honey dipper mason jar lid here: https://masonjarmerchant.com/products/jarware-honey-dipper-mason-jar-lid-regular-mouth
I do not store my dipper in the pot. I just run a very hot tap while the honey slowly drips over my oatmeal then simply run it under the tap to clean. (My dipper has a silicone end on a beech wood stick). So far the outside of my jar of honey is drip free.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.328814
| 2013-02-26T19:56:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32241",
"authors": [
"Bette Hutchens",
"Cascabel",
"Joe",
"Juancho",
"OmniaFaciat",
"Ricardo Peres",
"Roshni",
"TFD",
"Vince Bowdren",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127419",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74246",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91629",
"niemantyyahoocom",
"user74247"
],
"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
}
|
32610
|
Baking Turkey Meatloaf with/out glass cover
I am baking 2.5lbs of turkey meatloaf with a mixture of sauteed onions and red bell-peppers. There are no set recipes for cooking a meatloaf of this size so I basically doubled some of the ingredients.
The regular recipe says to Bake at 350 for 50 mins for 1.5lbs. I'm using a ceramic casserole dish and was wondering if the glass cover would help cook the inside of this dense loaf more than with it uncovered? Another thing I heard is to place a cookie sheet under the casserole dish for radiant heat.
Putting the lid on will tend to steam your meatloaf on top, rather than baking it, as the moisture that evaporates from it will have no where to go. This will inhibit getting those nice crispy brown bits.
If I were to double a meatloaf, I would not simply put it in a larger casserole. Instead, I would make two... erm... loaves. This would:
Ensure that they cook at approximately the same and expected rate, as predicted by the recipe
Provide more surface area for the delicious brown bits.
Absolutely correct, I wouldn't say anything different.
I should have known this would happen. So I baked without covering for an hour and other than it being extremely moist (maybe from too much sauce), it came out at 155 perfectly. Thanks!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.329277
| 2013-03-11T23:19:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32610",
"authors": [
"Abdulla Thanseeh",
"Ben Sewards",
"GdD",
"Mari",
"Salmafood",
"Tejash Shah",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75280",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75282"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
71412
|
Is Bottle gourd and white pumpkin same?
I would like to know whether the Bottle gourd and white pumpkin both are same?
I found no answer in googling.
What do you mean by "white pumpkin"? Google image search results just look like, well, white pumpkins, nothing at all like bottle gourd (calabash). Maybe something like this "white cushaw pumpkin"? It appears to be a variety of cucurbita argyrosperma - does that look like what you're asking about?
@Jefromi i recently relocated to other region where many nationalities live in. In hyper market, they labeled it as 'White Pumpkin', It looks like Bottle Gourd. So I googles, is there a vegetable called white pumpkin in any other nations, no idea what it is. thats why posted here
Okay. Without a photo or anything, I'm afraid people are just going to have to guess what you mean by "white pumpkin" - made worse by the fact that they're not from where you are, and the name may have gone through translation - so I'm going to put this on hold. We'd be happy to help, but we don't really want questions where the only possible answers are guesses.
@Jefromi I have added pic now
Are you willing to cut it in half so we can see what it looks like inside? (I'll go ahead and reopen, either way.)
@Jefromi I dont have broken piece images right now. Inside It was like cucmber. Some seeds and soften stuffs. You know, no other vegetables confuesed me like this
From the picture and your description "Inside It was like cucmber. Some seeds and soften stuffs", I would say that it is most likely a zucchini. Zucchini come in white (which is actually a pale green), green (which is pine green) and yellow, and the inside looks cucumber-like, although it is not as pleasant to bite into while raw. A further clue would be the hardness of the rind - zucchini slices as easily as a cucumber, while other related plants (including gourds) have a rather hard outer rind which requires some pressure to split.
If it is not a zucchini, there is probably no better way to classify it. There are tons of cucurbitas and hybrids between them, and cooks don't have precise names for all, only for the most commonly eatem ones. So "pumpkin" might be the best you are left with. You can of course also say "white pumpkin" if this is the preferred name regionally, but don't be surprised if you ask somebody from a different region for a "white pumpkin" and you get either a puzzled look or a random pumpkin-related plant with whitish skin.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.329430
| 2016-07-14T04:40:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71412",
"authors": [
"Anto S",
"Cascabel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48036"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
71475
|
Time&Temperature vs energy needed for molecules structure's changes
Recently I've read an interesting post about time vs temperature (Time vs. Temperature - What changes what?)
I've been thinking about this problem for a long time.
and I'd like to share an idea..
"A single piece of meal, need certain amount of energy to modify its molecules structure."
Sous vide technique for cooking pork cheeks says (made by a well known Chef):
48h at 65ºC or 24h at 80ºC
This long time is needed to denature the myosin and other internal transformations...and so
For those transformations, we need to give energy to the meat.
So, if we asume, that both temperature/time alternatives, give us the perfect result.
Is it possible to know how much energy is used in each situation? could it be a similar amount of energy?
If this hypothesis is valid, then, we could use that value, to answer two questions:
1.-how many hours will be needed if we cook it at 70ºC?
2.-if we'll cook it for 36h, what should be the temperature than we need to keep?
anyone could help us with the formulas?
thanks a lot!
The hypothesis is somewhat valid. The version which is true is: there is a correlation between the total amount of energy which went into the meat and the degree of doneness. And because the total energy is the rate of energy input multiplied by the time you are adding energy to the system, time and heat are interchangeable to some extent.
However, there is no constant "total amount of energy" which needs to go into the meat. Protein denaturing is a complicated stochastic process. If we were to assume that we have a uniform thin layer of meat and a perfectly uniform heat source parallel to it, we still wouldn't have a constant total amount of energy. It is a bit less noticeable with meat, where preparation methods are limited (*), but in eggs it is easy to observe that the speed at which yolks are heated will have a noticeable difference on the final texture of a custard.
Even if you could get away with a usable range for the "total amount of energy", you could still not predict the time needed by a given piece of meat at a given temperature. We are talking about a complex nonlinear system here. That part is a duplicate of another question, so I will simply post a link to my older answer.
So in the end, there is a very good reason why you should check for doneness instead of try to predict doneness. Or, in the special case of sous vide, use the empirically determined charts somebody else went to all the trouble compiling. Calculating it for yourself is completely impractical.
I think even the version you've given as true is a little misleading in the context of long, slow cooking, where "done" doesn't just mean it's cooked through, it means it's had enough time to break down as desired. In that case, there's not really an energy correlation anymore, unless you mean the energy you're wasting as you hold it at that temperature :)
There are two big things going on when you cook meat:
bringing it up to the desired temperature
holding it there long enough for desired changes to occur
For some meat, the temperature is basically all that matters. The most common example of this is a steak: once it's the temperature you want, it's done. You might finish it off by searing it to cook the outside a bit extra, but the doneness of the bulk of the meat depends purely on the temperature.
For other kind of meat, the temperature is just the first step, and the cooking you really want happens as you hold it there. Anything with a really long cooking time is likely in this category, like the 24-48 hour pork cheek you mentioned, or perhaps more commonly, slow-cooked pork shoulder or ribs. That long cooking lets the connective tissue break down (notably collagen turning to gelatin), taking it from chewy and tough to pull-apart tender. It'll break down at temperatures as low as 50C/120F, but as you increase the temperature it'll break down faster and faster, up to 80C/180F.
Some of those reactions might be endothermic, but protein hydrolysis is actually slightly exothermic. The energy is also way, way smaller than the energy you use to heat the meat - for cooking purposes, you can ignore it. In any case, trying to model heat transfer and heat input is kind of pointless: it's the reaction rate that matters, not the energy you're using/wasting to keep it at that temperature. The reaction rate does increase with temperature, as mentioned above, but again that's about temperature, not energy input.
So how does that all connect to your energy hypothesis?
Bringing meat up to the desired temperature is basically all about energy: you have to transfer a fixed amount of heat energy to bring a given amount of meat to a given temperature. So in that sense, you're spot-on.
But when you're holding meat at a temperature to cook it, you're not transferring significant heat into it anymore. It's really just about time. The amount of time it takes does often depend on the temperature, since the reaction rates are temperature-dependent, and that's why you've see the variation in time and temperature in recipes. But it's no longer a simple matter of energy input as you guessed. Yes, you'll have an initial period of bringing the meat up to temperature, which is simple heat transfer, but the real cooking happens after that.
thanks! I got it.. and you are right. One thing is to reach certain temperature inside the meat, and when it´s reached.. is done. But for long cooking recipes, after reaching the final temperature, we are just maintaining that value waiting for some molecular reactions... According to your answer , it seems to be something complex to predict, but somehow it should be something related to the movements that the atoms of that meat and other structures have at a certain temperature.., is there any way to measure that energy based on mass at certain temperature during x hours?
@Hugo I tried to make it clear that it's more about time than energy. Breaking down collagen into gelatin will proceed at a certain rate at a given temperature, meaning breaking it down "enough" will take a certain amount of time at that temperature. Modeling the specific reactions is doesn't seem worth it; all you actually need to know is how long they take. (It's possible that you could get a nice function for reaction rates vs temperature, but... those things are experimentally measured anyway, so you might as well just use the experimental results, aka tested recipes, directly.)
@Hugo Those reactions require energy that is consumed. If you do not continue to supply energy those reactions stop. In a lab you would measure the energy to an empty oven over the same period and the difference is what is required for cooking.
@Paparazzi As described in my answer, the main reaction is actually exothermic, and in any case, peptide bond energy is small enough that any reaction energy is going to be drastically smaller than the energy it took to heat the food/water in the first place. You can't treat those reactions as an energy input problem. The factor that matters here really is time, not energy.
If just bring the meat rapidly to temp and then it is a time thing then the middle would not less done then the outer. If the reaction is exothermic then ovens would be catching on fire and houses burning down.
Yup, if for example you cook pork shoulder sous vide (another thing that takes a very long time) it'll be done the same amount all the way through. Theoretically it should be done a bit less in the middle since it spent a bit less time hot but most of the cooking time is with it up to temperature, so it's not enough difference to tell. And again, the energy delta of breaking peptide bonds is very very low, on the scale of heating water 1C. It's not enough to even warm the food noticeably, let alone set anything on fire. It's so little energy change it's basically neutral for cooking purposes.
Heat transfer is going to be the temperature difference X area X coefficient X time.
Since the temp of meat changes it would really be an integral equation but let's not make it hard.
There is also obviously a minimum temp as meat does not cook in a refrigerator. The guideline from USDA is cook pork to 145 F / 63 C so that would be the minimum cooking temperature and it would take a while. That 65 is very close to the finish temp.
What meat temp would have those two heat transfer the same
48(65-t) X a X c = 24(80 - t) X a X c
2(65 - t) = 80 - t
130 = 80 + t
50 C = t = 122 F
But that is taking a constant temp so finish temp would be higher
If you extrapolate this to 36 hours you are going to be pretty much at final meat temperature.
The meat has an initial and final state. It takes fixed amount of heat to break it down. Temperature is not what cooks the meat. Heat cooks the meat and temperature is what drives the heat transfer. It is done when it gets to a final temperature but heat transfer is what got is there. The cooking temperature needs to be at least final meat temperature or heat transfer stops.
You would need to take case by case. You are only going to get estimates with heat transfer equations.
Don't know about the voter, but the big issue I see here is that cooking isn't just a heat transfer problem. Some things are that simple: if you get your steak to the temperature you want, it's done. But other things along the lines of what the OP mentioned are reactions with a temperature-dependent rate, so just modeling heat transfer won't really tell you much.
@Jefromi Did not mean to argue the vote. Want to know what the problem is. The stated question IS a heat transfer question. "Is it possible to know how much energy is used in each situation? could it be a similar amount of energy?" I exactly answered the stated question. Getting your steak to temperature is heat transfer problem.
I'm not arguing either, just pointing out a problem. The stated question is not just getting meat to a temperature, it's asking about processes that take time. The OP is speculating that it might be a total energy thing, in which case it might pretty much be heat transfer, but that doesn't mean that's actually the whole story. As I said, there's plenty of cooking that isn't that simple. The OP's example certainly isn't: pork cheeks for 24-48 hours are going to be up to temperature after a few hours, and all the rest of the time is doing something interesting besides heat transfer.
@Jefromi The ? mark is on heat transfer. Besides heat transfer? I get you are moderator here so let's just stop at that.
Being a moderator grants me no special powers for pointing out issues I see with answers. I believe you've oversimplified and missed the point a bit, but you're still free to ignore my thoughts just like you can ignore anyone else's. That might not always be a great way to end up with good answers for future readers, but do as you like!
@Jefromi You have gone beyond pointing out issues. You have flat said I am wrong. If you know the amount of energy then yes can calculate heat transfer time at various temperatures. It is junior level stuff in chemical engineering. Yes I simplified as I don't think most users of this site would know integral equations and the site does not support LaTex. With those simplifications it shows the heat transfer is close.
I fully understand that you can calculate heat transfer as you've described. You're of course not wrong about any of that. However, if you read my comments (or my answer) you'll see that's not the issue, though: the issue is that heat transfer alone does not determine whether the food is done cooking.
According to you it is not the issue. You are not right because you are right. I don't agree with your answer or comments and don't care to debate it with you. I will live with my answer and down votes. If someone has a question I would be happy to answer it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.329653
| 2016-07-17T19:52:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71475",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Hugo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48071",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
71454
|
sushi rice vs pudding rice
I've done sushi a couple of times, successfully I must stress, and while in sainsbury looking for it I came across the pudding rice which looks exactly the same as the more expensive sushi counterpart. I found another thread here What is the best rice for sushi? saying essentially the same thing, but not many people posted in it, so I was wondering if anybody else has tried it. Any idea?
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/7976/67
So, just a quick update as it seems i forgot about all this. I eventually did it and used pudding rice for the sushi and it gave good results. Granted, I'm not a sushi maniac, or sushi trained l, meaning, somebody who's really into it perhaps will spot the difference straightaway. But to me it tasted and felt pretty much the same.
Any Japanese rice will give you good results. Sushi rice is different from ordinary Japanese rice in the cooking technique - it uses less water to compensate for the vinegar. Some varieties of rice are sold specifically as sushi rice, but these tend to be much more expensive than ordinary rice.
You can often find good rice in Korean grocery stores, but rice from south east Asia - Thailand, Indonesia, etc. is different, and doesn't make as good sushi.
Specifically with regard to pudding rice, I suggest you try it. However, cooks illustrated found that pudding rice has a slightly more firm and distinct texture that was slightly off for sushi. Better would be to check your local Asian grocery store for Calrose rice - Botan brand can be ordered online, Nishiki rice is better, but can be hard to order. These are ordinary, every day rice that make good sushi.
Brilliant, thanks for the suggestions. I've bought the pudding rice this morning, and I'll be making sushi this weekend, I will update this thread with the results using the pudding rice, just to try. Next time I will buy one of those you suggested, just to check how the sushi comes out :- )
Closer substitution: sushi rice vs risotto rice. Once accidentally used sushi rice in a risotto, it came out fine.
Yup - Risotto is usually made with arborio rice, which is also very short grain and soaks up a lot of liquid. However, the reverse substitution isn't very good, since it leads to a strangely sticky, gummy texture.
I have been asked to make sushi by my 6year old boy. There are no assian shops where i live so i used the risotto rice. The texture was similar. I used 1 part of rice to two cups of water. At the bottom of the pot rice was slightly mashed and , so i used mainly the rice at the top of the pot for sushi. I hope the family will aprove it :)
Just to add my little bit, I use pudding rice for risotto and it works very well, and again the Italian aficionados out there would probably tell the difference, but to me it is very good and less than half the price. But I am anticipating trying it for Sushi also and now feel a lot happier that it may just work. Thank you.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.330530
| 2016-07-16T20:28:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71454",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Jon Takagi",
"antobbo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48086",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
104745
|
Which regions of the world prefer mustard in their mayonnaise?
I recently moved from Poland to Canada and was shocked to find that I found every mayonnaise I tried in Canada tasteless.
So I compared the ingredients labels of the ones I tried here to the ones I knew from Poland, and the biggest difference I found consistently between mayonnaise in Canada and Poland is mustard, which is not present in any major brand's mayo in Canada, and it's there in every single one that I know from Poland - so I assume this must be the crucial difference.
Then I found out that Hellmann's (one of the most popular brands in Canada, less popular in Poland but still a big brand) version in Poland ("Hellmann's Babuni") also contains mustard - this led me to believe that it is definitely not a coincidence.
So, what I'd like to find out, is which regions prefer mustard in mayonnaise and which ones don't.
For example, is it a difference between entire Europe and North America, or just some regions? What about other parts of the world? I know mustard is not the only difference, but let's limit the question to this aspect.
To make it more confusing, Hellman's sells both the "original" and the "babuni" version in Poland - the former supposedly being much closer to the American one, although it still contains mustard.
Also mustard itself can be very different. And not only ingredients but also type of the plant.
Looking at it from another perspective: I never buy mayonnaise, only make my own and assumed that mustard was by definition an ingredient of mayonnaise. The Larousse gastonomique suggests as much but apparently it hasn't always been so: there is no mustard in Escoffier's recipes for mayonnaise.
You should get some Mayostard or Mustardayonnaise :P
I recently saw a recipe tip to put (a substantial amount of) mayonnaise into a sweet pie filling on a popular YouTube cooking channel. The authors claim that it won’t negatively affect the final taste. Imagine my shock: mustard in the pie?! Well, apparently Americans leave out one of the core ingredients in their mayonnaise (and, to be fair, for the pie this then made perfect sense).
This might not be a question of taste only - mustard is used in some mayonnaise recipes as a very effective emulsifier....
The difference in Mayonnaise is varied. For example, in the USA Hellman's and Best Foods Mayonnaise (Same company by the way and same product) add sugar to reduce the acidity. Regional tastes are also taken into account by the manufacturers.
Hellman's mayo in Europe has different ingredient percentages than the same mayo uses for the American market. Many in North America find Duke's mayo to be superior in taste and use than Hellman's due to the ingredient mix. Hellman's mayonnaise in the USA does NOT contain mustard, but there is nothing stopping you from adding a dollop of Dijon in the mix if that's your desired taste.
As a side note, in Japanese cooking where mayonnaise is called for, the most common brand is Kewpie (available in Asian stores and Amazon). The primary difference is that Kewpie mayo only uses egg yolks and also rice vinegar instead of distilled vinegar. It can be used for any recipe that calls for mayo and has a really delightfully more bright taste that's a little different than other mayo's.
Kraft now also offers Avocado Oil Mayonnaise. Looks healthy until you read the whole list of ingredients. Ugh!
Whatever you choose, you can certainly modify to taste. Bon Appetit!
I had the same issues when I moved back from France home to England (I didn't like Mayo before I lived out there), I just mix Dijon (or English) mustard in on the side of my plate
Whenever an ingredient includes the word "food" I get worried.
I often add Wasabi to Hellman's to make wasabi mayo. Not for everything, but great for some things, like chicken sandwiches. Adds a little "punch" to otherwise bland mayo.
Kewpie also has a lot of added sugar.
England has mustard in mayo, they just call it "salad cream".
@FuzzyChef Salad cream isn't mayo, it's a different product with a different balance of ingredients (less egg, lots of vinegar). The reduced egg content meant it was popular during the war when eggs were rationed.
although the answer has interesting information, I would say it doesn't really answer the question, and has many information not relevant to the question.
Also worth noting that Kewpie contains MSG (E621 on the label). That contributes a lot to its savory flavor, too.
From experience, mayo across Europe differs widely from country to country. Even within a country, the differences brand to brand are huge. Just compare the colours (hey, that tells you I'm in the UK) of various brands. In the UK Hellmans is not mustarded (Rapeseed Oil (78%), Water, Pasteurised Free Range Egg & Egg Yolk (7.9%), Spirit Vinegar, Salt, Sugar, Lemon Juice Concentrate, Antioxidant (Calcium Disodium EDTA), Flavourings, Paprika Extract), Heinz 'Real Mayonnaise' (Rapeseed Oil 68%, Water, Pasteurised Egg Yolk* 5%, Spirit Vinegar, Sugar, Starch, Salt, Mustard Seeds, Spices, Antioxidant (Calcium Disodium EDTA), *From Free Range Eggs.) has mustard, slightly yellower in colour and (imho) tastes better. Same for other brands... they vary. However none of the mass-market mayos on sale in the UK are as flavoursome as French mass-market mayo. Take for instance Benedicta (Vegetable oil - water - egg yolks, fresh (5%) - Dijon mustard - vinegar - salt - sugar - modified corn starch - thickener: xanthan gum - color: beta carotene - aroma.)
And please don't look at the ingredients too closely in those brands... they're all extended with various things that have no place in real mayo!
The Heinz mayo has less mustard than salt … can you really taste it?
Not nearly as much as you can in Benedicta! There is definitely a mustard hint in the Heinz mayo, just a hint, if you compare it to Hellman's. It's bland enough that mustard haters don't object (my partner is a mustard hater but likes Benedicta and thinks Heinz is way better than Hellman's). Also, Heinz has 'less than salt' of mustard seeds whereas Benedicta has 'more than salt' of something that is less than half mustard because it's prepared Dijon Mustard. So how do you compare to find out how much is really in each when they use different sources? Without a lab, by taste i guess!
So far generic-American mayonnaise, polish mayonnaise, Japanese mayonnaise, and French (I presume) mayonnaise, are all I've come across with the polish one being the only one I remember having mustard as an ingredient.
The difference I noticed with "French" mayo was that it was made with lemon juice rather than just vinegar. (I vastly prefer this style myself, but can't get it regularly)
If you actually want to get your hands on some polish majonez in Canada, I'd suggest looking for a Polish/Baltic food shop nearby. (or "ethnic section" of a supermarket)
I can only speak for Europe, but I've seen majonez on sale most of the times I've headed into one. It likely won't be super cheap, but should suffice to get your fix.
Contrary to what you wrote, French mayonnaise generally (virtually always, I thought) contains mustard. A cursory check of French recipes on Google confirms this.
Ah. I must be mistaken, either about the contents or the kind of mayonnaise I'm thinking of. (By french, I meant what I got in a french-speaking region of europe, with the e in parentheses for some reason)
Original recipe have just olive oil, egg yolks and a pinch of vinegar or lemon juice.
It originated in the city of Mahon in the balearic isle of Menorca and brought to France after the invasion of the isle by french troops in 1756.
In Spain mayonnaise (or mahonesa) doesn't contain any mustard.
In italy mustard is a thing, mayonnaise is another thing they are really different.
Basically mayo in italy is eggs and oil (you can add salt, vinegar etc... but they are not necessary... also it can be olive oli, seed oil etc... and you can decide to only use yolks).
Mustard is not an italian thing, you will find it anyway but not under mayo.
PS. I like to mix italian mayonnaise with ketchup (or rubra, an italian kind of ketchup) to create "salsa rosa" (pink sauche). It taste great and it's my favourite with fried and not fried potatoes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.330812
| 2020-01-15T15:24:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104745",
"authors": [
"Alex Reinking",
"FuzzyChef",
"Gamora",
"Gherman",
"Ivo",
"Konrad Rudolph",
"Maciej Stachowski",
"Michael",
"OrangeDog",
"Relaxed",
"SittingElf",
"bobsburner",
"houninym",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44056",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52619",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77400",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80604",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80625",
"rackandboneman",
"stuart10",
"wjandrea"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
13885
|
What is the egg mixture used in gratins called in English?
This is one of these weird cases of synchronicity. I was wondering today how it is called in English. Then I answered a question, and needed the word for the answer.
The dishes I mean may not always be called gratins in English, sometimes they are called stew. They are a mix of diced vegetables and sometimes meat, mixed in a pan and put in the oven. When they are cooked enough (or when using parboiled vegetables), a mixture is poured over them. The mixture consists of eggs, a very small amount of flour, and one or more milk and fermented milk products. Soft or grated cheeses are sometimes mixed in or strewn on the surface to brown. The vegetables aren't swimming in the mixture, some of it seeps between them to fill the air pockets, but it mostly stays on top and sets and browns nicely.
I have only encountered this kind of dish in Mediterranean recipes. Typical examples are moussaka, ratatouile, gyuvech (although I know variants of all of them which don't have the mixture). In Germany, they'll be called a type of Auflauf, but an Auflauf is not necessary made with this eggy type of liquid, and I haven't heard a German name for the liquid either.
I wouldn't call it custard, as it is mainly used in savory dishes (although there are sweet variants where something else than vegetables is baked). Also, I haven't heard of custards without milk or cream, and these often contain something else, e.g. a mixture of yogurt and mashed feta. It isn't a batter either, the flour isn't enough to thicken it noticeably, and can sometimes be left out altogether. It is not a sauce, it is expected to set after baking.
Of course there is a probability that there isn't a name for it in English, because it isn't used often in English speaking countries. In this case, probably everybody could make up a well-sounding combination to refer to it, like "the egg mixture for moussaka crust". But I am not interested in such descriptive creations. What I am asking is, is there a single term which, when I say it without further qualifications, as in the sentence "I am making a [term]" will let my communication partner understand that I am cooking a dish of this kind and currently preparing the mixture for it.
Edit
I don't mean a word which describes the content of the thing (although such a word would be nice too, if it were used only for this type of liquid and not for other liquids with similar content like custard). I am expecting something more of a purpose-based word. A comparable word would be "topping": A topping could be smoked ham or caramel sauce, depending on the dish. But it always has the same function. In this regard, I'd say that bechamel can be used as [term] sometimes, as in mfg's answer. But I wouldn't think of bechamel when I say the word. They are definitely not synonyms. "Custard" is problematic for the same reason: it has many other uses.
Do you know any language that has a specific name for this kind of sauce/topping?
I would call it a custard, I think, if not only for want of a better word. A custard consists of milk, egg and a thickening agent i.e. flour, so it fits the description well enough.
It might sound a bit odd to English-speaking ears though. I think 'savoury custard' is probably more appropriate. I must admit I always thought moussaka et al was topped with a white/bechamel sauce; I'm pretty sure that's the more common topping in 'the West'.
As for the dishes themselves, I'm not sure if there is a catch-all English term for them - 'pasta bake' is an English version of the Italian pasta al forno, but that obviously only applies to dishes that use pasta.
Both "custard" and "savoury custard" sound like they could be used on their own. I was looking for a word for something which is specifically supposed to be made into a baked crust.
How about 'baked crust'? :) I suppose the obvious answer in that case is simply 'topping'. If I was describing it I would say 'It's a stewed meat and vegetable bake with a savoury custard topping'.
We may be branching into deep philosophy (here it is just the right time of evening), but: what is a baked crust called before it is baked?
Is this what you're describing?(potatoes au gratin are possibly a bad example since it's only using one ingredient for the stew, but I'm just referring to the style of cooking the ingredient); if so Americans use 'gratin'. Also, I'm confused as you say moussaka is an example, but that what you're referring to doesn't use flour as a thickener (which is a constituent element of the moussaka's bechamel).
Based on the other question it seems like one could suggest bechamel, which is used in moussaka (Greek versions) if I understand what you mean correctly. The problem with this guess is that many bechamel recipes do not have eggs (however some Greek ones do).
It is definitely not a bechamel. In most cases, it doesn't contain oil. If it does, it isn't made into a roux, just whisked in with the rest. I haven't eaten moussaka with bechamel.
I'd personally just call it a 'white sauce', due to the flour + milk, although many people will often assume that 'white sauce' is specifically besciamella / béchamel, which uses a roux and no egg.
I could see calling it a custard, as that's what it'd be called if used in a quiche, but I'm not used to using starches in custard. It might be a local thing ... I'm used to them being much heavier in the egg department.
If there were sugar in it, it'd be a pastry cream, although, you don't often see the term in everyday use the U.S.
Definitely custard.
Custard is used in lots of places from quiche to crème caramel. If you haven't tried moussaka made with a cheese custard topping it's really really good. My mum somehow gets it really light and fluffy (I have to get her recipe).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.331569
| 2011-04-08T19:24:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13885",
"authors": [
"David",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Horn",
"Jean Bostick",
"Moshe Katz",
"PLL",
"Randall Ma",
"Sally",
"Troy Howard",
"chefgustav",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29075",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29076",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29077",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29078",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29079",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29084",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29087",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"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
}
|
119633
|
How can I melt mozzarella balls?
Basically, I am trying to melt mozzarella on top of bread. I've tried both pan and microwave, but it doesn't seem to work out. I also tried to heat the balls separately in a microwave, but even that doesn't seem to show any progress.
This led me to wonder... How exactly do people get mozzarella to melt on pizza?
Perhaps is it that low-moisture mozzarella cheese melts better than mozzarella balls?
In the UK, mozzarella is primarily sold either as balls that are roughly kiwi-sized in brine (which I would consider the 'real' mozzarella) or in solid blocks (designed for grating, and to melt more easily due to less moisture). You can also get miniature versions of the balls, and a pre-grated version of the block. The balls can be pulled apart by hand giving strips or stands of cheese; I would never put a whole ball onto something.
How exactly did you try to melt it? Did you try to melt the entire mozarella ball? How big was the piece of cheese you were trying to melt? How long did you microwave them for?
One minute or so, yes the entire ball. Thumb sized (about) @Luciano
Have you tried shredded mozzarella instead of ball form? A lot of dishes I make use shredded form and shredded form usually melts faster.
@dbmag9 This source claims that high moisture cheeses melt at lower temperatures: https://www.finecooking.com/article/the-science-of-melting-cheese#:~:text=This%20complete%20melting%20occurs%20at%20about%20130%C2%B0F%20for%20soft%2C%20high%2Dmoisture%20cheeses%20like%20mozzarella%2C%20around%20150%C2%B0F%20for%20aged%2C%20low%2Dmoisture%20cheeses%20like%20Cheddar%20and%20Swiss%2C%20and%20180%C2%B0F%20for%20hard%2C%20dry%20grating%20cheeses%20like%20Parmigiano%2DReggiano.
@dbmag9 I read the Q as about the mini balls, but then I've baked them on top of bread in the past (cut in half, when I was making the bread in the first place)
First off your best bet is going to be an oven/air fryer but a pan should also work.
Secondly, you are probably using the wrong type of mozzarella. What you want for things like pizza and other melting tasks is low-moisture, whole milk mozzarella. Low moisture melts much better, and you also want high fat content whole milk provides. It might be harder to find this, but it's definitely worth it. Some packaged 'string' cheeses can be low moisture with higher fat, so don't forget to check them too.
This is the right advice, I just used lower moisture mozarella and I Finally have achieve melted mozarella cheese
Very simply, with heat from above.
I cannot comment on the microwave, since I have almost never used one, but a pan is clearly the wrong tool for the job, since there you are heating the bread from below, and the cheese only gets slightly warmed, if at all.
Using an oven, I have never noticed a need for reducing the moisture, as other answers suggest. The mozzarella straight out of the brine might make your bread somewhat soggy, but there is nothing wrong with that for me.
The best device for doing this will be a grill/broiler, but a toaster oven and a normal oven will also work. All you have to do is slice the mozzarella, place it on the bread, and bake. Place the sandwiches as closely to the upper heating element as possible.
Using this method, I have made sandwiches with up to 1.5 cm thick mozzarella slices. They are quite decadent :) but my point is, the thickness is not a problem at all, nor is the moisture.
Above, a picture of some mozzarella I melted on bread in an oven. It is the high-moisture mozzarella sold in apple-sized balls, sliced thickly. I placed it as close as possible to the upper heating elements, and it fared quite well.
The 'from above' comment now I really makes me want to try whether a hair dryer would work . Mozzarella supposedly melts at around 54 degrees Celsius, whilst a hairdryer supposedly reaches 60 degrees Celsius at max heat.
@DavidMulder You can try for funsies, but it doesn't sound like a good way to do it. Hair dryers are not very efficient at heating the thing they are blazing at - can you imagine it getting your brain to 60 C? If you have to misuse something, there are hot air guns in hardware stores. The melt won't be as tasty as in an oven, but you might get a few Instagram likes out of it, if that's your thing.
I reckon a heat gun could get decent browning as well as heating the balls through. Better than a blowtorch anyway.
OP is mentioning stovetop, which can work, and microwave, which I see being a potential catastrophy. I can attest to toaster ovens working. :)
I would probably have accepted this answer if I had an oven, but I don't :(
Mozzarella balls, particuarly the almost "Fluorescent" white variety, contain a lot of water. To get them to melt successfully, you need to get that water out.
What I do is slice the balls into ~ 5mm rounds and leave them to drain in a fine sieve for about an hour. You could also leave them in the fridge overnight, this would dry them out even more. You could try not slicing them, but I think they would still retain a lot of water that way.
Using this method I can get melted mozz on my pizza from pale white to nicely browned in a regular domestic oven at 250C [482F].
+1 With that said, real fresh mozzarella shouldn't be cooked so long as to go brown on a pizza, at least on the traditional styles of pizza you would bother to put real mozzarella on. In a domestic oven you're forced to cook for longer, like 5-6 minutes, so try adding the mozza a few minutes after the pie goes in. 3-4 minutes is long enough for it to melt, but not so long that it turns into brown chewing gum. If you're going for a NY style, of course, then burnt rubber cheese is the way to go, but it's a shame to do that to good quality mozzarella...
I was merely boasting @J. My pizza steel has revolutionised my Friday night pizza session. Every shade of cheese and crust from milky to cremated is now within easy reach .....
Fair enough. I also fully admit to a perhaps unhealthy obsession with mozzarella justice, lol.
"Real" Pizza tends to have the balls broken up or sliced and done under intense heat.
I've had decent luck getting fresh (balls in brine) mozerella to melt in a toaster oven simply by breaking it up into fairly small pieces so they have more surface area to heat up.
If you're doing it on a pan, you could try melting the cheese on a pan that's hot but not on direct heat and build your toast 'upside down'
This is it. Whenever I make pizza using fresh mozzarella as a topping I just shred it and it always melts in the oven (260ºC) in just a few minutes. As others said, it will be better if drained some of the water before using the cheese.
In a pan or griddle, you can melt it with steam— griddle one side of the bread, flip it, immediately put the cheese on, then put a tight lid on it, and turn the heat down to low
A method for "pan on stovetop" but not really for pizza (very effective at cook top and melt cheese, but not in a crispy pizza like way) is to put a lid on the pan (which essentially steams the top of the food, thus the disclaimer that it's not pizza-like, but does melt cheese effectively.)
Handy to know if you are stuck with no oven.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.332315
| 2022-01-25T21:32:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/119633",
"authors": [
"Brian",
"Chris H",
"David Mulder",
"Greybeard",
"J...",
"Joe",
"Journeyman Geek",
"Luciano",
"Thomas Matthews",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87390",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96288",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16076
|
What international cooking terms sound similar but have different meanings?
I am not the only international user here, and I bet that others are just as confused as I am when we read something on an American-centric resource and the corresponding translation in our language turns out to mean something entirely different.
There are also examples in the other direction, with English speakers reacting with amusement to terms like quark (a cheese) and dickmilch (a fermented milk product).
Some of these items are already present in the question: Translating cooking terms between US / UK / AU / CA / NZ - which are more properly discussed here, because they occur between languages and not within English only.
What are the false friends that we need to be aware of when reading or contributing to international cooking content?
Please add to the existing answer, following the current format. Do not add entirely new answers or change the format for new items.
There were a few 'false friends' in the other post -- corriander springs to mind, where the UK and US use it to refer to different parts of the same plant.
wouldn't the literal translation of biscuit into german be zwieback? Not that it resembles either a cookie or a scone. But then neither does biscotti. Seems "twice cooked" isn't a brilliant name, but it's popular.
@Joe I think it is tidier if we leave the false friends within English in the other question and the ones concerning different languages here. But I'd like to know what others think about it too.
@Kate Gregory I saw that it is listed in Wikipedia, but the article there is badly written. This is a historical usage. Today, nobody in Germany calls Zwieback a Biskuit. And a German Zwieback is very different from a UK biscuit, it is really bread slices which get slowly rebacked after they have gone stale, making them extremely hard but durable. Something like bread crumbs, but not separated into crumbs.
@rumtscho my point was that "biscuit" means "twice cooked", as do zwieback and biscotti. At least zwieback and biscotti are cooked twice - I don't think either cookies or scones are, so to call either "biscuit" is confusing, but English is like that.
@rumtscho : perhaps make this specifically for english/german issues, and we could make more for other languages pairs? (or for when one side of the issues is German, so this could be German/English, German/Dutch, etc.)
@Joe I thought about that, but I don't expect to have that many examples from outside English to merit a different question for every possible pair. We can always split it later if it proves so popular as to be too long. And then there is the problem of untangling, because there are sometimes more than two languages involved, see the feta/white brine cheese/bryndza example. Should this information be replicated for any possible pair of the involved languages? I think this would lead to senseless fragmentation.
@rumtscho (or any moderators out there): It looks like a couple of my recent edits (e.g., on pierogies) were improperly merged away during the most recent edit. Is it possible to get them back, or should I re-submit my edits?
@ESultanik Maybe we edited it at the same time and my edit "won". I didn't see a way to rollback it without losing my additions, so I went the lazy way and reinserted your text. I just chose another title, because I consider everything I eat to belong to "foods". I hope you are OK with that. Thanks for helping expand the topic.
This is an amazing write-up, but it should be an answer. Could you edit this question to be more brief/specific and post this content as an answer?
@Aaronut: I moved my contribution into an answer, however, I don't seem to have the ability to edit the question anymore, so I can't remove it from up there.
Noodles, pasta and dumplings
Polish pierogi and Russian pirozhki (пирожки)
Despite having the same Slavic root meaning "pie", the Polish pierogi are unleavened dough dumplings stuffed with various fillings, most commonly boiled or fried. On the other hand, Russian pirozhki are usually fried (but sometimes baked) buns stuffed with similar fillings. The primary difference is that pirozhki are based on a yeast dough and are egg-washed, whereas pierogi are unleavened. Complicating matters, Russian/Soviet cuisine has a separate name for what the Polish call pierogi, namely varenyky (вареники). This word is derived from a root meaning "to cook" or "boil", emphasizing the fact that varenyky are usually boiled while pirozhki are fried.
Turkish Yufka and Bulgarian (also Bosnian) юфка (yufka)
Originally, the word yufka comes from Turkey. It is an unleavened flatbread, rather dry and crispy. In Bulgaria, юфка is a type of pasta prepared by sun-drying paper-thin phyllo dough until it cracks and falls apart, and boiling the resulting pieces. The name can also (rarely) refer to the non-dried phyllo sheets used for baking.
Italian maccheroni, Enghish and other languages macaroni and French (also English and other languages) macaron
Macaroni, the English spelling of the Italian word maccheroni, is an umbrella term for hardwheat noodles produced through extruding through a machine, rather than rolling and cutting the dough. In some countries (e.g. The Netherlands, cf. this episode of an investigative TV show about food, and the UK), though, the term 'macaroni' is used to indicate a specific type of noodles, shaped as narrow curved tubes. A macaron is a small baked good based on a meringue mixed with a nut flour.
Baking
Most English dialects barm and Irish and Northwest England's barm
In Ireland and Northwestern England, barm is a word for a bread roll, a very small loaf of bread. In standard culinary lingo, barm indicates a specific type of preferment, usually a stage in making sourdough.
English hard wheat and German Hartweizen
In English, there is a difference between durum wheat (glassy endosperm, used for noodles), hard wheat (used for bread flour) and soft wheat (low protein content, used for cake flour). In German, durum wheat is called Hartweizen (literally: hard wheat) and soft wheat is called Weichweizen (literally: soft wheat). Specialists know the American hard wheat as Manitobaweizen (literally: wheat from Manitoba), but it isn't imported, so it is very hard to meet somebody who has heard of it.
English bread flour and German Brotmehl
In English, bread flour is a flour with a low mineral and high protein content used for white yeast bread. It is made from hard wheat. In German, the term Brotmehl (literally: bread flour) isn't widely used, but if mentioned, is assumed to mean a flour mix suited for the average German bread, made from ca. 80% wheat flour with high mineral and moderate protein content, and 20% rye flour. It is made from soft wheat, with a high proportion of the bran milled in (but not enough to consider it whole wheat flour).
English biscuit, German Biskuit, Dutch Beschuit and Italian biscotti
In English, biscuit refers to any sweet, dry baked confection, which would be referred to as a cookie in the US (UK usage) or a product similar to scones (US usage). In German, Biskuitboden (literally: biscuit layer) is a sponge cake layer, and Biskuitteig (literally: biscuit dough) is sponge cake batter. The word isn't used alone as a countable noun. The English biscuits are likely to be called "Kekse" in German (especially the digestive crackers). There isn't a special word for scones in German, so the catchall term "Kleingebäck" can also be used. Biskuit is not to be confused with German "Zwieback" - it has the same word root, but today, nobody would recognize a piece of German Zwieback or Dutch beschuit as related to any of the products named "biscuit" or similar in the languages mentioned above. The Italian word biscotti has yet a different usage, covering roughly the same things as "Kekse" in German - this includes cookies, petite beurres, sweet crackers and other small hard backed goods.
English brown sugar and German brauner Zucker, also Belgian Dutch Cassonade
In English-speaking countries, recipes which specify brown sugar assume wet light brown sugar. In continental Europe, this kind of sugar is generally not available. The local terms for brown sugar are used to denote crystal sugar with some molasses content, known in the US as raw sugar. The difference is that this type of sugar is dry, and does not give the same texture to baked goods, e.g. chewy cookies. An acceptable substitute is to wet white crystal sugar with molasses or another syrup and mix well, preferably in a food processor.
Cassonade aka candi sugar is caramelized sugar crystals and has a deeper flavor than the american 'raw' sugar.
Belgian Dutch speculoos and Netherlands Dutch speculaas
Both cookies are traditionally eaten for St. Nicholas day. In English, they seem to be both translated as spekulatius. The Belgian version is a simple shortbread cookie. The Dutch version includes a special speculaas spice mix, which contains cinnamon, ginger, black pepper, cloves, coriander seeds and cardamom, giving it a very different flavor. Speculaas is traditionally decorated by pressing it into a carved wooden block or using a carved wooden rolling pin.
Belgian speculoos cookies are similarly flavored to what's sold as bastogne in the Netherlands, and maybe called biscoff in other places
German Tarte vs. French tarte vs. American tart vs Dutch taart
In French, a tarte is a pie in general. In German usage, Tarte implies a savory pie. In the US, tart is a shallow pie crust that may be filled with jelly, custard, fruit, or a combination of those three. In the Netherlands, a taart may be a pie or a cake.
Dutch cake vs English cake
In Dutch, cake means one type of cake only: Pound Cake. Both round, glazed cakes, and sweet pies are called taart in Dutch.
German Kuchen vs US kuchen
"Kuchen" means all kinds of cake and pie in German, however using it for a round layer cake would be colloquial, that is properly called a "Torte". In English, several specific desserts are labelled "kuchen", but it is not a broad term applicable to all cakes.
Polish czerstwy and Czech čerstvý
Practically the same word used to describe a bread freshness. In Polish 'czerstwy chleb' means 'stale bread', in Czech 'čerstvý chléb' means 'fresh bread' – the quite opposite.
Confectionery
English (also French, Spanish, Turkish and other languages) Nougat and German Nougat
In most countries, nougat is a word for a confectionery made with dried whipped egg whites and nuts and/or dried fruit. It is also sometimes called turron. When a German says "Nougat", he or she is probably thinking of gianduja, which is a mix of chocolate and hazelnut paste (Nutella is considered a kind of nougat in Germany). Turron is referred to as "white nougat" in Germany, but isn't very widespread. The other name for it is türkischer Honig (literally: Turkish honey), not to be confused with Lokum, which is called Turkish delight in English.
Drinks
UK English black beer and German Schwarzbier
In the UK, black beer is a fortified wine flavored with dark malt. In Germany, Schwarzbier (literally: black beer) is a very dark lager beer brewed in some regions of Germany. It seems that US usage is consistent with German usage, using "black beer" for the dark lager. There is no definite German term for the fortified wine, but a best deskriptive term would probably be "Malzlikör".
Hindi (also Urdu, Russian, Turkish, Arabic, and other languages) chai and US English chai
In many languages the word chai (or the basic root cha) is a generic word for tea. In the United States, however, the word chai specifically refers to masala chai (spiced tea). In Hebrew, chai is the romanization for the word "חי", which is a symbolic word meaning "living".
English latte, German Latte and Italian latte
In Italian, the word latte simply means milk. In the US, it is used as a contraction of caffelatte, which is a drink made with steamed milk poured into espresso, often including latte art. In Germany, it is a contraction of Latte macchiato, which is (in its Germanized form) a beverage made from a layer of milk, a layer of espresso, and a layer of milk foam in a tall, transparent glass, often garnished on top with cocoa powder or other spices.
Dairy
Greek (also English, German, probably other languages) Feta and Danish (also Bulgarian, Russian, probably other languages) Feta
The original Greek feta cheese is a semihard brined cheese from sheep's milk. Today, it has a protected designation of origin status, and only cheese produced in Greece may be called feta. However, many similar cheeses exist on the Balkans, and they are marketed as feta-style or balkan cheese. In their country of origin, they are usually called just the local word for "cheese" (Bulgarian: сирене Serbian: сир), with every other type of cheese needing a qualifier (Bulgarian: сирене чедър for cheddar), and the official designation is "white brine cheese" (Bulgarian: бяло саламурено сирене).
Before the designation was legally established, Denmark produced a different type of cheese called Feta. It was a type of bryndza - a spreadable white cheese from cow milk, not closely related to Greek feta. The name is also widely known in countries which imported this version and use the term "white brine cheese" for Greek-type feta. I couldn't find information on the new name of the Danish "Feta".
English Quark and German Quark, Dutch Kwark
In English, a quark is a subatomic particle. In German and Dutch, it is a kind of cheese not widely known in English speaking countries. It is a type of cream cheese made from the curds of fermented milk (buttermilk). It has a lower fat content than cream cheese, and a ricotta-like texture. The term Topfen is the Austrian word for exactly the same cheese. Other countries have very similar cheeses which can be substituted with excellent results, for example Russian творог (tvorog), Hungarian turo and Bulgarian извара (izvara). Ricotta is acceptable if no better substitute is available, but will change the taste. The subatomic particle is also called a Quark in German, as a homonym to the cheese.
Meat
US English wiener, Germany German Wiener Wurst and Austrian German Wiener Wurst
The English words for these are (1) wiener for a small smooth canned sausage in gut casing made from a blend of meats including poultry, (2) hot dog for a longer sausage with similar consistency to 1, made from a beef-pork blend, and (3) an Austrian sausage which doesn't have a special name in English. The American wiener (1) is called Mini Würstchen in Germany. (3) doesn't have a special name, but is considered a type of Schnittwurst. In Austria, (2) is called Frankfurter Wurst. Also, the English word hot dog is used in Germany for the complete sandwich made with (2), a short baguette, and mustard.
German Frikadelle, Dutch frikandel
In Germany, a Frikadelle is a squished meatball made from seasoned ground meat, often with addition of egg and soaked bread. It is shallow fried in a pan. In Dutch, a frikandel is also made from ground meat, but it is rod-shaped, and it is deep-fried instead of pan-fried.
French Filet mignon, US English Filet mignon
Filet mignon in French is usually pork tenderloin and so a relatively casual piece whereas in the US, filet mignon is one of the most tender beef cut, and represent just one steak slice of the beef tenderloin. The French filet mignon usually means the whole pork tenderloin.
Fruit and vegetables
'raw' in Indian english usage, vs British or American english 'raw'
In Br/AmE, a 'raw' fruit or vegetable is one which has not been processed with heat.
If an Indian recipe is for a dish made of raw mango or raw papaya or other raw fruit, then confusingly tells you to cook it, it means to use an unripe fruit, not to refrain from cooking it.
English (and German, also other languages) endive and Belgian Dutch (also other languages) chicory
There is some confusion if these terms are the same or if they refer to related plants of the same family, or to different parts of the same plant. For details, see this answer.
English marmalade and German Marmelade
In English-speaking countries, marmalade is a fruit preserve made with citrus fruit, such as bitter orange marmalade. Similar preserves made with fruit other than citrus are called jam. In modern EU-conform German legislation, Marmelade is consistent with this use, so officially only citrus-containing preserves use the word. However, historically Marmelade is a German word used for all types of fruit preserves, such as "Erdbeermarmelade" for strawberry jam. This usage is still popular among hobby cooks, so it is common to find recipes which use the word Marmelade for any type of jam.
Italian peperoni and pepperoncini, English pepperoni, and German pfefferoni
In Italian, peperoni means pepper, the fruit of the plant capsicum. In English, it is used for a type of salami, which contains paprika (dried pepper powder). The salami has Italian origin, but is produced mainly in the USA by immigrants. In German, pfefferoni is normally used for a type of pepper (thin, long and green), especially pickled, which are often known as pepperoncini in the US, but are more correctly called frigatelli. In Italy, pepperoncini is a relatively generic term for hot chili peppers.
French and English compote and Slavic languages kompot
These are similar, but not equivalent. The compote is a preserve of fruit pieces covered in a thick sugar syrup. The kompot is a drink (frequently also preserved) made from boiling fresh fruit and sugar in water, with a very different water and sugar ratio than the compote. The main part of it is the watery liquid (although the fruit is also eaten), and the sweetness is low enough to quench thirst.
Salads
French (also English and other languages) vinaigrette and Russian винегрет (винегрет)
In many languages, vinaigrette (of French origins) refers to an emulsion of oil and vinegar, often used to dress salads. In Russian cuisine, however, the term (винегрет) refers to a specific style of salad that is made with the dressing. The salad usually contains beet root, pickled cucumber, boiled potatoes, carrot, and cucumber.
German -salat as a noun ending and Polish sałata vs English salad
In English, a salad is a dish made usually from uncooked vegetables, although versions with preserved or cooked vegetables exist, as well as ones which include food other than vegetables. In Germany, "ein Salat" as a noun on its own means the dish. However, a word ending in -salat is typically used to mean some kinds of green leafy vegetables as an ingredient, not just a salad made from them. Eisbergsalat,Kopfsalat,Romanasalat are types of lettuce, not salads made from these. There are exceptions, a Fleischsalat will be a certain type of meat salad, not a lettuce.
In Polish, "sałata" is for the green leafy veggies, while "sałatka" is for the salads.
Herbs and spices
English cumin, Swedish kummin, Finnish kumina, Polish kminek, German "Kümmel"
In English, cumin is the name of the seeds of the plant Cuminum cyminum, used as a spice. Many other languages have a similar word for this. However, the Swedish word kummin and Finnish word kumina, as well as German "Kümmel", are used for the seeds of the plant Carum carvi, which is called caraway in English. The appearance is similar, but the aroma of both spices is different. The Finnish and Swedish names for cumin are juustokumina and spiskummin, respectively. In Polish, kminek is the word for caraway, while cumin is called kmin rzymski.
German "Kreuzkümmel" or "Kumin" is Cumin indeed. "Schwarzkümmel" shares the ambiguity of "black cumin", in that it can mean either Nigella or Shah Jeera. Königskümmel is Carom. Most times, confusing any of these has disastrous results.
Bengali kalo jeere, Hindi/Urdu kala jeera, English black cumin
In English, "black cumin" is used for both bunium bulbocastanum and nigella sativa, two unrelated spices. Only the former is actually related to cumin. In Hindi, the literal translation of black cumin is "kala jeera": kala is black and "jeera" cumin. This term refers exclusively to bunium bulbocastanum, never to nigella; nigella is "kalonji". Bunium bulbocastanum is also called "shahi jeera" (imperial cumin) or "syahi jeera" (dark cumin) in Hindi. The literal translation of black cumin into Bengali is "kalo jeere". However, the spice thus referred to is always nigella, never bunium. Nigella is very common in Bengali cuisine. Any online Bengali recipe that lists "black cumin" among the ingredients invariably means nigella. Bunium bulbocastanum is not used in Bengali food. On the rare occasion that a Bengali cook needs to refer to it (for example, when discussing a recipe from elsewhere in India), it is called "shyahi jeere". Using bunium in place of nigella or vice-versa will yield suboptimal results, disastrously so for Bengali food.
American chili powder, Indian chilli powder
In the USA, "chili powder" refers to a blend of ground chili peppers with other spices such as cumin, oregano, garlic, and salt. In India, "chilli powder" refers exclusively to ground red chili peppers.
German Pfeffer, EnglishPepper
In English, the term is ambiguous and can be either the spice (the seeds of Piper nigrum), or the vegetable (the fruits of Capsicum annum). The word is seldom used alone, and an adjective usually makes it clear which it is, such as "bell pepper", which is a variety of the vegetable.
In German, "Pfeffer" without any qualification unambigously means black/white/green/red ground or whole peppercorn, never any kind of capsicum (unless used in a very informal context), unless the terms "spanischer Pfeffer", "Pfefferschote" are used. Other members of the piper family and sometimes entirely different plants can have "Pfeffer" in their name, but do not refer either to the spice or to the vegetable: Szechuanpfeffer (Zanthoxylum piperitum), Langer Pfeffer (Piper longum), Kubebenpfeffer (Piper cubeba). In very traditional contexts, "Pfeffer" might mean strong spices in general, which may or may not include peppercorn, as in "Pfefferkuchen" (gingerbread).
German Paprika, English paprika
The spice is named the same, BUT a Paprika is also the proper german name for a bell pepper, which is NEVER called any kind of Pfeffer.
English piment, German Piment, Spanish pimento, Portuguese 'pimento', Finnish pimento
In English, German and some other languages, the word piment refers to allspice, the seed of the plant Pimenta officinalis (this is quite rare in English). In Spanish, it means pepper, the seed of the plant Piper nigrum. They are similar in appearance, but differ in taste and aroma. The Spanish use pimienta de Jamaica for the P. officinalis version. In Portuguese, pimento is the name of the bell pepper, the fruit of the plant Capsicum annum, while pimenta-da-jamaica is the name of allspice. In AmE a “pimento” is a small, thin strip of canned sweet red bell pepper; they are stuffed into olives and used in other dishes. In Finnish, the word pimento has no culinary meaning, it is a homonym meaning dark. The Finnish word for allspice is maustepippuri.
Diet
English diet, German Diät
In German a Diät is Dieting (the deliberate selection of food to control body weight or nutrient intake). In English a diet can also mean the sum of the food consumed by an organism or group. The German translation of this sense of the word would be Ernährung or Ernährungsweise.
Taste/Texture
English bland, Spanish Blando
In English bland food is one that doesn't have much taste, and bland diet is a "soft, not very spicy, and low in fiber" one.
In Spanish blando means soft or tender. However the existing term dieta blanda means something close to a bland diet, so it might be a poorly traslated term; probably dieta suave would fit better with the English bland diet term.
Weight/measurement
English pound/ounce, Dutch pond/ons
Dutch speakers use grams and kilograms, but often also "pond", 500 grams, which sounds like "pound" and is fairly close (1 pound is 454 gram), and also "ons" 100 grams, which sounds like "ounce" but is way off (1 ounce is 28 gram). Be careful using English recipes if you're Dutch (and vice versa)!
Cookware, Tableware and Tools
German Esslöffel, Teelöffel, Tasse vs. English tablespoon, teaspoon and cup, as well as the literal translations into many other European languages
In the imperial measuring system, these terms refer to a volumetric measurement. The exact value differs somewhat between countries (e.g. a tablespoon in the US is 15 ml but in Australia it is 20 ml), but they are defined within their system, and many cooks in formerly British territories routinely buy and use volumetric "measuring cups" labelled in whole or partial teaspoons, tablespoons and cups.
Cup and spoon measurements in baking are uncommon enough in continental Europe that many home cooks will not be aware that these words refer to a defined unit of measurement in a recipe. The words are only used for the serving utensils (e.g. a "Tasse" in Germany is the cup you drink tea out of, never a measurement cup). Dedicated dry measuring cups are not found in the average supermarket. An European cook encountering a recipe saying "two cups of flour" is likely to pick the nearest drinking cup from the cupboard and use it for measurement, assuming that it is just an imprecise way of stating the recipe.
German Kasserole, English casserole
In German, Kasserole is sometimes used to mean a saucepan, sometimes a casserole dish. Any food baked in a similar pan in the oven is called an Auflauf, so the American casserole translates to Auflauf, but note that an Auflauf can also mean a flan.
German Mixer, Indian English usage mixie, British and American English 'mixer'
German "Mixer" can be either a BE/AmE mixer (a machine with one or two rotating hooks which quirls batter, whips cream or kneads dough) or quite commonly a BE/AmE blender, a machine with a rotating blade which purees semi-solid food to turn it into a mash. Indian Mixie seems to always mean a BE/AmE blender.
In (American?) English, 'mixer' may also refer to something that's intended to be mixed with alcohol.
Methods
fry in British English vs fry in Indian English
"Fry" seems to NEVER "accidentally" means sauté, always means deep fry or shallow fry in Indian recipes that are written in English.
Dutch bak vs. English bake.
In English, "bake" is a type of dry cooking in a heated oven. In Dutch, it could be any type of cooking. (ref
Meal Courses
entrée in French vs entrée in US English
In the USA and English parts of Canada, "entrée" refers to the main course of the meal, while generally in French and for most other English-speaking locations, it refers to the appetizer, hors d'oeuvre or starter, although historically it has been used for various different courses and may still be used as such in certain regions.
"English (and German, also other languages) endive and Belgian Dutch (also other languages) chicory " and in Dutch (Netherlands) it's different again from the Flemish. What the Belgians call chicory we call 'whiteleaf' or 'Brussels' leaf' (it was first cultivated near Brussels), while there's another vegetable we call chicory.
@jwenting this is why I wrote "Belgian Dutch" and not generally "Dutch". But I don't know which other vegetable you mean, could you post a picture of it (in the other answer, so we can keep it in the same place)? Once we have sorted it out, we can update the answer.
@rumtscho The vegetable called 'witlof' in Dutch (NL) (and I believe 'witloof' in Flemish?) is called Belgian Endives here in Canada. The wikipedia article for 'Chicory' does a pretty good job of explaining the different related plants and plant parts.
Macaroni does not exist in Italian, the correct term is maccheroni.
Swedish kummin, finnish kumina is not cumin (english), it's caraway. Cumin is spiskummin (swedish), juustokumina (finnish).
@johnny – in polish similarly – 'kminek' is caraway, cumin is 'kmin rzymski' (literally 'large Roman caraway')
@rumtscho there seems to be an english term "kuchen" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuchen, and there are usage differences, that's why I had included it.
@rackandboneman Oh! Thank you. I will go restore that part. I admit I removed some of your edits. The point is, this answer is supposed to be about words which really look like the exact same thing, like the very nice kasserole/casserole find. I see your point that the scope of some words which are usually used as a translation is different, but the problem there is that this is true of most word pairs in most languages, so it would be impossible to cover that all. But the Kuchen one really fits the initial intention, I just overlooked the English meaning.
@rumtscho that's why I'm complaining and not starting a cake fight with edits :)
Thank you for it! I was considering suggesting that we make a new question which covers the other type (different scopes of translations) because I found it sad to remove the content you invested effort in. But I couldn't come up with a good idea which wouldn't reproduce a whole dictionary.
In the US I've mainly heard/seen "macaroni" used to refer to the smaller bendy noodles (and also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macaroni_(fashion), but that's from an old song and isn't in use in that sense anymore).
What in the world is this supposed to mean? "Fry" seems to NEVER "accidentally" means sauté?
@RoddyoftheFrozenPeas I understand that sentence to mean that in Indian English, the word "frying" is only used for deep frying or shallow frying, and not for other methods that are done in a pan and sometimes also called "frying" in other dialects of English, or in other languages are called the word that is translated as "frying" in a dictionary.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.332930
| 2011-07-11T12:35:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16076",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Albertina Fernandes",
"Alexander Rechsteiner",
"Amber",
"Beth V",
"BongR",
"C. Langford",
"Darrell Smith",
"ESultanik",
"Erik P.",
"Funeral Service Cypress Hill",
"JAB",
"Jacek Konieczny",
"Janet Nowak",
"Janine Worzella",
"Jeanne Linehan",
"Jill Shimulunas",
"Joe",
"Joenap",
"Karla Saucier",
"Kate Gregory",
"Kenneth Parkin",
"Kira Wind",
"Kulwinder Singh",
"Liz McLachlan",
"Madeleine Taney",
"Meldrina",
"Michael - sqlbot",
"Robin Reynolds",
"Roddy of the Frozen Peas",
"Sarita",
"Sharon McGowan",
"Shiney Mahajan",
"Stephanie Jones",
"Tammy Burns",
"TrueVoice",
"Victoria",
"anke",
"christina sheldon",
"dbdkmezz",
"fallen1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127132",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127302",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139859",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157529",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157530",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157652",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157654",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157663",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157668",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158252",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158264",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158269",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34226",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34228",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34235",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34240",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34350",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50292",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50298",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66402",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"jessica green",
"johnny",
"jwenting",
"melissa barton",
"moof2k",
"nicholas",
"nico",
"paragbaxi",
"rackandboneman",
"risa barrera",
"rumtscho",
"user119961",
"user34348",
"user66313"
],
"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
}
|
14044
|
How does thermal shock affect pans made of different materials?
In another question, I had a little comment-discussion with TFD on the effect of shock cooling on pans. In a nutshell, I said that it is bad for the pan, and he said that especially if the pan is made of steel, it should have been at 500°C for the shocks to have consequences, not at candy cooking temperature. I think that if it happens often, even at low temperatures, the internal structure of the pan would be less even (because of microcracks, or maybe some difference in the crystalline structure of the metal), leading to hot spots.
I'd like to broaden the question a bit. I think we will all agree that big temperature shocks have bad consequences on metals (think forging). I think that smaller shocks will have some (but smaller consequences), but after TFD's comments I am not sure. Could please somebody with better knowledge about metals explain what happens in different combinations of following combinations:
Cooling method
Immersion of the whole pan in cold water (as in, I have hot sugar syrup in it, and want to stop the heating immediately).
Pouring a small amount of cold liquid into the empty hot pan (as in deglazing).
Pan material
Stainless steel
Aluminum
Sandwiched bottom
Coated (e. g. enamel, PTFE, ceramic)
Copper
Iron
Temperature difference (our cold water is in all cases in the range 5°C (fridge) - 15°C (tap))
Steak/candy temperature (let's pick a range of 160°C - 200°C because of caramelisation and Leidenfrost)
Hottest stove temperature (because I want to know about the extreme case. 400°C or 500° should do, the first because that's what I am sure have had on my stove, the second because TFD mentioned it).
Let's assume not a single shock, but regular shocks (maybe two shocks a week over the lifetime of the pan). What will be the effects? And also, is there a combination which can (but will not always result in) crack a cast iron pan immediately?
I like the question. Is therea metallurgist in the house?
You should add copper to the list of materials. I'd say cast iron too, but I think we all know what'll happen to that...
@Aaronut, I added both. I won't make the assumption that "we all know", because the reason this question exists is that I thought we all know that it is bad for all pans (but in different degrees of bad), and now I doubt it. Maybe iron can handle the 170°C difference after all, I never tried myself.
Coated (e. g. enamel, PTFE, ceramic)
I can't answer in general, but that one's easy. Sudden thermal shock causes strain in a material by unequal expansion, either in the same material by high thermal gradients, or in interfaces between materials with different coefficients of thermal expansion. The strain in this case (two different materials) can be very high. If the material in question is not elastic (e.g. enamel + ceramic; I would think PTFE is different, but I'm not sure), then the bonds between the coating and the metal would be severely strained and it would likely crack and chip.
I can tell you from personal experience that I have actually used this to my advantage:
In the spring, I produce a small quantity of maple syrup by boiling sap in an uncoated stainless steel pan. On rare occasions, accompanied by the release of many expletives, I have let the syrup boil down too far, at which point it burns and seems to coat the bottom of the pan with a thin but hard and very resilient layer of carbon black. The trick to removing this stuff is to get some kind of stress crack started, e.g. by scrubbing w/ steel wool or a copper pad, and then what I do is I put the pan on the stove for a while to let it heat up hot (but not red hot), and then bring it over to the sink and spray cold water on the inside pan bottom where the carbon black has stuck to. After a few times, the carbon black will start to flake off and then it becomes easier to remove by a combination of abrasion and thermal shock. (The two pans I've done this on have been fine; both are stainless steel with a thick (>8mm) bottom, and I've put them through at least 30 or 40 thermal cycles of this type.)
edit re: general topic:
Wikipedia says this:
The robustness of a material to thermal shock is characterized with the thermal shock parameter:
where
k is thermal conductivity,
σT is maximal tension the material can resist,
α is the thermal expansion coefficient
E is the Young's modulus, and
ν is the Poisson ratio.
Higher thermal conductivity means it's more difficult to get a large thermal gradient across the material (less prone to shock); higher thermal expansion means more strain (more prone to shock), and higher Young's modulus means more stress for a given strain (more prone to shock).
So theoretically you could compare the different materials. (exercise for the reader ;) Most likely copper would be more resilient than the other metals, because of its higher thermal conductivity and higher ductility.
Thermal conductivity k: Copper = 401, Aluminum alloys = 120-180, stainless steel = 12-45 (units = W/m*K)
σT: no idea:
Coefficient of thermal expansion α: Copper = 17, Aluminum = 23, iron = 11.1, stainless steel = 17.3 (units = 10−6/°C)
Young's modulus E: Copper = 117, Aluminum = 69, iron/steel = around 200 (units = GPa)
Poisson's ratio ν: Copper/stainless steel/aluminum are all around 0.3-0.33, cast iron = 0.21-0.26
So stainless steel is worse than aluminum or copper (much lower thermal conductivity, higher Young's modulus).
I have never conducted scientific tests on pans, but from many years of experience I have observed this using domestic electric stove, oven, and gas hobs
Cast Iron: A good quality pan seems indestructible, low quality with flaws will crack randomly, but more often when suddenly heated or cooled. When you buy a new cast iron pan give it a few extreme thermal shocks on your domestic stove before you bother seasoning it. If it cracks send it back under warranty. I have a pan that is older than me that has been thermally shocked repeatedly including tossed into super hot fires, and shows no sign or damage. In fact it's seasoned surface is better than some PTFE pans
Coated Aluminium: (PTFE) The aluminium quickly becomes weaker and warps with thermal shock. Just using too high a heat will cause warping and the coating rapidly deteriorates as well. After a while you can use hand pressure to 'reshape' the bottom :-)
Stainless Steel: Good quality seems indestructible, this pas may warp very slightly but tend to settle back with regular use. Pans that are used for de-glazing seem to get slicker (less sticky) over time (this is good). I have a 55cm stainless steel wok that has had regular use over the last ten years, and is washed every time by dumping in cold water and scrubbing immediately after serving
Sandwiched bottom: I have never thermally shocked this type of pan intentionally, not normally used for this type of cooking. Used for low even heat
I would be surprised if a domestic stove could get to 400°C let alone 500°C. Most ovens can't go past 260°C (500°F) and that's in a closed box
Steels are generally hardened above 500°C (930°F), typically above 700°C (1300°F). This also make them brittle. The hardening processes ends with the hot metal being rapidly cooled with air, oil, or water. For high stability steel the parts may be cooled to below -75°C (-100°F)
They are them tempered from 230°C (445°F), typically 270°C (520°F). Tempering makes metal tough but not brittle. The tempering process ends with gradual cooling to room temperature
The 400°C (750°F) - 510°C (950°F) range is avoided for any length of time as this can cause embrittlement
Treated an inexpensive white ceramic coated pan like that (not knowing whether it would take that treatment, and wanting to find out), regularly cooled it under running water (first applied to the base) so i could clean and store it right after emptying. After 10-20 such treatments, anything that would stick to stainless steel would stick to the ceramic, so nonstick properties went kaputt very quickly. No visible chipping, but noticeably the coating easily stained from turmeric, caramel etc... in a way that you could hardly get it white again.
Being scientific, you of course had an identical pan that you treated differently and that is still non-stick? Or did you just fall for the non-stick marketing crap :-)
These ceramic pans do indeed fail spectacularly after some use. I have no idea what mechanism is behind it. Theoretically it is possible that it is the cooling off that does it, and that shocking the pan for deglazing makes it happen quicker. But I have seen no evidence for this theory (or for any other), it can as well be unrelated.
Being not scientific but techie, I will take anything that is cheap and promises to be revolutionary and durable and give it a challenge :)
Yes thermal shock damaged nonstick ceramic coating. if the bottom is sandwich there are more chances of not only loosing nonstick but also getting micro cracking.
In the case of normal water based ptfe coating you wont observe same.
Interesting. I frequently shock my ceramic coated pan without any obvious damage. It is one of the new nonstick coatings, not standard enamel.
may be its hard to see cracking with naked eyes. or its not prone to cookware having normal bottom. mainly cracking happened to sandwich (alumium+ steel) bottom due to thermal shock. try to pour condensed milk in to pan and burn it. if there is hidden micro cracks.. may be staining of burned condensed milk can make visual with naked eye.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.335153
| 2011-04-14T16:56:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14044",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Andrew Spott",
"Appliance Best Repair Service",
"Carmi",
"Chris",
"Dhruv",
"TFD",
"Whingo Starr",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136030",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29484",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29500",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39441",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/611",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho",
"steve",
"user29504"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16891
|
Can we digest raw starch?
One of the wisdoms passed on early in my family is not to eat certain types of food raw, because they will cause bellyache. It is regarded common sense on par with not to touch a hot stove because it will cause a burn. As far as I can tell, my friends have been educated in the same way.
The foods are usually pointed out individually to the child, but now I think about it, they are all high in starch. A few examples are dough, batter, corn, starch slurry and potatoes. I don't think it is a concern about bacterial contamination - it isn't only said about cookie dough, but also about freshly made bread dough with no eggs in it. It is just that raw starch is considered indigestible.
Now I happened to read the question Is it safe to eat Raw Corn?. Given that the answer there is that it is safe to eat corn, I started wondering if starch is really so bad as to cause bellyache, or is it just a myth everybody believes because they heard of it before they had developed critical thinking. On the other hand, if a significant amount of starch starts its gelation process in the stomach, maybe it will cause unpleasant symptoms through dehydration or similar (although I don't see how it will gellate at body temperature).
So, is there a food safety concern in eating raw starch, or is this a widespread misinformation? And if it doesn't cause ill effects, does it get digested, or just pass through the digestive system unchanged?
I'm inclined to think the issue is not the starch itself as much as specific vegetable compounds, particularly lectin and insect-hostile alkaloids.
I tend to believe that what a lot of folks may have been experiencing back when this myth started was probably intestinal problems related to gluten which weren't widely known/understood then but are much more understood now.
@Brendan I doubt it. First, gluten intolerance symptoms are AFAIK equally strong between cooked and raw gluten - but nobody warned me against eating baked bread or cookies. Second, many of the foods I was warned against (corn, potatoes, peas) don't contain gluten.
i was more commenting on how that type of myth may have come about more than suggesting what was actually the truth.
We eat raw starch, in small to moderate amounts, almost every day without any obvious side effects.
It's difficult to find good figures, but bananas contain at least 1% starch (if ripe) and, I estimate, as much as 5% assuming only completely yellow bananas are eaten raw.
Fresh garden peas contain around 2% starch given that 40% of the sugars are converted to starch (estimated using the sugar content of snow peas).
Eating raw starch (in moderate amounts) is good for you
As the Wikipedia starch article states,
Digestive enzymes have problems digesting crystalline structures. Raw
starch will digest poorly in the duodenum and small intestine, while
bacterial degradation will take place mainly in the colon.
This is not necessarily a bad thing since undigested starch, or resistant starch as it is known, is a source of insoluble dietary fiber. Upwards of 80% of any raw starch consumed will remain undigested. This overview notes that there is 'also limited evidence for a prebiotic effect of some starches that resist digestion'.
Counter-indications
The same article referred to above states that '[m]ost resistant starches [...] are thought to be fermentable'. And foods fermenting in the gut will produce gas so you might want to avoid eating excessive amounts of raw starch to avoid uncomfortable digestion problems.
This article from a raw food site warns against possible toxicity problems,
Neither salivary amylase (ptyalin) nor pancreatic amylase can commence
digestion of the starch until it is released from its globule. These
starch-containing globules are, therefore, not digested at all and
must be eliminated from the body as so much debris. Undigested
materials such as these are toxic in the body and pose an eliminative
burden without providing energy or other value.
I haven't yet found any scholarly literature to corroborate this, and the fact that this article fails to mention the, well established, role of resistent starch as dietary fiber makes me suspect its accuracy.
TFD's answer above states,
The energy loss from easting raw starch is huge, there is little
point. Eat it cooked.
Although I haven't attempted to verify this, I can't see how energy loss counts against eating raw starch if you are getting enough calories from the rest of your diet. It doesn't seem to count against eating celery. The raw food article has another explanation for why we choose not to eat very starchy foods raw,
Most starches just don't taste that good in their raw state.
Carrots, sweet potatoes and yams are notable exceptions, however,
because these tubers, in addition to containing starches, also contain
enough sugars to give them a sweet flavor.
It seems clear from this article that at least some people enjoy potatoes raw. It also suggests that it is, for the most part, safe to eat them although the resistent starches, as I also indicate, might cause you some gastro-intestinal discomfort.
Another answer here seems to suggest that raw potatoes contain more toxins than cooked. This is incorrect unless the potatoes were cooked at temperatures over 170°C (340°F). The toxins in potatoes are low to begin with unless they are allowed to develop green patches, in which case cooking at normal temperatures won't help.
It is worth noting that, while eating raw starch is probably not going to give you any big problems, you should check that there are no other problems related to eating raw foods that you are not accustomed to.
Thank you for the well-researched answer. I doubt the rawfood article too - both because it suggests that undigested materials are toxic per se (many non-nutritive materials are neutral as opposed to toxic), and because I remember biology experiments in school where student-donated ptyalin digested raw starch in small amounts. But the other sources seem sound.
How did you draw the conclusion that eating raw starch (in moderate amounts) is good for you?
@HelloGoodbye The text under that heading would help support such a conclusion. I also note some counter-indications.
Sorry, I'm a bit slow. What was it in that text that meant that raw starch is good? (I read it, but didn't understand how it related to the heading)
@HelloGoodbye No problem. Look up "Dietary fiber" in Wikipedia. Does that help?
@ChrisSteinbach That's a quite long article. I skimmed it through in ultraspeed but didn't find any mention of raw starches. Can you break it down for me?
There is no real ill effect from eating raw starch. Some people will suffer a bit of "gas" from excessive raw starch as our digestive system is designed to process cooked starches (rice, wheat, potato etc.) and doesn't do an efficient job, so lots of starch gets to the bacterial breakdown stage after being through the stomach, this usually makes "gas"
The energy loss from easting raw starch is huge, there is little point. Eat it cooked
Some starches can be rendered edible through chemical or catalyst processes
"our digestive system is designed to process cooked starches" "The energy loss from easting raw starch is huge, there is little point." Really? This seems odd, as most of our evolution took place before we were able to cook food. Has our digestive system changed that much since?
@Jefromi: I'm not a fan of the "evolutionary" argument myself, but one might technically argue that our bodies didn't evolve to process any starch, since agriculture itself was invented long after most of our evolution. Cooked food is still easier to digest than raw because it's essentially semi-digested already.
@Aaronut: I get why cooking is a big deal, but weren't there, I don't know, tubers and such around before we started growing them? In any case, I mostly meant my comment as a "citation needed" tag.
@Jefromi - basic biology, some animals handle raw starch fine, we don't. It just is that way. We can store and and cook food to make it edible for our digestive system. Other wise we would be limited to digestible resources only. A human biology book should cover the problem with raw starch and other non/partially digestible food in the stomach
Have a look at the book "Catching fire" by Richard Wrangham about eating uncooked food. http://www.bookdepository.co.uk/Catching-Fire-Richard-Wrangham/9780465020416
I know raw potatoes contain a toxin, and that the green ones are more likely to have it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potato#Toxicity
"Glycoalkaloids may cause headaches, diarrhea, cramps, and in severe cases coma and death" Although they suggest that poisoning is rare, and the green potatoes contain a higher concentration than the white. Raw potatoes are not particularly delicious, so I'm in favor of just avoiding the issue all together.
Plenty more tubers need cooking to reduce toxins, Cassava is 100% inedible before cooking due to a poisonous cyanide compound. The starch itself is 100% OK though :-)
There is plenty of anecdotal evidence about eating raw rice on the web. The best answer however I found was here;
http://www.livestrong.com/article/415189-what-are-the-effects-of-eating-raw-rice/
In summary;
"...when rice is uncooked or undercooked, this strain of Bacillus cereus produces a toxin called cereulide, which can lead to vomiting and nausea within 24 hours of ingestion"
"Lectin is a protein that serves as a natural insecticide with a strong affinity for carbohydrates. Found on uncooked rice and beans, this protein is one of the top 10 causes of food poisoning and can lead to nausea, diarrhea and vomiting when eaten in abundance."
"Pica is a disorder defined by an insatiable desire to eat non-foods, such as hair, paint and sand, or food ingredients, such as flour, salt and raw rice."
Anecdotally most commentators seem to believe that raw rice will swell in the stomach, so consuming large amounts may cause discomfort, or in extreme cases a burst stomach.
Personally I've never heard of bread, or cookie, dough being a problem. While raw, milled, flour contains some of the hygroscopic properties of rice, dough already contains water. The gas from the dough rising is, well, just gas.
Of course if you eat enough of anything (even water) it's dangerous, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of scientific evidence that raw starches in general are bad for you.
Huh, so that's why I vomited after eating rice that I had tried to sprout.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.335999
| 2011-08-15T09:43:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16891",
"authors": [
"AMM",
"Aaronut",
"Andra",
"BobMcGee",
"Brendan",
"Cascabel",
"Chris Steinbach",
"HelloGoodbye",
"No'am Newman",
"Peter Majeed",
"Pyritie",
"Ronal Dalen spam",
"TFD",
"asushunamir",
"crafter",
"debbie young",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36161",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36162",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36189",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69771",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69793",
"rumtscho",
"smither"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32675
|
Should I peel Boskoop apples for a pie?
We have the question about peeling apples for a pie, and the accepted answer is "depends on the apple".
I seldom make desserts involved baked apples, so I am not well versed in the baking cultivars. A seller recommended Boskoop for pies and baking in general, and I bought the apples, but I did not think of asking how thick their skin is.
Are Boskoop the type of apple which has a thick, unpleasant skin after baking, or does it have a soft skin? Also, how likely is it to fall apart if baked after peeling?
With respect to skin thickness and peeling, a more general question would be simply how to tell from slicing or biting into any type of apple. Of course, that still leaves your specific second question about standing up to cooking.
Belle de Boskoop are just fantastic. I always peeled them before baking and they hold together really well. Since I never even considered baking them with the peel I can't provide a complete answer.
@ChrisSteinbach That's still half an answer, probably worth posting... so is whatever rumtscho did!
@Jefromi A little research shows me that opinion on the internet is not always with me on this point, so I ought to find some way to back up my facts before I post. I'll do some comparative testing if I can get hold of some Boskoop.
My parents have a Boskoop tree in their garden. I would probably peel the apples before baking them into a pie, but it wouldn't be impossible to not peel them.
The skin is thicker than most red/yellow apples but not as hard as a Granny Smith's, say. When I lived in the Netherlands, if I bought Boskoop (or Goudreinette, as they're commonly called there) in the store, the skin would be a little thinner than from my parents' tree (maybe because the conditions are not as carefully controlled as with professional growers?), but the statement above still holds.
Boskoop apples are one of the foods I miss from home, living in Canada now. Sniff.
In Boskoop are in a group of apples that are also termed "Lederapfel" ("leather apple"), which means the skin can be quite tough, even after cooking. So yes to peeling them.
I tried googling about the apple (never heard of it before) and from what I read I don't think you'll have to peel it.
http://www.specialtyproduce.com/produce/Belle_de_Boskoop_Apples_4444.php
It talks about slicing and then baking, no peeling mentioned.
http://www.orangepippin.com/apples/belle-de-boskoop
http://forums2.gardenweb.com/forums/load/fruit/msg1117240031249.html
http://cookingthecity.wordpress.com/tag/boskoop/
I've edited your two answers together and fixed some things up. To make this a better answer, you might want to summarize what all the links say, not just the first one.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.336750
| 2013-03-14T16:47:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32675",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Duncan Lock",
"James Young",
"Stephie",
"Victoria Luz Arquines",
"basilhouse",
"caesar",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75490",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76097",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76109",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76270",
"jhonsocool"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35316
|
Are there dangers to using solid fuel on a propane grill?
In another question, a user proposed burning briquettes on a propane grill in order to get charcoal flavor on the meat.
I don't grill myself, so I don't know enough to judge whether this is a great or a terrible idea. But my mom always told me that playing with fire is dangerous :)
So, are there safety problems with this approach, anything one should look out for?
Propane grills mix air with gas before burning it. Ash from charcoal and other contaminants can clog the flue and produce inefficient burning of the gas, possibly produce carbon monoxide (poison) or even gas build up.
As long as the gas parts (igniter, flue, pipes, etc) are clean and unaffected, the charcoal, hickory stick, etc, should not cause any issues to my knowledge.
On the whole, this idea is more on the terrible side than great. A charcoal BBQ is relatively inexpensive and with the aid of a hair-dryer can light up in little time :)
I think most of us just use a charcoal chimney to start our coals :-) When I was young and poor, I had a home made one from a coffee can.
You can het a fantastic charcoal grill for $20. One rarely spends, these days, less than $50 on meat :/
It is a common practice on gas grills to smoke using wood chips in a manner similar that described in the referenced question: placing the wood chips in a foil pouch or pan, and allowing them to sit above the gas flame, smoldering, and thus producing smoke.
Note that in the described scenario, the method is the same, except for the fuel: the charcoal is in a foil pouch on top of the grill grate. It is in not down near the lines or elements for the gas flames. Although it may combust more thoroughly than wood chips, the purpose, effect, and outcome are essentially the same: producing smoke.
Aluminum melts at about 1,220 F (660 C); charcoal can burn at a about 1000 F. Furthermore, thin aluminum (such as foil) can burn as well, with an ignition temperature of about 1,440 F (760 C). So there may be some minor risk is that a hot spot from the charcoal could locally melt or burn the aluminum pouch. Both seem unlikely as long as the charcoal is only smoldering, and not burning with a full flame with good air pumping through through to create the highest temperatures.
So, while not traditional, and perhaps not as effective as simply using wood chips, this technique does not sound on the face of it to be completely crazy. For sanity, the air flow to the charcoal should be restricted (not too many holes in the pouch) which will limit the rate at which it can burn or smoke, and minimize the risks.
Still, being conservative, I would not do it; I would stick to wood chips.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.337002
| 2013-07-15T17:16:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35316",
"authors": [
"Alina",
"Fattie",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145982",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38062"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
78555
|
How to keep chicken livers intact?
I am trying to duplicate the chicken livers as made in South Africa (eg the Mozambique paprika livers Nando's has), but in my first attempt the livers appeared to partially disintegrate into an unappetizing ca-ca looking mush, yet with still some pinkish bits present.
Ideally they would be separate chunks, nicely browned on the outside and cooked through on the inside.
I threw them in with sauteed onions once the onions had cooked through so the pan was not extremely hot.
Is there a trick to this? Hotter frypan and just cook the livers first? Does washing the livers help? I did clean them to remove the fiber bits but didn't wash them particularly.
Update: Hot pan, washed and dusted with flour did the trick perfectly. Nasty spitting of hot oil- I think that's covered in another question.
Did the onions give off too much moisture? Yes, cook the livers first, separately, about 4 minutes. Here's Nando's directions for spicy chicken livers. You might follow it, using the new Mozambican Paprika baste.
Don't think my lame "don't kill the chickens, if you want them intact" joke merits an actual answer......
@Dorothy Thanks, that worked- Nando's directions worked fine. I'll have to wait for the Moza baste to arrive in Canada unfortunately,
That's great !! Why don't you answer your own question (or I can, if you wish), and have some fun trying to replicate the baste? The recipe for Mozambican Paprika contains coconut, lime, lemon, garlic, tomato, onion, parsley and rosemary and, of course, paprika – no less than three different kinds, one of them smoked.
As you note, the recipe I was able to locate for Nando's spicy chicken livers (with tagliatelle pasta) did the trick. While that version calls for veg (marrow/zucchini) and pasta, here are the directions for the chicken liver and sauce.
Heat 5 Tablespoons of olive oil or butter over a medium heat. Add the chicken livers and sauté for 4 minutes. Add one cup of Nando’s sauce to the chicken livers and allow to cook for another 2 minutes, then remove from the heat.
In announcing the new Mozambican Paprika flavor, Nando's head of food, Pascale Sobiecki, revealed that the recipe contains
coconut, lime, lemon, garlic, tomato, onion, parsley and rosemary and, of course, paprika – no less than three different kinds, one of them smoked.
Because it’s Nando’s, there is a touch of African bird’s eye chilli – but only a hint. On the Nando’s PERi-Ometer, Mozambican Paprika is slightly hotter than Lemon and Herb (which also contains chilli, incidentally), but milder than our Mild flavour.
Until it's available, you might have some fun trying to create your own version of the sauce.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.337240
| 2017-02-20T00:42:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78555",
"authors": [
"Giorgio",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Spehro 'speff' Pefhany",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49739"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.