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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
24729
|
What is the difference between a gugelhupf pan, a bund(t) pan and a rodon pan?
I searches around a bit and found that the same manufacturer often offers forms under all three names, so I don't think this is a synonym. Also, I found a forum thread (in German) suggesting that there is a difference, but not explaining the difference.
So, what is the difference between the three pans? Is it the proportions (height vs diameter vs inner cylinder diameter)
Gugelhupf:
Rodon:
Bund:
Here at least those are all bundt pans. Bundt pan refers to the inner cone and fluted sides. It does not imply anything about the design of the fluting or the size of the pan. According to wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundt_cake the Bundt pan is a trademarked name of a pan modeled after the German Gugelhopf.
Wikipedia to the rescue.
Gugelhupf is the generic german name for Bundt which is how it's known in the USA.
Rödön is a village in Sweden where they claim to have invented the 'sandwich cake' (even though this cake doesn't seem to resemble the Bundt at all).
If you read the article about Bundt, you'll see that the designer took elements of Scandinavian pan designs, so there might be a relationship with Rödön.
In Dutch, these are called 'turban pastries' for the shape of the pan.
The German word Gugel means hood.
The original European Kugelhopf (aka Gugelhupf) pan, which dates back centuries, is a mold pan designed to look like a Medieval hood or bonnet (Think Shakespeare or Henry VIII headwear designs) that was made of cast iron. It is heavy.
The original Bundt was designed at the request of European immigrants in America by Nordic Ware around 1950's to duplicate the Gugelhupf design in a lighter pan. It was a popular cake to these immigrants during Holidays and Weddings. Once it caught on in popularity new designs were added as we see in today's Bundt pans.
Lastly, a Rodon pan is any variation on that original Bundt pan or a Tube pan, as it is simply a "Ring Cake", whereas the Gugelhupf was vertical but slanted or "twisted." It was the only cake that followed a traditional design. The pictures above are not really accurate if your going for true design. All 3 would be a Bundt, the middle would be a Gugelhupf and all 3 could be used to make a Rodon, though for standard baking purposes all 3 are Bundt pans. Also Rodon is really just about the recipe and not the design (save for the ring shape), so any Bundt or Tube pan is acceptable. Gugelhupf is a yeast cake, whereas Rodon is not. Bundt is simply the pan variety, not a specific recipe.
The Gugelhoph is, according to my cake-baker wife, the ancestor of the Bundt. The main difference is that it's slightly shallower than the Bundt, and its flutings are at an angle, producing a swirl effect, whereas Bundt flutings are parallel to the tube.
Rodon fought Ultraman in Episode 19.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.337730
| 2012-06-28T19:49:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24729",
"authors": [
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001"
],
"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
}
|
24519
|
Cast iron, forged iron or carbon steel pan for induction?
I need a new pan for non-stick applications (eggs) and I want to try using a well-seasoned iron or carbon steel one. I use an induction stove.
Normally, the arguments I hear in favor of carbon steel are that it heats quicker, because it can be made thinner. But isn't this reversed on induction? Won't the bigger mass of metal heat quicker, or at least as quick as the thin one, if I don't have to wait for the heat to get conducted through the heavy material? And of course, I want to keep all the advantages created by the thicker pan's thermal mass.
I also have the option to get forged iron pans, which are thinner than cast iron ones, but still have the physical properties (thermal coefficients and whatnot) of iron, not carbon steel. Is there an advantage in doing so (maybe a smoother surface?)
I would be especially happy to hear from somebody who has compared both kinds of cookware on induction, to know how they compare under real conditions.
Here are the pans I am considering:
1 Carbon steel
2 forged iron. For some reason, one doesn't have the marks I have come to associate with forged iron pans. I already have one (a very big one, 30 cm) and I am not too happy with it. Are the marks important, do they say something about production quality?
or
3 Cast iron
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/22660/67
Difficult to believe anyone makes a forged steel frying pan. I think it is sheet/ plate that is cold pressed into shape. ( Depending on the industry , some may call one inch + thick material "sheet" )
Induction cooking works by generating an electric current in the metal cooking vessel and converting that current into heat, which requires a resistive material (i.e. a poor conductor).
It's a bit of a catch-22, because you need a good conductor to actually distribute that heat. This is why some of the best induction cookware is clad metal - two layers of (magnetic) steel around an inner layer of highly-conductive aluminum or sometimes copper, sometimes layered multiple times this way. The thick magnetic sheets generate heat, and the thin conductive sheets transfer it.
Thicker metal means that the surface is slightly farther away from the magnetic field source, but also has significantly more resistance (since resistance is proportional to length, and we are talking about doubling or even tripling that), so theoretically it should be much more effective at converting the electric current to heat, and heat up faster.
The disadvantage of a thicker metal - assuming that there is no additional heat transfer material - is hot spots. This doesn't matter at all for a skillet, but if you're trying to cook with, say, a cast-iron stock pot or dutch oven, you'll find that the hot spots are even worse on an induction cooktop than an electric or gas cooktop, since the surface heat is generated very rapidly but takes forever to spread.
Carbon steel is a pretty good compromise, which is why it's generally the material of choice for woks, and that's the material I'd choose for an induction cooktop for any vessel other than a skillet or frying pan (assuming I had to choose a single material; again, copper/aluminum-clad stainless steel works better). For pans/skillets, you want the heat to stay focused on the surface, which makes heavy/thick cast iron a better choice.
I can't honestly say that I've had much experience with forged iron, but all my instincts are telling me not to bother with it because it would be combining the worst of both worlds - lower resistance at the surface but still relatively high resistance up the sides. The only caveat to this would be a possibly significant difference between the magnetic susceptibility/permeability of forged vs. cast iron, but this is likely going to vary from vessel to vessel anyway (not all cast/forged iron is the same) so I think your best bet there is to try sticking a magnet to it. If it sticks much harder to the forged than cast iron (doubtful) then it might be good for surface cooking; I still wouldn't choose it for a larger pot.
Interesting points. But I'm not sure when you are talking about heat conduction and when you are talking about electric conduction. E.g. in the first paragraph "poor conductor" makes a bit more sense to be about an electromagnetic conductor, and in the second paragraph, "good conductor" sounds like I need a good thermal conductor. Could you please clear it a bit?
also, I am not sure whether the thickness of the pan's material counts as the length or as the width of the conductor. Does it matter if it is the width?
@rumtscho: The heat is traveling up from the heat source, whether that source is the cooktop or the pan. Therefore, the thickness of the pan is the length, and the width of the pan represents the cross-sectional area (which has an inverse relationship to resistance).
@rumtscho: It's electrical resistance that generates heat, and thermal conductivity that distributes it. That said, the relative differences in thermal conductivity among typical cookware metals are about the same as those for electrical conductivity (copper is the highest, cast iron is the lowest), and the calculation is the same (proportional to length, inversely proportional to cross-sectional area), so I don't think it actually matters much, in this particular instance, whether we're talking about thermal or electrical conductivity.
One important factor in induction cooking is surface contact. This means that the base has to be sturdy.
I have a carbon steel skillet similar to your option. After about one year, it's starting to warp. So, I wouldn't buy one, if I were you.
You say that forged is thinner than cast iron... I'd go for the cast iron.
As for the heat transfer, induction cooking is different from direct heat cooking. According to the Wikipedia, the heat is generated at the surface of the metal, so that's not an issue.
Thank you for educating me about the skin effect, I didn't know about it. But why surface contact? Unlike a resistive stove, there is no heat conduction from the induction stove to the pan. An irregular surface won't reduce efficiency.
The magnetic field gets weaker further from the glass surface. See the limitations section from the Wikipedia article.
@rumtscho, funny, but just today I've been reading about induction cooking for another reason...
I don't see how small irregularities in the pan surface could be significant for that. I would rather suspect that in this case, a thin pan will be able to produce more heat than a thick one, because the pan thickness will be holding the surface (which, as established above, is the part being heated) farther away from the stove. Or doesn't it matter when part of the same conductor body is already close to the stove? (I am an absolute beginner in electricity, excuse any errors in my logic).
I'm not sure either. I guess that would make an excellent question somewhere :-)
You're perhaps missing a point about induction cooking when you bring heat transfer into the equation. Induction cooking is magnetic flux generating heat in the material, so the heat generation is virtually instantaneous; in fact, temperature "overshoot" is a bit of a problem in cast iron, so the skillet should remain on the "burner" surface for about three minutes before adding oil. The only heat transfer will travel up the sides of the skillet until it, too, gets hot, but a good induction cooking surface will maintain the contact bottom temperature (that's where it senses the temperature, so don't put paper or newspaper between it and the skillet bottom) at the set temperature. A Lodge carbon steel skillet is either 10 or 12 gauge steel, depending on the size, so its lighter than cast iron, which means it's easier to handle. Will it warp? Depends. Take good care of it, season with oil and butter in a 370 degree oven after the instances of washing with soapy water, and you should never experience warpage. Of course, if you sear a lot of beef steaks at 500 degrees and plunge your hot skillet into cold water, all bets are off. I'm 81, so the weight of cast iron necessitates that I use the lighter carbon steel skillets from Lodge.
In my experience most pans can only pull 45-65% of an induction cooktops rated power.
The ONLY pans I've personally used that do better are Cast Iron. With Cast Iron I see the full 100% of rated output.
When viewed with a thermal imager, the heating is very even. (probably more of a problem with flame / radiant where conduction plays a larger roll.
In summary I don't like dealing with iron, and would prefer a good non-stick. Wish I there was more information on the performance of such pans. Seems to me you won't know how it does until you buy it, and meter your circuit.
This empirical evidence is very useful. Your answer could be improved with a picture of the thermal imager at work and/or some kind of link or description of a power meter suitable for this purpose.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.337997
| 2012-06-17T17:20:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24519",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"BaffledCook",
"G. Ann - SonarSource Team",
"Joe",
"Kary",
"Mattias Orre",
"Ryan Aalpoel",
"TBearDX",
"beattyac",
"blacksmith37",
"chriszumberge",
"daveloyall",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55856",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55858",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55859",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55864",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55865",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55878",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79865",
"radiofreemyourenji",
"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
}
|
75802
|
How does ambient humidity of flour storage influence dough?
Cooking lore places a lot of importance on air humidity for doughs. When a dough fails, people quickly point that out as a possible factor, that happens on our site too.
Is it really true? I don't doubt that the actual flour moisture content changes, but is it noticeable in the dough preparation, or is the difference too small to matter?
If it makes a difference, what can I do about it?
I used to disbelieve the idea, as it has all the qualities of a nice myth. Turns out that I was wrong. And also, that the story behind it is more complicated than the myth makes us believe.
A nice example can be found on scientific papers published in the area of commercial food technology, like this one. An important quote from the abstract:
Stickiness and consistency of doughs made from low-moisture flour were more sensitive to changes in dough water absorption than doughs made from flours of high moisture content. Dough water absorption level was more difficult to adjust in doughs made from low-moisture flours.
So, to answer the first point: yes, it makes a difference. If your house is very dry, this will change your dough. I am not a specialist in that area (did not know that there is a unit for measuring stickiness!) but I guess the difference will be noticeable to a home cook too.
Now for the second point: the usual interpretation is that "some water is missing, so just add it back in". That turns out to be wrong! The problem is not the tiny amount of missing water in total, it is that dough made from wetter flour reacts differently to added water. Dough-from-wet-flour is stickier, and also reacts less sensitively to changes in the added water.
So, can you counteract the effects? To some extent, yes. Adding a tiny bit of extra flour if your dough is too sticky on a given day, or slightly adjusting the amount of total liquid in doughs that are supposed to be dry, like shortbread crusts, can make the difference between dough you can work with and something that cannot form a ball no matter what you do. Still, getting the perfect consistency might not be possible with any dough.
While hunting around I also found that the moisture content of sugar can change a lot once the humidity reaches a threshold which varies with the degree of refining. For sweetened doughs this could also contribute (though in that case I couldn't find anything about the effect on the final dough,only on the ingredient ).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.338791
| 2016-11-23T20:41:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75802",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
78891
|
What is the binding power of starches vs flour?
I was surprised to read the answers to a recent question on thickening - two of the three, including the accepted answer, suggested using cornstarch instead of flour to save calories.
I have always assumed that flour and starch are so close in binding power per weight that there is no reason to change any proportions when substituting, and also that the starch source doesn't matter. OK, I know about amylose and amylopectin being present in different amounts in different plants, but my impression is that the same amount of both gives a different thickened texture, not different thickness.
Now the answers and comments there contradict my impression. So, I would like to know: how much is the difference in thickness? If we take some reference, for example
5 g of cornstarch per 100 g water, mixed and then cooked until thickened
how much of some other starch (potato, arrowroot, whatever) and how much wheat flour (AP or 550) is needed to achieve the same thickness as the reference?
For what it's worth, my comment there on the accepted answer was based on googling "cornstarch vs flour thickener" and finding a few results that said to use half as much cornstarch as flour for the same volume to thicken.
When it comes to food 'thickness' (viscosity) is frequently discussed in 'relative terms' but not 'measurable units'. As such I'm not sure your question can be answered in 'absolute' terms.
Turning to Ratio where it discuss "Stocks and Sauces"
A Roux is 3 parts flour to 2 parts fat and the 'thickening ratio' is 10 parts liquid to one part roux.
vs.
A Slurry 1 part cornstarch to 1 part water(by volume) and the 'thickening ratio' is 1 tablespoon slurry to 1 cup liquid.
Arrowroot and potato starch can be substituted, in equal volumes, to cornstarch but they have differing outcomes based on the application (stews vs pie filling) where the difference is more than just 'thickness' but the things like the dairy or acid content of the stuff to be thickened.
In the absence of an objective standard for 'what is thickness' I don't believe you can get a fully satisfactory answer to this question.
There is an objective standard of "what is thickness" and a whole discipline which defines it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheology. I am pretty sure that food technologists have applied it to food, including starch- and flour-thickened water. It is not in my books aimed at the home cook, so I hoped someone will have come across the more technical sources. The Ratio reference is interesting, I wonder if the output of the two is supposed to be equally thick. I made some calculations: the input is 3.4 g starch (slurry case) vs. 6 g flour (roux case) for 100 ml liquid.
There are many standards to measure thickness, what I should have said was there are none commonly (if it were common I suspect one of us would have come across it) in use when it comes to food. With oil viscosity is measured by flow rate at 100°C (as 10w40). With food 'ideal' temperature is dependent on the dish (custard vs. chowder) and time. My want for a more objective standard when it comes to food would need to account for all of that.
Yes, I agree that there is no widespread standard, and I appreciate your answer!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.338992
| 2017-03-04T13:10:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78891",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Cos Callis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
65860
|
To what extent are dimpled pans interchangeable?
We recently got a very popular question, What is the function of this shallow, 19-divoted, eared cast iron piece?. It centers on recognizing exactly what type of dimpled pan is on the picture, and it is obvious that several users don't make a distinction between them. I personally have never used one, and wasn't aware that there are flat-dimpled ones and half-spherical dimpled ones.
If we leave away matters of presentation (assuming that poffertjes are traditionally flatter than aebleskiver), what is the differnce? What can flat dimples do which deep dimples can't, and vice versa? If a cook has only one and tries the recipe for the opposite baked good, what would we expect to happen?
Is it a matter of presentation if muffins or small pies (eg mince pies) stand unstable? "but you said they rock"... Or if a symmetrical shape (idly-like) is desired?
@rackandboneman I was mostly hoping to avoid answers like "if you make spherical poffertjes, they shouldn't be called poffertjes because poffertjes are flat by definition, ergo you can't ever use a round dimpled pan for poffertjes". If there is another difference to pouring poffertjes into round dimples than "they will be round" and "a true Dutchman will never call a round poffertje a poffertje", then I want to hear it.
To make things even more difficult in researching the question (I'm the one that asked) I also came across cast iron Plett pans where as the dimples are shallow and flat, but more approximately the diameter of an aebleskiver dimple
There were five dishes mentioned in that post:
Poffertjes
Dutch pancake puffs.
Small, shallow impressions.
Æbleskiver
Danish pancake balls.
Large, deep (half-spherical) impressions.
Takoyaki
Japanese octopus pancake balls.
Small, deep (half-spherical) impressions with a lip around the edge.
Kanom Krok
Thai coconut pancake snack.
Small, (various depths) impressions
Paddu
Indian lentil & rice ?balls?.
Deep impressions (various sizes), w/ matching lid.
I have tried my hand at making Kanom Krok in a poffertjes pan, and it came out well. I found that they were a bit too oniony for my taste if I added a pinch of green onion to each side, but it worked out well if I only did it to one of the halves. (don't leave it out, or it's too overwhelmingly sweet). If the indentations had been deeper, there would have been more batter, and thus it might've needed two pinches of onion.
You simply cannot make æbleskiver or takoyaki on anything that isn't half spherical — you're not simply flipping it over (like poffertjes & paddu) or joining two halves together — you need to roll it as you're making it. Æbleskiver can end up with a hollow inside them (that you can fill with apples or such), while takoyaki are often made by flooding the whole pan, and then rolling that extra bit from the top into the sphere so it doesn't have as significant of a void.
You could probably make æbleskiver on a takoyaki pan, but the size difference will mean that you make need a different viscosity and heat to properly set the outside while leaving the inside liquid enough to flow back down to seal the sphere. Takoyaki in an æbleskiver pan might be more difficult — the larger holes might prevent you from cooking the center through properly.
You can use an æbleskiver pan to make poffertjes, but it's a pain. Basically, you just put a little bit in the bottom of each one, and then flip it. You'll still get the right sized puff, because the æbleskiver indentations are much larger (typically 7 per pan vs. 19 for roughly the same diameter). Not only would it be slower from having less indentations, but it's much harder to get in there to flip. It'd be like using a Dutch oven to make an omelette — it might technically work, but it's really not the right tool for the job.
If you really had to, it'd almost be easier to make poffertjes on a griddle — just use a squeeze bottle so that you can more easily control the size of the puffs. It'll be a bit different, but it's better than only making 7 per batch.
I wouldn't make poffertjes on a takoyaki pan — you'd have to make really, really tiny ones, or you'd have to fill it so far that I'd have concerns about the middle cooking properly.
As for the paddu — I've never made it, but it seems to me that it could likely be done it any of the deeper indentation pans, provided you had a good way to cover it to let it steam. It's quite likely that a poffertjes pan would make for too thin of paddu, as you wouldn't get the expected contrast between interior & crust.
So, to summarize (partially assumptions):
Poffertjes pan: kanom krok
Æbleskiver pan: poffertjes (but it'd be a bit of a pain), paddu (if you can lid it)
Takoyaki pan: aebleskiver (but really small, might be a pain), paddu (if you can lid it)
Kanom Krok pan: poffertjes, paddu (if deep enough & can lid it)
Paddu pan: poffertjes (might be a slight pain), Kanom krok
(Griddle): poffertjes (if using a squeeze bottle & thick-ish batter, but they'll be sub-par)
I could imagine problems with too little filling capacity when making small pies in the spherical ones, and problems with uneven cooking with massive batters - to think of the extremes, spherical will have about the same thickness of batter from heated surface to the center from every angle, flat and wide bottomed will be far from that... and heat transfer will be different if somebody puts the pan directly on top of a baking sheet.
I can't understand your last sentence. What do you mean by "if somebody stands it on a baking sheet". Stands what?
OK, I'm still missing a lot of the picture. Why would anybody ever put the pan on top of a baking sheet? Also, why would the heat transfer be different between an aebl. pan on a baking sheet vs a poffertje pan on a baking sheet?
Corrected the unclear usage of language. "stand" can be used with the meaning of "to cause to stand; set upright; set", however you are right, that usage can be misleading on an internationally used site.
A flat muffin pan would have more metal directly contacting the sheet. And people tend to put pans that are too small for their oven on baking sheets if the grill is already in use, or if they are too lazy to rearrange things in the oven ... incorrect but not uncommon usage. Or someone might do it because the heat from the bottom of the oven is too strong, and a bright baking sheet will take up less of the radiant heat than a black pan....
OK, now I know where the misunderstanding comes from. I wasn't asking about muffin pans at all.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.339280
| 2016-01-25T20:38:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65860",
"authors": [
"Anthony Pecoraro",
"Robert Nieman",
"Sarah Birrell",
"Sunidhi Muni",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14343",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157496",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157497",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"justin case",
"rackandboneman",
"rheone",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18644
|
How long does it take botulism spores to germinate in the fridge?
Based on this question, I started wondering how long I could keep an anerobic food in the fridge before I have to worry about botulism colonization. 1 day? 3 days? 2 months? Clearly it's not a short period of time (hours) or we'd all be dying of botulism poisoning by now.
Unfortunately, nothing I've been able to find on the net seems to be based on solid studies of germination times. So, if I put a pre-prepared sous vide packet in the fridge, or homemade garlic oil, a low-acid sauce, or lemon curd, or similar, when do I have to toss it to be safe?
This completely depends on all of the other factors involved in botulinum growth, not to mention the particular strain you're concerned about (there are several).
Salt, acidity (low pH), low moisture, and extreme temperature (low or high) will all slow botulinum growth significantly.
There are proteolytic and non-proteolytic types of bacteria. The proteolytic C.botulinum bacteria will never grow in the refrigerator - they cannot grow at temperatures below 12° C source. The non-proteolytic strains can grow at temperatures as low as 3° C. That is very close to refrigerator temperature so clearly they will grow very slowly - again, the exact speed depends on other factors - but they will grow.
According to other sources, the proteolytic strains (the ones that cannot grow in the fridge) are the ones that tend to produce gas and off-odours, so they'll be more easily detectable. They also have far lower heat resistance, so they are easier to cook away. But of course, if they've grown to a sufficient level, it's too late to do that.
As far as I know, there aren't specific guidelines for vacuum-packed foods, whether commercially packed or simply cooked sous-vide. I'd ask you to consider that botulism is not the only type of foodborne illness that can grow in the refrigerator. There's also listeria, salmonella, and possibly some others I'm forgetting about. Cooking (especially sous-vide cooking) doesn't kill every last one of them, just enough to make the food safe. By the way, listeria and salmonella are both facultative anaerobes which means that they can grow with or without air.
There's also the small matter of your actual refrigerator temperature. Although the theoretical temperature (4° C) is lower than that required for all but the hardiest of bacteria, once you move up even a single degree to 5° C there are many more kinds that can start to grow. How cold is your fridge, really? I've heard of some being as high as 10-12° C in parts! If your fridge temperature is even slightly high, botulism will be the least of your worries.
Honestly, given the incredibly tiny number of actual documented cases of botulism (less than a dozen per year in the U.S.) compared to the insanely high total number of food poisoning cases every year (1 in 4 according to some sources), people seem to place far too much emphasis on that particular species. I realize that it's one of the scariest on account of that whole "instant death" thing, but even if you could prove that your improperly-stored food is 100% free of botulism toxin, you could still get seriously ill from eating it. You're literally worrying about the least probable vector for food poisoning.
Bottom line, I'd strongly advise you to treat sous-vide food just like any other food in terms of food safety and freeze it if you plan to store it longer than 4-5 days. There are just too many variables at play to conclusively say otherwise.
+1 - "I'd strongly advise you to treat sous-vide food just like any other food in terms of food safety" - yup, sous vide isn't magic.
yes, that's why I asked about garlic oil as well, and other sources of toxin spore danger. I'm not concerned about SV cooking in particular, but rather curious about how long it takes spores to germinate for low-temperature-cooked foods.
btw, you're right about "instant death" being the reason why people are more concerned about botulism. I've had salmonella, for example, and while unpleasant it didn't require a trip to the ER and 3 weeks on a ventilator. Listeria is a bit more serious, but I wasn't aware that it formed high-temperature spores.
@FuzzyChef: It doesn't take a fixed amount of time; there are several fairly complex mathematical equations governing the growth rate of bacteria, and those are assuming you're actually able to measure all of those factors. The established food safety guidelines have safety margins built in for exactly this reason; it's best not to push the envelope, any more so than an engineer would skimp on building material for a high-traffic bridge.
How do you know that botulism doesn't grow as fast in a low moisture setting? I know it's considered a risk with smoked meats and such; so, that's why I ask.
But of course, if they've grown to a sufficient level, it's too late to do that.
I don't thins is entirely accurate; boiling for 10 minutes will denature botulinum toxin.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.339785
| 2011-10-29T18:33:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18644",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Brōtsyorfuzthrāx",
"FuzzyChef",
"Mai Todo",
"Swiss Frank",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40397",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85436",
"jcoleman",
"jthomason",
"nina",
"rfusca"
],
"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
}
|
18682
|
Where did the thin, smooth plastic spatulas go?
20 years ago, the most common type of rigid spatula (or "turner") was smooth, thin (as in 3mm or less with a sharp edge), and generally made of nylon. These spatulas were not very durable (leading edges tended to melt), but they were very very good for making eggs and other delicate non-stick-pan dishes. And they were dirt cheap ($1 or so).
Here's pictures of the kind of spatula/turner I'm talking about:
By 10 years ago, these excellent egg turners had completely vanished from store shelves. At this point, I can't find them, even at thrift stores. Today's plastic turners are thick, blunt-edged, and rough ... absolutely terrible for crepes or omlettes. I'm down to my last 2 hoarded smooth thin plastic turners.
I've searched online, and I can't find any kind of health scare, trend or other information on what would have caused manufacturers to universally change how they made plastic turners. I also can't find anywhere to buy the old style.
So, this question is two-fold:
Why did manufacturers stop making thin, smooth plastic turner spatulas?
Where, if anywhere, can I buy this style of spatula?
AMENDED PER ANSWER BELOW: I am not talking about melamine spatulas, which are rigid. Both of the spatulas in the picture are semi-flexable.
Amended for more clarity: Per the discussion below, I did some actual measuring. The spatulas in question are sharp edged at the front, around 1-1.5mm on the edge, and no more than 3mm in the center.
FOR THE BOUNTY: either tell me where I can buy a new spatula like the ones pictured, OR explain why they're no longer available ... with a reference. Thanks!
Something like this maybe? http://www.amazon.com/OXO-Silicone-Flexible-Pancake-Turner/dp/B000ND5CBG/ref=pd_bxgy_k_img_b
You can get silicone spatulas nowadays.
I don't demand any particular material, but it does seem that thin, non-stick safe and semi-rigid is tough to find these days.
nico: that's much too thick, and has a blunt (not sharp) edge.
@FuzzyChef: don't own those spatulas so I don't know for sure, but it seems to me (from the photos) that the edge is thin and sharp. Sure seems thicker in the center, but who cares?
Nico, actually, thickness in the center does matter. The pictured spatulas are only a bit thicker in the center than at the edge which makes a big difference sliding them under delicate foods.
dmckee, exactly. what's interesting about this question, which I've raised on other forums, is that nobody who wasn't cooking 20 years ago seems to be able to believe that these kinds of spatulas ever existed. Which is bizarre considering how ubiquitous they were.
Just so everyone knows: thin plastic spatulas are back. Bradshaw Inc. is making them. I can't find one online, but check your local 5-and-Dime.
The old thin utensils were made of Nylon.
The reasons they are hard to find is that traditional Nylon is difficult to manufacture within food standard guidelines for PAA (Primary Aromatic Amines) migration, and does not bio-degrade or burn safely. For relevant references, your local government health department will have papers on PAA migration.
Given that, many utensil manufactures have moved on to other plastics, mostly silicone. Though some use PA66 (Nylon 6,6), which is that thick chunky black plastic stuff.
Try wooden spatulas. They are simple, clean, disposable, and you can get them in thin wedge shapes (e.g. at Asian supply shops).
TFD, thanks, that's the first clue I've had in a while! Got a link for the above?
@FuzzyChef It's a country specific thing, e.g. for UK http://www.food.gov.uk/science/surveillance/fsisbranch2010/fsis0110
Thank you! You didn't tell me where to get them, but you did tell me where they went, ending something which has been mystifying me for the last 6 years. Thanks, and have a bounty!
@FuzzyChef The thin shiny Nylon is Nylon 11, or Nylon 12. Which are stronger, more springy, and less water absorbent than Nylon 6,6. As I understand it though Nylon 11 and Nylon 12 mostly suffer from PAA migration. The cheap Nylon 6,6 is highly water absorbent (10% by weight) so probably shouldn't be used in cooking utensils either for hygiene and cross contamination issues?
You can't find them because this isn't nylon at all. The new ones - which you say you don't like - are indeed nylon. Rough, somewhat bendy, heat-resistant up to 220°C.
The spatulas you linked - stiff and shiny - don't look like nylon to me. They look like melamine resin. This is a cheap, hard and shiny plastic. It looks a bit like ABS, but is more brittle. You can still find utensils made out of it, and they are still quite cheap. Here in Europe, they are sold in 1-Euro-Stores, but I found this spatula on amazon.com:
I don't know the real reason why they aren't popular any more, but here are some thoughts:
People prefer spatulas which are slightly bendy - or even completely bendy, like the silicone ones linked here. It is hard to get a stiff spatula below an egg, because the pan wall gets in the way.
Melamine resin used to be a fashion fad in the 60s, but it isn't by now, and maybe customers today connect it with their granny's kitchens or similar.
If the bendy nylon spatulas are made too thin, they could be too soft to hold their shape - getting way too bendy.
Customers feel that spatulas whose edges get damaged by pan heat are inferior.
Heating melamine resin could be dangerous, because melamine itself is toxic, and it could release the melamine. That's why melamine resin dishes are stamped as "not microwave safe".
Manufacturers want to sell products at a higher price. Customers who pay a high price for a utensil want a solid thing, not just the cheapest thing made of the thinnest plastic. So the current thickness and surface sells better.
All that said, the modern rough black spatulas I have are much thinner than 4 mm, more like 2 mm, and they are beveled, so they have a very thin leading edge. I don't think they are bad, but then, I don't have experience with your old spatulas.
I fairly sure the "toxic" part of your comment is the main reason it's no longer available. Eating toxic stuff went out of style a few decades ago.
@talon8 I doubt that there has been new legislation against melamine spatulas, because else they wouldn't be available anymore. There hasn't been a mass scare either. The toxic effect is not readily apparent - you don't throw up food cooked in heated melamine, it just accumulates in the body over the years. Do you really think that all manufacturers of low-end cookware will switch to another material to avoid an elevated chance of liver damage in their customers 30 years after purchase, if the government and customers don't make a fuss about it?
I'm not talking about melamine resin spatulas. Both of the spatulas in the picture are "slightly bendy". And spatulas like the one you pictured are MUCH more than 4mm in the thickest part ... try 7 or 8 mm!
@FuzzyChef: I just measured my Ikea silicon spatula, and it's 3mm in its thickest part and ~0.5mm on the edge. I seriously doubt anyone sells 8mm-thick spatulas. Please take a measuring tape and check out how much 8mm is...
Silicone spatulas are normally very thin (3-4mm is typical). Plastic and wooden ones are often thicker. You can also get metal spatulas that are even thinner, although you probably wouldn't want to use those on a non-stick pan. My silicone has no trouble whatsoever with eggs/omelettes/pancakes.
Sorry for the misunderstanding, the shiny spatulas did look like melamine on the picture, especially the darker one. But I just measured my own new, rough, black, cheap spatula and it is 1 mm at the front and has a beveled edge. I have never seen a 7-8 mm thick spatula from any material.
Also, it looks like "your" spatulas are still being manufactured. http://www.ebay.de/itm/PFANNENWENDER-BRATENWENDER-HEBER-NYLON-CAMPING-TOP-/150630022616?pt=K%C3%BCchenhelfer&hash=item23123fbdd8. I guess you could ask the seller for thickness and intercontinental shipping, if you need these very much, it might make sense to pay shipping and import tax on a pack of 20 and you'll be set up for the next 20 years.
rumtscho, hmmm .... maybe I need a calipers. I have definitely seen high-temp nylon spatulas from WilliamsSonoma and elsewhere which were more than 1/2 cm thick in the thickest part. The German link looks promising; I wonder if I can find some more convenient way to get them to the USA?
Aaronut, the problem with silicone spatulas is that they cannot have a sharp edge.
@FuzzyChef: You don't want a razor-sharp edge when dealing with non-stick cookware. Most silicone spatulas are still thinner at the edge than equivalent wood, plastic, or nylon ones.
Aaronut, not any I've seen; every silicone spatula I've seen has a blunt, rounded edge. Know a kind which doesn't? Link?
Overall this was a really good answer with some thought behind it. However, it didn't quite fullfill either of the conditions of the bounty, so I gave it to another answer which had a citation. Tough decision though.
@FuzzyChef Seeing that I started the answer with a completely wrong assumption, I can understand why you accepted another answer :)
I remember those. The problem is that they always melted or broke and were useless after a short time. Good riddance, IMO.
For pancakes, crepes, etc., I use a metal fish turner. It's very thin and flexible, and has a sharp, turned-up edge that works very well for sliding under things. I think it's from Oxo.
Eggs are all I use a non-stick pan for, and I use a very thin metal turner that has a layer of silicone covering it. That seems to work pretty well for fried eggs. The metal core means they can make the blade a lot thinner than many plastic-bladed tools, without it being too floppy. Make sure your eggs are sliding around in the pan on their own before you try to slip it underneath, though.
When I make an omelette, I use a silicone scraper. It's shaped like the old rubber scrapers for scraping down your mixing bowl, very thick in the middle and tapering to the edges. I never "flip" omlettes, though; I just use the tool to pull the edges of the eggs back and to poke it into shape as I roll it against the side of the pan. I use this for scrambled eggs, too.
I, too, long for a very simple spatula/turner. I do have some OXO and other silicone wonder-spatulas, but I've found that silicone can actually be rather sticky on teflon, and is both too thick, and too flexible to get under some foods.
Here is an unlikely source - IKEA, of all places, has the closest thing I've found to the old-style thin plastic turner, their RUFSIG 2-piece utensil set. It comes with a masher/whisk-ey thing that is entirely useless. The material is reinforced polyamide, making it a relative of nylon, but it is flexible enough to get around in the pan, but with a sharp enough edge to get in under thin foods easily. It is not as thermally resistant as silicone, but it has a respectable temperature limit of 428°F and I've used mine for a few years now without noticeable degradation of the edge. Of my 5 turners (some quite fancy), this one is actually my favorite, and only cost $1.49. Unfortunately they don't sell it online (only through the store).
I found this question while looking for my favorite type of spatula, which looks like the light blue one in your picture. Mine say "LOPOL product by Hutzler no.717" on the back, and so far, I have found them on ebay and at gourmac.com.... it says they are fiberglass and nylon, BPA free, and made in the USA.
I am thrilled to have found them- I have had 2 of them for YEARS and constantly go to them for almost everything.... they are stiff enough to stir a huge pot of food and scrape the bottom/make sure nothing is sticking, but thin enough to not be all clunky and awkward. I have never had trouble with them melting or anything, but maybe you were talking about the other one in the pic.
Hope this helps you find what you are looking for!
Yeah, I've been ordering them direct from Hutzler by the box, so that I can stock up for the next time they become completely unavailable.
The spatula on the right is from Hutzler; they have a website where you can order them. Best spatula ever!
http://www.usimprints.com/store/all-promotional-products/product/thin-slotted-turner/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=product%2Bsearch&utm_campaign=base
this is a link to the closest I could find by your description and photos. I find bendy non-silicone/melamine spatulas at the dollar store or in large "first apartment" style sets from big box store like target and stuff like this:
http://www.target.com/p/Chefmate-51-pc-Kitchen-Gadget-Set/-/A-10717429
I am not privy as to why these spatulas have gone out of vogue, I too find them remarkably handy.
I usually find them quite easily at thrift stores. that is where I got my last couple.
Hmmm, the ones in the Target set are the thicker style. The promotional spatula is exactly right; too bad I can't buy them in groups of less than 500! I'll see if I can find any at the dollar store, if so you'll get the bounty.
I have "OXO Good Grips Silicone Flexible Turner" (silicone with very thin metal inside - check amazon.com) but am looking for one myself that's slim/narrow. So far here are what I've found on my search "Chef Craft 21313 1-Piece Flexible Turner, Blue or Gray, 10-Inch" or "Epicurean Gourmet Utensils Nylon Turner" or "Tool, Turner Flexible Nylon" OR "Joseph Joseph ELFLT0100SW Elevate Flexible Turner" .... also check homegoods.
I'm pretty sure you've answered your own question. "These spatulas were not very durable (leading edges tended to melt)". In our litigious world, I'm sure manufacturers' lawyers consider the possibility that you will be consuming particulate plastic matter more important than much anything else.
It's also likely that manufacturing capabilities have improved to the point that the bulk of the cost to get a spatula to you is in the transportation and logistics, so a few extra cents to make a spatula that shows better on a store shelf just makes sense, better utility or not.
That said, I'd bet you could still find a spatula like that in Chinatown, or your local equivalent.
Chinese stores are the first place I looked. They were available there for a few years after they stopped being available at Smart & Final, but alas, no more.
THEY ARE STILL AVAILABLE!!
Tailormade.com $1 each!!
While these types of spatulas are not available online, they are available in Indian local markets. It will cost you only about $2 or $3. These types of spatulas are still in use here. Sorry, I can't send you a link as they are not available online. I don't know if it's feasible for you to import one from India. You need to contact some Indian counterpart for that, if you are really interested.
I know the ones you're talking about. I haven't been able to find them either. This is the nearest I've been finding:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00004SZ6Q?qid=1320181838&sr=8-2
Thin, but not as flat...
Or... If I'm not using Teflon, I'll resort to a thin metal one, but I prefer the old fashioned ones too.
Look on eBay for Foley Spatula. This is exactly what you're seeking.
If you do a search on Google Shopping, there are several options, from the looks of it...
Google Shopping Search for Melamine Spatula Turner
Several of them were quite cheap, for instance, a case of 24 for $27. That should last anyone a while!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.340239
| 2011-10-31T05:43:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18682",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Bryan Austin",
"Chaitali",
"ChikuMiku",
"Circonflexe",
"FuzzyChef",
"GrampaSteve",
"Jason Harrison",
"John Himmelman",
"Juan Carlos Coto",
"Michael",
"Powerful IT Systems",
"TFD",
"Thunk",
"Tom A",
"adrian",
"cookiesfromhome",
"dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100890",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101576",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101578",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40548",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41162",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41329",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41343",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45566",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7425",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98825",
"mines",
"nico",
"rumtscho",
"talon8",
"tolga çakır",
"user562"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
122639
|
I accidently steamed chicken I intend to bake
I'm quite embarrassed.
I tried to copy the way my daughter bakes chicken legs in the oven with vegetables and baby potatoes. First I put the potatoes in after washing without drying them first then I already had the vegetables in the baking pan. Then I put the chicken directly on to top of the potatoes and vegetables, but I put everything in the oven before the oven had preheated long enough.
So I ended up cooking everything for 1.5 hours and the chicken legs reached 180F but everything was steamed instead of baked crispy.
Can I fix it?
I'd try making it into soup!
At the risk of (slightly) overcooking, yes you can crisp that up.
First, you open the oven door wide and let all remaining steam escape.
Then, you switch on only the broiler and place the rack on one of the lower shelves, probably second from the bottom (assuming a standard size oven), close the door again and start watching like a hawk. Problem is, your dish can go from soggy to burnt in less than two minutes, a lower shelf will somewhat mitigate that. So if your oven has a glass door, watching is easy. If not, you need to peek inside very often, once you start to see the first browning, I would check every 30 seconds, tops. In case of doubt, take the tray out sooner rather than later, the browning is not linear.
Of course I am sure you dish is delicious as is too - so you may as well serve it as “steamed chicken and vegetables” and try for a crispy result next time. A few helpful tips you already figured out, a few more would be to avoid overcrowding the pan and if you notice excessive moisture in the oven, to open the door wide once (or even a few times) for about half a minute to let the steam escape.
Excellent advice. I deleted my earlier answer because it's less authoritative than Stephie's.
I have an older oven, and leave the door open slightly while broiling. It gives me a much better view than through the window. It also prevents any new steam buildup
I'd also perhaps brush the chicken with some fat (oil/butter) to get better / faster browning and crispiness.
@Luciano depends on how fatty the skin was and how much has rendered out already. In any case, a little will go a lot way.
Would it be a good idea to remove the skin, as intact as possible, and quickly try it to crisp it up?
@IsmaelMiguel depends on what the cook wants to achieve? Separate skin won’t keep its shape, so you couldn’t really fit it back on. And there won’t be a crisp on the veggies. Of course you can always pull out the kitchen blowtorch, but that needs a whole different level of finesse.
@Stephie Good point, completely forgot it doesn't hold the shape. But, that may be a desired property? But it's a good point the veggies won't be crisp.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.341498
| 2022-12-12T03:19:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122639",
"authors": [
"Ismael Miguel",
"Joe",
"JosephDoggie",
"Luciano",
"Mark Wildon",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41781",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94743"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
124242
|
I put five times (1.25 cup vs 0.25 cup) the recipe's amount of water but the correct amount of oil into my brownie mix
I put 1 & 1/4 cup of water & 1/3 cup of oil in my brownie mix. The recipe calls for 1/4 cup of water & 1/3 cup of oil. I added a second box of brownie mix. Should I add another 1/3 c of oil since there is already too much water? It will also require 2 eggs. What do I do?
As you added five times as much water as it needed, you really need to multiply everything else by 5 too.
I'm not really sure I see an easy way out of this.
You could try pouring onto a shallow tray & see if it will dry sufficiently if you bake it maybe twice as long at half the temperature, but really you're in unchartered territory.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.341761
| 2023-05-22T05:51:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124242",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
75443
|
How to reduce cracking and increase browning in sourdough loaves?
Lately I've been learning how to make these delicious sourdough breads and I have managed to create very flavorful breads but I always get very ugly results...
The picture below is my latest try. Notice how my scores seem totally useless, since the bread just ruptured. Also, it's really hard to get even the slightest browning (I'm using only wheat flour with a bit of sugar hoping it would help in this regard) without burning the bottom.
I didn't follow any specific recipe but a combination of techniques I found around the internet:
Mix flour, water, salt, sugar (about 80% hydration) . Autolyse for 1h +-
Add starter and work the dough.
Stretch and fold method 3 times with 15 min rest in between.
Shape and (try to) build surface tension.
Bulk fermentation in fridge for around 10h
Score and bake for 45 min @ 250°C (no Dutch oven, but sprayed some water inside to make crust crisper)
Anyone have any tips to improve the appearance of my sourdough?
Maybe add sugar into and/or on the bread?`As a comment because I am not a bread specialist...
most of the time it's very active. I decided to only make bread when my starter is bubbly and doubles shortly after feeding (also passes the floating test). about the salt, it really seems to not make much of a difference if I put it before or after autolyse. my guess is that at low amounts (like 2% weight) it doesn't inhibits enzymes at a relevant level
This bread looks really pale. Do you have steam in your oven? http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/21627/3772
For the scoring, you didn't score deep enough. You need a lot more depth to allow for enough expansion.
For the browning, you cannot expect much from a sourdough in a home oven. Both the ingredients and the temperature are wrong for a dark crust. The best you can do is to work with washes, milk should brown well, yolk is also OK but not as usual on sourdough.
It's simply not true that you cannot expect a nice browning from a home oven. 250°C will surely get your bread a nice crust as long as you have enough steam in there.
@eckes steam has little to do with color, it is important for the softness of crust and, by extension, rise. The color needs caramelization and some maillard, and depends on temperature, pH, and the chemical content of the dough. Also, even for the crust purposes, the few home tricks can't get nearly as much steam into the oven as the steam injectors do in pro bakery ovens.
I'd recommend getting a dutch oven. I use a Lodge cast iron two piece combo cooker. Preheat it in your oven, pop your dough in on the skillet side and cover with the deep pan part. It gives an incredible golden crust!
Yes, the slashes are not deep enough. Slashes are not meant to be solely decorative - they also function to let the dough expand easier.
As for browning... I've baked solely with sourdough bread for the last decade, and I've had no problem at all getting my bread to brown.
I don't use flour for kneading my dough. I use oil on my hands. I'm not a fan of the flour look on baked bread anyway.
I heat my oven up as hot as it can possibly go, and when it's hot, put the dough in the middle of the oven. Then, about fifteen minutes after I put it in, I lower the temperature to around 175-200C for the remainder of the bake. The high heat at the beginning gives the bread better oven spring. My bread is plenty brown when it's done.
If you're still having a problem with burnt bottoms but pale everywhere else, try putting a pizza stone or clay tile in the bottom of the oven to help keep the oven temperatures more even.
for how long do you usually bake it? I stick with like 40 min, but I'm going to try to leave a while longer the next time.
Depends on the loaf, but around 35 minutes maybe.
@avere: times could differ, use a thermometer and aim for a core temperature of 96-98°C. Then your bread will be done.
The scoring/slashing stuff mentioned in other answers should decrease the cracking.
To improve browning I recommend using a baker's tile. Slip it in the oven before you turn the oven on. It will take you much longer to preheat the oven when the tile is there (my oven takes about an hour to preheat to 450F with the tile) but it has improved the crustiness and darkness of my breads.
This is true whether you bake a dough directly on the tile, or bake it in a pan then remove the pan to finish a loaf directly on the stone.
An added benefit of the tile is that you can cook pizzas directly on the tile, and they turn out a lot better than just pizza on a metal sheet with no tile.
The loaf ruptures due to pressure building up after the crust has hardened. This can be decreased by scoring which creates an intentional weak point in the crust. See http://www.thefreshloaf.com/handbook/scoring for more information on scoring bread.
Another way to decrease rupturing is to ensure that sufficient rising occurs before the bread is put in the oven. I typically expect–after shaping–the bread to increase in volume by approximately a third. It will expand further in the baking process as well, but usually only so much as to make the scored marks look appealing.
Regarding a darker crust: I would try modifying your method. Most of your fermentation time is in the fridge. If it is close to 0ºC in your fridge this may stop most of the fermentation from happening (which would also lead to the rupturing above). The fermentation process should breakdown the complex carbohydrates (the flour in your dough) into simple sugars and these will increase the darkness of the loaf.
A couple of things to try: let the loaf sit for an hour before refrigeration (to jump start the process); letting the loaf sit for an hour after it comes out of the fridge; leaving it in a cool place (~15ºC) instead of using the fridge. Try one of these not all of them ;)
You're absolutely positive you're baking at 250 C and not 250 F? It sounds like you're mostly following the same method I do and my bread is usually very dark.
One other potential option-- is your loaf going into the oven with a lot of extra flour on it, which you then knock off after baking? If so, try using less flour, or use rice flour instead. The surface of the dough needs to be exposed to the heat from the oven to darken and extra flour will protect it from the heat.
I think your slashes generally look fine-- the degree of spread that you get in them seems to indicate that they're doing their job. A little deeper couldn't hurt though-- try doing multiple passes rather than pushing any harder.
Other things to try. You can turn the broiler on near the end which will change the direction of the heat from below to above which should help darken the top-- it might end up being too blistery though.
Dutch ovens are great, but if you don't have one you can do a work around by using a cast iron pan and a metal pot with a lid that can sit inside. That'll make your rise better and your crust crunchier.
well, it's been 4 years, I learned a lot and my bread now looks (and tastes) a lot better I moved and therefore switched ovens many times and now looking back I strongly believe the problem was a terrible oven + bad quality flour
Lack of browning has more to do with chemistry here, than scoring, oven, pans, steam, etc. If the bacteria level of your starter has grown out of control making the pH too acidic, your dough will simply not brown even if it is cooked to death. Also, too much starter and a long fermentation will cause the yeast and bacteria to use up all of the sugars in the flour, hence very little Maillard reaction will result. Same thing if you've over-proofed or used too little salt in the dough.
Try a recipe that uses 35g of starter if you plan on the long, slow rise. That way you will achieve all the great flavour of a long fermentation, and also achieve the brown, cherished crust.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.341864
| 2016-11-13T12:21:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75443",
"authors": [
"LMAshton",
"arvere",
"eckes",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51848",
"rackandboneman",
"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
}
|
80808
|
Can sufficiently finely-ground matzo meal substitute for flour in leavened bread?
In the context of a question about whether or not bread made from matzo meal would be kosher for Passover, I've come to wonder if such a bread would be practical.
If matzo meal is sufficiently finely-ground (so as to match the grain of actual flour, rather than the breadcrumb consistency you get by putting matzo into a food processor), could it be substituted for flour in a bread recipe? What would be the differences between bread made with "matzo flour" and real flour?
Based on the answer here I'm guessing not. But it will be interesting to see what the consensus is. :)
Somewhat unsure if this one should be considered a duplicate: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79291/can-you-develop-a-gluten-structure-by-kneading-matzoh-meal-dough
That question appears to be asking "do you get a gluten structure, and what's the chemistry behind that?" This question is asking "can you make bread this way, and what do you get if you try?" The answers to these might be the related (i.e., the answer to mine might be "the bread you get will be bad, because it won't have a gluten structure, and it won't have a gluten structure because [answer to linked question]"), but they're not the same question. Also, that question doesn't appear to have any good answers, so I hope this stays open for selfish reasons...
Also of note: bread recipes that use toasted flour http://www.kingarthurflour.com/recipes/toasted-wheat-bread-recipe http://www.thefreshloaf.com/node/7324/roasted-flour-bread-anyone-tried Not sure if toasted flour is the same deal?
@A_S00 I wonder what the bread's consistency is like. I looked at the recipe and it calls for 5 1/2 cups flour and only 1 1/2 cups are toasted. I'd think the gluten in the toasted flour would be non-functional (see the reference below in my answer). Gluten development would come from the other 4 cups flour.
@Jude that makes sense, I hadn't noticed that only some of the flour was toasted in those.
First, I'd ask - why would anyone want to make bread from matzo meal even if it was the consistency of flour? Bread has leavening (yeast) so even using matzo meal, it wouldn't be fit for Passover where no leavening is allowed.
But if you're simply curious to know if it's possible using, the answer is no. Matzo is cooked so the heat-treated gluten in it wouldn't be able to stretch and maintain the structure needed in bread. If you tried, you'd have bubbly dough that tries to rise due to carbon dioxide given off by yeast but unable to maintain structure. You wouldn't even be able to shape it without it falling apart unless very wet. Baking would likely make the entire thing collapse.
The baking performance of gluten declined progressively on heating and most of its functionality was destroyed by 75°C.
...data indicate that there are heat-induced alterations in gluten proteins at temperatures above 55°C, which appear to be involved in the loss of functionality (baking performance) on heating.
The effect of heat on wheat gluten and the involvement of sulphydryl-disulphide interchange reactions from the Journal of Cereal Science.
On the other hand, it might be possible to make a quick bread if you used baking powder instead. Quick breads don't rely on gluten for structure.
If you have a citation for the first part of this answer, please post it on the companion question to this one (linked above) on whether such bread would be kosher for Passover - that was what inspired me to ask this. I'm considering just buying some matzo tomorrow and trying to make bread with it - the quick bread thing is a good idea, thanks!
I hope I did not mislead you with my related/duplicate suggestion below the question - now that I think of it again, gluten-free bread exists. Not made out of crumbs, but I think there are some versions which do not rely on pure starch (almond flour or so). I wonder if there would be the possibility to make a gluten free bread out of matzo.
@A_S00 note that we are not an authorative source on religious matters. It is indeed nice if Jude adds a link about the yeast-leavened bread not being kosher, but even if he says that a quickbread is kosher, it is best to consult somebody else to find out if leavening with baking soda is allowed or not.
@rumtscho Of course, I just meant that the first paragraph of this answer (if properly backed up) would constitute an answer to my other question, so if Jude has an appropriate source to show for it, he can post it there and answer both of my questions! If not, I'll rely on the Mi Yodeya folks as normal.
@A_S00 Quickbreads (with chemical leaveners) are considered kosher for Passover by some (ref. Mi Yodeya Q)... I've never tried substituting matzoh meal for flour in my muffin recipe, but this is a good week to experiment :)
I'm Jude and a she, not a he. :) Not offended as many people on the internet mistake me for a guy. I'm told it's my manner of writing - whatever that means.
@Jude Apologies! If I had to guess, though, I'd say the username is more likely to blame than the writing style. The Beatles and Jude Law are mercilessly salient.
Hi Jude, the same thing happens to me too! Both the pronoun and it being based on the writing style (once even by somebody with a degree in linguistics). I usually apply "he" to others as a first guess, because of the demographics of the site, and because singular they has not really made it over into continental English yet, so it feels a bit weird to me. I'll take note of it for next time.
That's fine, Rumtscho. It happens a lot and it doesn't bother me in the least. I have the emotions and feelings of a woman but I realise I think more like a man. For reference, you're a man, right?
Accepting this as the correct answer; mine is more of a silly exercise in "let's see what happens." We'll see whether I feel sufficiently motivated to empirically test the yeast-leavened version, which I'm 99% sure would be super gross. If I do, I'll edit the results into my answer.
@Jude I am a woman too, that's what I meant by "the pronoun and it being based on the writing style" - people assume I'm a man and say that I write like one. Maybe I think like a man too, difficult to say, since I tend to see thoughts as more gender neutral.
@A_S00 And something about my first comment: I had overlooked that you are asking for the answer to be posted to a different question on the judaism site, and thought you want the discussion on kosher/non-kosher to be added here. This would have been borderline off-topic. Apologies.
@Jude Bit late for this, but if you like you can always put your preferred pronouns in your profile. Most won't see it, but the ones who do will hopefully set the right example, which does help.
You can make a respectable quick bread from matzo meal.
Jude's answer provides compelling evidence that the heating involved in baking matzo damages its ability to form a gluten structure, and that such "flour" would therefore be unusable as a substitute for flour in a normal, raised bread recipe.
However, she suggested that it might be usable in a quick bread, using leavening other than yeast, and I decided to give this a go to see what happened.
I used this recipe for Irish soda bread, halving all quantities (this ended up being 2 cups of matzo meal, or four squares worth). Ingredients:
I ground the matzo in a food processor for an unreasonably long time, then put it in small batches into a mortar and pestle to grind it down further. Although this got me a consistency finer than most commercial matzo meal, it still wasn't quite as fine as flour; more like a 50/50 mix of flour and fine bread crumbs:
The dough was easily malleable, but the lack of gluten was very noticeable: it didn't want to stick together at all, and had to be handled carefully lest it crumble apart. Cutting the 'X' into the top didn't show any of the expected "springiness" or tendency for the sides of the incision to spontaneously pull apart, as shown in this video. However, it formed into a ball easily enough, as long as I was gentle with it:
Per the recommendation of a comment on the recipe I was using, and to accommodate my smaller portion, I baked at 350 instead of 375, and left the loaf in the oven for about 45 minutes (until the exterior was nicely browned and a fork came out clean). The loaf barely expanded at all during baking, despite plenty of acid (from the buttermilk) and chemical leavening (baking soda and powder):
The end result was quite good, but not like Irish soda bread at all.
Taste: Toasty/caramelly, delicately sweet, quite rich.
Texture: Pleasantly crispy crust. Dense, moist crumb. The coarser crumbs from the "flour" are very noticeable and provide a nice chew. Overall very similar to cornbread made with a mix of coarse and fine cornmeal.
Overall: Pleasantly surprised. I would eat this on purpose. Good with a little butter; would be good with soup or stew. Basically anything you could do with a not-too-sweet cornbread, you could do with this.
Images:
Very interesting and great description of your results! It does look like it gives lots if rubs when cut though.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.342507
| 2017-04-10T22:20:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/80808",
"authors": [
"A_S00",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Erica",
"Jude",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56993",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
86869
|
Can I par-bake French bread?
According to this website, to par-bake bread, you must
Bake as usual, but cut the time by 1/4 ... The goal is to completely bake the bread internally to a temperature of 185 degrees without browning it at all on the outside. Once it's reached that internal temp, take it out.
Let the bread cool to room temperature..., put it in a plastic bag [and freeze] until later.
And to finish it,
Preheat the oven with the cast-iron skillet inside. Boil 2 cups of water. When you put the bread in, pour the boiling water into the skillet. ... Bake for 20 minutes or so, until the loaf turns brown.
My French bread recipe calls for baking for 15 minutes at 550°F, and the point is to bake the crust quite quickly. Is there a method for par-baking a traditional baguette? Should I make the dough as usual but do a short, low-temp, relatively dry par-bake, then when I am ready to completely bake, then do the high-temp, high-humidity baking step?
I've never tried doing this with crusty bread myself (I've only par-baked rolls and such), so my answer is not based on personal experience, but rather what I know about the theory of par-baking, along with advice from Michel Suas in Advanced Bread and Pastry where he describes par-baking (pp. 163-167).
Anyhow, the brief answer is that you should basically do what your link in the question suggests: initially bake as usual, but cut roughly 25% off the baking time. You should be able to get away with around 180F as minimum internal temperature, since the gluten structure should be stable at that point. But you might need to experiment. Ideally, the best par-baked results come when the bread is baked just until the structure is set and won't collapse during cooling.
Since you bake at such a high temperature, you might consider lowering it just a bit to avoid early browning, but I would NOT recommend a "low-temp" par-bake. That would inhibit proper oven spring. I also would NOT recommend a "dry" par-bake -- assuming you already use moisture during your standard baguette bake -- since adding moisture to your oven in the first 10 minutes or so does at least five things: (1) it inhibits early browning, (2) moist air transfers heat faster, so it enhances oven spring, and (3) it keeps the crust soft and moist for a few more minutes, which delays hard crust formation and thus allows even more oven spring, (4) keeping the crust at a lower temperature for longer also allows increased enzyme activity which will ultimately enhance browning during the final bake, and (5) it helps create an attractive shiny exterior in the final crust.
Michel Suas recommends high-heat par-baking for small or thin loaves (as in your case). If you're having trouble getting the interior up to temp before browning occurs, you might consider either reducing your bake temp slightly (I'd perhaps try 450F or so rather than 550F) or venting your oven a bit after the first half of the bake to lower the temperature rapidly, and let the interior come to 180+F in the lower oven. (Suas recommends this high-temp then low-temp approach particularly for larger loaves. So if you wanted to make larger crusty "French bread" rather than baguettes, that might be more relevant.)
Basically, what you want to end up with at the end of a par-bake is a loaf that's exactly the size and shape of a finished loaf, with all the finished internal texture. The only thing that needs to be completed is browning. If you have inferior oven spring or internal structure during the par-bake, it will remain in the finished loaf.
You may have to experiment a bit with the re-heating step, but high heat and steam (to prevent moisture loss) are both generally useful. Michel Suas also suggests baking on a perforated sheet pan rather than a hearth to avoid an excessively thick and hard bottom crust.
However, if you're concerned about bread quality for par-baking, what happens between the bakes is also very important. Par-baked bread needs to be cooled to room temperature without excessive drying out (no fans or breezes around, since it's more vulnerable to moisture loss without sufficient crust). And then it needs to be frozen as quickly as possible if you plan to store it longer than a day or two. Any excess time spent in the range below room temperature and above freezing will degrade final quality and cause staling.
By the way, the reason I personally haven't tried par-baking with crusty breads is that I've read stories online of people who have tried it with somewhat inferior results. It likely could work well for a baguette that you intend to heat and eat within one sitting while it's still a bit warm. But without the commercial processes for handling (e.g., blast chillers to freeze bread as quickly as possible between bakes), the sense I get is that the bread produced at home just isn't as good after the final bake, particularly after it cools. It can stale faster and the crust just isn't the same as a fresh-baked loaf.
This thread, with people who have actually tried par-baking and compared it to other methods, suggests the much easier approach of simply (1) bake loaf as usual, (2) freeze, (3) thaw at room temperature for a few hours or overnight, and (4) refresh crust by heating at ~325F for a few minutes. I've done this too, and the result is very good. And no worries about modifying recipes or gambling with getting the right doneness when finishing.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.343295
| 2018-01-03T07:14:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86869",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
80770
|
Why do I have lumps in my caramel? (NOT crystallized sugar.)
There are a lot of caramel questions. Hopefully I'm not repeating anyone...
I've made caramel sauce several times with the recipe from Sally's Baking Addiction. (But using a different beginning procedure: Dissolve sugar in ~1/2 cup of water, not stirring. Put the lid on for a few minutes to clean the sides. After that it's the same.) For some reason, though, whenever I make it I end up with lots of tiny lumps suspended in my caramel. As I mention in the title, these lumps are not little sugar crystals. I've had my caramel crystallize before, and this is very different. They're soft, for one thing, and so I'm not sure what's happening.
At first I thought the little lumps were just air bubbles. That's what they look like. But they actually have some body to them. It's almost like I have tiny bits of cooked egg or something (which is obviously impossible.) They have a gelatinous quality. So my guess is that the cream is doing something weird? Flavor is good, thickness is good, everything is good except these stupid little lumps.
Does anyone know what's happening, and how I can make it stop...? I'm about to take an immersion blender to the mess and let God sort it out.
EDIT/UPDATE: So... I now have a theory that I tend to get my caramel so dark (more of a crimson/burnt sienna than an amber. Probably around 380F) that some of the dairy solids in the butter (maybe even the cream?) cook/coagulate as soon as I add it, leading to those gelatinous lumps. I haven't had the time (or a good reason) to try cooling my syrup with some water before I add the butter yet, but as I said in the original question, this definitely isn't sugar crystallization, and it's been a persistent problem. When my mom's made the recipe before, she didn't have the problem, but she's also terrified of burning her caramel and tends to add the butter much, much sooner.
I've noticed brown specks when I've made chewy caramels and toffee as well, so I'm wondering if cooked and browned dairy solids are my whole problem here.
Welcome to the site @kitukwfyer. A picture would be really helpful, it's hard to tell from your description. The second picture of the recipe link shows some sort of lumps or bubbles, are they similar to your result?
@GdD : Pictures added, and no, not similar to my results. :/
Funky. I have no ideas.
This looks a lot like the scum you get when making clarified butter ... hey, clarified butter could be a good idea to try...
For the record, I tried a very different caramel recipe (using condensed milk, sugar, and golden syrup all in one pot from the start), aaaaand I still got weird lumps! Seriously. Why does my caramel do weird curdley things? T.T
@rackandboneman I have an experiment in order (eventually) and rereading the comments I realized that you basically suggested it, lol.
So.... I've finally figured it out.
My cream's been curdling because I get my syrup too hot and too dark.
Most caramel recipes recommend heating the initial sugar syrup to no more than 380 degrees, and for the most part, people will get scared and pull it off the heat and add their cream before it even gets close to 380. I know I did when I first started! But without realizing it, I moved beyond those fears, enjoying progressively darker caramels.
However, one thing I was not aware of (and should have learned sooner) is that as sugar decomposes further, creating darker caramel, it becomes more acidic. Maybe not acidic enough in its own right to curdle heavy cream, but heat accentuates the curdling effect of acidity on casein and it's friends. I currently have a jar of caramel "sauce" in my fridge with a layer of dark caramel liquid on the bottom, and lighter, solid dulce de Leche reminiscent curds on top.
To which I said "the FRIG is going on???" I busted out the thermometer and actually added my cream at a wussy 380. It's wayyyy too sweet for my taste, but only a few shreds of cooked/curdled cream floated to the top. That seems significant.
While I can't find a decent chart that measures the pH of caramel at various stages of decomposition, I found lots of references to increasing acidity, and even to milk curdling as a result. Cream is more stable than milk, but the anecdotal stuff I found is still relatable. I have tiny curds instead of big ones, but that doesn't change their nature.
Easy fixes? Don't cook my sugar so hot is the obvious. One idea I haven't tried yet is to make my caramel with a pinch of baking soda, although I might not like the results as much. (I'd try and see, but two batches of caramel in 24 hours is enough for me)
The reason the answer wasn't obvious to anyone is because the recipe I started with never discusses temperature, so I never checked mine, and that's what made my situation unusual. I was trying to make a caramel sauce with a sugar solution approaching baker's caramel.
The moral of this story: if you're EVER following a recipe that instructs you to eyeball something, and then it comes out wrong, check your eyeballs. That means take precise measurements of what you're currently eyeballing and compare to accepted standards in other recipes.
Eg, I should have measured the temperature of my caramel syrup when I added the cream and took it off the heat, as well as noting my recipe's proportions, then compared to the temperatures and proportions of other accepted recipes to see how mine was different.
I could have saved myself a LOT of curdled caramel if I'd realized that 400 degrees is not caramel sauce standard sooner.
I have failed many times to make that kind of recipes. They contain false direction, especially when it comes to melt the sugar.
Here is a quote which helps me. It's not accurate but you'll get the idea.
The thing to do when you want caramel is to do nothing
In the recipe you provide, the author stirs the sugar while it cooks. That's a bad idea.
Sugar has a very complex crystal structure and it's not very stable when you heat it. Thus if you disturbed the crystals, you'll end up with lumps. During the last step (the one with the cream), it will emphasize those lumps.
So you need to refrain to stir during the melting step. If you have sugar sticking on the side of the pan, you could use a brush with some water. And again, do not stir.
I agree 100%. No stirring once the sugar is dissolved. And to avoid sugar sticking on the sides, you may use a lid and let the condensation keep the sides clean. Here is a video The Trick to Making Caramel - Kitchen Conundrums with Thomas Joseph
@roetnig I didn't know that trick. Nice!
OK, but what are those lumps composed of?
Not sure, but my guess is that the cream interacts with unstable crystals and makes those lumps.
kitukwfyer I looked at the photos on the recipe site you gave and her caramel sauce has large and small lumps in it. The only thing I can think of when the cream was added to the caramelized sugar and butter mixture, it cooled the mixture enough that tiny secs of butter congealed in it. On the recipe site, it looks Ike hers are larger so maybe you stirred yours in more thorough.
Personally, I find it can be tricky melting and caramelizing sugar evenly. Her method is also liable to spattering hot caramel on the stove. Sugar can be caramelized cooking with some water first and it's safer. I'm not suggesting using this recipe - How to Make an Easy Caramel Sauce but read it over and see what you think of the method.
Serious Eats Easy Homemade Caramel Sauce Recipe
You only need 2000 reputation to edit others' posts so it's definitely not just mods who can help you out. (We do tend to be pretty active though.) If you post from mobile a lot, you might also be interested in the app (Android or iOS) - the editor there can do links and such.
Thanks, Jerome. I'll take a look at it. I've got so many apps already (I only keep those I use) but what's one more? ;)
Hmm. I'll take a look at it, for sure. One thing I should point out is that I usually do use water to initially dissolve the sugar (I just don't think about it.) That said, the sauce cooks for a minute more after adding the cream, so if it got cool enough for the butter to solidify, it gets hot enough again to melt it, but the lumps remain... And the lumps aren't greasy, but have a gelatinous quality. It's not sugar crystals or lumps of fat I don't think. That's why I'm so confused... Thanks for the link, though!
I believe it's the milk solids from the butter/ cream. I clarified 5lbs of butter and used all the milk solids + clarified butter in place of the regular butter in my recipe. Never had this before and that's the only thing I tried differently this time. It's oh so delicious; I don't even care about the flecks, its almost like flavor confetti.
You may want to add some corn syrup. Sugar is made up of complex sugar. When you heat it it splits into simple sugar. The lumps are caused by those sugars recrystalizing. Corn syrup is already an inert sugar and keeps the crystals from reforming.
Definitely do not stir. Allow the sugar to melt and get a nice amber color. Brush down the side with water if you see crystals (also lids work to keep the crystals under control by using steam to redissolve any crystals).
Successful caramel is strictly due to good crystal management.
If you add cream, I warm it up a bit. I think cream works better than milk. It’s sturdier at higher temps. Caramel is at 235-240 F.
Hang in there, it took me a whole weekend and about 3 lbs of sugar to get it figured out!
Thanks for answering! However, I'm quite familiar with crystallized sugar, and the lumps I typically get in my caramel are not grainy. These days I suspect that the cream is overheating and curdling slightly, but I'm not sure how to test that theory.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.343723
| 2017-04-09T18:19:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/80770",
"authors": [
"A.D.",
"Cascabel",
"GdD",
"Jude",
"Lorel C.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33995",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"kitukwfyer",
"rackandboneman",
"roetnig"
],
"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
}
|
18111
|
How to cook meat?
Possible Duplicate:
What is the secret of making a really juicy burger?
Well I want to be more independent and cook for my self. How can I say, cook a burger on a frying pan? I know you have to do it right to be safe to eat. I only actually know how to fry bacon, and make scrambled eggs...
Thanks, I tried making a pretty thin beef burger. I somewhat burned it, the outside was crispy, I did that because I was worried of it cooking to fast on the outside but not the inside, when I did eat it though the inside definitely wasn't pink. IS that all there is to it really? is steak the same? I usually have steak rare.
Fry or grill / broil the burger on both sides. Note how long you cook it for. When you think it might be done, slice it open down the middle (into two thin patties) and see if the middle is still pink; if it is, it's not done yet! In time you will learn how long a particular variety of burger takes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.344744
| 2011-09-30T12:08:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18111",
"authors": [
"Didi",
"Richard Wake",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39088",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39090",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7573",
"neilh",
"spaceplane",
"wolfram77"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18882
|
Preparing Salsa with a Magic Bullet
I'm trying to make some salsa with a magic bullet using the given recipe from the cookbook that comes with it. Here's the recipe with a picture of how it turns out at best.
The final product comes out looking pretty unappetizing - even worse than that picture. Is there a way to make it of normal consistency and colour?
Update: I realize that I should be a bit more specific as there are a lot of different salsas. I want it to look like this.
What do you find unappetizing exactly? To me, the picture looks like it has foam from blending (which should settle down), and maybe too much water, but the ingredient list is fairly reasonable. (What do you think of as "normal" for salsa?)
Good point Jefromi, I've updated my question with a more specific definition.
@ChrisM the tomatoes in your "should be" picture are cooked, maybe some of the other ingredients (the chiles?) too. The onion and parsley is still raw, but not blended, they were cut into pieces and added later.
Wow seriously, so all I need to do is cook the tomatoes and then follow the magic bullet recipe and I'll have a chunky red sauce?
The tomatoes won't be chunky, after cooking, they will make a smooth paste. If you don't cook the other ingredients, they will stay chunky.
The Magic Bullet is essentially a blender, and is, as such, inherently unsuitable for making a salsa.
Also, the "seven-second" part of that recipe is a lie. You're still going to have to peel the onions and garlic, remove the stems and seeds of the peppers, and trim up the tomatoes.
You're getting your knife and cutting board out anyway, so why not just do it by hand? It really shouldn't take more that 5 minutes.
Some salsas are pureed. I don't think you're ever going to do that with a knife and cutting board. It looks like the problem here is more that there's a lot of water released, and it was photographed while still foamy from blending.
I've always seen salsa as chunky. I assumed that the pureeing was what ChrisM was viewing as unappetizing.
The term has taken on a ton of meanings as it's spread around, but in the Mexican cuisine that salsas like this come from, salsa very commonly means something blended. Before electric appliances, they were made with mortar and pestle, and now blenders are extremely common in Mexican households - even in households without other appliances! And in my experience in Texas, perhaps half the salsas sold in jars in grocery stores are blended, and most restaurant salsas (for eating with chips) are.
@Jefromi, on the contrary: the term has one (relevant) meaning. A composition or mixture of various dissolved edible substances, which is made to dress or season food. (My translation from the DRAE). The problem is that a lot of people try to treat a word as generic as "sauce" as a technical term referring to a specific recipe.
@PeterTaylor: Sure. But in English, "salsa" doesn't just refer to any sauce, and in many places it essentially exclusively refers to the sort you'd eat on a chip or as a generic condiment. And no one in English is going to say "salsa" in isolation and actually mean mole. So yes, it has taken on other meanings. But this is all a complete digression. We both agree that not all salsas (in either the general Spanish or more specific English meaning) are chunky.
@Jefromi Yes, salsa is definitely chunky!
@Jefromi: Traditional salsa cruda is almost never blended, at least not according to any of the Mexicans I've met or any of the more authentic Mexican restaurants I've ever eaten at... it's usually only the salsa roja (red salsa - very hot) that's actually puréed as opposed to just chopped. Food processors are fairly common but blenders? Never.
@Aaronut: Yes, salsa cruda belongs in the part that's not blended. I wasn't trying to say no such thing existed, but rather that many pruréed salsas do exist, and that's a quite normal thing. And I got the bit about blenders being common in Mexico from my sister, who spent a summer in Oaxaca, and saw both urban and rural households. A food processor would be better for many things, of course, but I think blenders are cheaper, and better for some of the more liquid salsas people commonly make there?
@Jefromi: Authenticity arguments aside, the major disadvantage of a blender is that you have very little control over the consistency you end up with; a blender tends to liquefy a little bit at a time while leaving the rest untouched. Compare with a food processor which will give you roughly uniform chunks of progressively finer consistency the longer and faster you run it. Again, it all depends on what you're trying to make; for salsa roja you want to extract the maximum amount of capsicum so blenders all the way; on the other hand cilantro and garlic tends to lose its subtlety as a purée.
Normally it is true that a blender would puree the food and that you have very little control, but that's one of the upsides to a magic bullet. It's a small little blender which is turned on when you push down on it. Because of this, you can pulse the food in such a way where you still get chunks, it's pretty cool actually. I know there are better ways to make salsa, but I want to make it with the magic bullet because it's fast and fun =P
Yeah, and you have to clean the so-called magic bullet...instead of cleaning off the knife and cutting board. The magic bullet is an extra step and not needed.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.344888
| 2011-11-10T17:20:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18882",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Cascabel",
"Chris Cudmore",
"ChrisM",
"Kryten",
"Peter Taylor",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40941",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7939",
"metasj",
"rumtscho",
"wdypdx22"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22660
|
Should I polish a cast iron pan for use on a glass cooktop?
There was a question asked here about using cast iron on glass top ranges. In the responses, there was a link to an article about cast iron equipment. Here is a quote.
There is also an almost comically simple alternative for a more
permanent fix. It's one of those ideas like the safety pin or the
paper clip: blindingly obvious in hindsight, but not apparent at once.
Just sandpaper the pan or pot bottom smooth! Readers have reported to
us that they have done just that, with excellent results. We don't
have details, but we'd guess that two grades of sandpaper, a coarse
then a fine for polishing off, would do the job.
I am getting my first brand-new electric glass-top range, and I don't want to ruin it. The quote said they are guessing, but with Stack Exchange, there is no guessing just real experiences. How do you polish the cast iron to make the bottom smoother? Did you see an improvement?
Brand-new electric range = brand-new glass top electric range?
Yes. I updated the question text to clarify.
@Cascabel Isn't this a duplicate of the mentioned question? https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4734/using-cast-iron-on-a-glass-range
My question here is trying to get refinement, so no, it isn't a duplicate
This will be a short answer as there is not much to say:
I have used cast iron pans on my glass stove top for about five years, and the surface does not show any scratches or marks. I have not taken any special care to protect the surface, and certainly have not polished the iron.
To close the loop a little, I'd like to give an update. I have been using my new range for several weeks now with my cast iron, and I have not had any troubles.
No, I haven't. I admit, however, that it's only an induction hot-plate, and my main stove is resistive electric. I also sometimes cook at my neighbor's house, and they have a a glass-topped electic stove and cast iron, and they don't polish theirs, either. (so it's now been three years, and their two pans in heaviest rotation are Lodge cast iron skillets)
I personally haven't had any problems (other than the induction cooker heating up the aebelskiver pan differently than resistive electric). I do change my behaviour, as I don't shake the pan on the stove without lifting (which I'll do at home).
We also both keep our pans well-seasoned, though, and that includes the bottom. When I re-seasoned the poffertjes and aebelskiver pans (specifically for use on the induction cook top; the aebelskiver pan was new, the poffertjes pan hadn't been maintained), I gave them three cycles through the oven to make sure the bottoms were coated well. This, however, caused me a little bit of a problem with the poffertjes pan, as the bottom wasn't entirely flat (just slightly convex), so it can walk a little bit as you're using it, and I have to keep pushing it back over the burner.
And I actually do have a piece of polished cast iron ... I don't remember how I came by it. I think it was a friend's dad did it with some tools for buffing cars. It's kinda strange looking, as it's not black ... it actually looks more orange-ish, like when you bake something on an aluminum tray, and the oil drips and leaves that annoying residue you can't get off easily. I admit, I don't really use it, though ... it's more of a novelty. I don't know if it'd go to black if I cooked with it more often. (it's smaller, and not a size I'd typically use).
Are you saying that polishing isn't necessary if the cast iron is well seasoned? Or that polishing isn't desirable because it makes pans turn orange-ish? Otherwise it seems this doesn't really answer the question.
@Sobachatina : I'm saying I haven't had any problems with glass cooktops with cast iron pans where the back is well seasoned.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.345378
| 2012-03-30T16:07:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22660",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Eric",
"Joe",
"Luciano",
"MADCookie",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51058",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8582",
"rubasov",
"user363203"
],
"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
}
|
91381
|
I'm cooking a Romanian meatball soup for 60 people. How much of this soup do I need to feed 60 people?
This is the recipe (in Romanian) for the meatball soup.
Here is the ingredient list translated:
Servings: a pot of 5 L
Ingredients - savoriurbane.com
2 carrots
1 parsley root
1 root parsnips
1 celery root (medium)
2 tablespoons of oil
1 onion
2 potatoes
500 ml broth of tomatoes (of the house) or the tomato paste to the box (mashed) or 3-4 fresh tomatoes (summer)
approx. 500 g vegetables of your choice: pod of beans, peas, florets of cauliflower, diced turnip, etc.
1 small bunch of thyme dry
For the meatballs:
500 g minced pork (or mix with beef)
50 g rice (about 2 tablespoons)
1 small onion chopped
1 tablespoon of oil
salt, freshly ground pepper
1 teaspoon of sweet paprika (paprika)
1 teaspoon dry thyme, chopped
1 egg white raw
In addition:
sour cream tart for dres soup
1 raw egg yolk
lemon juice, vinegar, bors or dies
a handful of greenery (leaves of parsley and dill)
optional: chopped leaves of lovage
Additional translations re the amount of water and the total amount of soup the recipe makes:
I added the rest of the roots and I dropped everything with 4 L of hot water.
From the ingredients below we obtained a soup pot of approx. 5 L.
I'm not sure how much you'd want to serve each diner, but calculating 250ml, this 5l recipe serves 20 people. You'd have to multiply by three to serve 60.
If, instead of a cup, your serving size is a bowl, that's 375ml, this recipe serves 13.33 people. You'd have to multiply by 4.5 to serve 60. You would need 22.6l of soup.
The recipe says to use a 5 liter pot, not that it makes 5L of soup. It is not going to make anywhere close to the soup shown in the pictires if diluted close to 5L
@Cynetta, is that Italian? I don't speak Italian.
The serving size would be in a bowl..considering the amount of vegetables and meatballs I need to add extra water to the 22.6l .Thank you both :)
@DumitruSzabolcsMihai Could you edit your question to include the amount in liters your original recipe gives, and I'll edit an answer for you to accept. Oh, and welcome to this Q&A site.
@BaffledCook - No, Google Translate says it is Romanian
The linked recipe should make 5L. See my answer below.
After looking at many very similar recipes (in English) for Romanian sour meatball soup, or Ciorba de Perisoare, I'm inclined to think that this recipe does indeed make 5 liters.
Most all of the recipes I've looked at start with 500g of meat and have pretty much the same ingredient list. This recipe found on CookingGlory says to :
Add about 12 to 16 cups of water (about 4l).
Based on this, I find it easy to believe that the finished soup would easily be 5 liters. (Also, in the translation provided by another user, it shows an amount of 5 liters.)
Also, translated from the link provided in the question:
From the ingredients below we obtained a soup pot of approx. 5 L. You can reheat without problems and it is tastier every day (kept in the refrigerator lasts for 3-5 days).
And:
I added the rest of the roots and I dropped everything with 4 L of hot water.
The recipe on Cooking Glory states that it makes 8 - 10 servings.
So, basic math in hand, 5 L of soup, multiplied by 6 = 30 L of soup. That would give you sixty 500 ml portions.
The link above to the Cooking Glory page also gives a lot of information about the soup and its ingredients.
This is Google Traslate's version of the recipe plus my answer. Google Translate says it is in Romanian
Only 500g of pork plus mass of the rest of the ingredients for the raw meatballs. I estimate the total mass of the raw meatballs to be about 710g
Assume the raw mass of each meatball to be about 35g. You will be able to make about 20 meatballs.
Decide how many meatballs per serving? One pic shows 5 another shows 3. The recipe will serve between 4 and 7 portions.
Divide into 60 portions and you will need to multiply the recipe between 9 and 15 times to arrive a a decent answer.
Mousse soup - my mother's recipe
Portions: a pot of 5 L
Ingredients - savoryurbane.com
2 carrots
1 roast parsley
1 pasta root
1 root celery (medium)
2 tablespoons of oil
1 onion
2 potatoes
500 ml tomato sauce (tomato sauce) or tomato paste in box (pasato) or 3-4 fresh tomatoes (summer)
approx. 500 g of choice vegetables: bean paste, peas, cauliflower, cubes, etc.
1 bunch of dry thyme
For perry:
500 g pork minced (or mixed with beef)
50 g rice (about 2 tablespoons)
1 small chopped onion
1 tablespoon of oil
salt, freshly ground pepper
1 teaspoon sweet potato (paprika)
1 teaspoon dried thyme, chopped
1 raw crust
In addition:
sour cream for sour soup
1 raw yolk
lemon juice, vinegar, bors or dies
a handful of green (parsley and dill leaves)
optional: chopped leaves of leustean
I'd err on the 'big eater' side. 5 servings, so you have to multiply by 12 to have a decent amount for 60 people.
@BaffledCook especially as such soups in Europe are seen as apetisers and served in pretty small bowls or cups.
I don't disagree with the calculations re the meatballs but it seems like you would need to know the total amount this recipe makes, accounting for all ingredients, and the desired serving size to give an accurate answer. Also, I'm not seeing any amount of stock or water. Surely there must be some added.
Does Google reall give you mousse soup instead of meatballl soup? And Perry instead of meatballl? fascinating. Now I don't wonder why we have questions on charcoal dressing.
@Johannes_B Googe Translate - https://translate.google.com/
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.345855
| 2018-08-01T08:15:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91381",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Cindy",
"Cynetta",
"Dumitru Szabolcs Mihai",
"Johannes_B",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68457",
"jwenting"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21073
|
How to create a gummy candy cake?
I want to give my gf a present for Valentine's day that consists on a board with glued gummy candy, marshmallows... all that lovely sweet stuff. When put all together it will be like a romantic painting but with glued gummy candy instead.
However, I don't know what to use as a frame to stick the candy and also what to glue them with!
Is there anyway to make/(buy) some kind of edible frame? I'm ok with plastic or glass but if it could be edible it would turn out awesome! :) Furthermore, do you have any ideas on what to glue the candy?
Final Result:
This is what I ended up doing. The base is a sponge flan cake, which I bought in the supermarket. Regarding the glue, I was presented with the options of a pure glucose syrup and a shinning glucose gel. I chose the latter, since I was told it was commonly used to stick crystallised fruits in cakes and that sort of stuff :)
Thank you all for the tips and the inspiration. She loved it ;)
Hmmm, when you mention edible framing, pocky is the first thing that comes to mind.
For the frame, I would suggest baking a cake, brownies, gingerbread or even cookie dough in a baking sheet (so it's one big, quite thin piece). But put the temperature of the oven lower than if you would use a regular baking mold. You could also use a piece of styrofoam/polystyrene*, covered with tin foil. Then you can use tooth picks to hold everything in place. To cover the tin foil, use sour strips, marshmallows...
As glue you can use chocolate or caramel if it should sit quite steady. You can also use edible glue (this is often used to glue pieces of fondant to cupcakes). If you present it horizontally, you can use a lot (syrup, honey, jello, icing, even a thick pudding...). I think you could even melt some candy and use it as glue. I have no idea however how strong this would be.
*) I'm not sure this is the correct English term. To be clear, I mean this.
In the US and Canada, polystyrene is usually called styrofoam, which isn't exactly correct, but it's universal. (See the last paragraph of the intro on the wikipedia article.)
I've seen this done before on TV, but it would be quite a feat.
As for the glue, caramel would be best as it would set hard and even when softened could still probably be held up verticly (if that's what you are planning). However you would have to be careful when making the caramel not to burn yourself. Also you would have to add a decrystalizing substance such as corn syrup or glucose syrup as with the continual dunking of the candies it could cause the syrup to crystallize inadvertently.
Another option for the glue would be buttercream frosting, however this would not set hard so it would have to sit flat or the candies may fall off, although it would be tastier. The only problem I can envisage is that the colors in the candy may run but if you pack them closely together then you wouldn't see it anyway.
For the base I was thinking a large cookie, preferably chewy rather than crisp as it will be less likely to crack. Another option is nougat, I can see that working but you'd have to get a smaller amount then roll it out.
For the border the best thing I can come up with is marshmallow ropes or you could just use more candy in a frame pattern (think jellybeans).
Hope this helps and gives you some inspiration!
For a base, you could create Sugar Glass.
Royal Icing is used as the mortar to glue gingerbread houses together.
In fact, Gingerbread would make a great base too. Maybe you should simply research gingerbread houses.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.346282
| 2012-02-05T13:02:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21073",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21058
|
spaghetti dinner
Possible Duplicate:
How can I keep pasta from sticking to itself?
We have a spaghetti dinner at our church and the problem is is that we don't mix it in with sauce because some don't want sauce others don't want a lot of sauce some do. So my question is after I cook the pasta I put it in a colander to drain and it sets till ready to put in hotel pan on the steam table, however by then it's stuck together, how can I keep this from happening or how do I keep it from happening?
More or less exactly the same as http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/403/how-can-i-keep-pasta-from-sticking-to-itself
@ElendilTheTall I'd say exactly the same.
Add olive oil after draining and toss to coat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.346616
| 2012-02-04T15:53:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21058",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"Mien",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21352
|
How can I repair a pasta maker that was washed with water and has started to rust?
My girlfriend has a pasta maker, pictured.
Alas, it was accidentally cleaned with water, which is explictly forbidden (!!!) by the directions, which state:
After using, clean with dry cloth or brush. Occasionally apply a few drops of oil to cylinder ends, turning cylinders to distribute oil evenly.
Never use water on this machine.
Alas, it has begun to rust, as shown here:
More photos.
Is there anything I can do to recover the sanctity of my beloved's pasta maker?
I wonder if you could use electrolysis and then dry it really quickly.
I'd start by making up a batch of sacrificial pasta that you can run through the roller and the cutters. This will pick up any remaining moisture, remove any rust particles that the cutters knock off each other, and give you a better idea of how bad the damage is.
If the cutters still cut cleanly and the damage is mostly cosmetic, that's good news. You could try to remove rust by carefully applying something like a non-scratch Scotch-Brite scouring pad, but I'd avoid abrasives like steel wool. You want to be careful to avoid making the problem any worse than it is.
If the cutters no longer cut cleanly, it may be time to look for replacement parts. If you can locate the manufacturer, that's your best bet for getting proper parts. You might even be able to send the machine back to be refurbished. Check the instruction manual, if you have it, for an address, phone number, whatever might help. If that's not an option because the manufacturer is out of business or whatever, look for similar machines that you can use for parts. Maybe you'll find a Domus machine on eBay that has a good set of cutters. Carefully measure the width of the cutters and check other machines -- it may be that the cutting rollers from an Atlas or Imperia machine will fit into your Domus.
The sacrificial pasta batch is a great idea, just make sure you lube the rollers a bit first. As for abrasives, 0000 steel wool is more gentle than a Scotchbrite pad, and is very commonly used for restoring carbon steel cutters and removing surface rust from chrome.
On Valentines Day, no less! Shame!
The good news is that I think it will be fine. Just some surface rust on the cutters and loss of lubrication on the moving components.
For the rust, start simple and move up:
I would start by cleaning with a sponge and some Bar Keepers Friend. It usually handles surface rust pretty well.
If that doesn't get it all, you could try a stronger chemical like CLR (Calcium Lime Rust), or you could use some 0000 or 000 steel wool from the hardware store (0000 is very fine, 000 is fine). Rub the rusty rollers firmly, adjusting the rollers to get all the corners. Go slow with abrasives on the chrome covers - 0000 steel wool is fine for chrome if it has any surface rust, but 000 or 00 could dull the chrome if used aggressively.
For the lubrication, use whatever oil is recommended in the manual, or any food-grade mineral oil (usually sold at kitchen stores for general lubrication tasks or oiling wooden utensils). Just put a few drops on each moving part and move the rollers to distribute. Wipe off any excess with a cloth.
Finally, buy your girl something nice so she keeps making fresh pasta for you. ;)
You have to use water with the Bar Keeper's Friend, right? So you might have to be really careful to get it dry after trying to clean off the rust. (Compressed air? Hair dryer?)
True, you would need additional water with the Bar Keeper's Friend. The key with things like this though is not to let water sit on it - to remove the rinse water, you'd want to use a hair dryer (good idea), or by putting it in a warm oven. Treat it a bit like you'd treat a carbon steel knife - even if it gets wet, don't let it STAY wet.
You can scrub and treat the rust until it looks clean but its gonna keep rusting. Buy her a new and better one. I've washed mine for 14 yrs and have no rust. If its good stainless steel, shouldn't rust.
Put the pasta maker in a bag of rice for a few days to make sure all the internal parts are good and dry. This will help avoid additional rusting. Then follow Sam Ley's answer to clean up the existing rust and lubricate.
This problem can be split into two subproblems:
removing the rust
putting the machine at work again
Point 1
If you can disassemble it it would be better, in any case you have penty of methods to remove rust. I suggest mechanical+chemical methods like the ones reported here:
http://lifehacker.com/5897807/how-to-remove-rust-from-old-tools
http://www.wisegeek.com/how-can-i-remove-rust-from-metal.htm
Point 2
You'll have to sacrify some pasta, maybe putting the same pasta severa time in the machine in order to clean it.
The best of all will be if you fully disassemble it first and clean only press and cutters but if you can not I think you can use Coca cola to remove the rust. Then clean it with antibacterial towels and probably with some alcohol. After clean with dough and wash it with some boiling water, holding upside down but only the press and cutter not the mechanism) and dry with towels and after with hot air (you can use fan). At the and use some dough containing vegetable oil to oil the press and cutters and clean it again. I believe it will help.
I cleaned my marcato yesterday and did all this but without coca Cola because mine was not rusted. There are a lot of videos on youtobe showing how coca cola is cleaning rust so I think it may work for you too.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.346716
| 2012-02-15T03:24:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21352",
"authors": [
"AmyK",
"Cascabel",
"Dick",
"Lorel C.",
"Sam Ley",
"amalik",
"cLeod9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47202",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47233",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47235",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70156",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9091",
"mom",
"rfusca"
],
"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
}
|
22107
|
How can I sharpen my peeler?
Is it possible to sharpen a peeler? And if it is, how should I do it?
Are there any things to look out for? (Such as ending up with concave blades.)
This is the sort of peeler I'm talking about:
Sort of. There's a trick to fix up peeler edges: rub the back side of a paring knife along the blade, at roughly the same angle as the peeler blade's edge. Use the tip of the knife if needed. You may need to do this with both sides of the peeler blade.
I suspect the result is closer to honing the edge, but the trick works well enough that I haven't bought another peeler since my kitchen manager showed it to me.
Today I discovered a video of this technique: http://www.chow.com/food-news/55249/how-do-you-sharpen-a-vegetable-peeler/
You could theoretically pop the blade out of the handle and try and run it over some sharpening stones (by no means easy with the odd shape), but considering that would take time, effort, and at least a £5 sharpening stone, you're probably better off just dropping £1.50 on a new peeler.
@Ladadadada: Definitely agree it's not worth it to sharpen peeler blade. If you do find yourself buying a new peeler in the future, look into buying a peeler with a ceramic blade. Those will stay sharp for much longer than its steel counterparts.
@Jay: Ceramic is harder, true, but it is also prone to chipping or breaking when banging around in a utensil drawer. For this reason, I suggest carbon steel blades are the better option: they hold a better edge longer, but they flex rather than chipping. For this reason, I highly suggest the Kuhn-Rikon Y-peelers.
Sypderco ceramic sharpening rods; that is the easiest for me. Very easy to do, holding the rod like a carrot to be peeled, then run the peeler down the edge of the rod. To see how to do it at the end of their three-part training video (their site or youtube). You can buy their sharpening system, or just buy the replacement rods (other companies sell them too).
Or you can use a Dremel, ceramic round tip, either in a Dremel (rotary tool) device or a power drill. Run the ceramic tip along both cutting edges of the peeler (remove burrs of the back side of the blades if you wish). I also use the Dremel technique to resharpen my sewing seam rippers.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.347139
| 2012-03-08T13:37:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22107",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Jay",
"Ladadadada",
"ann windsor",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142849",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9413"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35401
|
How do I clean these gloves so they do not leave marks?
They leave marks on dishes in the pattern of the gloves.
Details
Tried soap, bleach, ammonia, vinegar, scalding water, microfiber cloth.
Only the fingertips leave marks and are sticky.
Palms or back of fingers with the same pattern are not sticky, nor are flat parts.
Brand: Playtex
The marks on glass come off with microfiber cloth and pressure.
Is it possible the gloves are clean but your dishes have a smooth veneer of oily residue that is simply agitated by being touched?
No that's not possible. This particular example was washed several times and rubbed with a microfiber cloth to verify cleanliness. The palms and back of fingers with same pattern do not leave a pattern, nor does bare skin fingertips.
Wow...I feel totally ahead of the curve if nothing in my refrigerator is actively trying to escape.
Likely the gloves were poorly vulcanized: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulcanization or are simply oxidizing. The cure is to get a new set of gloves, preferably from a source that does a better jub curing its latex.
This problem can occur after using a solvent while wearing the gloves. The solvent dissolves the affected areas of the glove in contact with it.
Clean rubber gloves can still leave marks. My guess is that the finger pads are more wornout (at microscopic level) and you've reached the not so smooth 'meat' part of the rubber that will stick and rub off on things.
Try with new gloves, or surgical latex gloves, or if marks on glass drive you nuts (like some of us), you can try microfiber gloves over rubber gloves.
I thought buying brand name for 4x the cost would be better, but I was wrong. I might as well stick with dollar store brand.
The latex rubber gloves break down over time becoming sticky and messy. Aging is sped up by using in very hot water. The "fingerprint" marks left on stainless steel pots and clear glass containers can be easily removed by wiping with a paper towel dampened with vegetable oil. The glove marks are an organic and vegetable oil is an organic solvent. The oil can then be washed off with warm soapy water. Once gloves become sticky, they should be discarded. An alternative is disposable vinyl, latex, or nitrile (surgical) gloves.
Sometimes if the gloves were greasy before, try using a grease fighting dishwashing detergent. Rub your hands together with the soap to remove all grease. Make sure to scrub thoroughly, like you were going into surgery. Rinse with hot water. This usually works for me. Sometimes if your gloves are aging, the rubber will become tacky, if this is the case, replace the gloves.
We have been having the same problem. I searched online, and found that it is the gloves wearing down. Probably better off using a different brand. Check out the reviews that led me to this answer: http://www.amazon.com/review/R3HBPYRGEGLSI7/#R3HBPYRGEGLSI7
It would probably be better to quote the relevant review in your post so people don't have to click the link. Sometimes websites are not accessible or links change. You can use CTRL + Q in the edit window to format highlighted text as a quote.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.347356
| 2013-07-20T00:02:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35401",
"authors": [
"AdamO",
"Air",
"Chloe",
"Debbie Turner",
"DerpaSquish",
"Jolenealaska",
"Paula Garry",
"Phillip Hartshorn",
"Spam",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115555",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135762",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93908",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9679"
],
"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
}
|
104108
|
Why do canned beans have less FODMAPs than dried beans?
Several sources have claimed that canned beans (after discarding the water in the can) are significantly lower in FODMAPs, particularly galacto-oligosaccharides, compared to cooked dried lentils. I'm interested in reducing galacto-oligosaccharides as a way of reducing flatulence and indigestion symptoms.
For instance, https://www.glnc.org.au/resources/hot-topics/how-to-enjoy-legumes-on-a-low-fodmap-diet/ seems to claim a two-fold reduction:
Canned legumes are much better tolerated than dried legumes, due to having a lower FODMAP content. Canned lentils are safe at 1/2 cup, whilst butter beans and chickpeas are low FODMAP at 1/4 cup. Keep in mind that if you choose dried over canned, it is likely the same portion won’t be tolerated if you are sensitive to GOS.
Dried red and green lentils: dried lentils require a little more prep and will take some time to cook prior to being ready to eat. Keep these to 1/4 cup serve of cooked lentils – they’re are a fabulous addition to curries and soups!
Lentils may be cooked without prior soaking, but presumably cooking dried chickpeas involves soaking them, which should reduce the galacto-oligosaccharides. Why would canning reduce this process further? Could soaking the dried legumes for a longer period of time and replacing the water a couple times reduce the FODMAPs to the same level as canned beans (maybe in the fridge to prevent bacterial growth)? Maybe I should soak the beans, cook them, and then soak them further? Or is there something else special about the canning process compared to using dried beans?
Hmmm. My first theory was that beans are canned at higher temperatures than you cook them at home ... at like 120C instead of 95C. However, it seems that GOS is highly resistant to breakdown due to heating, so that's not it.
@FuzzyChef : but it'd be pressure cooked in the can, which might have an effect
Joe: yeah, but I can't find any evidence that causes GOS to break down.
It does seem like it would take near caramelization temps to break down those sugars. I suspect a combination of pressure canning and then extended soak times before the can is used.
FODMAP: fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, and polyols
Why would canning reduce this process further [than soaking]?
Because canned beans are cooked. Cooking adds to further breakdown of many flatulence-causing elements. In fact, if the primary concern is flatulence and indigestion, several authoritative sources have recommended skipping soaking and just using longer cooking. I'll quote from my answer to a previous question here:
The main reason often cited for soaking is to prevent flatulence. However, if you throw out the soaking water, you also throw out lots of nutrients. Recent research suggests that long slow cooking is a better solution and probably gets rid of more of the flatulence-causing components than a soak followed by a quick cook. And you get to retain more nutrients. To quote Harold McGee from On Food and Cooking:
One kind of troublesome carbohydrate is the oligosaccharides [which
are water soluble].... But the latest research suggests that the
oligosaccharides are not the primary source of gas. The cell-wall
cements generate just as much carbon dioxide and hydrogen as the
oligosaccharides--and beans generally contain about twice as much of
these carbohydrates as they do oligosaccharides.
Based on this research, McGee suggests:
[Soaking] does leach out most of the water-soluble
oligosaccharides--but it also leaches out significant quantities of
water-soluble vitamins, minerals, simple sugars, and seed-coat
pigments: that is, nutrients, flavor, color, and antioxidants. That's
a high price to pay. An alternative is simple prolonged cooking, which
helps by eventually breaking down much of the oligosaccharides and
cell-wall cements into digestible simple sugars.
Specifically regarding galacto-oligosaccharides, there are studies that have attempted to quantify the role of soaking and cooking. That linked study concluded:
During soaking, total α-GOS content decreased between 10% (lentil and
faba bean) and 40% (chickpea). [...] Cooking further decreased α-GOS and
increased total dietary fibre content.
The explanation for the cooking effect is given later in the article:
Cooking after soaking led to a further decrease in raffinose (−32%),
stachyose (−25%) and verbascose (−35%) and to a significant increase
in galactose content (+54%) in the whole dish. [...]
This should be attributed to further enzymatic degradation, due to
better conditions for the expression of α-galactosidase activity.
Alpha-galactosidase from lentils are active in the temperature range
20–50 °C and up to 65 °C, and have optimal pH of 4.7, 5.5 or 6.1,
depending on their isoforms. [...]
During heating, the temperature increased
progressively and conditions were met for higher α-galactosidase
action.
Basically, elevated cooking temperatures increase the activity of the enzyme alpha-galactosidase, which is naturally found in beans and lentils (and is perhaps better known as the active ingredient in many anti-flatulence supplements/medications).
Hence, canned beans that are thoroughly cooked likely get both the breakdown of the cell-wall cements that McGee mentions as well as increased breakdown of GOS through elevated enzyme action.
I would note, however, the detail in the abstract to that study that each type of bean or lentil will likely respond somewhat differently, as each has its own particular makeup of problematic elements (and those elements will be affected in different ways by cooking). For example, this study on red kidney beans showed significant reduction in lectins, raffinose, and stachyose during soaking, and significant further reduction in lectins and raffinose during cooking. But cooking provided no significant reduction to stachyose.
Could soaking the dried legumes for a longer period of time and replacing the water a couple times reduce the FODMAPs to the same level as canned beans (maybe in the fridge to prevent bacterial growth)?
Well, as seen in the charts for example in the last linked study, increased soaking time shows diminishing returns. Replacing the water could help a bit, but refrigeration may also slow down or stop some enzyme activity that could help in breakdown. (The linked article notes that 77F was chosen for a soaking temperature because it is used by commercial canned bean producers.)
Maybe I should soak the beans, cook them, and then soak them further?
Again, while this is possible and likely to have some effect, there will be diminishing returns. And with each replacement of soaking water, you will like lose more beneficial nutrients from the legumes anyway (along with the things you are trying to get rid of).
Or is there something else special about the canning process compared to using dried beans?
Well, the only thing that might be special about the canning process is the high temperatures canned beans are subjected to for sterilization. In a cursory search, I didn't immediately come up research that quantifies what that might do, but my guess is that it could lead to further breakdown of some flatulence-causing elements. However, I'm not sure about the effect of high-temperature cooking on galacto-oligosaccharides in particular, as the first article linked above postulates that much of the breakdown is caused by enzyme activity that wouldn't happen at canning temperatures. So, in that case, it's just the long cooking process for canned beans in general that may have some benefits.
Didn't know that legumes naturally had alpha-galactosidase. Would slow cooking at temperatures below 65° be advisable to prevent their breakdown, compared to cooking at higher temperatures? Of course, kidney beans should be cooked at high temperatures to break down toxins.
@mic: Well, that's what that one study suggests. I don't really know much more about the details of temperature vs. enzyme activity than that study suggests. It also implies that the enzyme would be active at room temperature soaking temperatures, though looking at other references suggests maximum activity around 50C. (My anecdotal evidence is that years ago I stopped soaking and instead start dry beans in cold water with a very low flame and let them come up to temp very gradually; I found that method, along with long slow cooking, helped with flatulence more than other things I tried.)
Obviously if you're trying to maximize the reduction of these things, you'd probably also want to soak and discard the soaking water. But I personally found cooking at low temp for a long time has helped too. (I mostly did it because it helped the beans gradually inflate, sort of combining soaking with the beginning of cooking. But the study gives some reasons why maybe it's a good idea for other reasons...)
What temperature do you cook at and for how long? https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12219/is-it-bad-to-leave-the-crock-pot-on-warm-not-low-all-day says 140°F (60°C) is a safe minimum temperature for cooking, so it seems that there's a fine line between being hot enough to prevent harmful bacterial growth, and being cold enough for α-galactosidase to work.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.347651
| 2019-12-15T01:48:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104108",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Dave X",
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91208",
"mic"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
117053
|
Pizza stone made out of multiple pieces
Would a pizza stone assembled from multiple pieces be smart/useful?
I have access to an old marble quarry, and I would like to go cut a stone there.
It seems too complicated to cut a huge piece (even more considering I need to sand it and all) so I wondered if I could instead cut "bricks" that would be easier to handle (and even to store). For example, 20 centimeter pieces I could assemble depending on the size of the pizza and when I'm done put it away.
Has someone ever attempted this? Or is there some fundamental rule that would ruin my plans? I expect to have something less performant, but not too much
I realize you already accepted an answer, but please see the comments below about the inadvisability of using marble.
Homogenous stone like Graywacke or Granite would be better options, as long as you can dry them initially. Can you get either of them ?
@FuzzyChef yes thank you! @\Criggie granite very probably, but now i realize that DIY stone extraction is probably way too complicated for now real ROI. I'll stick to an unglazed tile, or a thick piece of metal if i find one
Orsu: other stone would be fine -- granite is OK, I believe, and just about any igneous stone is good. But not marble or slate.
I use a cheap granite "chopping board" (a fine way to wreck your knives) that was also described as suitable for putting hot dishes on. I had to remove some rubbery feet from the back, which left it wet, so gave it a couple of hours in an oven at less than boiling point, before ramping up the temperature slowly - the drying isn't hard
This isn't what you were asking, but I'd highly recommend baking pizza on a sheet of steel. Do a web search for "baking steel".
@aswine Yeah it does seem even better! I saw Mr Ragusa's video about it, but it's just more expensive to me. But one day...
FWIW, a baking steel is just a sheet of 1/4" to 3/8" steel. If you have a scrapyard near you, and have time and access to a grinder, you can make your own for about 1/3 the price of a name-brand one. Personally, I prefer corderite ceramic.
@FuzzyChef There's no guarantee that some random piece of metal that you pulled out of a scrapyard hasn't been exposed to hazardous chemicals. I'm fairly confident that even paint might break down and release potentially hazardous chemicals in the heat of an oven.
Nick: that's why you grind & polish the whole surface, first. Generally you need to do that to remove rust, regardless. And you sure don't want painted steel.
America's Test Kitchen did tests of pizza stones, and one was actually a set of bricks. They found no problems from the seams ... which makes sense, considering that brick ovens would've been made from bricks, not large slabs of stone.
What I'd be concerned with is that you're talking about marble. It's not the most dense of stones, which means it won't hold heat as well as other stones, and it will absorb liquids. It also has veining, which are basically fault lines running through it. If you accidentally heat up a wet slab, you risk it cracking (possibly explosively, if you heat it up too quickly).
As such, you would want to heat it up to just below the boiling point of water, wait for it to dry out, and then crank the heat up on it.
Nitpick: from the figures I can find online, the specific heat of marble is pretty much the same as cordierite clay (which is what's usually used for "pizza stones"), and it's actually a bit more dense. So I'm skeptical that "it won't hold heat as well as other stones".
Do not do this. Marble is, compared with ceramic brick or lava stones, extremely vulnerable to thermal shock. Your "bricks" will almost certainly crack within a few uses, and might even shatter dramatically.
The veins in marble are cracks of various degrees. A few likely to contain enough water to crack open , depending on heating rate and temperature.
Marble will also start to decompose slowly at pizza oven temperatures, breaking down into calcium and magnesium oxides (ie: lime) that become corrosive hydroxides when mixed with water. You definitely don't want that in your pizza!.
@J... Depending on the quantities involved, wouldn't you just end up with something like a pretzel crust? :)
@chepner Sure, if you're in the habit of salting your pretzels with lye... ;)
Not salting, but the dough is prepared by boiling it in a (weak) lye solution before baking. (OK, baking soda is probably more common, but it's pH that matters more than the particular base used.)
@chepner Fair enough, though it's really a weak solution. I'm not sure how long the marble would take to break down at only 480C, but it would be slow. Maybe it would make for something tasty... I'll let someone else make that gamble!
FuzzyChef is right about danger -- Just get firebricks! They work great. https://www.homedepot.com/p/Rutland-4-5-in-x-9-in-x-1-25-in-Fire-Brick-6-per-Box-604/300980334
I add about 40g of lye to a liter or so of water when making pretzels. I have no idea where that ratio came from, but it works well so I haven't tried to vary it. Without the lye bath they're just breadsticks.
@rrauenza Are firebricks food-safe? Given you're putting the pizza directly on them?
Joe: speaking as a potter: Maybe. It really depends on how they're made and what they're intended for. Firebricks made for ovens and for the hobby kiln industry have nothing in them but clay and stone, and are fine. But, industrial firebricks made for furnaces may have "clinkers" in them which can contain toxic minerals.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.348408
| 2021-09-01T11:24:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117053",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Criggie",
"FuzzyChef",
"GargantuChet",
"J...",
"Joe M",
"Michael Seifert",
"Orsu",
"aswine",
"blacksmith37",
"chepner",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43130",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49712",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73010",
"nick012000",
"rrauenza"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
62054
|
Is it safe to cook in a clean Teflon pot if the inside bottom has blistered and peeled from exposure to high heat?
Is it safe to cook in a Teflon pot that has blistered and peeled and produced fumes from previously being heated too high? This is what the bottom of the pot looks like
From The Guardian: "If you have flaking pans, you could swallow a chip of Teflon, and while it might be medically OK, why would you want to? Throw them away. The rest are fine to keep."
We toss them out when they start doing this. They'll just keep peeling from here on out and we try to be healthy with our cooking. No way do we want to eat teflon. We actually replaced all of our pots and pans for ceramic coated. Hope to see if they last a little longer.
Teflon is very inert, and food safe etc. Yes you don't want to eat it as it's not food, but it wont harm you. Some reports say fumes from overheated Teflon may be dangerous? The ceramic coating will come off too! So will seasoned (polymerised) oil, that's a form of plastic, but we end up eating shards of it all the time
Lead paint was safe until 1974.
The coating is not lead based? Shards of Teflon come off pans in good condition, this is an acceptable part of any pans design
I don't use Teflon anymore so no need to prove your point to me.
You can just treat it as a regular metal pan now, and season it with oil and high heat
Though, first you have to remove all the flaked coating with a hard metal scourer. This may prove difficult!
Have done this to a few pans, and they work well as plain metal pans. Somewhat easier to use that plain steel, as they are aluminium and therefore lighter on the hand
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.348859
| 2015-09-26T03:18:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62054",
"authors": [
"Dylan Sanchez",
"Eugene de Jesus",
"Jolenealaska",
"Marcy Z",
"Maree Williams",
"Michael Parks",
"NKY Homesteading",
"TFD",
"Tiffany Ripley",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147344",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147346",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147354",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147411",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147421",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37674"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22585
|
Can I still use frozen beef brisket left out at room temperature for 12 hours?
Possible Duplicate:
How long can I store a food in the pantry, refrigerator, or freezer?
I left out 2 raw but frozen 6 lbs beef briskets in the sink at 7PM to thaw out because they were rock hard from the freezer. I had intended to transfer them to the refrigerator but only the next morning at 7AM did I remember that I had forgotten to put them in the refrigerator.
They will be seared on both sides first in a heavy cast iron pan and then braised for 3-4 hours in the oven. Is this still safe?
Welcome Wendy to Seasoned Advice! I had made several edits to your post to improve readibility. If you feel I have change your original meaning in anyway, you may edit it farther by clicking on the edit link found under the question tags.
Also related: Why is it dangerous to eat meat which has been left out and then cooked?, Is there a problem with defrosting meat on the counter? and answered in the food-safety tag wiki.
Unfortunately, as sad as it is to see two nice briskets get wasted, I would not feel comfortable using them. In the guidelines from the USDA, thawing on the counter is explicitly discouraged. Additionally, it is likely that in that amount of time the surface of the cuts came up to temperature to allow for otherwise inactive (due to freezing) pathogens to become active again. In the absence of a vacuum pack and having been left at room temperature for that long, it is likely that even in the original paper wrapping the food has become unsafe to eat.
@wendy I suspect you are going to feed the food to your family and children. It is always better to error on the safe side in such cases. But it is all about personal risks and as a single college male with limited funds, I would personally still use it since I would be eating it myself and noone but myself would get sick in the process.
@Jay, please don't post this - it comes up again and again on this site, it doesn't matter what risks you're personally willing to take, it's irresponsible to provide any advice other than "throw it out" regardless of circumstances.
I don't want to start a flamewar or anything, but I leave meat on the counter for 12 or more hours regularly and I've never had any unpleasant side effects. The meat must have remained in a frozen state for at least a couple of hours and then it was cold for a long time. I don't think it is seriously dangerous to eat it, the worst thing I can imagine is that it will make somebody sick.
@JohnEye, please see our food-safety tag wiki. It is our policy not to give advice that could potentially kill someone. I'm sure you'll agree that's a sensible policy. We're not interested in personal experiences, we're interested in the actual, quantifiable level of risk, which is clearly set out and agreed upon by numerous food safety agencies across the world. 12 hours is way too long.
My apologies. Let me rephrase that then. Safety of the meat depends on many factors like room temperature, humidity and quality of processing. One hour in Egyptian summer is not the same as one hour in Canadian winter. If the meat spent a couple of hours completely defrosted in the sink, it can not be considered safe anymore, although it could be.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.349048
| 2012-03-27T13:56:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22585",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Ava",
"ErrantBard",
"F.Sbrocca",
"Jay",
"JohnEye",
"Marlyn Mehigan",
"Newy Web",
"Umbranus",
"Wouter",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50854",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50856",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50858",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9475",
"lazyborg"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
50210
|
Why does my knife leave grey streaks in the butter?
Sometimes my flatware leaves grey streaks in butter. I've only seen this with knives in cold butter. They claim to be stainless steel which I would think wouldn't do this. If I recall they were the very best flatware Target had to offer ;) Is something leaching into my food?
Clean your knife.
Might this be a knife shaped object made of aluminium, that has been bin the dishwasher?
It could be (black) rust. Which means you put it in the dishwasher way too dirty. Or it sat dirty in the sink for a month...
The photo suggests you are using a knife that has serrations. Dirt can get trapped between the serrations. This is not likely to be metal from the knife, but the dirt.
I'd wager its a bit of char from a piece of toast, jammed up in the serration.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.349353
| 2014-11-30T16:43:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50210",
"authors": [
"Batman",
"Gwen Lindsey",
"Mazura",
"Preston",
"Shelley Hallgren",
"Thomas Shevlin",
"William Clark",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120079",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120081",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25833
|
How do you get a poached egg to coagulate evenly and professionally?
Possible Duplicate:
How should I poach an egg?
How do you make a poached egg without it getting all messy when you break the egg into a pot of boiling water? I find that it is hard to get the egg to coagulate cleanly and evenly when making poached eggs. Someone suggested using balsamic vinegar which helps a little bit but the vinegar is messy in itself. I have also tried putting the egg into a special poached egg pod, but it is hard to get the egg out.
You don't really need vinegar for poaching eggs; there's a very good answer already on the site here:
http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21650/the-best-way-to-poach-an-egg-without-vinegar
Acidify the water with lemon or white vinegar (balsamic vinegar would be a waste to use for this, plus would stain the eggs) to facilitate protein coaugulation.
When the water is boiling, break the egg in a small dish, then create a whirpool by stirring the water just before putting the egg in. This will help to make the white coaugulate around the yolk. Gently pour the egg from the dish into the whirpool.
Also, I find using eggs at room temperature works better, so if you are storing eggs in the fridge be sure to take them out a little bit in advance.
Also, don't break the egg directly into the water. Break it into a small dish and then gently slide it into the whirlpool.
@JacobG: good point, I will add it to the answer.
Personally I don't like the whirlpool method as in my experience it doesn't work that well most of the time. I use a saucepan with an inverted bowl in the bottom to prevent the egg coming into contact with direct heat, but the most important factor is fresh eggs.
As eggs age, the white gets more and more watery. Thus when you put an old egg in water to poach, the majority of the white just disperses and turns to bits. In contrast, a fresh egg white is very gel-like and clings to the yolk, making it much easier to poach.
If you don't have a fresh egg but need to poach one, crack the egg into a straining spoon like this:
and let the watery part of the yolk strain away. You'll be left with the yolk and the remaining gel-like white, which will poach much better. If you end without any white, then go out and buy some fresh eggs!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.349473
| 2012-08-24T10:38:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25833",
"authors": [
"English Student",
"Jacob G",
"Marilyn Goudas",
"Randy Tasajaya",
"Stefano",
"Wojtek",
"diana Makings",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59261",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59265",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59270",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8499",
"nico",
"shar10ckq",
"user2358"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25867
|
Sausage made of cheese and meat?
Is there some kind of sausage that blends some kind of cheese with meat? In Brazil we have a kind of cheese that has almost the same shape of a sausage, I guess this could exist.
Cheese Kranksy or Kasekrainer is the common sausage with cheese. Around 10% cheese seems typical
They taste great, and are very popular with children
I know that there is a German meat and cheese sausage called käsewurst/kaesewurst. In the US we also now have "novelty" sausages that combine meat and cheese:
Smoked Cheddar & Chicken
Chicken, Garlic, and Gruyere
Italian Sausage with Cheeses
I MUST eat this.
Do they ship to Brazil? :p
I was in Netherlands this summer, and we bought a smoked cheese that had small bits of ham inside. The cheese was formed as a thick sausage:
Can you provide me the name of it?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.349690
| 2012-08-27T01:18:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25867",
"authors": [
"Alain Danet",
"Clinton Davies",
"MαπμQμαπkγVπ.0",
"Red Banana",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59349",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59350",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59352",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59353",
"parsley72",
"user59349"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25545
|
Chicken marinade with soy sauce - have I done something wrong?
I have made a chicken marinade with soy sauce, olive oil, dry herbs and spices.
I put it to marinate for 3-4 hours (like I mostly do), but I couldn't cook it that night so I left the chicken in the marinade over night.
The chicken was left to marinate in the refrigerator, in a sealed ziplock bag.
The next day the chicken had some brown dry parts (almost like a burn). I expected it to be brown, but the dry parts were looking awful. I threw away the chicken at that time because I thought it wasn't safe to eat.
Have I done something wrong? Is it safe to marinate in soy sauce for more than a few hours? Could I have prepared that chicken without any worries?
I assume you put the chicken in the refrigerator. Did you cover it?
@ElendilTheTall: Yes, it was in the refrigerator, in a sealed ziplock bag.
You could have prepared it without any worries. The changes you mention sound like something chemical, possibly drying out or acid denaturing. It can have tasted unpleasant (like meat with freezer burn), but if properly refrigerated, it wouldn't have carried a food poisoning risk.
Soy sauce is pretty salty. It sounds like a great deal of water diffused out of your chicken and into the marinade, which significantly changed the texture of the meat.
It's not uncommon to do something like this on purpose. When you make gravlax, for example, you cover a piece of salmon with quite a bit of salt and refrigerate it for a day or two. The salt draws out a lot of moisture, causing the fish to firm up considerably. Even though your soy sauce marinade was liquid, it still had a much higher salt concentration (or to think of it another way, a much lower water concentration) than the chicken, and would have had the same effect.
I have a chicken Pago Pago recipe (from the Polynesian Resort at Disney world) that marinade that has soy sauce in it, the recipe requires the chicken to marinate for 24 hours, so I am sure your chicken would have been fine to eat. Soy has never burned my chicken, so I do not believe that was the culprit.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.349811
| 2012-08-08T08:06:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25545",
"authors": [
"Coral Doe",
"ElendilTheTall",
"KimBo",
"Linda Benton",
"Md. Mokhlesur Rahman",
"Tanya Beelman",
"Veronica Albright",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10813",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58510",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58518",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58521",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89740",
"link188bet11 spam",
"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
}
|
27970
|
Why does my kamado ceramic grill fall out of it's stand when I open it?
I just got a Large Big Green Egg with a nest. When I was at the store, they asked if I wanted one already put together, so I said yes. They gave me a nest that had a medium sitting in it.
Now, when I put my large in it, it fits fine; however, when I open it, if I push on it a little, it starts to slip out. It looks as if I don't save it, it will fall completely out.
The nest has little rubber protectors on each bar holding the egg. It appears that as it starts to slip, these protectors are slipping off, which very well may be what is causing this.
My question is, is it normal to have these rubber protectors on the 4 middle bars that hold the egg in place? I'm not sure if the store maybe added these just because they had a medium egg sitting inside the nest which was a few inches too small (the bars did not touch it).
It seems that removing them might solve this issue; however, I by no means want to do this if it will scratch up the egg. Since it was already put together, I don't know if they were supposed to be there in normal use or not.
This post makes no sense to me.
I am not sure what makes no sense to you. If you have a BGE Nest you will notice the egg is held in by four bars. Do these four bars have a slid on/off rubber cover on their tips in order to protect the egg. If a standard BGE Nest does not have these, then they were added on by the company I bought it from simply to protect the egg from scratching. If this is the case, this is likely why my egg is falling out backwards when I open it.
While the edit of my title by another user made it a tad bit misleading, it is still pretty self-explainable.
Perhaps add a link to the thing that you're describing so that people understand what it is and how it relates to cooking, and isn't just a complete non sequitor?
Big green egg is a brand of kettle style BBQ. The nest is the stand. AFAIK BGE is just another marketing invention, designed to open you wallet. It looks like it should fail as per OP question. What's wrong with a pile of wood, some stones, and a metal grill?
The Big Green Egg is the name of a popular charcoal bbq here in North America. This is possibly a somewhat localized question, hence the confusion. http://biggreenegg.ca/ I think your question is fine, but it probably would help to have a bit of background and the link in there....
The question originally had "big green egg:" at the beginning of the title since if you don't know what one is you surely do not have one to answer the question. The question is specific to people who knows and uses bge so explaining what the product is would be sort of pointless. Per the FAQ it says to post on this stack exchange with questions on equipment, which the bge is. Seems ill have to wait till tomorrow though to call them because by now I'm surely not setting it up this late. I will post the correct answer none the less tomorrow for others with this issue.
Anthony, you don't always get answers within a few hours, especially not when you're asking about equipment that most people don't have. And not everyone knows what a big green egg is, so I don't think you should be too surprised by the reaction when you posted a question without context. Tacking "kettle BBQ" on isn't a big change, and it makes the question understandable, which is good for everyone (including you, for the sake of getting answers).
Also sorry about the Confusion but that was likely added by others editing my detailed post to a very specific issue with more broad sentences, such as my original subject made it extremely clear it was for big green egg users only. Sadly I have no control over others editing my question that I am aware of.
Jet: that is fine it was worth asking here in case someone did. However it was a question for a very specific product and specific accessory, so I would say changing that more so made the question confusing. None the less ill post the answer tomorrow once I talk to the store. Have a great night.
Are the nests one size fits all? The image posted seems to have differently-sized nests for differently-sized kettles. You said you bought a large and the one they gave you had a medium on it. Could there be a size mismatch?
Yam: They said that they just had the medium egg sitting it in but it was a large. I believe that is the case because the large fits perfectly with no room and the medium wasn't even touching the nest sides. However it definitely was the rubber stoppers. they were not supposed to be there. THanks all!
Yam: I also confirmed it was via BGE tech support. I posted this last night after they were closed, as calling them was my first attempt at solving the issue. I wrote the answer below and will mark it tomorrow once I am allowed to. Thanks again all!
The rubber stoppers I have are in fact part of the nest. After speaking with a rep, they are there to actually help stop the issue I am having. However, mine feel like they are taking away traction because they easily slip on and off, as apposed to add to it, so they are sending me a new set. It is possible that they are stretched, since it is a floor model. They are also very dusty inside, so cleaning them out would also probably help the traction, however I am going to wait till I receive a new set.
For the time being, having the stoppers off makes it so it won't fall out. It still tips if I physically push with the lid a bit, however it no longer feels like it will fall out. Especially once I added all the parts inside to help weigh it down.
Hope this helps anyone else who has a similar issue.
Oh good, that was going to be my next guess: "floor model" and "pre-assembled" often equate to "damaged"
Yeh I wasn't to found of it when they asked if i wanted them to assemble it but then said take the floor model, however with the amazing warranty of the big green egg, I figured if something is wrong I can always get it fixed and skip all the work of putting it together. Tech support was awesome.
The nest for the Egg should fit snugly in the grill, and you should never get the sense that it is tipping or sliding when opening the lid. If this is the case, then either the nest was not properly assembled, or it is not the correct nest for your grill.
You should contact Big Green Egg corporate with your issue. It may behoove you to take pictures, and offer to e-mail them to the rep that is assigned to your issue. You should also mention the name of the distributor, as I am sure the manufacturer would want to know if their product and brand are being represented poorly.
That will probably bring resolution to your problem. You can also bring your issue to their online community: http://eggheadforum.com/
The forum users need to be approved before they can post. Tried that first than came here in case someone else had this issue and could possibly help last night. Did just speak with customer service since they are now open and the stoppers should be there. They however may be streched so hes sending new ones.
Sounds like the EGG is not seated all the way down on the nest bottom or you do not have the firebox/frire ring in the grill which adds needed weight. If that does not help.
Call 770.938.9394 BGE Customer Service or Email photo to [email protected]
EGGspert.
The egg was sitting in all the way and I had the parts in there. The problem was that the stoppers I had were hindering, not adding to the traction of keeping the egg locked in. Probably because they were streched out and also dirty inside. It's was like having basketball sneakers that are made to stop quickly, but then putting tons of dirt on the bottom. It just makes it worse. As for tech, they were closed when I posted this. That was my first option I tried. Thanks though for the feedback! My first chicken breast turned out awesome, and brining a turkey now for the AM =)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.350133
| 2012-10-24T00:11:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27970",
"authors": [
"Anthony Greco",
"April",
"Cascabel",
"Christian Frederiksen",
"Cindy Skillman",
"James Gordon",
"Jessica Tiberio",
"L. Moore",
"Luke Chinworth",
"Martha",
"Oliver Mueller",
"TFD",
"Yamikuronue",
"baka",
"firelynx",
"forgettable",
"hoangmanhhung",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14032",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64292",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64298",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64300",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64352",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64422",
"talon8",
"user64292"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28034
|
How do I sweeten a mulled or spiced wine that is too tart?
I prepared a spiced wine according to a recipe last night using Cabernet with a mix of Pinot Grigio and Rum. I suspect the Cabernet caused it to come out on the tart side after reading this question.
The recipe called for brown sugar, which I used, but it doesn't seem sweet enough. Should I add more brown sugar or is there a better way to sweeten the wine and temper the tartness?
Thanks in advance.
More sugar would seem to be the logical choice...
That's what I was thinking... I was worried that more sugar might produce some sort of a negative chemical reaction with the cooked wine, but if not, that sounds like the obvious option.
Try sweetening a small portion, and see what happens.
Lol, yeah oddly enough I didn't think to do that. I will try that first and let you guys know what happens. I want to serve it tonight at a dinner, so we'll see :)
I've used both sugar and orange juice to sweeten mulled wine in the past, but obviously orange juice would change the flavour significantly. Add more sugar slowly, tasting as you go.
So I prepped it the night before my dinner cause I wasn't going to have much time to prepare the night of. I took people's advice and added more brown sugar slowly and cooked it for another 30 mins and it came out delicious! Thanks for everyone's help.
In a pinch, when cold thirsty guests are waiting, port sweetens things up and adds a deep rich flavor. Imbibers certainly will get warmed up fast! Just a few whiffs might be all they need.
I love that idea. If I hadn't've already added Rum to the mix, this would've been perfect!
I think I once added cherry brandy, rum and a bit of whisky at different points in a batch of mulled wine's life. Every time the slow cooker started looking emptyish I'd chuck in some more wine, OJ and spirits in. The bottom of the last batch sort of seeded the flavour quite fast, I left the spices in and didn't really need to add more spices.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.351077
| 2012-10-26T17:48:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28034",
"authors": [
"David",
"David Waynestock",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Joy VanCaster",
"Tracy Fu",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14064",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64460",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64461",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64462",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64658",
"jackie cooper",
"user52738",
"vwiggins"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28197
|
What methods are appropriate for preparing a 'chow chow' (chayote)?
I saw this in a grocers in an area which is predominantly populated by Korean people. It reminded me of Audrey 2 from 'The Little Shop of Horrors'.
Any ideas on how to use it?
Could you add a picture?
http://masdudiable.com/2010/01/23/chayotes/
Welcome to the site! "How best to use it" is a really subjective question, prone to lists of answers, which isn't really a good fit for the site. But we can certainly help out with general methods of cooking.
The clarification changes the questions completely -- when I hear 'chow chow' and food, I think of the pickled vegetable relish
In my experience, this is most commonly known as chayote; if you're looking for recipes you might have better luck searching for that. (Chow-chow isn't actually on Wikipedia's list of names for it.)
You can generally treat it like any other summer squash. It's a bit firmer and juicier than the usual western summer squashes (yellow squash, zucchini) - maybe somewhere between squash and cucumber in texture - but it has a similarly mild flavor. The skin is also a bit tougher than most summer squash, but it's quite edible, and you may not even notice if it's sliced. So just like other squash, you can slice it and fry or saute it, or boil/steam/bake it whole (and even stuff it). Where you go from there is really up to you; whatever you like to do with summer squash will work fine.
Some people also like to pickle it, or marinate in lime juice; the firmer texture helps it hold up to this.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.351290
| 2012-11-03T15:13:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28197",
"authors": [
"Abel George Abraham",
"Amanda",
"Cascabel",
"Dean Brundage",
"Jamie Sacco",
"Joe",
"Martha F.",
"Ophir Goldberg",
"PdH",
"Sarah Durston",
"benjimin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64878",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64880",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"seangeng1811 art",
"xoxomk"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
99004
|
Please help identifying this herb
I can’t figure out what herb this is. It tastes kind of bitter!
It looks like beet to me.
maybe dandelion ?
Beet greens would have mode red veins. Dandelion leaves have a more 3d shape. My guess is Epazote (common in Mexican cuisine). It would be easier to identify if you photographed one of the leaves spread out on a flat surface and maybe with a size reference (like a ruler).
Can you add some more information -- where did you find it, especially :)
Thank you everybody I think epazote might be it, it came home with me accidentally from a Mexican/Asian Supermarket!
Where did you get it? Looks like it could be epazote.
I've only seen it dried, but it is bitter and the leaf shape matches
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.351479
| 2019-05-14T20:50:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99004",
"authors": [
"Erica",
"GdD",
"Irena",
"Lee Daniel Crocker",
"Max",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68275",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75575",
"zetaprime"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
99101
|
120 guests including children - Amounts needed for party catering
Together with our families, my fiance and I are doing the food for our post wedding party. We have 117 guests including around 15 children.
We are serving the following
Beef Chili - GF (100 people)
Veggie Chili - V/VG (17 veggies)
Creme Fraiche
Jalapenos
Bread - French Sticks etc.
GF Bread
Butter
Cheese
We are also having Coleslaw & Potato Salad. A friend who is a caterer is doing that for us so I don't need info on that.
How much chili should I try to make? How much bread should I buy? I'm thinking French sticks, in a basket with a bread board/knife so they can chop this up themselves.
Chili etc. will be cooked on the hob in the kitchen and kept warm in slow cookers where guests can help themselves.
This will be a buffet of sorts, nothing being served as such.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice. No matter how accurate you are measuring the food, you have to have alcohol in your head (not physically). People tend to eat less, on the other hand, other people tend to eat more with a glass of wine or beer. No matter what, have the pizza delivery on quick dial. :-)
Your friend, the caterer, where is he now? If he is doing some part, he probably has an estimate about the other parts.
related : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/75505/67 ; I'd also recommend https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/54579/67 ; https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/12068/67
If you end up making too much ... chili freezes really well.
I know that people frown upon recipes on here, but in the book "Quantity Recipes: From Meals for Many" by the New York State College for Home Economics, 1945, they recommend a serving size of 3/4 cup, which for 50 to 55 people is:
9 lbs ground beef
2 lbs ground pork
1 1/2 cups onions, chopped
1 cup beef dripping or other fat
5 qts kidney beans (#10 can) or 1 3/4 lb dried
5 qts tomatoes (1 1/2 #10 cans)
2 1/2 TB chili powder
5 TB salt
1/2 tsp pepper
3 TB sugar
1/2 lb crackers, broken
I personally wouldn't use that recipe (1.5 cups of onions and 2.5TB chili for 11 lbs of meat?), but it should give you an idea of quantity.
You might be better off making a 'normal' batch of your chili recipe and measuring to see how much it makes, but possibly adjusting if it's significantly less than 3oz of meat per serving.
It's also worth noting that chili freezes really well. If you have the freezer space, you might want to make some in advance and freeze it. (I use 1qt deli containers, which would be 5 1/3 servings by their estimate). Of course, I'd also freeze it without beans and add them back when reheating (or serve it separately as an option).
A few other notes : not everyone's good with a knife. I'd cut that in advance, or see if where you're getting it from can slice it thickly. You might also consider corn muffins or even corn chips. Also, make sure to put the vegetarian chili after the meat one. Many people will just grab the first one they come to, or try a little of everything, so if you only make enough vegetarian chili for the vegetarians, they might not get any.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.351584
| 2019-05-22T10:27:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99101",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Johannes_B",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27482",
"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
}
|
34306
|
Whiskey inside a metal flask for a month. Safe for drinking?
Taste aside, is it safe for drinking? Whiskey that was left inside a stainless steel flask?
If whiskey held in cheap flasks for months or even years was a serious health threat, it would have been obvious a hundred years ago.
Life expectancy 100 years ago was 55 years. Today it's in the high 70's. No one then would have the technology to know if you died from lead poisoning from ceramic, steel, paint or iron. Also, remember, this is the China that made toothpaste with anti-freeze as an ingredient not very long ago. ...And OP uses MS-DOS, no way!
@paulb - old thread that popped up somehow. The life expectancy at birth for whites in the US 100 year ago was about 55 years. However, if the person survived childhood, the average life expectancy was closer to 70 years - not too far away from current statistics. I would think that the impact of drinking whisky by children on life expectancy would be minimal.
Whiskey is quite high in alcohol, on the order of 40% by volume, and is not hospitable to pathogens growing.
The flask is intended to hold liqueur, and so is made from or lined with a food safe material, such as food grade stainless steel (assuming you have one from a reputable manufacturer).
So yes, it should be fine.
Remember: when it was distilled, the whiskey was probably held at different stages for long periods in a stainless steel vat.
"assuming you have one from a reputable manufacturer" - well, that's the problem, it's a chinese brand, named "Honest". It's REALLY well built, but I'm not sure...
Well... would you use anything for food or drink that isn't from a reputable manufacturer? Perhaps that is your real question.
@SomebodystillusesyouMS-DOS: Alcohol is a preservative. It's as safe now as it was a month ago. If you don't trust the manufacturer then maybe it wasn't safe a month ago, but as long as it's actually stainless steel then it hasn't gotten any worse since then.
Whiskey in the US is commonly "80 proof," which is 40% alcohol by volume. I'd be interested to know if there are other places where whiskey is commonly 80% alcohol, as then I'll feel cheated. I did find reference to one even stronger, Bruichladdich Though that is scotch whiskey.
@TimB Thanks for the catch, I must have had a mental moment when I typed that.
@TimB The reason 40% is so common is that it's not legal to sell anything lower-strength and still call it whisk(e)y, and because it's the common opinion that it's the optimal balance of flavour and least burn. It comes from the still around 95% and then is diluted to aging strength, about 65–70%, before barrelling, and comes out of the barrel around 60% due to evaporation. You can get "cask-strength" whisk(e)y from a number of distilleries, but often they're best with water added anyway; I have a 59.0% Aberlour A'Bunadh that's good neat and diluted down to 40%.
I came across this article about keeping alcohol in flasks.
Are the flask parts welded or soldered together? People used to keep whiskey in leaded glass decanters until it was found that lead leaches from the glass into the whiskey. A soldered stainless steel flask might well have lead solder exposed to the liquid.
My stainless flasks, USA made, purchased from distilleries indicate that spirit alcohol (of any proof) should not be stored for more than 3 days. I've never pursued an explanation for the statement. The flasks generally don't have any contents left by the beginning of the third day. While this may not constitute an answer, it's worth considering all the same.
Answers that provide a reason are more appreciated here.
@Robert, this is a valid answer. It's given within the literature for nearly all flasks sold. So while one study may say it's healthy to consume liquor after being stored in a flask for months, I will defer to the manufacturer's suggestion, and wash it out the next night.
Problem is with the joining process & material used in the SS flask. I think some may be lead soldering which is poison
I have a dozen stainless flasks, that i place 80 proof whiskey in and age an additional 4 years before drinking.......some of the best stuff I've ever drank.
Tasty or not, this has nothing to do with its safety. For a food to be declared officially safe, it must meet very stringent criteria. Matters of public health are settled with large studies, not with taste or "I did it and didn't suffer any problems".
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.351837
| 2013-05-24T21:28:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34306",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"BaffledCook",
"Braxton Reed",
"Carey Gregory",
"Glenn Strycker",
"Jason P Sallinger",
"Keith Loughnane",
"Larkenshine",
"Paulb",
"Robert",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SevenSidedDie",
"Sevil Sevdiyar",
"Somebody still uses you MS-DOS",
"Tim B",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"Will",
"doneal24",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15137",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77256",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79877",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79878",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79886",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79911",
"rumtscho",
"user245427",
"user3546929"
],
"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
}
|
29487
|
How long can I keep a leg of ham in the fridge?
How long will a glazed ham last for?
I have a ham, which I glazed.
It was in a vac pack, and does not expire for 2 months.
Since I have removed it from the vac pack, glazed and cooked it. How long will it last in the fridge?
Also what is the best way to keep it?
And how should I store the remainder in the freezer? Cut it up into steaks? Cubes? etc?
Update:
My question from last year, still not really sure what to do. I have a 10kg ham in a vac pack (not frozen). It says use by 2nd of January. I'm going to glaze and cook it. So how long can I keep it in a fridge?
Also what is the best way to keep it?
Added some photos for clarity:
And after cooked (couldn't help but try a piece)
The official answer is generally only a few days for meat in the fridge ...
Ham can be different, as it's salt cured, so depending on the salt content can last longer without freezing it.
As for freezing it, it really depends on how you plan to use it:
It's most convenient to cut it up in the same way that you're going to use it, so that you can just pull it and use it easily
For maximum storage time, the less surface area (larger pieces) the better. Diced ham will get freezer burnt much faster than just bagging a 1lb chunk.
As with freezing most meats, you want to double wrap it to prevent moisture loss (and freezer burn).
So, I'd go ahead and ask yourself how you envision using it up, and how quickly. For instance, if you think you'll make a pot of ham and black bean soup in the next month or so, go ahead and dice it now and freeze it, and you can just pull and dump it when it's time. If you like ham steaks, slice them up, wrap and freeze those -- you can always chop it up further to fold into a casserole once it's thawed, if you have to. If you have so much that you think you're going to get sick of ham and need a break, freeze it in a large chunk ... but you'll want to give it a day to defrost in the fridge so you can actually cut into it when you want to use it.
I don't think there is anything to add to that (and trust me, I racked my brain). Personally, I'd trust a cured ham in the fridge for a week, possibly longer, but I live on the edge.
So how long for a salted/cured ham? Is in packet different form out of it? How does cooking it affect it?
Per FoodSafety.gov (a service of the US Department of Health and Human Services), such a fresh ham can be stored 3-5 days before cooking, and 3-4 days after cooking. (Note that the applicable category for this product is "fresh ham.")
How you store the remainder (whole, slicing, cubing) is up to you, and is more about what is convenient for how you plan to use the left-overs than anything else.
In any case, to help prevent it drying out or picking up odors from the other item in the refrigerator, you will want to wrap it well or store it in a sealed container.
It is fine, most people are not familiar with a fresh ham, being it is the leg of the pig used for cured ham, it will last another week or so, when you go to cook it, wash the rind, make some slits with a sharp knife to have the fat render and the crackling get crisp, it takes awhile as it is fairly big so brown it for 20 minutes at 350 d F drop the heat for 3-4 hours at 325 d F, seasonings are find, but the meat will not get much, maybe the night before get it ready make some wholes with the same knife you use on the rind, slice up a few cloves of garlic and insert them into the meaty portion and the roast the next day, if it get to brown, cover it with foil to prevent it from burning, I have not had one in years, my mother usually got one for Easter, it will last awhile, leftover are very possible.
The only portion of this which answers the question is "it will last another week or so", and we'd much prefer less vague, more authoritative answers than that.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.352250
| 2012-12-27T05:13:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29487",
"authors": [
"Anh_Rose 1210",
"Anonymous",
"Antoinette Fouche",
"Barmar",
"Candy Apples CLT",
"Cascabel",
"Chris Rushbrook",
"Jolenealaska",
"Lesley Snyder",
"Lucille Padgett",
"Michael McD",
"Mike Pelley",
"Máté Juhász",
"Petah",
"SandyP.",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68574",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68585",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93821",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93822",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93835",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93836",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93845",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93854",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93856",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94431",
"ntm",
"tim"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
39486
|
Are dark walnuts ok to eat?
I bought a bag of walnuts from the local farmers market (in NZ), but some of them are dark colored on the outside and almost black inside. Is this normal and are they ok to eat?
Also noticed some of them are slightly open.
In my experience, walnuts get progressively more bitter as they darken, and black ones are inedible due to poor taste. I haven't noticed any ill effects from consuming slightly darker ones though (not moldy ones of course).
I am eating some right now.. hence the reason i am looking up this page..these ones taste fine and I bought them for 6kg from a bulk foods lady!
I'm not sure what causes it and what food safety issues may be involved but I used to have a walnut tree and got a few from time to time that looked like that. I had a small taste once and they were really bad, not worth keeping. I'd put it down to some sort of rot and I live in Tasmania with a relatively similar climate.
Looking for a reference on common causes the best I've been able to find is from "Diseases of Temperate Zone Tree Fruit and Nut Crops" by Joseph M. Ogawa and Harley English that has a section on kernel mold of the English Walnut, which I'm guessing is the most common variety in New Zealand. This is from a Google book preview that I can't copy / paste so I'm skipping over some parts probably not relevant using an ellipsis:
Under certain conditions several fungi are able to penetrate the walnut shell and cause cause a moldy condition of the kernel. This disorder varies from year to year depending on environmental factors. The invading fungi commonly coat the kernels (...) and also may form masses of greenish blue or grayish-black spores. (...)
The weakly pathogenic fungi that cause kernal mold belong to genera such as Aspergillus, Penicillium, Alternaria, and Rhizopus. These organisms may invade the nuts as early as midsummer if the hulls (husks) have been damaged by sunburn, drought or husk fly.
The book is available for limited preview / purchase for anyone further interested in the topic, but I think the short answer is they'll taste nasty (regardless of any safety issues) so probably best disposed of and maybe complain to the supplier if you got too many in that state and ask for their comment.
That is an English Walnut, which are mostly Grown out west.
The Eastern parts of US have Black Walnuts. They taste much better but are hardly ever sold in stores. You have to harvest them yourself. Some are sold in the baking isle but they are horrible tasting.
So the horrible tasting ones are the same as the ones you harvest yoursellf, but taste very good? How come?
@Richard ten Brink: prob. the ones in the store are very rancid. I imagine super expensive also since it is almost impossible to crack them and extract the nut in pieces.
Do not fear if you see, that the inside part is black and if inner inside is white, because color is due to "nogalina" a dark brown color that emerge of the shell when wet lingering a more extended time in ground before harvesting.
Nogalina= Walnut ink, used for Leonardo and Rembrand in their paintings
The black is " california walnuts". Yes can be little bitter in taste. But they are baged an sold that way. Rather give to the squirrels. Ha they enjoy em.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.352719
| 2013-11-16T05:52:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39486",
"authors": [
"AAS",
"Andy",
"Hsolo",
"LordRampantHump",
"Lorel C.",
"Mischa Arefiev",
"Richard ten Brink",
"Rodolfo Maurino",
"Spammer",
"Vivek-Prakash-US",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57292",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91657",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91658",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91659",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91724"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29675
|
Cleaning oil sprayer pump
Possible Duplicate:
How to clean a clogged Misto oil sprayer/spritzer?
The pump on my Misto oil sprayer is locked in the down position. I cannot loosen it. I have soaked it in hot water. No luck. Any suggestions?
How long did you soak it?
Boiling water, Boiling water with soap, vinegar maybe?
As I understand it, the thing is blocked, so I am closing it as a duplicate. If there is some other problem (e.g. mechanical damage), we can reopen the question, please leave a comment.
Having encountered this myself (and it being my personal use Misto) I found the only way I was able to clear the pump was by forcing hot soapy water through from the bottom of the straw. I dealt with this a few times before concluding this:
Button top aerosolizers (like the Misto) for thicker things like oil have the design flaw of not having a strong enough return to reset the pump
Trigger style bottles on the other hand are both cheap enough you can recycle them if they start to fail and seem to offer more pressure on the oil.
Theoretically, if the sprayer contains oil and it's blocked, then you need to dissolve the blocked oil with something in which oil dissolves. As most people know, oil does not dissolve in water. Soap works by being both hydrophilic ("likes water", ie water soluble) and hydrophobic ("dislikes water", ie oil soluble) and so can help dissolve oils in water.
If water and soap don't help, try something more radical such as alcohol, acetone or even paraffin (which will require a thorough cleansing afterwards!). Warming the pump whilst cleaning should also help slightly as this should increase the oil's solubility.
If using acetone I would definitely rinse with alcohol afterward as acetone doesn't rinse clean, and that's not something I would want to consume with my oil on the next use.
I'd also be wary of cleaning plastic with several of those, as they may well dissolve the plastic.
I was assuming that the sprayer was made of glass, not plastic, although these days plastics are less susceptible to damage from acetone or similar.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.353026
| 2013-01-03T01:40:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29675",
"authors": [
"2 Happy Vegans",
"Ava Waters",
"Janet ",
"John",
"Linda Reed Hendrex",
"No'am Newman",
"Ozie Taulbee",
"Stefan",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69048",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69282",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69466",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69467",
"iiRosie1",
"lemontwist",
"rumtscho",
"user69466"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29774
|
What is the best utensil kit for the cost?
Ideally I would like a set to build a kitchen around. Knives and the most vital and commonly used utensils. The best kit relative to it's price, and not leaving out important things like varied spatulas, whisks, spoons and other vital implements. Basically everything except cookware.
Similar post What knives are "required" for a serious home kitchen?
This question, even as edited is very broad and difficult to answer. You might wish to focus it down. I second the recommendation of Alton Brown's gear book from your linked answer. For less than the cost of a decent paring knife or a good potato ricer, it will give you a complete education on what is important, although it is kind of US centric in the brand reviews.
It was a little open and conversational, thanks. edited
This is still way too broad. I think the approximate question you want to be asking is how to evaluate quality and suitability of a utensil set. See http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/11/qa-is-hard-lets-go-shopping/
As knife sets available/affordable with vary from region to region, from year to year, and from wallet-size to wallet-size, I think it'd be best to answer this is a general fashion. I have worked as a chef in the past in a restaurant where we were expected to bring our own knives, although generally the one thing we were expected to bring ourselves was a long (20-25cm), broad-bladed, chef's knife. I am by no means the most experienced on this topic, but having expanded on my own knife collection in the past I can add my own real-world advice.
Firstly, you probably want to choose a brand. I do like the look of the global knives, but don't personally think they're good value for money. There are other brands out there, but there's a good comparison of 20cm chef's knives here:
http://www.cookingforengineers.com/article/129/Chefs-Knives-Rated
If you are buying for a kitchen, I wouldn't get a bagged/cased set unless you want to keep them hidden in a drawer/cupboard. A bag or case is for carrying from place to place, IMHO. It may be cheaper than a set with a fancy rack, so I suppose you could combine it with a magnetic knife rack, but from my experience it's a bit too easy to knock knives off these... Probably not a good idea if there are small kids around. If there are small kids around, super-sharp knives are probably best kept hidden somewhere out of the way.
Secondly, I'd think about what you use your knives for. I expect most sets will contain a main 20cm chef's knife, a shorter filleting knife, and an even smaller pairing knife. If you bake or buy whole loaves, you'll probably want & find everyday use for a bread knife to do your crusty creations justice. I own a tomato knife and I find I use it a lot, tomato knives are also useful for other delicate vegetables where you may want to disturb the flesh as little as possible (I use mine for finely dicing red onion for salads, I find it easier to keep everything uniform than when using my other knives).
From there I'd consider what you cook and what other knives you may want to add to the set. If you're partial to a roast more than once a year, and haven't succumbed to the temptation of an electric carving knife, a matching carving knife and fork might be tempting. If you eat a lot of cheese, you might find a cheese knife a useful addition, etc.
I really appreciate the time you put into answering, I really like the knife test tables with different things being cut.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.353241
| 2013-01-05T23:34:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29774",
"authors": [
"AdamsTips",
"Cascabel",
"JesseW",
"Mirana",
"Morty",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SSSM",
"Z2Hero",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69289",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69306",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69308",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69453",
"noomz",
"this dont work",
"tmaj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
34491
|
Why are my metal tools scraping off the patina of my wok?
Here's a picture of my wok and the scratches on the patina I seem to be making when I clean it with my metal spatula and my bamboo brush. I've only used it about 4 times, but the food seems to stick to it a little more each time and this time, it was pretty tough to get the sauce off of the wok.
Why is this this happening?
Is there something wrong with the way I seasoned my work? I've been using vegetable oil over medium heat for 10 minutes and then repeating that 2-4 times after cleaning. Tonight I tried crisco for the first time.
Am I only supposed to use metal and bamboo brushes on it after I've used it for a few months?
Are these scrapes normal and unrelated to why my sauces are sticking to the bottom?
For reference, here's the only 2 recipes I've used on my wok. Perhaps they're too vinegary to be used this soon?
Beef and Broccoli
Kung Pao Chicken
It can take years to build up a strong patina, and to smooth off your tools so they don't dig in
Relax, just wash it with a plastic scourer (3M green type), oil it and heat it up on your burner (tilt the wok to reach the high sides)
The damage seems mainly in the 'off' zone, so it shouldn't effect your cooking process too much
The main issue is that most woks are cheaply made, and not hand beaten, but 'metal spun', and have concentric groves which catch the tools. Not much you can do about it, and not worth worrying about
Agreed on the "it can take years" part. It looks to me, from the photo, that the patina is not really actually scraping off but in fact still in the early stages of developing. My carbon-steel and cast-iron didn't turn a consistent black until after about a hundred meals.
I have the same problem but instead of those little scratch lines in the pic I have big patches coming off. Should I just keep cooking or do I need to remove and redo the seasoning?
most likely your tool is cutting into the patina, causing it to break up and separate, so your sauces can penetrate between the patina and the metal.
Use wooden or plastic tools instead, without sharp edges.
But there are other posts on this forum that said you can and even should use metal tools. Why is there this inconsistency here?
I've always been told to not use metal tools in cookware that is coated (and a patina is a coating) to avoid scratching. I have also been told to always use metal tools because they're more hygienic (easier to clean). There is of course ambiguity there, so I use plastic and wooden tools and simply replace them regularly (especially wood, those get replaced at least once a year).
Metal tools are easier for fast wok cooking. Once "worn in" they won't damage each other
I had the same problem. So I switched to bamboo spatula for stirring/cooking and a plastic spoon for scooping food out. I think after a strong build up is created then can go back to the metal spatula that came with the steel carbon wok.
It also helps to file down the edges of the wok turner, if it's not already rounded.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.353544
| 2013-06-04T05:01:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34491",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Anna C",
"Ayman Elmasry",
"Daniel Kaplan",
"Esther",
"Joe",
"Jorn",
"Sanjida Rahman",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80387",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80390",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8955",
"jwenting"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30242
|
Fridge temperature
Possible Duplicate:
What is the ideal fridge temperature
I have brought a fridge thermometer to check the temperature of a new fridge (Amica). On it's highest setting (7) it alternates over the course of about 90 mins from -2.5 degrees C to a max of 6.5 degrees C which triggers the fridge back to working as the temperature starts falling again. I just wanted to check that these temps are about right for a fridge and safe for food, milk, cream etc as I know most food talks about being under 5 degrees, and as mine goes up to 6.5, I just wanted to check this as the last fridge was problematic, hence buying the thermometer in the first place
Many thanks
I would think the fluctuations are a bigger concern than the actual temperature (if it would be steady), but I don't know. 3–5˚C is recommended by the authorities in my country. Lower than that, food might freeze. Above that, you get a short shelf life.
See http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4529/what-temperatures-should-i-keep-my-refrigerator-and-freezer-set-at also http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12013/what-is-the-ideal-fridge-temperature/12036#12036
Did you measure those fluctuations with the fridge empty? I guess putting stuff in it will make it more stable (having more thermal mass will make it have more thermal inertia).
I'm not sure how much this effects it but are you opening the door often to check the temperature? I used to have one of those indoor/outdoor thermometers and used it to check my fridge because then I didn't have to open the door and disturb the measurement.
@lemontwist while this will give you the temp of the fridge when at rest, it's not a real "working" temp since your going to inevitably need to open your fridge and often quite frequently.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.353841
| 2013-01-20T11:25:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30242",
"authors": [
"Boris Ivanov",
"Brendan",
"CHKNLADY",
"Eigt Thabet",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Mary Harris",
"Robert King",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Stephan",
"citizen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70585",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70586",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70587",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70588",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70757",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70758",
"lemontwist"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32321
|
What is a substitute for Poblano Peppers?
I have a recipe that calls for Poblano peppers but our store does not have them. I found this which references using Anaheim Peppers but they don't have those either.
What is a good alternative?
It is a roasted stuffed pepper dish that I need them for.
Not an alternative, but look to see if there are any latin or international markets near you. Poblanos are relatively thin skinned, so bell peppers plus some other hot pepper for seasoning might throw off the balance and/or cooking time.
You can stuff any pepper which is large enough.
Poblano are moderately spicy. You can use bell peppers, but they will not be spicy. You might want to make up for that by including some spicier small peppers in your stuffing, perhaps a serrano or a jalapeno or seventeen, depending on your personal taste.
seventeen peppers....that would be hot
@bluefeet No accounting for taste :-)
Thanks for the help, I will keep this in mind. I am going to check out a few more stores to see if I can find the poblanos. :)
Hatch chiles or larger Californias might work as well.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.354028
| 2013-03-01T22:11:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32321",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sara D Gore",
"Taryn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6711"
],
"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
}
|
29387
|
Hot crab and Artichoke dip - can it be made in advance?
Possible Duplicate:
How long can I store a food in the pantry, refrigerator, or freezer?
How much ahead of time could I put this dish together and refrigerate before heating to serve?
Should I freeze it if it is going to be longer than one or 2 days?
1 can(14 oz. / 400 gr) artichoke hearts, drained
1 package(8 oz. / 225 gr) cream cheese, softened
1 cup (236 ml) mayonnaise
3/4 cup (180 ml) finely shredded Parmesan cheese
1/3 cup (80 ml) sliced green onions
1 package(8 oz. / 225 gr) flake-style imitation crabmeat, finely chopped
Crackers Keebler® Town House® Original
Link to the crackers web page
directions
Chop artichoke hearts. Set aside.
In medium bowl stir together cream cheese and mayonnaise. Stir in artichoke hearts, Parmesan cheese and onions. Fold in imitation crabmeat.
Spoon into 9-inch pie plate or two 2-cup casseroles. Bake, uncovered, at 375 degrees F about 25 minutes or until heated through. Granish as desired. Serve with crackers.
I would suggest editing the title of this question to be more clear about what you're asking.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.354146
| 2012-12-22T21:31:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29387",
"authors": [
"Bartors",
"Ciaodhna ",
"Greg",
"Jafar Khayati",
"Janet Minnick",
"Michael",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68292",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68298",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68343",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68344",
"lemontwist",
"user68298"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28047
|
Lemon cake has no flavor
I have tried and tried numerous recipes for lemon pound cake. None of them taste very lemony. I tried adding extra lemons n lemon extract but no real difference. The only thing to make it taste like lemon is the glaze. What am I doing wrong?
Have you tried adding lemon zest along with the lemons and extract? It's also available dried (called lemon peel granules in this form), which might make more intense taste if used with the other forms of lemon to sort of layer the flavor.
The 'lemony' flavour in a lemon cake is from the volatile oils which are present in the fruit's zest,(mainly nerol, limonene and citral). I would'nt advise adding actual lemon juice to the cake as it will disrupt the ratios in the cake recipe and ususally the tart, zingy flavour gets lost anyway after baking. To get a really lemony flavour whilst still using a pound cake recipe (using the creaming method) there are several things which would enhance the lemon flavour:
Adding finely grated lemon zest to the sugar, then blitzing with a blender (to release the oils) and leaving to infuse. The sugar is simply a medium to infuse into
Melting the butter (using it as a 'quasi' solvent) and adding it to some more lemon zest to infuse. Then once cooled use it as per the recipe requires.
Add lemon extract too (we're trying to get as much flavour as possible into the cake!)
And if all else fails, you can always soak the cake in a lovely tangy lemon syrup and may be top it off with some lemony cream cheese frosting!
By "blitz" do you mean using a blender? If so, does using a blender on a mixture of something finely grated and something which comes in small crystals really make any difference?
@PeterTaylor Yes, with a blender. All blitzing does is release the natural oils, and the sugar is just another medium for them to infuse them into.
I know of three ways to add extra lemon flavor to recipes:
Add lemon pudding like this copycat recipe for Starbuck's lemon poundcake:
Starbucks Iced Lemon Pound Cake Copycat Recipe
Use frozen lemonade concentrate instead of lemon juice
as Marge suggested, add grated lemon rind. Fresh is good, dried is more intense.
My mother's cherished lemon-nut bread recipe, which uses dried grated lemon peel, actually requires the bread to be wrapped and refrigerated overnight to "cure" the flavors after it is baked.
The 'curing's' a great idea, but I worry that for pound cake recipes that include chemical rising agents, after a night in the fridge they may not have any rising left in them
@sebiddychef, the curing period comes after the cake is baked. Excellent observation - I'll edit my answer.
This post is years old but I added 1/3 cup of freshly squeezed lime juice per 200g of flour and it turned out amazing. Super pronounced lime flavor. The recipe asked for 1/3 cup of buttermilk or sour cream but I didn't have any. Hope it helps.
Here are a couple of ideas:
Add some limoncello to the batter
After baking and initial cooling: Apply a lemon sugar syrup. Use a skewer to make holes in the cake. Pour over the lemon syrup.
Use lemon curd as a topping
Here is an example of a recipe with lemon syrup.
Boyajian lemon oil... Only use a few drops. Won't affect the recipe texture. Pure flavor. Probably find at Whole Foods, New Seasons, etc. My Costco has it also.
Lemon emulsion is especially designed for baking as it won't "bake out" like a juice or flavoring. If you are using an Lemon Extract, be sure it is all natural and has no added sweetener, like corn syrup. I found baking emulsions on line from a company called Lorann Professional Kitchen and the size was 4 oz....not a pint or quart like most bakery supply
The strength of that lemon twang comes from the essential oils of the lemon and the acid in the lemon (which is why the icing is sooooo GREAT!). Unfortunately the acid will all be reacted and evaporated out by the time you finish baking anything. However, the oils will not have evaporated or reacted with the air.
The oils predominantly come from the zest or skin. The most effective way to get the strongest lemony flavour in baking will be to use a juicer to completely strip all the oils out of the entire lemon, then boil it down to a thick syrup. The skin is very bitter, but with some sugar you should be able to bring out a great tangy lemon flavour. Remember, chocolate comes from a very bitter substance too but we love eating it all the time! =D
You will end up with a very intense lemon syrup for use in various baking. Make sure to practice your baking mixtures a couple times to get the consistencies correct. The thickness of the syrup should help a lot not to water down any recipe you are following, rather than just adding lemon juice (which, like most fresh produce, has heaps of water in it).
err... I think it'd take a heckova lot of peels for a juicer to work, a single lemon peel might or might not produce a full drop (assumed, I admit). I think there's too much dry bulk and too little liquid for a juicer, might have better luck with an oil extractor like for sunflower seeds. Even then it'd take literal pounds of just peels to get enough oil for boiling down (?!). Did you mean to juice the whole lemons, and boil down the juice whatever oil might be extracted from the peel during juicing? And if so, do you find it gives a better result than directly zesting lemons into a recipe?
Lemon cake does have flavor. All you need to do is just probably add more lemons and sugar.
Are you suggesting that adding sugar will add flavor, or just to add lemon juice and balance it with sugar? (It's really the zest that matters for flavor.) I'm not sure if you're trying to say anything that the other answers didn't already say.
Add lemon curd to your cake mixture
Could you explain how to do that without otherwise affecting the recipe. Do you blend the curd into the batter? Add it to the pan as a filling while pouring the batter? Marble it into the batter?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.354295
| 2012-10-27T05:50:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28047",
"authors": [
"BARB",
"Caldwell",
"Caleb",
"Cascabel",
"James Bobbitt",
"Judy Freeman",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Kristine",
"Kurt",
"MargeGunderson",
"Megha",
"Peter Taylor",
"Ron",
"Saeid Babaei",
"Sebiddychef",
"Viggy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64495",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64496",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64497",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64516",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64548",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80195",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8920",
"user64496",
"user64497"
],
"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
}
|
35423
|
Substitues for Vegetable Oil -Spread-
A cake recipe of mine calls for ½ cup of Vegetable Oil Spread (Specifically stating 70% fat), which I don't currently have.
I found questions that deal with substituting either Butter for Oil, Oil for Butter, and Butter for Margarine and have read their answers.
However, despite now being able to extrapolate how likely substituting (which I think is the best alternative) Oil for (What is understand is) the Margarine-like product called for in the recipe, I found no questions/answers that address this swap specifically. Am therefore keen on the communities opinions on which is the best substitute, why and any caveats?
To get an answer on what the "best" substitute is, you would have to provide some criteria, or at least a specific recipe or application.
In the US, to be labeled as margarine, the product must contain 80% fat per the Standard of Identity. The spread simply cannot be called margarine.
However, with a fat content of 70%, it is quite close to a standard margarine, and is likely otherwise the same thing.
Almost all recipes have enough tolerance that you could substitute regular margarine, real butter, or another vegetable oil 1:1. If you want to be more exact, you could approximate pretty closely (for easier math) by just using 3/4 the amount of a 100% fat product like shortening or vegetable oil, or 7/8 as much margarine or butter.
Despite the rant in another question, you will note that in an answer I do provide citations. I don't hold comments to such a high standard.
I don't feel it was a rant, just a discussion. As you provide more info than Jefromi in this question, I am marking this as the "correct answer". I am sorry if I stepped on your toes on the other quesiton, just wanted to make (what I felt was) was a useful suggestion.
It's vegetable oil spread, not vegetable oil. It's just another name for margarine, which is normally made from vegetable oil. So substitute as you would for margarine, because that's what it is.
Without knowing the recipe, I have to assume oil is a bad substitute here, because generally you don't want to substitute a liquid fat for a solid fat. But if you're just melting it, for example, it wouldn't matter.
Sorry, I wasn't aware that the recipe made a difference. Also, not sure why the word "spread" it italicized in your answer (I am aware that what it calls for is spread, and I wanted opinions on using oil, without stating what type).
@user66001 Because you assumed the best substitute for vegetable oil spread was oil (presumably at least partially because it says vegetable oil in the name) but the important part is that it's a spread. That's the thing that makes it obvious that it's solid, and you probably don't want a liquid substitute, and also makes it clear it's essentially margarine.
Ahh... unfortunately not, the assumption actually came from information in the cited questions, not despite the fact I didn't mention "Vegetable" alongside "Oil". Thanks for your answer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.354802
| 2013-07-20T19:48:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35423",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17067",
"user66001"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28303
|
How to Convert Blueberry Muffin Recipe to Vanilla Muffin Recipe
I tried this recipe with good results.
http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/ina-garten/blueberry-coffee-cake-muffins-recipe/index.html
So I decided to make plain vanilla muffins using the same recipe except for adding blueberries. However, the texture was not the same - I am guessing this is because of the reduced moisture content from the missing blueberries.
Can someone please guide me as to what I should modify to make up for the reduced moisture (assuming that is the cause)?
Many thanks
Blueberries are mostly water (~74%) and your recipe calls for a pint of them. Blueberries are roughly spherical, so they will pack into a container with a density of around 64%.
The recipe comes from a site in the US, so a pint is, presumably, ~473ml. One thing I don't know is how much liquid blueberries transfer to the batter while they are cooking. If they transfer somewhere between 25% and 75% of their water content, then you are looking to replace between 56ml and 168ml of liquid (i.e. roughly between a quarter and three quarters of a US cup).
Since there is already milk in the recipe, you might just as well add extra milk.
Hi Chris,
Thanks very much for this thorough response. Will try with additional milk.
I LOVE Chris Steinbach's answer for it's thoroughness and while adding some quantity of liquid may improve the texture of this muffin, you can compare the liquid requirement for another non-fruited muffins to this one - particularly one that includes sour cream.
It also would be a good idea to bake a sample muffin to check for the proper texture before committing the whole batch.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.355139
| 2012-11-08T17:07:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28303",
"authors": [
"AGS",
"Dan",
"M Miles",
"Michael Palmer",
"Munira Murtaza",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12854",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65232",
"user45516",
"user65197"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21374
|
Safety of Blue / Green Garlic
My mother pickled a bunch of garlic recently and it turned blue soon after. She has had this happen once or twice before where some turned green, but this time all of them turned really blue.
I tried Googling it, but only found mentions of it being a chemical reaction (that much is obvious) and mostly just speculation as to the causes and prevention, but little discussion on the safety of blue/green garlic. There are a couple of of question here about cooked / old garlic and onions turning green, but they have the same information as the other pages.
The few mentions of safety that I can find only go so far as to say that “it’s safe”—we assumed as much when we didn’t die after eating some last time—but they do not give any sort of explanation or proof to that effect. Chemical reactions are by definition change, which means that something that was safe can become not so.
Does anyone know of any information as to the safety of blue/green garlic (particularly pickled) that expounds on “it’s safe”, perhaps with some sort of test or experiment?
This is answered in Does aged onion/garlic turn green when frying? and Garlic turning green?
@Aaronut, I already linked to both of those and explained why they do not answer the question.
Lots of anthocyanin info: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40616/what-causes-changing-blue-and-purple-pigments-in-food
Since it was pickled, I believe it was a reaction with the vinegar causing it to turn green. Harold McGee has a good article on the very issue. He also goes into some detail in another artical here. I have heard various factors that can affect it, like the presence of dissolved metals, and the age of the garlic prior to being canned. However, I don't have any other info on those...
I do believe it's safe, assuming no other signs of spoilage are there.
I’ve seen talk about metals in the water, but I’m pretty sure she avoids any and all water when pickling (she has scolded me plenty of times about contaminating jars of pickled things with water, utensils, and fingers). Obviously it’s not fatal because we ate some last time and didn’t die, but safety is more than just lethality. I don’t remember now, but for all I know, we may have had digestive problems for a while after eating it, or sleep problems, headaches, etc.
Oh, I'd be surprised if it was the metal in this case. I just mention it because that is what I have read/heard. McGee doesn't talk about metal in his articles. I believe his explaination is more relevant/correct here.
The answer is anthocyanins, the same that can turn ginger blue and are responsible for purple snap beans and cabbage. The reaction occurs relative to pH and is perfectly safe. Anthocyanins are present in their range of colors in many foods including cabbage, ginger, garlic, and berries. When used as an additive, they have the E number E163.
I just did the same pickling of garlic salt double strength distilled vinegar, various spice seeds (peppercorn,coriander, fennel, cardemon, etc..Himalayan salt).
Now as a experienced food technologist I had a niggling thought but proceeded to boil the mixture in a composite sauce pan mainly a cooking surface area of 18/10 stainless steel.
All to plan so far pour on top of garlic cloves in a glass jar what could go wrong, sealed cooled enough to refrigerate, then to my interest next morning I wil try a couple of tasty morsels. Boo hoo greenish blue partial discolouration.
Potentially a toxic heavy metal acetate immediately came to mind. Copper possibly from traces in water/garlic or worse Nickel leached from 18/10 ss (China). Yes I see possibilities with antocyanins, but who’s happy or brave enough to roll those dice. Nickel acetate is poisonous and carcinogenic (full stop). Sheri of expensive analysis, I am going to repeat the process boiling my spice/acid salt mix in Pyrex and compare. I would send blue green back any day in a restaurant. the
Why would you assume “toxic heavy metal acetate”, rather than “the normal discoloration which occurs when pickling raw garlic”?
Please back up your statement with reasonable scientific data - and refrain from fear-mongering and blaming.
This does not provide an answer to the question. Once you have sufficient reputation you will be able to comment on any post; instead, provide answers that don't require clarification from the asker. - From Review
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.355308
| 2012-02-15T18:25:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21374",
"authors": [
"AVC",
"Aaronut",
"Achmad Setiawan",
"L.Dutch",
"MrSir100",
"Roshan Budhathoki",
"Sneftel",
"SourDoh",
"Stephie",
"Synetech",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102154",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47250",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4965",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94460",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21828
|
Whipping-cream will not stay hard or keep its peaks and gets runny
My mother is confounded by whipping-cream. Some 20 years ago she started making cream-puffs which quickly became her pastry calling card. They always came out great and were always a hit. Some 15 years later, she cannot seem to make whipped-cream anymore.
She still uses the same bowl, same mixer, same whipping-cream (Nutriwhip whipping-cream) and does everything the same way as she used to, but no matter what, the cream stays soft and will not stiffen or form peaks. (The kitchen is not too hot.)
Some explanations that we have considered include:
Changes to the quality/ingredients of the cream (despite the box being the same)
Adding powdered sugar to the liquid cream before whipping (like she always used to do)
Refrigerator not cold enough (but then, freezer not cold enough either?)
Whipping for too long causes heat build-up due to friction, which melts it (doesn’t excessive beating turn it into butter?)
She tried using different bowl, a chilled bowl, a different mixer, (even made me try by hand once!) She has tried a different brands of cream (35% Beatrice and Lactancia whipping-creams), but gets the same results. One time, I tried adding the powdered sugar after whipping the cream, and it was much better than what she normally gets now, but still not as stiff as compared to the past. Using a whisk on the mixer in place of the normal beaters (which was what she always used before, as my and my sister’s tongues can attest to), seems to help, but even that is only temporary.
She has even tried putting the whipped cream in the freezer, and while it does harden, once it has thawed enough to pipe, it gets runny very quickly (in the past, she would be able to pipe the cream onto baked goods, leave them in the fridge for a day, then drive them to somewhere else without the cream’s edges softening).
She is baffled because she had made whipped-cream for various baked-goods countless times, but until a few years ago, she never had any problems, then suddenly, it never works anymore. I found a few related questions here, but they don’t quite apply (they talk about different bowls, different temperatures, etc., but like I said, it used to work).
What could be the problem? How can she get whipped-cream to stay hard like it used to?
Exact brands and variations used:
Do you know somebody else who can whip these brands of cream in their kitchen? Friends, neighbours? Also, it is easier to whip cream which includes carrageenan, is it listed on your packages?
Can you describe her process?
Also, the searches I get for nutriwhip indicate its a non-dairy whipped topping. Not something you're gonna rewhip. Now, the whipping cream should work, but especially if its got carrageenan like rumtscho says.
Could the mixer be spinning slower than it used to? Have you tried a different mixer? I've used the Beatrice brand of whipping cream and never had issues... I think I've even used it very recently.
The Lactancia has carrageenan (I don’t have access to Nutriwhip or Beatrice, but the Nutriwhip always used to work). She tried her new Kitchenaid mixer (she was told that letting it mix too long would turn it into butter, but instead it just turned back into liquid).
Has the environment changed? You dismissed different temperature variation - what about humidity? Anything at all that changes the air that's getting whipped in?
@Jefromi, well she has lived in four places since starting. The first apartment worked fine for 10 or so years, then the town-house worked for a few more. She was in another town-house for another decade or so; it worked at first then later on didn’t. Her current place has not worked at all. I suppose the air certainly would be an important factor. It’s usually quite humid in the summer and quite dry in the winter. What kind of humidity would be conducive to whipping-cream?
If the humidity is high enough, it'd help "melt" the whipped cream. The fact that her current place has never worked seems like an important detail, suggesting some kind of environmental change, perhaps humidity. (Maybe the AC/heating is different.)
The apartment had a good climate (heaters were automatic and electric was included in the rent), but because the three town-houses after that had electric heaters and utilities were not included, she didn’t/doesn’t use them (or AC). This makes winters too dry and summers too humid. I’ll advise her to try it in another room or building next time to see if that does the trick.
I would think humidity would make it more difficult, but not seemingly impossible....
It's probable that all brands have changed from HTST pasteurized to ultra-pasteurized, which makes it have much longer shelf life, but slighty worse taste and whipping ability (source). ... but it still whips to butter, not liquid, if you go to far.
@derobert, actually when she first started complaining about it not working, I examined the box and noticed the ultra-pasteurization symbol and considered it as a possible cause. I cannot see the post you linked to (it requires a credit-card even for a free trial), but I Googled ultra-pasteurization whipping-cream and found this page. It seems to give inconsistent results, but the general consensus does seem to be that it affects the whippability (that’s actually a real word‽ :-D) of dairy products. I’ll tell her to try a box of non-ultra cream.
How long is she intending to keep it stable? My wife, who has much more experience with this says that if she adds cooking starch it stays the stiffest and regular sugar a little less so. But generally speaking it stays for a day or two easily even without adding anything. We're using the same brands as well. So I can't say what we're doing differently...
@talon8, well that’s just it. I remember flans in the fridge with whipped-cream on them keeping the ridges from the star-shaped piping bag nozzle for as long as the flan existed. Granted it wasn’t exactly a month, but they usually lasted one to two weeks (my sister and I liked it, but it did have fruit after all). :-D
Approaching from a different angle... is there a chance the sugar has changed?
> is there a chance the sugar has changed? She tried it without sugar at all (for what good that did, yech!) :-D
@PMarie, do the peaks last? My mother has tried the frozen bowl trick as well, but even though the cream does whip, it quickly softens into a sloppy, wet goop (which while still tasty, is visually unappealing).
Tests
She has tried the frozen-bowl trick (which she never used to have to do), but the cream only stays whipped and forms peaks for a while, then starts to melt (far too) quickly.
Theory
One theory she had was that she was whipping it for too long, which caused heat build up due to friction which in turn melted the cream. This seems to be borne out by the fact that using a wire-whip tends to give desired results more often than using flat-beaters.
Facts
Of course this isn’t a 100% answer or solution because:
She used to use flat-beaters exclusively in the past without issue
Even when using a whisk to whip it, it can still melt and fall flat quickly sometimes
Supplemental
In addition, I noticed that she seems to be putting more icing sugar in her whipped-cream than in the past. This likely changes, and specifically lowers, the melting point of the cream just like adding salt to water. We have not done extensive, conclusive testing, but a couple times when she remembered to put in less sugar, it did seem to whip better. This may or may not have been due to the lower sugar content, but it certainly is worth trying if you are having trouble whipping cream.
Conclusion
These observations and tests seem to indicate that the material contents of the cream have changed since the past, and even today, can vary from box to box.
Either way, a wire whisk and chilled bowl as well as reducing sugar (and possibly dyes, and other additives) are the best shot at getting cream to whip.
Last week she had me help her make mini-cheesecakes again (I love those!) because she can barely move her arms anymore. We made whipped-cream for them but she added the powdered sugar and vanilla after whipping the cream, and I definitely noted that the plain cream was nice and stiff. I believe more than ever that it is due to the excessive sugar—powdered sugar actually feels oily—that she was using in recent years (thankfully no diabetes).
Sugar does awful things to egg white meringues, if you add it too early.
The brands that used to work may have changed their formulation in response to carageenan shortages. If they use less emulsifier, a lower quality product, or different emulsifiers such as guar gum, locust bean, or xanthan gum, the stability of the whipped cream may suffer.
If the cream you can get isn't stable enough, you can add unflavored gelatin to stabilize it.
Method is in 'Joy of Cooking', or here.
May2013: Looks like carrageenan is still on the USDA organic list Shortage has eased, but whipping problems could still be due to variations in quality of supply.
Wow, I had no idea there was a carageenan shortage! The things you don't hear about in the American news ...
I live in NZ and have never had any problem with whipping cream. Our cream here doesn't contain any additives to help it harden like carrageenan.
However, when I used the normal whipping cream in Canada, I had the same problem beating it to stiff peaks. It just didn't do it and I was unsure as to why was the case. Then when I checked the box, it had something else added to it (don't remember what). I was very annoyed as the texture wasn't right and not what I had expected it to be. The texture of the cream was much nicer and easier to work with when nothing else was added to it. I am surprised as to why they need to add stuff to even plain cream to help get better results.
Do you remember if it was a chemical or natural item or anything (e.g., lettered-acronym or words)?
Cream as per Wikipedia: "Cream is a dairy product that is composed of the higher-butterfat layer skimmed from the top of milk before homogenization.". It should not contain any other additive or sugar etc.
To test cream: Place 100 ml of cream from a fridge, into a cocktail shaker or similar shaped container with tight fitting lid. Shake back and forth (cocktail style) for 2 to 5 minutes (depends on your strength), you should have smooth whipped cream. If you shake for another minute or two it will separate into butter and whey
If your cream source does not whip with this process, it may not actually be cream
Nutriwhip is NOT cream, but aside from that fact, whipping cream (of any type) requires the proper hardware. It is possible, judging by your explanation, that your mom's mixer is simply old and no longer able to whip enough air into the product at a high enough speed. Get a fine gauge manual whisk and test whipping the product. If it whips...buy your mom a new era mixer!
Getting it to whip isn’t the problem, getting it to stay whipped is. Like I said, she has already tried different mixers (electric-hand, hand-whisk, and stand-mixer). Using a wire whisk gave the best results and it whipped up quickly into peaks, but it still melted much faster than in the old days. It has nothing to do with the mixer.
I had the same problem of my whipping cream (high quality, comes in the glass jar). It did great, really thick and stayed that way for days in the fridge. That batch I whipped in a glass bowl.
next time, exact same product and temp, but whipped in a plastic Melamine bowl. Never really got thick and by next day in fridge was all thin and "watery" (note I also stored it in same plastic bowl). So I think it matters what kind of mixing utensils you use. I think the glass stays colder, thus better to thicken the cream.....Not sure, but seems to make sense......
I'll go for the first reason.
Quality of cream is crucial in order to make good whipping-cream. Try different brands, until you find the one that satisfies you. This too happened to me many times when I used bad-quality whipping cream.
If the cream persists to whip incorrectly, you could try adding a small amount of corn or potato starch to the cream, although it isn't necessary. Also be sure to whip the cream right after taking it out of the fridge (it should be cold but not freezing) and that the bowl is also cold.
I wouldn't worry about whipping for too long. Just continue whipping until you'll get the expected result.
I believe that something has changed with the actual cream since I have had the same experience with the cream whipping up nice and by the time I serve it up, it has gone soft. That is within a matter of a couple of hours, whereas before the whipping cream stayed whipped into the next day.
This would be a better answer if you had some idea what might've changed!
Use pure cream, preferably with high fat content and if necessary you can add some additives that harden it even more.
Adding sugar is fine especially since whipped cream without it is disgusting.
With real cream this will work fine, if you are using some cream substitute, don't.
The only other explanation is if you live somewhere really hot the cream could go bad in the time it takes to the store.
To whip cream, you need chilled butterfat (around 35-40%) called whipping, heavy, or double cream. As you beat the cream, it forms bubbles and the proteins denature, with some parts staying in the water and some parts staying in the fat, until you end up with a film of solid fat and protein that traps the air inside, with the water in between the bubbles. If you beat the cream too much, you can turn the whole thing inside out, with the water trapped inside films of fat and protein, and the air gets out (turns runny). Don't add sugar or flavor until you start getting a stiff whip or the sugar will disrupt the trapping of air bubbles. To get a stiffer peak or cream, you can add a small amount of unflavored gelatin to the cream as you first start to mix and whip.
Buy pure whipping cream with no additives. It will work like the olden days, pure and simple. It won't weep an separate.
It took me a few years to figure out. I am allergic to all legumes ie: guar gum etc. and carrageenan.
Good luck.
The author states that the ingredient statement on the cream hasn't changed.
Pure whipping cream might be better for people with allergies, but the gums are in there exactly because they make whipping easier. If somebody has trouble with the consistency, choosing pure cream will make it worse.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.355715
| 2012-02-28T18:36:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21828",
"authors": [
"Annette McKinney",
"Bob Leinonen",
"Cascabel",
"FuzzyChef",
"Gábor",
"Liya Banda Ishmael",
"Reg Armstrong",
"Russhiro",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"Synetech",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4965",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57856",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87500",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87709",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99631",
"rfusca",
"rumtscho",
"talon8",
"the truth",
"thomas dimitriou",
"user99631",
"wilkvolk"
],
"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
}
|
21424
|
Remediation Methods for Rice Contaminated with Broken Glass
A picture is worth a thousand words...
I dropped a glass jar filled with rice. I've picked up the macro-sized pieces of glass, but am wondering if there is any way on earth to make the rice safe to eat, given that I am sure it contains small fragments and shards of glass. I could, naturally, go through it grain-by-grain, but this is only a couple of bucks worth of rice, and I don't think it warrants the time.
Does anyone have any suggestions? (Or is this too localized?) I would also welcome suggestions for a better tag than "rice."
How about the 'food-safety' tag?
@jontyc I was thinking of that tag myself, but then I noticed that it's for questions about "preventing food-borne illness". Applying that tag to this question would stretch it a bit, in my opinion.
I suppose one could consider esophogeal lacerations from eating rice to be a food-borne illness in this case :)
I'd be more worried about how long ago I last cleaned my floor >.> Between glass and dirt I'd toss the whole batch
okay, I admit the rice was a little dusty. But I am unsure of how clean the factory where it was hulled is, so I wash away the dirt from all sources before cooking it.
@jontyc: I debated the "food-safety" tag myself, but it didn't feel right. My gut feeling is that it should apply to pathogens and contamination from unknown sources rather than contamination resulting from an accident.
Purely academic (because I wouldn't even use the rice for blind baking) but just dissolve salt into the water until the rice starts to float. The glass will remain at the bottom. Give a good stir to avoid surface tension and glass-stuck-to-rice problems. Rice farmers used to do this (and probably still do in some countries) to separate out little stones and even damaged grains.
If the solution saturates before the rice starts floating (i.e. salt no longer dissolves), try warm-water instead or another food-safe salt like Epsom salts which lead to a greater specific density of the solution).
Cool. Just the type of answer I wanted. But I'm not going to try it myself!
Out of curiosity, what role does the salt play? Is this a buoyancy/density problem?
For a completely sunken object, the volume of water displaced is equal to the volume of the object (in this case, my grains of rice and shards of glass). The weight of this volume of water is less than the corresponding weight of the glass or rice (i.e. the water has lower density). Adding salt increases the density of the water until the weight of the water displaced by each grain of rice is greater than that of the grain itself, buoying the rice.
I would throw it out. The rice doesn't cost as much as a new digestive system.
Sure, it's a waste. And I'm sure you would look very carefully. But the risk of one glass splinter still in it is existent. Therefore, I wouldn't try it.
Good luck with cleaning that up though. :)
+1 - there's almost no way I'd consider eating it, and no way at all I would serve it to anyone else. But it's an interesting problem, waiting for an innovative solution...
I was thinking of a way, like in water. But I'm pretty sure they both would sink.
That was my first naive thought, but then I recalled I rely on the fact that rice sinks to help wash off the rice flour.
Even if glass is heavier than rice (I should look it up) and you try it with a liquid, there is still a chance that some glass pieces would be on top because of surface tension. Or at least I think so. I'm not a physicist.
That could be (but it might require someone with a demonstrably more delicate touch than I have...)
@Mien: I think density is the important factor in that scenario (not weight).
@OliverSalzburg yes, density was what I meant, but it's called 'soortelijk gewicht' in my language, hence my mistake in terminology.
While "toss it" is probably the most reasonable answer, if you were intent on using it, I would recommend making a batch of Horchata (the delicious Mexican beverage), since you just soak the rice - no cooking, and a very fine strain of the rice water is necessary either way.
Here is a quick recipe from "PDT".
40 oz. water
10 oz. whole milk
8 oz. uncooked white long-grain rice
3 Tbs raw sugar
0.5 tsp vanilla
0.5 tsp ground cinnamon
Pour the water over the rice and let stand for 12 hours (most recipes suggest using a blender to bust up the rice a bit, in your case I would not put it in the blender, and let it steep for a longer period of time). Strain the rice water out (with a very fine cloth, in your case). Half the water will be absorbed the rice. Add the rest of the ingredients, chill, and enjoy!
You'd have to rinse the rice thoroughly first. Otherwise there could be tiny bits of glass that'd go through your finest strainer, and end up in the horchata. Rinsing would (hopefully) let you remove everything smaller than the rice, then the strain later would let you remove everything bigger than that.
On the rinsing front -- if you have two strainers, I'd use a coarse one for the pre-rinse, then a finer one (or lined w/ cheese cloth) for the final strain, just to be paranoid. You could also decant it -- let it settle, then gently ladle or otherwise extract the liquid from the top without disturbing the sediment.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.357074
| 2012-02-16T23:42:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21424",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Eric Hu",
"Jack",
"James McLeod",
"Jesse Cohoon",
"Joe",
"Julie Hinsley",
"Mien",
"Oliver Salzburg",
"Ray",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47421",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47429",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47445",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47971",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8315",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9185",
"jontyc",
"razu",
"slurrr"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
73357
|
What is the delicious brown layer that appears when you fry or bake apples, plums, apricots, etc.?
When one fries or bakes various fruits, like apples, plums, and apricots, they acquire a (patched) brown to black layer where they have touched the pan or the hot air. It tastes deliciously tart and bitter. Is that only caramellisation, or is it more than that? Bonus question: is it the same process as what happens when you grill aubergines, and meat? A picture:
I can't view the image on mobile, but it sounds like you're describing the Maillard reaction. Sugars and amino acids break down and recombine to form complex and delicious new compounds
@JonTakagi: Oh! I've only heard that name in conexion with meat, interesting. So is it distinct from caramellisation? Or is one part of the other?
They are different, however, the difference is slim from the perspective of a cook. The Maillard reaction refers to the interaction of two types of chemicals - sugars and amino acids - at high temperatures. Caramelization refers to the pyrolysis of sugars. The two often occur at the same time, and caramelization is not very well understood, so there is often confusion between the two. The Maillard reaction also occurs whenever there are amino acids present: bread, fruit, and especially meat. Pure caramelization leads to caramel - but adding dairy allows the Maillard reaction to occur.
@JonTakagi Sounds like an answer to me!
@JonTakagi: That is most interesting, and I think it is about complete enough to be turned into a full answer!
It is caramelized the sugar. I was wondering what was your reason for asking this question? That is to say is it recipe related? Do you want more or less caramelization, are you going to take advantage of the flavor, etc?
Ah, but have you seen Jon's comment above? I ask mainly out of mere curiosity. I'd like to maximise this happening, though, without actually burning the food.
This is a combination of the two: caramelization and Mallard reaction.
Caramelization may sometimes cause browning in the same foods in which the Maillard reaction occurs, but the two processes are distinct. They both are promoted by heating, but the Maillard reaction involves amino acids, as discussed above, whereas caramelization is simply the pyrolysis of certain sugars.
Mallard Reaction – Wikipedia
Caramelization – Wikipedia
This sounds like a good answer, with useful links. Do you agree with the comment above and with Wikipaedia that the Maillard rection is between amino acids and (reducing) sugars? And the comment mentions that it also occurs in meat: does that mean there are reducing sugars present in meat?
My search returned 0g of carbohydrates in meat and oil. Which makes me say you've asked a pretty good question. Either with meat we have a different type of mallard reaction, or something produces sugars when we fry meat. One thing is for sure – meat tastes better when grilled with sweet sauces. This means to me that Mallard reaction in meats goes much better in a presence of added sugars.
Interesting! An alternative explanation: the improved flavour you experience is that of caramel? Or simply of the surag? I have to say, though, that I don't normally eat meat with sweet sauces, so I have no idea (I think that is popular in China, Japan, and some other regions?).
Yes it is quite common. Beyond asian teriyaki and such, how about famous USA barbecue that is loaded with fructose sirup or molasses? I am assuming this is due to presence of sugars during Mallard reaction. And no, it's not just caramel or just sugar (not that I am not a fan :)
Maillard reaction. Unless it is duck you are cooking or serving to.
@LexPodgorny: Haha OK I believe you (I'm not familiar with American cooking). Now I'm hungry...
I do think it is the carmelization, but in the picture looks a bit like char/sear as well, maybe a combination of the two. In any event, looks really yummy!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.357670
| 2016-08-23T16:39:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73357",
"authors": [
"Cerberus",
"Jon Takagi",
"Lex Podgorny",
"djmadscribbler",
"elias altenberg",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39265",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9799",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
42234
|
Garlic Overflow — Why won't my olive oil stay in its jug?
I'm the kind of chef who chops up whatever the local bazaar has that week, adds a random amount of seasonings until the color suits my fancy and then cooks it. Somehow. Most days I don't go hungry.
The other day, fresh garlic was really cheap so I bought a bunch. The housewares shop had some little jugs with corks, so I picked one up. Back at home I chopped up a few heads of garlic, stuffed it the jug, then filled the jug with olive oil. Bread for the next two days had had a great dipping sauce! However dipping bread in oil uses up a lot of oil and not very much garlic, so on the second evening when it was about half empty I topped off the jug with fresh oil. I corked it, wiped off the drips from around the top with a paper towel and left it on the table.
This is what I found in the morning. (click for larger)
I am certain when I corked it the level of oil was below the bottom of the cork because I tipped it to see how the garlic was getting an and remember the air moving around in the jug. I am also certain the top was clean having wiped it off, and of course there was no puddle. Even stranger, as I have left it there today it has continued to drip.
The only clew seems to be garlic mixture seems to be producing periodic bubbles that float up through the oil. This does not explain to me how the oil got out, but it does seem like it must be producing
I see three fields for questioning:
Casual kitchen tinkerer: How should I safely store my garlic and olive oil? Is there danger to storing this in something that seals better than a plastic cork? Is it safe to eat?
Amateur chemist: Is there a chemical reaction going on between the garlic and the oil? Would it ever explode?
Wannabe physicist: How did the oil get out? This seems like a gravity defying stunt. Note the current oil level is about ½" below the cork.
Somebody please tell me why my day's adventure at the bazaar made this much mess and how to make yummy things with garlic and olive oil safely!
This is actually a terrible idea because of botulism. See, for example, http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/9465/6317 I don't know if botulism causes bubbling or overflowing like that, but I wouldn't eat that anymore
Seasoned Advice has a lot of content relating to botulism in various contexts. You may also be interested in this answer, in addition to Yami's link.
Garlic will overwhelm the flavors of olive oil. Don't spoil quality olive oil with anything.
@Optionparty You underestimate how much olive oil I have at my disposal. (Have you checked the location in my profile?) Sometimes I want garlic. I have barrels of oil to work from when I want other flavors.
As many answers have stated already: It's too risky to take chances here. Throw it away. However, why not make aioli instead? It's simplest form uses only garlic and olive oil and you don't need to wait before you can eat it. It is also very creamy (similar to mayonaise), which makes it perfect as a dib. Takes only a couple of minutes to make too and you get to securely avoid the nasty "paralysis and death"-part.
I agree that fermentation from bacteria is the most likely explanation. So, to tackle your questions point by point:
It is unsafe, as the other posts already mentioned, due to botulism danger. Plant matter without access to oxygen is not shelf stable, unless it has been pickled with sufficient acid.
There will be some chemistry going on between garlic and oil, but not much of it. Most of it will be solubility stuff; some reactions will probably happen too, but nothing you will notice. Most important, there will be no oil-garlic explosions.
The results you are seeing are most likely caused by some microorganism (bacteria or yeast) gorging itself on the sugars in your garlic and burping out some gas, probably CO2. There is nothing strange about the gas building enough pressure to get a bit of oil out. Brewers can tell you that you never stopper a bottle or carboy in which something is undergoing primary fermentation, else your cork blows out or the whole vessel shatters. If you ever popped a champagne bottle, you know how much force you can get in there.
The gas from the fermentation could not dissolve in the oil (the way it would had happened with CO2 in a watery medium). It built up pressure against the cork. I suspect that the cork was not perfectly tight, else it'd have shot out. Instead, the foam probably pushed it up a bit until it could flow around it, and got out. The pressure fell, and the remaining oil stayed in the bottle.
As to making yummy oil with garlic safely, TonyArra already told you: you can keep it in the fridge and eat it up within a few days. Don't top it up with new oil! It is perishable just like mayonnaise or milk, but the ugly part about it is that you won't notice anything if there is a lively botulinum colony in there. No off smells, color changes or similar. Most bacteria which live in food don't survive without oxygen (c. botulinum is an exception) and the ones which make food smell bad will not be present even if you have botulinum in your oil.
If you want something which keeps, look into recipes which require pickling or freezing. You won't be able to get a garlic oil with them, but maybe a garlic spread will work for your bread too.
I would throw it away quickly. Making garlic oil is a huge risk for botulism (botulism is a bacteria that thrives in food when there's a lack of oxygen, as is the case with garlic submerged in olive oil).
You CAN make garlic-infused olive oil, but it's best to keep it in the fridge to prevent the botulism from growing. They say that it's difficult to tell when botulism has developed in food, but the air bubbles could very well be caused by the bacteria (anaerobic bacteria usually expel CO2). Edit: it's true that this is most likely not botulinum bacteria, but even if it IS fermentation, this means that you've have thriving anaerobic bacteria inside your oil, and thus botulism is a sincere threat here.
Botulism CAN cause paralysis and even death, so if you haven't been properly refrigerating your garlic oil, it's not worth the risk. It should be stored at or below 36F/2C. At this temperature, the oil may start to solidify, so it might be necessary to take the oil out a little in advance before using it. It should never be kept out for more than 4 hours at room temperature.
Are you trying to tell me that a little bit of bacteria gave off enough CO2 to eject several tablespoons of oil through a closed cork? That's some energetic bacteria. That makes me want to turn my kitchen into a biology lab. On the other hand, do you think fermentation might be a more likely candidate?
@Caleb I can't account for the fact that you lost so much oil, just that bacteria could lead to air bubbles. Fermentation is basically caused by bacteria in a low-oxygen environment...so we'd still be talking about energetic, anaerobic bacteria.
@Caleb the reason you could get away with fermentation and not get botulism is because it's typically done in an acidic environment, which the botulinum can't thrive in. This, however, is not an acidic environment. So the fact that ANYTHING is going on that could hint at bacterial growth is troublesome.
@Caleb: Yes, he is trying to tell you that. In fact, the USDA, FDA, etc. all very specifically tell you not to go anywhere near a can (or other container) that's bulging or cracked, because that's exactly what happens when bacteria breed. You don't need actually need a huge amount of gas if the container is almost full - enough to build up more pressure than the container can handle will make it "explode". I suspected contamination as soon as I saw your question title, and the fact that you can actually see bubbles serves as confirmation; olive oil doesn't bubble by itself.
First of all: I am not very familiar with fermentation. Therefore I cannot give you any advice as to whether your oil is still edible or not.
Could it be capillary action that caused the oil overflow? If I remember rightly PC enthusiasts who submerge a whole PC into an aquarium with cooking oil (for cooling) always have the problem that oil "climbs" the cables.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice, and thanks for the answer. Your English really was fine, but I went ahead and edited a little anyway. (I also think this sounds like a plausible explanation!)
@ChiChiChan This may explain how the oil seeps through the opening of the jug with the cork in the way; however, I don't think that it would explain the air bubbles. It's most likely part of the puzzle here: the oil bubbled up to the top of the jug and was sucked through the tiny space between the cork and lip.
@TonyArra At the same time, the bubbles probably don't have anything to do with the oil getting out. This isn't a big bubble eruption; a few little bubbles can't push oil up that far. And the "sucked through the tiny space" you mention is capillary action.
@Jefromi umm that's exactly what I meant. The bubbles getting sucked through the tiny space is capillary action. I was referring to the point in time when the jug was completely full (unsure whether the bubbles would have expedited this or not. Pressure building from CO2 in the jug COULD cause a forceful explulsion of the liquids. )
Slight pressure build up assists.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.358031
| 2014-02-21T20:34:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42234",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Anpan",
"Caleb",
"Cascabel",
"Ceeschwarz",
"Che Washington",
"Ethan",
"Helen Vaughan",
"Kareen",
"Laura Brandon",
"MarsJarsGuitars-n-Chars",
"Optionparty",
"Pat",
"Richard Terpilowski",
"Tony Arra",
"Yamikuronue",
"Zetabeta",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98603",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98605",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98607",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98609",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98616",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98619",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98620",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98621",
"norio",
"rachel cornelson",
"soikeo88",
"under_the_sea_salad",
"user1174682"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
27508
|
I'm trying to make yogurt, but it won't turn out. Can someone help?
I followed this recipe. It follows the pattern outlined here but with different temps:
Get milk. – I’m using 1 cup of 2% (no powdered milk).
Get a starter. – I have tried Dannon Oikos plain greek yogurt (made with whole milk), and Yoplait Very Vanilla, and some other brand of plain greek yogurt. The “other brand” yogurt was at least a couple weeks in the fridge before I tried using it for starter.
Heat the milk to 175-180°F ( instead of 190°F).
Cool the milk at to between 40°C (110-120°F).
Mix in the starter. (I used ¼ tsp for 1 c milk.)
Keep the mix warm for 6-10 hours. – For the heat source I used a crock pot on “keep warm” with 2-3” water. The milk/starter was loosely covered in a class measuring cup. I monitored the temp with a thermometer and kept it around 110°F. (It probably varied from say 105-115° as I tried to keep the temp 110°)
Strain your yogurt. – The one batch that solidified, I successfully strained with a coffee filter. My problem is just getting to this point.
The first time I made it, I heated my oven to 170°F (as low as it goes) and then turned it off. I wrapped the still warm milk/starter (in a glass bowl) in towels in an oven that had been heated to 170°F and then turned off. I used the “Very Vanilla” starter and in the morning it was still milk, so I added some plain greek yogurt and transferred it to a crock pot on keep warm, with the crock pot lid on and a towel over the lid. After several more hours it had solidified but was beige colored. At that point, a temp check revealed it was 170°F. Oops. After straining it, the texture resembled ricotta cheese. It smelled nutty and delicious, but didn’t taste nutty or delicious. I think it was getting all that smell from the whey. The taste was not unpleasant, but not pleasant either, and definitely not tart like yogurt.
The second/third times I made it, I just used plain greek yogurt starter. Incubated in a crock pot with a water batch for 8-10 hours. The result was milk. When I poured out the milk I could see some solids (what looked like the starter) at the bottom.
So now I’m wondering what went wrong. Several questions come to mind:
Is my starter too old? If so, how do I get fresh yogurt?
Am I using enough starter?
Am I getting the milk hot enough in step 3?
Am I keeping the milk too hot/cold during incubation?
Does the humidity from the water bath help/hurt my chances of producing yogurt?
Can anyone offer some guidance? I have a hunch that the starter is too old since I don’t really know how old yogurt is when I buy it from the store. But I also don’t know how to do any better than buying it from the store and making yogurt right away.
There are so many variables I’m not sure of that I just thought it would be good to get some advice before proceeding.
Why not use an electric yoghurt maker - no guessing, no hassle & perfect results even from fridge cold milk and starter. I use 1 tbsp starter to 2 pints full fat milk.
Don't get frustrated. There really aren't that many variables to keep track of.
1- I don't know the age of store bought yogurt but I have never had just-purchased yogurt not work as a starter. I have had month old yogurt from my fridge not turn out. If you don't plan on making yogurt often enough to keep you starter viable then consider freezing some in ice cube trays.
Whatever starter you use- make sure it lists "live, active cultures". Personally I wouldn't use a flavored yogurt as a starter.
2- I don't think that is enough starter. I will use 1/4 cup of starter for a quart of milk. If you are using 1 cup of milk that would be one Tbs of starter (12X the amount you used).
3- It depends. The goal is to denature the albumin proteins in the milk. 180F is hot enough if the milk is held at that temperature for at least half an hour. It needs to be held at 190F for closer to 10 minutes.
4- You need to get better control of your temperature. 130F will kill your starter but erratic temperature fluctuations will also produce very poor yogurt. Without a temperature controller or manual intervention your slow cooker will get much too hot- even with a water bath.
More successful approaches are to put it in a draft free place in an insulated container, or in your switched off oven.
5- The humidity is not going to play a role unless it is condensing into your container enough to dilute things.
Good luck. I hope you get it working. Fermenting milk is fun.
Thanks I'll give this a try tonight. Maybe I'll use the oven instead of the crock pot. It would work better for large quantities anyway.
It worked!! I'm so pumped, I finally made edible yogurt! It wasn't GOOD yogurt, but it was definitely yogurt. I have to credit the increased amount of starter. ... I preheated my oven to 170 with a baking stone while I was brining my milk up to 190. Then I switched off the oven and put the 190 degree milk in for 10 minutes. I took it out for about 15 minutes to cool before adding the starter (Dannon Oikos) and then back in the oven. Eight hours later I had yogurt! It definitely needed more time to increase the tartness. But now I've got something to build off of. Thanks!
I have now realized that I was overheating my yogurt. I don't preheat my oven to 170 anymore, I just turn on the oven light. I get a much smoother yogurt now. Especially when I skim off the rough top layer. By morning it is around 125 degrees. So I am thinking that the (40 Watt) oven light alone may provide too much heat. I'm going to try keeping the oven door part way open. I may even try turning off the oven light (with the door closed).
I see that you have had success with the answer above, so congrats. I have been using these general guidelines for making yogourt and it's turned out nicely except for once (and only because I needed the oven half way through making the yogourt - poor planning on my part!):
2L of 3.8% organic milk (full-fat happens to be my preference because I prefer the taste)
I initially used plain organic Greek yogourt as a starter, 4 tbsp. for the 2L of milk
Heat milk to 180F and hold at that temp for 30 mins.
Cool down to 110F (I use a quick cool function in my fridge)
Add the starter and mix gently (I use a silicone spatula - I read several recipes that emphasize the 'gently' part; I think it has to do with not breaking apart the molecules)
Place in oven with light on and leave for 8-10 hours or until desired acidity is reached.
I use a dutch oven to make the yogourt and I always use a thermometer.
I keep a small mason jar of the yogourt as a starter for next time and have occasionally kept it for two weeks between batches with no ill effects.
I then strain the yogourt in a cheesecloth-lined mesh colander in the fridge for 4-6 hours or until I have my preferred consistency of thick Greek-style yogourt. The final yield is about a litre and costs about half of what I would pay for organic Greek yogourt in my part of the world - and the taste is far superior in my opinion.
Maybe if your oven looks like it won't go that low, try to see if it will stay on if you move the knob below the temperature markings. I found although mine said it could only go to 60 degrees Celsius (140 F) it actually will go lower and maintain the right temp to make the yoghurt. Just a thought :-)
If you find following a detailed recipe too error-prone, start simpler instead. Make your earliest efforts as simple as possible, and start small. Your first successes can come by following this simplified recipe:
(1) Warm the milk to 110 degrees Fahrenheit.
(2) Add yogurt.
(3) Keep the mixture in a warm but not hot place for 6-8 hours.
Yogurt should grow as long as it has food (lactose) and is warm and is not being out-competed by another microbe colony. Cultures can die, and simply trying again with fresh yogurt or working on keeping the temperature in a more comfortable range for the cultures can lead to an earlier success. Some steps may be extraneous for your first experiments, but add them back in after you start to see some moderate success (as another writer pointed out, pre-heating the milk helps the yogurt thicken more). Probably the most difficult part is maintaining the temperature within the cultures' optimal growth range; 100-120 is typically OK, but colder leads to slow/no growth and hotter can kill the cultures, making a fresh cheese instead of a yogurt. Most cooking appliances are not designed to operate within this temperature range and that is the chief difficulty--ovens and crockpots usually don't go below about 140 or 170 F--so many people will put it in a turned-off oven with residual heat, and with the oven light on or with tins full of hot water next to it (120-140F) to keep it warm. A friend of mine would pour some milk on top of the last spoonful in her yogurt cup and leave it next to the warm fan vent of a computer. She'd come back in the morning and she'd have another cup of yogurt waiting for her.
I used the recipe on this website for my first time making yogurt. It turned out perfectly.
http://m.chickensintheroad.com/cooking/homemade-yogurt-in-a-crock-pot-and-yogurt-cheese/
I used a 5.1 oz. Greek yogurt to 1/2 gal. of milk.
After stirring in the live culture yogurt, I let it set for 11 hours overnight in the oven with the light on (Crockpot wrapped in a large beach towel). Stirred it again in the morning.
My cousin leaves hers setting out longer covered with cheesecloth which results in a thicker yogurt.
I made a second batch today using 1 cup of the first batch of yogurt. We'll see how that turns out in the morning.
Hi Celeste and welcome to Seasoned Advice. Although I only skimmed the recipe you posted, the key differences between this and those described in the question don't jump out at me. Maybe you could point out what you think is important.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.358833
| 2012-10-01T20:06:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27508",
"authors": [
"Alex2006",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Doreen",
"J Stover",
"Mark Goulet",
"Michael Tantillo",
"Stainsor",
"UselessInfoMine",
"fjut",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126570",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5778",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62009",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62011",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62015",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70005",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83641"
],
"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
}
|
14500
|
Why is there cow cheese but no pig cheese?
I have always wondered what there is no cheese made from other milks other than cow, goat or sheep. Are they not suitable for humans? Do they taste bad? Is it even possible to make dairy products with them?
In some countries, other animals than cow, goat or sheep are used: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milk#Sources
It'll likely be a few years before we can take advantage of the benefit of dog's milk : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhjGXCk-RVU
Dog milk - bleuuuuaaaarghhhh.
Kid, have you ever tried to milk a pig?!
It's called "head cheese" :)
I believe cheese is at least made of horse and camel milk, probably others too. But I've also never heard of pig's cheese.
There are several main reasons, historically:
Cows, sheep and goats have udders, and can be milked by hand into a bucket. Pigs (or cats, or humans for that matter) have nipples, where you need to suck the milk out. Consider that most of the cheese in the world was invented before machinery was able to create a vacuum, this means that the only option would have been to suck milk from the pig and spit it into the bucket.
For making cheese, the fat/protein ratio in the milk is important. It changes, obviously, from species to species, which is why there aren't many hard yellow cheeses made of goat's milk.
Lastly, I have actually had camel's milk ice-cream, which goes to show that it's just a cultural thing mostly.
From Wikipedia "A 1982 source reported that 230,000 horses were kept in the USSR specifically for producing milk to make into kumis.
Rinchingiin Indra, writing about Mongolian dairying, says "it takes considerable skill to milk a mare" and describes the technique: the milker kneels on one knee, with a pail propped on the other, steadied by a string tied to an arm. One arm is wrapped behind the mare's rear leg and the other in front. A foal starts the milk flow and is pulled away by another person, but left touching the mare's side during the entire process." Hungry humans are ingenious.
@Carmi Asian adults love our dairy products. We sell all we can make to China (over 2 billion dollars worth last year). Haven't meet many that can't digest it either?
Don't Indians eat paneer? And lassi?
Thank you all for the comments and the answer. As per the yak cheese I know for a fact that it exists, and it's actually a slowfood presidium. Actually it was one of the reasons for my question. If anybody is interested, I had the chance of tasting it, and in my opinion it's not quite worth the effort.
@Ray lassi is yogurt, not cheese; and yogurt comes from cow's milk. Cows are abundant in India. Paneer is eaten, but it is also cow's milk, not any other animal. And it's not as common a source of protein as, say, lentils.
@LauraΨ, I interpreted Ray's comment as being on point 3 (only people of European descent really eat dairy as adults) - and if he hadn't made the point about Indians eating paneer and lassi, I would have done.
@Laura: In Romania my favour off-the-shelf yoghurt is from a combination of cows and sheep.
As daniel suggests, cost of production is the main issue.
But it is possible. In fact, recently in the UK a restaurant served human breast milk ice cream [Source] and I don't see any reason why we couldn't have cheeses made from human milk.
There are even cheeses* that are made without any milk for vegans [Source], and it sounds absolutely delicious
Vegan cheeses are made from ingredients such as soya protein and vegetable oil
*Not real cheese, keep it well away from my pizza
The reason we can't make cheese from human milk, I believe, is that it doesn't curdle properly. I think, given a sufficient quantity of human milk, you'd end up with a very unsatisfying vat of disgusting liquid instead of the start of a Human Cheese Empire… :(
In fact, Human Cheese was made in France at least as far back as 2007 [Source] and at least one place in New York has made and served Human Cheese [Source]
Wow, really? That's amazing. I stand corrected! :)
Human milk is considered suitable for vegans, providing it was given freely by the producer. The ethical element departs when informed consent can be granted.
I think point 1 in Carmi's answer is largely the explanation but I thought I'd add to it with some data I found in a recent article.
The AV Club (of all places) released an article in 2016 titled "Why don't we drink pigs milk?" While this question is about cheese, milk is first required for cheese to happen, so if there's difficulty in obtaining a supply of milk, one can't make cheese. So, from the article, we find that milking a pig is quite complex, from an anatomical angle.
There haven’t been machines manufactured that would efficiently milk a sow’s 14 teats.
They're also quite small by comparison. Supply wise, these teats give off (all together) much less milk.
And what milk could be produced is paltry by comparison: A sow produces one-fifth the milk of a cow.
Additionally, while a cow can get pregnant while lactating, a pig can not.
Maxwell also said the hog industry’s objective is to produce as many pigs as possible (sows give birth to roughly two dozen piglets annually)—and a sow can’t get pregnant while she’s lactating.
Even if you get past or ignore these concerns, getting a pig to cooperate with your milking contraption will likely be complicated.
Maxwell said when they obtain milk samples from sows, the animal has to be lying down. “I don’t know how difficult it would be to milk the sow standing up,” he said. “But it would be another learning curve that would potentially be difficult to overcome. It’s not a feasible scenario.”
Not that that’s stopped some people from trying. Edward Lee, the James Beard Award-nominated chef of 610 Magnolia, was so intrigued with serving pig’s milk cheese at his Louisville, Kentucky, restaurant that he experimented with different ways of milking a pig. The most extreme involved ingratiating himself to the sow by smearing pig poop on his jacket and sitting near her until she was familiar enough with him to fall asleep. Then he’d move in to milk—but even this was to no avail. In the end, as Lee told Modern Farmer, “Cows have been domesticated for so many years, they’re very docile. You get within 15 feet of a sow, she’ll get up on her hind legs and get defensive. She might charge you. And once she charges you, just forget it. She’s already identified you as an enemy.”
Lee added, “Goats don’t like to be milked either. But if you get kicked by a goat, you’ll get bruised. Get hit by a 250-pound sow, you’re dead. There’s a very basic practical reason people don’t attempt it. No one else is crazy enough to get in the barn with ’em.”
So, unless we discover it to be an elixir of life that everyone wants (and are willing to give up bacon for it), it seems unlikely that we'll see pig milk - or cheese - in the near future.
Another explanation is diet. Pigs eat pretty much anything, while cows are rather selective about the grass they eat. The milk takes on a lot of the characteristics of the food the animal eats, so cheese made from a pig would probably be pretty bad.
Commercially raised animals eat what the farmer feeds them, so this really shouldn't be a problem.
I'm a cheese monger in the Pacific Northwest of the U.S.A. (PNW), and I've heard of a pigs milk cheese that is produced in Italy.
Some reports say that it's produced in or around Tuscany. The cheese is called Porcino (Italian for "something of the pig" - I may have the spelling wrong) and is rarely sold outside the region, and never outside of Italy.
One website that talked about Porcino cited an article on it, but later said that the article was a hoax. I have no way to confirm or deny the validity of the article. Though
I have talked to cheese distributors here in the PNW, and they confirm that it is a real cheese, but that there is no way for them to procure it for sale in this part of the world.
According to my sources, some of the same Italian families have been making this cheese for over a millennium.
Can you post the article URL please
An article on a pig cheese from Tuscany: http://www.lifeinitaly.com/food/raresttuscancheese.asp
I think we are also neglecting the production costs of making pig's milk cheese. Given the amount of milk that would be needed to turn a profit or even make a single wheel compared to the amount of care and cost associated with raising and maintaining a sow for milk (which from what I understand does not produce a great deal of milk anyway) isn't very economical.
You cannot make cheese from human milk. Everyone who has tried has mixed human milk with cow's milk. The have tried but failed to make cheese from purely human milk.
What they do not seem to realize is when they separate the curd from the whey, every single ounce of human milk is discarded in the whey. Human milk does not form curds - period. You cannot make cheese without curds.
This comment on another answer to this question states the oposite, and has 2 links supporting it. Can you argument why human milk won't form curds?
cheese or butter can not be made from pig camel horse milk its just not possible it will not turn in to cheese only cow sheep and goat milk can be made into cheese
This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post - you can always comment on your own posts, and once you have sufficient reputation you will be able to comment on any post.
A very small amount of research shows this answer is not quite right. While it is true that horse milk contains insufficient levels of casein to curdle, Caravane cheese is a brand of cheese made from camel milk. And various online sources, including one answer here, suggest it is quite possible, albeit rather difficult to make cheese from pig milk.
@KatieK how does this not answer the question? The accepted answer states why there is no pig cheese and talks about camel ice cream which is nothing to do with cheese. Cows Goat & Sheep milk can naturally curdle, while other animals cannot. Hence there are no cheeses of other animals. Even if pigs had nipples there would still be the same amount of pig cheese. ChrisS see wiki "Camel milk" on difficulties without new tech to make cheese from camels. Hence the cheese industries are built on the 3 mentioned animals, which coagulate easily. New technologies can change whats on the shelves.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.359638
| 2011-05-03T22:16:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14500",
"authors": [
"Brizio",
"Carly Kuri",
"Chris Steinbach",
"DiB",
"Elaine Griffiths",
"Georges D",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Joe",
"Jon",
"Jonathan Sterling",
"Josh Stodola",
"KatieK",
"Laura",
"Mien",
"Orbling",
"Peter Taylor",
"Ray",
"Richard",
"TFD",
"Vasilis",
"dannyman",
"derobert",
"dianegraynorris",
"hippietrail",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/363",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3698",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37862",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5736",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5869",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64862",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69859",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69869",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7125",
"immutabl",
"rumtscho",
"soegaard",
"user69869"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15026
|
What would be a good accompaniment for Ostrich fillet with Port and Blue Cheese glaze?
On the heel of @ElendilThetall's question: Accompiniments for satay, I'd like to know the following.
About a year ago I found this great recipe for Ostrich Fillet, which is basically flash fried in the pan and then the leftover juices is cooked along with port and blue cheese to create a great-tasting glaze.
I haven't had the chance to make this very often, but it's an amazingly tasty, quick and easy thing to make. The problem I have is figuring out what would go well with this.
At the moment my favourite is a baked potato and roast vegetables, however I'm not so good with the roast veggies. I've also worked under the assumption that anything that goes with regular red meat, like chips, works well, but this is such a unique tasting dish that I'd really like to do something different along with it.
Unfortunately I don't really have a knack for pairing side-dishes with recipes like these, so any help would be appreciated.
I've had french fries with (beef) gravy and blue cheese, and it's delicious. However, if you want to get away from potatoes and aren't comfortable with roasting, what about doing some other sort of root vegetable mash? Like mash potatoes, but using turnips, parsnips, rutabaga, or sweet potato instead. I've tried them all and I think they're great.
As for a side veg, I'd almost want a really vinegary salad. Something astringent to cut the richness of the dish. To carry the theme, you may like a green salad with apples, walnuts, and a little blue cheese, with a vinegary italian dressing. I imagine that any kind of pickled veg would be nice, too.
Hmmm, some really delicious sounding idea. I especially like your vinegary salad one. It's not so much that I want to get away from potatoes, it's more just I don't want to do the standard steak and chips type of thing. But the other mashed roots also sounds really interesting. I will have to give it a try. The apples, walnuts and blue cheese salad also sounds very tasty.
Potatoes are a good choice - perhaps some roasted or parmentier-style, or even fondant potatoes. And a bit of greenery - simple wilted spinach or steamed green beans.
Hmmm, somehow I've overlooked spinach. Think that would go nicely. Nice suggestions.
A mushrooom sauce over the ostrich steak / fillet, with either mashed potatoes, steamed green beans with pepper and butter or steamed mixed vegetables go really nice together. Mushroom sauce I sautee the onion and mushrooms for about 3 to 4 min, add garlic, fresh cream with a bit of milk and I also add a bit of cake wheat flour to thicken the sauce a bit
Petra, welcome to the site! I see your effort and actually this suggestion is not a bad one (although opinions may differ on blue cheese and mushrooms). Unfortunately recipe recommendations are off-topic for a good reason - there simply is no "correct" answer - and off-topic questions shouldn't be answered. Of course you couldn't know this and frankly, this question should have been closed years ago but must have slipped notice.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.360703
| 2011-05-25T13:52:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15026",
"authors": [
"DeVil",
"Mindy Allen",
"Sharon Ebers",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136584",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136603",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6012"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
60042
|
Cleaning a Teflon pan with burnt rice residual
Here is the rice cooker I own:
There is a removable pan which is Teflon coated.
A few days ago, cooking 2 cups of rice I thought it was too slow so I put it on direct heat (oven) to make it faster. After 5 or so minutes, the rice was slightly burnt. I tried (hot water + dish washing liquid) and (lukewarm water + washing powder), let it rest for 24 hours but to no avail. I don't know how to properly clean the burnt residual from the Teflon pan.
You can add some vinegar and hot water, it should do the trick. You can leave it for around an hour, and the hot water is the important part. I clean pretty much everything in this way because it's natural and clean. If this doesn't work, try to boil the solution.
You can try pouring some grain alcohol in it and leaving it to soak for a couple of hours. After that, a normal scrubbing with dish soap should be enough. Use the cheapest vodka/ouzo/gin you can find.
The second option is vinegar, with the same usage.
For really tough stuff in Teflon-lined frying- and sauce-pans I use sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) and bring the pan to a boil. Because of the higher temperature, you can supersaturate the solution by adding a lot of baking soda, making it very alkaline.
Because it looks like the vessel which contains the charred rice isn't supposed to be put on direct heat, you might want to boil water, add the baking soda, and let it sit.
I also use the cleaner SimpleGreen, which is an effective soak for many messes, especially burnt grease.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.360964
| 2015-08-19T07:25:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/60042",
"authors": [
"Brittney Suzanne",
"Dee Harter",
"Katie Letson",
"Mae Young",
"Maureen Howard",
"Nick Magri",
"Susan Nelson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143657",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143658",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143659",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143661",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143663",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143703",
"lyn Bell",
"lynne kopp"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44811
|
Shortening substitutes for pan greasing
An answer to a question of mine suggests that a non-stick (bundt) pan plus the cake release will be enough. The suggested formula is
1 part vegetable oil, 1 part shortening and 1 part flour
I want a substitution for shortening for this application. I also read in another answer that canned cooking sprays could be used as well, but I couldn't get it as well.
see http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18249/greasing-a-pan-with-butter-vs-with-shortening
Shortening is used here because it is solid at room temperature so it adheres to the sides of the pan and provides a better barrier. Spray oil can do ok and has emulsifiers in it to help it along but solid fat works better.
An obvious substitute is butter. Actually butter can be substituted for shortening in a lot of applications (with the exception of when the shortening is being used for its high smoke point.) Some saturated fats, like coconut oil, might have more flavor than you want.
If you are looking for more convenience- they make non-stick spray that has flour in it as well exactly for this purpose.
Softened butter should do a good enough job in this situation. You could conceivably use ghee but that might flavour the cake.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.361131
| 2014-06-12T13:51:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44811",
"authors": [
"Chiro Care Mattresses",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106440",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106444",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho",
"spam174893",
"spam174904",
"ved wyawahare"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45033
|
What difference does it make if I substitute low-fat milk for water in bread recipes?
I'd like to know whether is it possible to always substitute milk with water (or the other way around) in bread recipes and what difference does it make? For example, in the following recipe that I found here:
Honey-Oat Pain de Mie
255g lukewarm water
361g AP Flour
85g old-fashioned rolled oats (not quick oats)
1 1/2 teaspoons salt
64g honey
57g melted butter
2 1/4 teaspoons instant yeast
Just FYI, I have since edited that question with the details of the recipe. It's a good one!
In the America's Test Kitchen "How it Can Be Gluten Free" cookbook, they discuss what the addition of powdered milk does to a recipe ... but I gave my copy away to someone who has gluten issues and haven't replaced it yet.
Off the top of my head, the added sugar from the milk may cause the yeast to over-leaven the bread. The opposite is true when substituting water for milk, you may need to add sugar.
Edit: According to this site, Glutathione in the milk must be destroyed by heating it first, otherwise it tends to inhibit yeast. Also, allegedly lactose doesn't contribute as much to the yeast activity as I thought, as it doesn't break down as fast as raw sugars.
Other sources seem to corroborate the fact that the bread is softer with milk.
Some others may be able to add more insight ...
To destroy the glutathione, scald the milk (bring it to near boiling) or used dried.
Additional softness is possibly due to the small amount of added fat and protein from the milk.
Regular dried milk is not made with heat high enough to destroy the glutathione, so you may wish to reconstitute it with boiling water.
AFAIK, glutathione has no effect on yeast. (In fact, I think the dead yeast cells in active dry yeast actually contain small amounts of glutathione). What glutathione does is inhibit the development of gluten by (possibly?) preventing cross-linking. It's like a much weaker version of the effect that whey protein isolate has on gluten: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/101137/54812
From a practical point of view: yes, it is always possible.
The texture will be different. Bread made with milk is more tender and less close to prototypical Western bread than bread made with water. The crumb will have finer pores. This is true for using both regular and powdered milk. Low-fat will have a less pronounced effect than full-fat.
The effects on yeast discussed in the other answer may be relevant to food engineers in commercial operations which have to keep the exact same texture between thousands of batches, with the tiniest tolerances for both process parameters and outcome. For a home cook, they are not really interesting. You can use the milk without scalding or doing anything special, and you can use milk of any fat percentage (even cream) - or use water in a bread calling for milk. You can simply substitute 1:1 by weight. You won't get the exact same result, but it will still rise properly and bake to a tasty bread.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.361271
| 2014-06-21T06:25:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45033",
"authors": [
"Arnold Müller",
"Christina S",
"Edel Gocotano",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"NSGod",
"Tracy Wilson",
"WHB Walzlager Handel spam",
"Westpeak Metal Roofing spam",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107102",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107104",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91959",
"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
}
|
73805
|
How to clean red tea stains from cracked glaze Japanese tea cups
I have a set of green, cracked glaze Japane tea cups.
A totally unused one is pictured in Figure 1.
Figure 1: A clean, unused tea cup.
As I have used one of these cups several times with African red tea, the cup has begun to take on a stain, as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2: A used and reddish/brown stained tea cup.
What method can remove this stain while preserving all parts of the cup, including the glaze?
For these types of cups with a cracked finish is the purpose is actually that over time, the tea fills up the cracks. This sounds a bit strange, but the same happens with porous Yixing clay teapots. The pores are filled with tea over time, which helps to improve the brew.
Given that you want to remove the strains I wouldn't use any detergent or soap. If that is sucked in the cracks it can be released when you serve tea in the future. This might negatively affect the flavor of tea.
To clean, I suggest the same method that's used to 'season' Yixing clay pots. You can cook the cup in hot water until the strains are gone.
A few suggestions that might help with the tea stains include rubbing with baking soda and water, or soaking in hot water and dishwasher detergent several hours, even overnight, before washing. Alternately, it may help to lightly scrub with salt or a paste of salt and vinegar (as salt may be able to get into cracks, supposedly will not harm ceramics, and can be dissolved out afterwards). Or a paste of corn starch and vinegar, which feels like a work around for just soaking in vinegar.
In any case, once you have cleaned the cups to your satisfaction, you might want to take steps to prevent this happening again - not just for aesthetic purposes, but from the way the color concentrated along the lines of the cracked glaze, it looks like maybe a potential safety issue if tea residues can't be cleanly washed out of the crazes, whether they can be seen or not. Of course, it depends on what you are willing to risk. A very thin layer of transparent or clear food grade epoxy might work, without spoiling the beauty of your cups (you should be able to see the pattern through them).
I've had success in removing tea stains (although not Rooibos) from pottery mugs by using baking soda and vinegar. Put about a teaspoon of baking soda in the cup, and add white vinegar mixed with water (half and half). Swirl gently, and let sit for about 30 minutes. Toothpaste might also work, although I've not tried this method; use a non-gel type.
I would try bleach, at varying concentrations of bleach in water. I'd start with something like 1 part bleach in 50 parts water. The trick is that you want to bleach out the red color while not otherwise harming the appearance of the ceramic and glaze. Test with your worst-stained (and hopefully chipped) bowl until you get it right or give up.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.361548
| 2016-09-08T04:00:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73805",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
91006
|
Will artificial sweeteners work in a coffee syrup recipe?
Here’s the recipe for coffee syrup
Ingredients for 1 cup of coffee syrup
2 cups sugar
1 cup strong coffee
Directions
Mix sugar with the coffee
Boil mixture down to the consistency of thick syrup
To use put 1-2 teaspoons in a cup of hot water and stir it around a few minutes.
Would sugar substitute work with this recipe as written?
This is supposed to be the civil war equilibent of instant coffee if it helps.
So, according to a website called A Bar Above, you can make a simple syrup (or "rich simple" apparently) using artificial sweetener, but you won't get the same end result. They tested 3 sweeteners they found, and would recommend sweet'n'low over splenda or equal sweeteners. The taste and aftertaste will be different, and it will depend on the sweetener.
That said, I would NOT expect an artificial sweetener based syrup to thicken like sugar would. You would just need to boil it for a set time and make sure it doesn't boil off or burn. Speaking of burning-- If it's an option, I would recommend getting a jar of instant coffee and mixing that in with the finished syrup instead of making it with actual brewed coffee. Boiling brewed coffee may well give you a bitter, scorched flavor.
My other big concern would just be shelf-life. Sugar actually acts as a preservative in high enough concentrations. (Have you ever accidentally eater years-old hard candy with no ill effect? Thank sugar, lol.) Looking around I don't see any information on how long a simple syrup made with artificial sweetener would last. Although if you use it everyday, you'd go through it pretty quickly...
Trouble is, if you're using a sugar substitute, you'll never get the water activity down to the point where mold and bacteria won't grow. Adding alcohol to 20% on the final product would cure the problem, and let you use concentrated Stevia to boot, but 40 proof coffee is probably not the waker upper you are looking for.
@WayfaringStranger unless it really really is.
** WARNING : First find out if it is safe to heat Splenda-like sweeteners! **
I would rather try using honey + a little of lemon juice + instant coffee if you are looking for a syrup result...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.361787
| 2018-07-14T03:37:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91006",
"authors": [
"Abraham Ray",
"Summer",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49982",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65929"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
68844
|
Detailed information about a 1st tooth cake design
In the following image which is a 1st tooth cake, are the crowns and the tooth made of fondant? Where can I learn about such designs online?
I don't think there's any way we can answer the first part of your question here... have you considered talking to the people who made the cake? It's completely possible that they're made out of plastic and not fondant.
@Catija I know they are edible.
How are we supposed to know that? You don't say it in your post anywhere...
For questions on plastic creatures i would choose another SE site, I ask questions here when it is about food and edible things. @Catija
Again, not everyone does that... You need to be more specific in your questions because we can not read your mind.
Since you say that you know they're edible, I'd say that the tooth and crown are most likely made of gum paste, not fondant.
The curves on the points of the crown would likely droop really badly if made of fondant because it never solidifies. Gum paste does. So, once you have it molded to the shape you want, you let it dry out and then it stiffens to a candy-like finished product. Here's an outline of the difference between the two and when you should use one over the other.
As to how to make them, the crown can be made by following any of a number of guides on the web. They generally involve cutting a strip of gum paste in the shape you like and wrapping it around a cylinder of the diameter you need until it dries.
The detailed decorations on the cake and crown and the crown on the tooth are probably made very easily with gum paste using molds.
The tooth itself will likely be the most difficult thing as it will take a lot of artistic talent and patience. Making figures is very complicated, particularly if you have no experience working with fondant/gum paste or with something similar like clay.
There are general guides here, though none of them are for teeth, they should give you an idea of how the process works.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.361968
| 2016-05-06T18:36:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68844",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Gigili",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6035"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
67756
|
Dulce De leche as a macaron filling
as a follow up question, I'd use dulce de leche (Slow Cooker Dulce De Leche) for the macaron filling, how do I milden its sweetness? Could I mix it with melted dark chocolate for example, and will it have the desired consistency? Google suggested Dulce de Leche buttercream for the right consistency but it is even sweeter than the Dulce De Leche itself and make the whole cookie cloying! Any suggestion would be appreciated.
I use dulce de leche as a filling or topping as well, but you are right, it is a bit too sweet, so I tone it down... one way to make it milder is to incorporate some cream and a bit of melted dark chocolate, but you cannot just mix it in...
Leave the dulce de leche in the fridge overnight. Pour off any liquid that separates out. Mix in a bowl to smooth out any lumps. In a separate bowl, whip up some double cream (ratio 2:1:0,3, dulce de leche:cream:chocolate) to stiff peaks. Add cream to dulce de leche and beat until combined. Melt the dark chocolate and stir into mixture. Refrigerate for about 30mins so the melted chocolate in the mixture can stiffen up a bit.
It's delicious and not as sweet as pure dulce de leche at all!
Depending your "Dulce de leche" consistency i probably would mix it with chocolate, something close to 70/30 (dulce/chocolate). Bring the Dulce to 70 degre celsius and then incorporate chocolate chunks using a spatula only (we don't want air on it).
Some options that I would try:
Use toasted sugar while making dulce de leche
Substitute part of the sugar in dulce de leche with glucose, or another sugar less sweet than sucrose. This might help with the spreadability as well.
Try cajeta instead of dulce de leche.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.362148
| 2016-03-25T20:19:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67756",
"authors": [
"Don Miller",
"Michelle Donnellan",
"Sue Alderman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162691",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162692"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
47746
|
Not getting the creamy result beating butter and sugar
I have this "weekend meyer lemon cake" recipe:
The problem I am facing while making the cake is that I don't get the creamy mixture, mixing sugar and butter. it's like bread crumbs right now, or something like that and sugar crystals are still visible and distinguishable. Should I go on by adding the eggs as the recipe calls for or should I wait for the butter to melt and try to beat the sugar and butter until creamy?
What temperature was the butter when you started? If it's in stick form, you should be able to pick it up and bend it (unwrapped) without it breaking.
@Joe: I put it on the counter straight from the freezer for about 20-30 minutes and I thought it was at room temp at the time I started beating sugar and butter. But now I can't separate them, how should I get the creamy result now?
Also, are you using a hand mixer or are you using a stand mixer fitted with the paddle attachment. I have never creamed butter and sugar as successfully with a hand mixer as i have with my stand mixer. People swear it can be done, though.
@Gigili : it takes more than an hour when coming out of the fridge ... coming out of the freezer, it was way too cold to process. You can try covering, and letting it sit for an hour or two, then try mixing again to see how it behaves. Generally, if I'm going to be baking something that requires creaming, I take the butter out the night before to sit at room temperature (unless it's the middle the summer, as it'd melt too far)
@StephenEure: Unfortunately I am using a hand mixer!
This problem used to plague me when trying to make butter frosting for my birthday cake (like mom used to make).
There may well be more than one issue here.
The type of butter. If you're using what is sometimes sold as "cooking butter" then this has a much lower moisture content than normal butter, and so it is very difficult to get the sugar to dissolve enough to cream.
Sugar choice. Granulated sugar is much more difficult to cream than than caster (superfine) sugar due to the large crystal size.
Recipe proportions. It is more common to use roughly equal weights of butter and sugar when creaming them together; here there is more than twice as much sugar compared to butter, so I am not at all surprised that it is not ending up as a very creamy mixture.
As the aim of the beating process is to dissolve the sugar and to add air, adding one of the eggs and beating well would allow you to achieve both of these.
Thank you for your answer. Now that you mentioned that issue on recipe proportions, I think the amounts of ingredients in this recipe is off! I ended up with a batter which was more like a cookie batter than a cake batter, since I didn't want to think about throw the whole thing away, I added a few table spoons of milk to it before putting in the oven!
@Gigili There are a lot of kinds of cakes. For example, the batter for a coffee cake is generally pretty thick (similar to muffins), while the batter for layer cakes is often a lot more liquid.
If you must pull your butter from the fridge, learn how to soften it in your microwave. Unwrap the butter, put it on the wrapper, in the microwave. 4 seconds with each side down, with a break inbetween works well on my microwave. It may leave you with hard ends on the stick, or a melting center. You have to play with it over time to get it right. Once the butter is the right temp, soft, but not melting, creaming goes pretty quick, and there is no butter pebble phase.
60F that is what you need to remember. Butter need to reach 60F before you can start creaming with sugar. Colder than that is too hard. 65 is ideal, but when the hand mixer works the butter is going to get some heat. Once it is hotter than 68F you have reached point of no return. It is now waste
Disclaimer: as noted in the comments below, this technique requires a fair amount of baking experience, care, and to some degree, luck.
One helpful technique used for butter-creaming is to chop the butter into small pieces, place over a pan of softly simmering/hot water, and whisk until the butter is in a creamed state (with care taken not to melt the butter; usually the butter has to be taken off the double-boiler a few times to whisk any melted butter back into the rest if that occurs); the end result should be an opaque and thick bowl of creamed butter with a consistency ranging from a thick custard to standard, machine-creamed butter (the whisking helps retain form, and a lower temperature can help prevent the butter from getting too warm). The sugar can then be folded in until homogenous and whisked further until peaks are formed (if they have not already).
There is a fair amount of sugar in that recipe compared to butter, so creaming it may require more effort. Also, using a finer-grained sugar ("bakers'" sugar, for example) can help getting the mixture to a creamy state as the sugar crystals can more readily dissolve and dissociate into the butter; this however can require more vigorous whisking to introduce the needed air bubbles into the mixture since the finer grains of sugar will introduce less air when mixed.
This technique also comes especially handy when baking in batches that result in quantities of butter too large to cream in a standard standing mixer (and thus hand-creaming is required).
This won't create creamed butter, just a mix of melted butter and sugar. Such a mix will behave very differently in a cake from creamed butter.
You don't melt the butter (it stays white and opaque, not translucent and yellow); the heat is used merely to soften it to a gelled state. At this consistency, it is also possible to whisk the butter and sugar mixture to soft and medium peaks. Perhaps you could try and let me know how your attempt goes? I'd be curious to know!
Ah, so I must have misunderstood it, you are trying to soften the butter without melting. I have tried that before, and it never behaves like slowly-softened butter, even if you manage to keep it much firmer than a custard. There is also always the risk of it inadverently melting completely even with tight watching - one time I tried this shortcut I had to run to a store in the middle of baking because I suddenly had a lump of solid butter sitting in a puddle of melted butter on my hands. I never do this on purpose, only as a last attempt to save a baking project.
@acidnbass I have used the technique you suggested, with great success. I would say, however, that it is a fairly high-risk strategy and, as rumtscho says, you can end up melting some of the butter completely before softening the rest at all. Maybe not advisable for a beginner baker.
@Rumtscho and Canardgras Thank you both for your input. I recognize that it can be a dicey affair using this technique. I've updated it to include more details as well as having added a disclaimer. Since this technique can make creaming a much quicker and easier process, especially when the amount of butter than needs to be creamed prevents the use of a standard standing mixer, and since personally I still have found it very useful, so I've decided to leave it here as it may inspire others when searching for answers for their own issues.
I'll also add that I've used this technique again the other night when making a 2 gross batch of sable cookies (the amount of butter prevented me from using my standing mixer) thinking about your concerns from before, and taking care to use a lower temperature (eg bringing water to simmer and then removing it from heat before adding the bowl of butter) helped keep the butter from melting.
@acidnbass is there any youtube video where this technique is shown?Thanks
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.362412
| 2014-10-07T18:17:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47746",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Gigili",
"Joe",
"Judith Scott",
"Nihal Rupasinghe",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Rich McRary",
"Stephen Eure",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"acidnbass",
"canardgras",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115289",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68856",
"manu muraleedharan",
"rumtscho",
"sharon stinchfield"
],
"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
}
|
64597
|
How to change a vanilla cake recipe to make a chocolate cake?
I've seen this question about how to alter a chocolate cake recipe to make a plain cake, my question is the other way around, how to alter a vanilla cake recipe to make a chocolate cake? I read in a website that replacing 1/2 cup of flour with cocoa powder would do, is that right? I'd like to know a formula to use for every recipe but in case that is not possible and depends on the recipe one is using, here is the recipe for my vanilla cake:
4 eggs
1 and 1/2 cups sugar
1 cup oil
1 cup buttermilk
2 and 1/2 cups flour
2 and 1/2 tsp baking powder
1 tsp baking soda
1 tsp vanilla powder
Someone will likely add a more comprehensive response, but the basic answer is to do the opposite of what SAJ14SAJ said in your linked question. The only thing I'd add is to be careful doing a direct substitute of cocoa powder for flour: with lighter cakes, the removal of too much flour can weaken the gluten structure and cause the cake to fall. With denser cakes, it's less of an issue. And you can also substitute some chocolate instead of cocoa powder (while removing a little fat) for a somewhat richer or denser texture.
Why would you do this instead of simply finding a good chocolate cake recipe? There are millions of them out there. Seems silly to try to stab at it rather than getting a recipe designed to suit.
@Catija - I agree. But trying any new recipe is also an unknown. I've occasionally tried recipes that were highly rated by hundreds of people and simply weren't what I was looking for at all. If someone has found a cake recipe they really like (with a specific texture, etc.), it may be worthwhile trying to tweak the flavors of that recipe, while making some minor changes as necessary.
@Athanasius Sure... but there's a huge difference between making a white (vanilla) cake some other flavor... like almond or strawberry or orange... than trying to make it into a chocolate cake.
@Catija - I disagree, though this probably isn't the place to debate this. Except for "chocoholic" type recipes, chocolate is usually a relatively small proportion of cake batters. In many cases it is quite easy to make a chocolate version by minor substitutions, just like you could make chocolate waffles or chocolate pudding or whatever from an existing ("vanilla") recipe. Sometimes one just wants a chocolate-flavored version of what one knows, rather than some engineered decadent chocolate specialty.
I'll do it. I'm pretty sure I can make a pretty good cake from the recipe. What size pan do you use? Is there any special technique in the recipe (like whipping the egg whites) I should know?
@Jolenealaska: I usually use two 9" round cake pans when doubling the recipe. Nothing special, I think except for the fact that I beat egg and sugar for 15 minutes or so to get the creamy batter. And I remember the recipe warned to not overbeat while adding flour and buttermilk, half of each at a time and sequentially.
I did this as an experiment last month, because I wanted a marble cake. The part that I wanted chocolate, I just swapped out a half-cup of the flour for cocoa. I should note, however, that while it tasted great, it made a denser, slightly drier cake than did the white cake batter. Next time, I plan to add a couple of teaspoons of grapeseed oil and some extra baking powder to counteract that problem.
Simply add 3 tablespoons of high quality cocoa powder and 100g of melted dark chocolate.
There is no need to subtract from the amount of flour.
While I mostly agree, 100g melted chocolate could definetively be too much and cause a soggy, overly dense dough. Some recipes will do well, others nit so.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.363032
| 2015-12-20T05:45:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64597",
"authors": [
"A Chan",
"Anastazija Dimitrievska",
"Ashley Wohlford",
"Athanasius",
"BeanstalkGrowth",
"Casey Jones",
"Catija",
"Gigili",
"Gillian Kelly",
"Jolenealaska",
"L S LS",
"Matt Rivers",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154132",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154133",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154135",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154490",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154876",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6035",
"usercybercode"
],
"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
}
|
47286
|
How to measure 7g yeast and 10g salt without a proper scale?
I have a 10g precision kitchen scale and I need to measure 7g yeast and 10g salt. So I need to use teaspoon here, the following is the teaspoon I usually use and I wonder if it's the correct one. Is there any other method I could use to measure the yeast and salt that recipe calls for?
I found this site to convert grams to teaspoons, it says
2.5 tsp of yeast equals 7 g yeast
1.75 tsp of table salt equals 10 g table salt
Is that correct?
(1) A packet of yeast is typically 7g exactly. So if you're buying yeast by the packet, use one packet. But assuming you will be measuring from bulk yeast, the correct measure by volume would be 2 1/4 tsp instead of 2 1/2 tsp.
(2) The weight of salt relative to its volume varies considerably depending on what salt you are using - the best way to work out the appropriate conversion for the salt you have on hand is to consult the Nutrition Facts on the back of the container. Most salt gives the nutritional information based on 1/4 tsp. - but the weight of this amount of salt depends on the type of salt and size of grain.
Here's how you do the math.
Start with the information on the back of your package - for example, let's use my Fine Mediterranean Sea Salt - 1/4 tsp. = 1.2 g.
Multiply both sides by 4 to get the weight of 1 tsp. - 1 tsp. = 4.8 g - i.e. 4.8 g. per tsp.
You need 10 g - so divide 10 g by 4.8 to get the number of tsp. you should use - 10 / 4.8 = a little more than 2 tsp.
You really should get your measurement this way instead of relying on a generic conversion formula. There is significant variability from salt-to-salt. Another salt I use has a label that states 1/4 tsp. = .7 g (the crystals are larger so the same 1/4 tsp. now weighs much less than the sea salt).
1/4 tsp. = .7 g. (multiply both sides by 4)
1 tsp. = 2.8 g.
So this salt is 2.8 g. per tsp.
You need 10 g - 10 / 2.8 = a little more than 3.5 tsp.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.363600
| 2014-09-21T09:29:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47286",
"authors": [
"Claudia Liu",
"Jennifer Jacobs",
"Todd Pyhtila",
"Yogeeswari Mohan",
"Zineki Hawkins",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114150",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114161"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45722
|
What is this spoon-like kitchen utensil with a rubbery head and wooden handle called?
What is this utensil or kitchen tool called that has a rubber-like head and a wooden handle?
What is it used for?
That is usually called a rubber spatula, even though they're rarely made of rubber. The ones I find most useful are made of silicone, and are heatproof. This one by OXO is one of my favorite gadgets.
They're for stirring and for clean scraping bowls and jars and such. The heatproof ones are great for use with non-stick cookware while sauteing.
I have that OXO one, but I much prefer the all silicone coated steel core ones like this: http://www.amazon.com/Silicone-Spatula-Set-Compliant-Resistant/dp/B00HDABAQS. The joint between the silicone head and plastic handle can get funky on the OXO one.
@Tremmors Is the head of the OXO one not detachable for cleaning? I have a couple of very cheap silicone spatulas and every now and again, I just pull the heads off and clean them. (I agree that the ones you link that avoid that completely would be a definite improvement.)
@DavidRicherby The head does come off for cleaning, but I never feel like I can really get in there to clean the cavity properly.
@Tremmors Yeah, those look pretty cool, but you'll only get mine from my cold dessicated hands! (I love that gadget) Since it goes easily in the dishwasher, crannies don't bother me.
Although I grew up calling them a 'rubber spatula' (and most of 'em are silicone these days), I've also heard them referred to as a 'rubber scaper'.
There are also 'bowl scapers' which are effectively a larger head of a rubber scraper; there's no handle, which gives you better leverage for really scaping sticky things out of a large bowl.
Yep, and the wooden handle in the OP would not be charming.
@Jolenealaska : in many cases, I prefer wooden handles; I've snapped way too many plastic handled spatulas when trying to scrape something particularly sticky.
That is a rubber spatula.
My father used a rubber spatula many years ago to cook scrambled eggs. The rubber part of the spatula melted in the frying pan.
I think that rubber spatulas are for removing the cool contents of a mixing bowl, or spreading luke-warm cake frosting.
It depends on the spatula. It sounds like yours had a head made of natural or thermoplastic rubber. Heads made of silicone rubber are much more common, and can be used with high heat; I use mine to make scrambled eggs often.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.363791
| 2014-07-20T09:01:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45722",
"authors": [
"David Richerby",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Sneftel",
"Tremmors",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45906
|
What is this plastic handle that is used for corn and watermelon called?
I've seen these plastic handle things and searched for phrases like the one in the question title but failed to find it. What are they called? And where can I get buy them from?
They're just called corn holders, or corn skewers. I've never seen them holding watermelon before. As a matter of fact, they don't seem to me to be appropriate for watermelon. I don't see how they would make watermelon easier to eat and they're quite sharp. Especially for a kid, that seems kind of dangerous.
Thank you for your answer. It seems dangerous to me too, now that I think more carefully about it! Good point.
As far as where to buy them - local kitchen supply stores should carry them, and there appear to be dozens of options available on Amazon. Those in your photos look like the Zyliss brand.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.364012
| 2014-07-27T09:34:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45906",
"authors": [
"Carolyn Stacey",
"Gigili",
"Hue Robertson",
"Jake Zapcic",
"TuwannaRico",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109427",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109429",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109431",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6035",
"logophobe",
"melanie Strickland"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44702
|
Adding salt to the oil making potato chips
As a follow-up question, reading this recipe the question comes to mind is that what happens if I add salt to the oil instead of sprinkling salt on chips after they're removed from the oil? Sprinkling salt on chips would make them too salty or not-as-salty-as-desired, so I prefer to add salt to the oil. But I've heard it might make the cooking time longer, is it true?
Don't you reuse deep fry oil?
I personally do not reuse deep fry oil as it's a cooking method I use maybe once every year or two. I would if I were making potato chips regularly though.
Well, the standard way to salt is to generously salt while the potatoes (or whatever) are still very hot and wet with oil. That gives you great control, doesn't waste salt, and if you're so inclined, allows you to save the oil. I don't know if it would make the cooking time longer though.
@Jolenealaska: No. I might use fry oil twice or more a day but I don't reuse oil ever since I read about it being unhealthy.
Wait a tick. Salt doesn't dissolve in oil or anything special like that. Doesn't it just sink to the bottom?
@PrestonFitzgerald: Um, I do it for making pop corn and it's much better than sprinkling salt afterwards. But I do it in the microwave and the amount of oil is about 2 tablespoons. So no idea about potato chips.
A grain of undissolved oil in salt acts like a water magnet - with possibly interesting consequences.
Potato chips have to be fried in lots of oil. If you are using little, you are doing it wrong and your chips are less tasty than they could be.
As Preston Fitzgerald mentioned in a comment, salt doesn't dissolve in oil. It could be that it will fall to the bottom. Alternatively, the convection in the hot oil could move it around. But still, the salt will tend to stay in the oil and not cling to the potatoes. Even if an oiled flake meets the potato, it will not stick, the oil will lubricate it enough to prevent sticking. If you salt the raw potatoes instead, the salt will dissolve in their wetness and coat them evenly.
Your popcorn is entirely different. There, your small amounts of oil, including any salt floating in them, will cling to the popcorn. This is different from frying, where only a tiny fraction of the oil will stay on the potato. Besides, you can't salt corn kernels before popping - the salt will just fall off the hard dry surface. The potato is perfectly salted before.
Another way to achieve what you're looking for...
My mother in law will cut her beans and add salt to them. Because the beans have been washed in water, there's enough water to dissolve the salt. She'll then deep fry the beans for a specific dish, and when the beans are done frying, they're salty enough. She does this with eggplant and bitter gourd as well, as have I. The bitter gourd dish I make with the deep fried salted bitter gourd needs no further salt added since there's enough in the bitter gourd. And, as an aside, those bitter gourd chips are mighty tasty. :)
I don't know how you do your chips, but it seems to me you could do something similar to your chips. Add salt, mix them around a bit, then deep fry them. You don't want the chips to be soggy, but wet enough that the salt will dissolve.
The texture of the salt used is key here. Try using dust-fine salt (use a mortar or grinder) instead of the usual, still relatively coarse table or kosher salts: it will actually adhere to the fried food instead of being accidentally eaten alongside, and you have more control over the dosage.
And no, salt in oil might help dehydrate the food a little quicker, but could also create new problems (spoiling the oil, creating water pockets and splattering...) - but it won't be effectively dissolved in it or distributed to the food.
The professional catering services will leave the freshly cut potato chips to soak in a sugary/saline solution for 12 hours prior to frying. If you want to add even more finesse, McDonald's is rumored to add additional additives such as phenethyl alcohol & dimethicone to its French Fries.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.364138
| 2014-06-07T07:05:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44702",
"authors": [
"8xbetsoccer spam",
"Brett J Valjalo",
"Dom DJ",
"Geri Jackson",
"Gigili",
"Jolenealaska",
"Orlando Thrive Therapy",
"Pat Sans Hat",
"Preston",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105141",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105144",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6035",
"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
}
|
45618
|
Avoid butter in puff pastry dough from melting while baking in the oven
I made puff pastry dough. I rolled it out and cut into 8 rectangles. Then I put a stick of chocolate in the middle of each piece and rolled the dough to form a semi-cookie. As I put them in the preheated oven (200 C), the butter melted and cookies were swimming in the butter! Is it normally so? If not, how should I avoid this problem? I thought preheating the oven would help but it did not.
How thick was the pastry when you rolled it out?
Sorry, I just saw your comment!! Since it was almost a decade ago, I don't remember how thick it was =) @ElendilTheTall
There are a few things that may be wrong here:
Oven not pre-heated enough: how long you need to preheat depends on the oven, but for 200 degrees C I'd give it 20 minutes. If your oven has not pre-heated enough it will be at too low a temperature the butter and will melt rather than turn to steam, which is what gives you lift
Oven at too low a temperature: often the temperature you set on an oven and the actual temperature is different, sometimes these differences can be really big, I've seen 35C (70F) difference in the past. It may be worth investing in an over thermometer to see whether your temperature is right. An oven thermometer will also tell you whether your oven has pre-heated as well
Dough too warm: it's important to keep your dough cold throughout the process, if butter gets too warm you will lose the lamination (layering) in the dough. When it comes to baking it if your butter is too warm it may melt, so you could try chilling your pastry in the fridge. How long to chill them depends on the size and the thickness of each pastry, the important thing is that the thickest part of the pastry stabilizes at the refrigerators's temperature. That could take 10 minutes, it could take an hour or more. For the cookies you describe try at least 20-30 minutes, or up to an hour if you have the time.
I'd chill the cookies as long as possible.
@BaffledCook, good point well taken, I've edited accordingly.
Did you chill the puff pastry before putting it in the oven?
Most of the recipes say that after rolling it out you should wrap it in plastic wrap and chill it in the refrigerator for 20-30 minutes before baking.
Here's a few random recipes from the web that all call for a chill down:
finecooking.com
bbcgoodfood.com
foodnetwork.com
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.364493
| 2014-07-16T10:35:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45618",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"ElendilTheTall",
"GdD",
"Gigili",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
57531
|
Are Shrimp Sizes codified?
By this, I mean, are the names of the sizes regulated by an industry or government?
I found this from a seafood wholesaler:
Yet, my local supermarket has this ad, which appears to be 2 sizes off (not to mention the easily misleading 14 oz size bag)
My question, is this regulated, or do stores get to chose their own words, and we should simply look at number per pound to make a buying decision?
The other way to look at it is that as long as the number per pound is there, you have a great idea of their size, better than you would for most foods!
Most shrimp around the world are classified in average size counts per Kg based on a 2 Kg bag (4.4 lb) with head on. In the USA it's a 5 lb bag, go figure? But the count is still the same, more or less. e.g. U-10 being up to 20 shrimp per 2 Kg bag
This was covered in one of the early episodes of Good Eats, Crustacean Nation. From the transcript of the episode :
As soon as they are off the boat, shrimp tails—called 'green shrimp' in the biz.—are sized or sorted into various weight counts. The higher the number, the smaller the shrimp. Sixties-seventies, for instance, have 60 to 70 tails per pound, which is pretty small. A pound of 26-30s contain at least 26 but not more than 30 tails. Twenty one-twenty fives are larger and 16-20s larger still. The biggest have a U in front of the number signifying that there are less than that number per pound. There are, for instance, 12 or less shrimp in a pound of U-12s.
Now, there are still a lot of shops out there selling on adjectives like jumbo, medium, colossal. Not only are these terms not standardized or controlled, it's tough to even find 2 fishmongers who will agree on them. So, if your market doesn't sell by the weight count feel free to quote Mr. Big who told James Bond in Live and Let Die, "Names is for tombstones, baby." Of course, I guess those are tombstones, aren't they?
The start counting at 0.9, so a 26-30 is actually 25.9 to 30? I guess that means on bag in ten could have an oversize shrimp, and only have 25?
My favorite nonsense shrimp size term was a restaurant I worked at where the head chef labelled his U-12s "Jurassic" shrimp, as though he'd harvested them from Land of the Lost reruns or something. I didn't work for him for very long.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.364802
| 2015-05-16T00:33:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57531",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Monique Du Toit",
"Sarina Mohamed Rasol",
"Stephen Gowler",
"TFD",
"Xueyun Koh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136875",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136876",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136877",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
63508
|
Can I combine two methods of making Dulce de leche from a can of sweetened condensed milk?
As I gather, there are various methods of making Dulce de leche from a can of sweetened condensed milk. I've actually tried boiling the can for 3-4 hours twice, and the results not entirely to my satisfaction. I don't get the caramelized dark color. As I opened the can, and the color was lighter than expected, I did let the can boil for another hour but no significant changes in color was observed! Today I was googling to find out more about this method, I get familiar with another method which is to make Delce de leche in the oven. So what I want to know is, is it possible to put the undone dulce de leche I made in the pot two days ago in the oven to finally achieve the desired caramelized and dark color?
This question is quite informative, but not very helpful solution-wise.
I've never made it, but I would think that if the recipe called for putting the sealed can in the oven, you'd have two differences as it's no longer a sealed container -- pressure and evaporative loss.
@Joe: Actually the recipe calls for pouring the contents of the can of sweetened into a baking dish. The question is, will it work if the can was simmered for two hours beforehand?
I don't see why you couldn't use oven method, but you might want to reduce the cooking time, since it's already partially caramelized.
If you're pouring it into a baking dish first, the cooking time is less important: you can just keep an eye on it and watch for the proper color.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.365030
| 2015-11-16T09:32:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63508",
"authors": [
"Dan C",
"Debbie M.",
"Gigili",
"Jennifer Dennison",
"Jessica Delatorre",
"Joe",
"Nicole Glasco",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151135",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151136",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151137",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6035",
"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
}
|
45197
|
What techniques or tricks make soft, flaky pastries instead of leathery ones?
These are my first experiences with the lovely pastry, puff pastry.
I loved it so much that I'd bake more and more of it everyday. The only problem I encountered is that my pastries had a tough crust and they'are somehow leathery, having a tough, hard texture. After a day, it's unpalatable. What techniques or tricks make puff pastry soft, flaky instead of leathery? Please tell me about your own experiences too.
Note: Left picture is Sunny-Side-Up Apricot Pastries – Michel Richard. Right picture is Puff Pastry – Michel Richard and I think the amounts are a little off since one cup of water is not enough at all for that much flour.
There are two ways that I make puff pastry. The first is Rough Puff Pastry which is a quicker way to make puff pastry and you get about 75% of the rise you get with normal puff pastry.
Here is a link for a Rough Puff Pastry that I use. I'd say that the most important tips to take from that recipe is that the butter must be cold when you start and make sure you're using really cold water to mix in. Using a knife instead of your hands is also a good idea to stop your hands melting the butter too much - you want to see the pieces of butter in your pastry. Making sure you chill the pastry after folding for an hour or as long as you can.
Secondly, to make 'real' puff pastry, you need to have to plan in advance as it is going to require a lot of chilling. Firstly, make your dough separately, roll in a ball and chill overnight. Then roll out your butter and make sure you then chill the rolled out butter again. You then continue with the folding and chilling as before. Again, the most important thing here is to chill for at least an hour in between the folds. This ensures that the layers of butter and pastry build up, and that is what gives you the best rise and the flakes you are after. Here is a good recipe that I use with lots of other tips and tricks in.
From looking at your pictures, in my opinion, the 'leatheriness' you are seeing looks like the pastry is a little under baked. The 'tough crust' looks to me like there aren't many layers of butter towards to the top of your pastry which is why it hasn't puffed out when it's been baked. Definitely try following one of the above recipes - if only to get the technique right - and go from there. I definitely find the trick is lots of chilling and keep everything cold! I sometimes even chill the flour!!
Wouldn't underbaking produce gumminess, not toughness? Too much liquid left in the pastry resulting in an overly soft texture?
I think I know exactly what your problem with this pastry has been. You alluded to it here: Would this cheat puff pastry really work? I stressed in my answer to that question that the butter must be kept cold while making the pastry and up to the point that you put it in the oven. I'm nearly certain that keeping your dough cold enough has been your problem.
The best solution I have seen for that difficulty is also in that question. That method by Paul Hollywood is outstanding. Do just what he says. I bet it will work beautifully for you.
My approach to pastry (and cooking in general) is "science-y" -- in order to replicate a recipe, I want to understand the techniques being applied and moreover how the techniques produce the intended result. It sounds like you're serious about this, so this is how I'd approach the situation. I hope this is helpful, and not too wordy! Full disclosure: I'm no pastry chef, but I can make a passable croissant. :) I welcome commentary or correction!
Though it seems like you're already doing fine with the process of creating the dough, I'm going to start with my take on pastry dough technique as a basis for what might be going awry.
When I heard the word "laminated dough" when referring to the many layers of pastry, the process started to click for me. I really enjoy this article, which describes the fundamentals of creating laminated dough for pastries. It is a different take that emphasizes the why of the process (from the more procedural articles that @WilliamMoore linked, which seem decent but less helpful for my goals). Lamination can apply both to "rough" (more toward biscuit or pie crust) and proper "puff" pastry, but I'm focusing on the latter (e.g., croissant).
The concept is relatively straightforward: you are trying to create a lot of uniform-thickness layers (the "lamination" process) of dough-butter-dough-butter-dough-butter-... as many layers as you want, by creating a package of butter wrapped in dough (initially, this is 3 layers of dough-butter-dough; that is, one brick of butter encased in dough; I like the envelope-shape encasement strategy as in the article). Then roll flat and thinner, then fold in thirds (like a letter to put into an envelope) to create many layers. Chill between "turns" (roll+fold cycles) to make the whole package easier to work with and behave properly. Your CWtM article says basically the same, but I wouldn't do so many "turns" in a row without chilling between.
The purpose of trying to get the butter in very many tiny layers, as I understand it: as the pastry cooks, the water will boil (steam), creating a leavening effect and separating the layers, and the fat will melt into the flour layers and turn golden and delicious. It's brilliant! Each impossibly thin layer of flaky goodness in a croissant (for example) is from one layer of that laminated dough. This, I think, is what's causing the texture that you're not liking: non-uniform layers, regardless of whether it's temperature, technique, or something else that's causing it.
The (linked) JoePastry article says the magnitude you're looking for: up to 2187 layers!
The scientist in me is forced to describe that number: it's 37 (three-to-the-seventh-power). The other numbers on the page are other 3^N, for some N. To get 2187 layers, you have to roll+fold+chill seven times. Every subsequent time you fold into thirds, you (hope to!) get three times the number of layers you had previously (3*3*3*...). Chilling between folds helps the layers stay intact, and gives the dough time time to relax (e.g., gluten) after flattening. Because you start with dough-butter-dough, the layers will in fact be after the second stage (after folding): (flour) dough-butter-dough (flour) dough-butter-dough (flour) dough-butter-dough (flour) -- 9, that is 32. The (flour) being just enough bench flour to make the thing not stick to your work-surface.
I wish the (linked) JoePastry article would emphasize more the importance of appropriate temperature of the initial ingredients, that @WilliamMoore emphasizes in his answer. Butter that is too warm will melt into the flour (or squidge out the sides), leaving you with an oily mess that is closer to roux than dough. On the other hand, if your butter is too cold, it will be impossible to work, and as you try to fold, the butter will remain as a brick and press through your dough, giving you "icebergs" of butter or uneven layers (JP suggests 20min on the counter to soften).
So, now to answer your question:
As @William says, make sure your ingredients are the appropriate temperature. If your butter starts melting, you're going to get more toward a pie-crust and maybe "rubbery" consistency. But if your butter is too hard, it will form chunks and punch through your other layers as you repeatedly roll-and-fold.
Try to make your layers be more uniform. Temperature, uniformity of rolling, patience to wait 15-20 mins of refrigeration between folds, and precision will help. You'll get a "lighter" (as light as butter and flour could be...) consistency with very uniform layers, that will puff up better.
Try more layers. JP says 81 (34, so 4 roll+fold+chill cycles), but experiment with even more. You may be able to compensate for some non-uniformity by another "turn".
Now some more "experimental" thoughts:
Roll the initial packet of dough (and butter) thinner. Try to get the thickness of the dough and of the butter to be the same. Stack them and trim edges. Roll gently and refrigerate before the initial turn (roll+fold).
Play around with the temperature of the butter so that its consistency is the same as the dough. The idea is that equal pressure on the dough and on the butter have similar effect when you're rolling: you want to squash the whole layer "cake" uniformly; if you start with a dough of a certain thickness, and roll it out to half that thickness, ideally EVERY layer would be squashed uniformly to half of its original thickness. This is unreasonable to expect, but the ideal scenario. At the end, ideally, all 81 (or whatever) layers would be of equal thickness.
Cut off some bits at the sides. The sides will necessarily be the least uniform parts of the dough. You might even go so far as to cut and stack (rather than fold), which will give you marginally better margins. Pastry making is not without waste. For examples, watch Kings of Pastry.
Two of my own failures were from wrong-temperature butter:
too cold, and the butter forms "iceberg-like" chunks in the dough, which poke through other layers. Stuff starts sticking to the rolling pin and it's all over.
too warm, and I got pie crust instead of croissant. Still delicious, but not what I was aiming for. :)
You're aiming for absolutely uniform thickness in all of your 81 to 2187 layers. I expect this comes with luck and about 25 years experience making pastry, neither of which I have. The first "turn" is crucial in this process. If you can get one uniform layer of butter in the first roll, you've done better than I ever have; however, I think this is what we're aiming for.
You also say "after a day" -- no self-respecting French pastry shop would sell croissants that are a day or more old; like baguettes, they'll go stale in hours. No self-respecting home cook would make croissants every day, so you've got yourself some decisions. :) Freezing the pastry dough then cooking in small batches might work, as suggested in the JP article.
Does this kind of "science-y" approach work for you? If these don't sound appealing, can you describe your technique further? This is about 10x longer than I hoped, but I enjoy this kind of stuff!
The prime culprit for toughness in my pastries is too much gluten development. Usually this occurs for me through one of the following:
overhandling or kneading the dough. Technically, every time you rearrange the dough.
too much time between mixing and oven. Gluten develops all by itself - albeit very slowly.
too high a ratio of gluten to water. This could be too much flour relative to water, as you mentioned (drier doughs develop gluten much more quickly than wet ones), as well as the type of flour you used having too much protein for pastry, such as bread flour vs pastry flour.
I notice the recipe you linked measures in volume. Further to the idea about too much flour, 2 1/2 cups of flour can vary hugely depending on how compacted your (and their!) flour is. You could try two things: do exactly the same thing you did last time, then remove a few tablespoons of flour; OR try looking for another pastry dough recipe that uses weight measurements, and then measure everything out on a scale.
Go to the supermarket and just buy a pack of filo pastry sheets. Filo pastry if applied properly will definitely make it flaky and soft.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.365196
| 2014-06-29T09:51:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45197",
"authors": [
"Abhinav",
"Cannabis and anxiety relief",
"Ed Hemphill",
"Kate Jay-R",
"Lynne mayeda",
"Michaelkilgore65 spam",
"Rich",
"Spammer",
"ccsdg",
"chrisT",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107578",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107717",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107727",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108224",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21257",
"true spam"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46139
|
What method yields best result for washing breads?
I've seen many bread recipes and they used different combination as egg-wash. Egg white plus water, egg yolk plus milk, beaten egg plus milk or water, and I myself sometimes give it a sprinkle of saffron ti get a goldener final result. Is it better to use egg white or egg yolk? Milk or water? Do they make any big difference or they are all the same?
The egg-wash I used for these croissants was a beaten egg plus a few drops of milk and a pinch of saffron. But sadly they are not as golden as expected even though I turned on the heat coming from up for a few minutes (oven's temperature: 450F):
Where'd the inclusion of saffron come from? I can see the logic of it, but I wouldn't have thought it would be especially effective without being able to dilute in a hot liquid... plus there's the expense. Just wondering if you saw that recommended somewhere.
@logophobe: I read somewhere that if you sprinkle a pinch of saffron on an ice cube and wait for the ice cube to melt, you'll get a much brighter and nicer result than diluting in hot water. Since I'd like to get a golden crust, I did come up with the idea of adding saffron to the egg wash!
I have always used egg and milk. Two thirds egg to one third milk. Use a spray bottle to ensure that you get a nice, even coverage.
Also make sure that you have a full proof on your goods, because (obviously) anything that gets exposed to the heat due to oven spring will not have color.
Just the way I have always done things (and I used to work in some pretty nice pastry shops back in the day).
EDIT:
Just noticed the comment from sour d'oh... Should've mentiontioned that stuff myself... Very important. The higher the fat of the dairy, the better the color (use a high fat cream instead of milk).
The spray bottle is a new one on me! Awesome!
Personally, I always use whole eggs combined with a small amount of water and salt. You should tailor your wash to what you are doing though. Generally dairy will dull your shine (and the richer the dairy, the darker the color), whole eggs give a golden color, whites give a clear shine, and yolks will give a deep reddish brown. A bit of salt will help to increase the shine of an egg wash.
Here are a couple of links with more info on wash variations.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.366050
| 2014-08-06T07:08:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46139",
"authors": [
"Aproporpoise",
"Cagdas Ozgenc",
"Gigili",
"Jolenealaska",
"Profile Spammer",
"Rubble Resolve",
"birurin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110105",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110108",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110145",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6035",
"joan0627",
"logophobe",
"user38359"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44681
|
How to line this cake pan with parchment paper?
This weird-shaped cake pan is difficult to use when it comes to the step that I must line it with parchment paper. How should I do it properly so that the cake will easily be removed from the pan?
A pan like this would normally be greased and floured, but you wouldn't line it with parchment. After the cake is done, you might put parchment over the top to aid in flipping it out though...
Do you have a specific recipe that's instructing you to line a bundt pan like this with parchment? If so, I'd figure they would tell you the trick at the same time...
@logophobe: There is this vanilla cake recipe that I use as my favorite recipe and it says the pan should be lined with parchment paper and greased afterwards.
@Gigili The recipe is probably assuming that you're using a flat cake pan. I have never seen a bundt cake pan lined with parchment.
@Gigili : if it calls for using a 'tube pan', they likely mean a flat sided one, not a Bundt pan.
@Joe: Does it mean that I can bake that vanilla cake in a Bundt pan? Even with parchment paper, (disregarding how I lined the pan) the cake can't release. I wonder what should I do about this batter to have a clean surface when the cake is finished.
@Gigili The method in my answer should work. If not, there is something else going on.
@Gigili : that's probably worth asking as a question on its own -- typically for a bundt pan, you grease and flour it. Once the cake's cooked, you can let it cool slightly, then use a dinner knife or narrow spatula to slowly pry the cake away from the pan. Most bundt cakes are left unfrosted or a drizzled glaze.
You can't effectively line a Bundt pan with paper. My favorite method is to mix cake release and keep it in the cabinet. It lasts for months and months. Just mix 1 part vegetable oil, 1 part shortening and 1 part flour (roughly, by volume). Brush that mixture in the pan, getting all the nooks and crannies. It doesn't make the mess that traditional flouring does, I always end up getting flour everywhere doing it that way. I think the mixed ahead release works better too. It also doesn't show up on the cake as unmoistened flour. With your non-stick pan plus the cake release, you'll have no trouble.
OXO makes a silicone pastry brush that's great for this and all kinds of tasks, I use mine all the time. It goes in the dishwasher, it's heat resistant, it doesn't shed. It's a very handy little item. Look for the strips of silicone in between the bristles with holes that hold on to sauce. You can see that in this picture using the magnification tool. OXO Pastry Brush
+1 for introducing the term "cake release" into my life.
Perhaps if you planned ahead you could make homemade paper using the pan as the mold, then impregnate it with silicon somehow... Yeah, I guess fat might work better.
Do you heat/melt the shortening during mixing? How does one ensure that it is fully mixed well?
@Phrogz. Nope, just mix it with a spoon. Do it once and you will see. It's slick (pun intended)
Does this cake release ever leave a white residue on the cake?
@mrog No, it doesn't leave white residue. That's one of the huge advantages, even on dark devil's food cake.
It would appear the pan is non stick, in which case buttering and flouring it should be sufficient. The only way to line it with parchment would involve using multiple separate sheets, which might cause weird batter leakages between the sheets.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.366290
| 2014-06-06T17:21:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44681",
"authors": [
"ChimneyImp",
"Gigili",
"Hillock Green",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Mo Hassanpour",
"Phrogz",
"Ranch Garage Doors and spam",
"Sobachatina",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"Tycho Beems",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105091",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105099",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3709",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"logophobe",
"mrog"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
73836
|
Why are my Baguettes so flat?
I'm a professional private cook in Rio de Janeiro. I also teach here. Fresh bread is a major part of my teaching regimen and I have successfully taught my students several different types of breads, everything from focaccia to Italian bread for bread bowl soups.
I recently had an opportunity to do some baguettes for a friend's French cafe and I've been working on the system. I use an 80% hydration recipe that involves many stretch and fold sessions with 45 minutes in between. Though I follow the instructions, I'm having issues with the dough being so wet at the end that it's impossible to shape correctly. It's so loose and visibly wet that it practically runs off the pan.
When I form the baguettes in the couche, they puff up a bit, but when I remove them and attempt to transfer to my baking stone, they just turn into flat bread and don't recover. The taste is great, but you can see from the slashes from the lame, that something isn't right. Plenty of bubbles and when I'm working it, it expands quite a bit during rest periods. But it's just too slack.
I'm using a typical type 1 bread flour. Here in Rio the weather is cool and humidity is very low right now. What is causing this?
I have been practicing making baguette for about 4 years now. Much experimentation led me to use a 78% recipe which does everything I want. My problem is not with a "too-wet" loaf but rather a tendency to flatten out during baking. I think it is when I make it on a rainy day but you don't have a high humidity so we both have that problem.
Reduce your hydration!
Different flours (ie different brands and strains) have different rates of absorption. If I use American bread recipes, I always have to use far more flour than the recipe calls for in order to achieve the described consistency. If your dough is too wet and is not behaving as the recipe describes - add more flour, or use less water.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.366602
| 2016-09-09T13:03:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73836",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
74562
|
Does the definition of "cooking" imply heat?
Through comments posted in this question, I'd like to expand the commentary on the definition of cooking. Specifically, is heat an essential stipulation?
According to the wiki article on cooking:
Cooking can also occur through chemical reactions without the presence of heat, most notably with ceviche, a traditional South American dish where fish is cooked with the acids in lemon or lime juice.
Another example is cooking with liquid nitrogen. Am I wrong in calling this cooking?
NOTE: I could not find a duplicate question, but please let me know if you find otherwise.
This question might be more suitable for one of the English Language StackExchange sites, anyhow: When someone uses the English verb "cooking" (or in Dutch, my language, "koken") in most contexts I would interpret it as "preparing a meal", regardless of the method (let alone heat). In Dutch the verb "koken" can indicate both the act of "preparing a meal" and the state of a fluid reaching the boiling point, which (AFAIK) is not the case in English.
While I'm sure folks on English would have helpful things to offer, I do think this kind of question is fine here too. Cooking terminology is part of cooking, and it's reasonable to want answers specifically from people on a cooking site, rather than a general language site.
Neither "yes" nor "no" is a suitable answer to that question.
First, there is no "the definition" of cooking. I am sure you can turn up several formal definitions, and my best guess is that some will require heat and others won't.
Second, and probably more important, humans don't think in definitions. You are asking if a given action belongs to the category "cooking methods". A definition works by ticking off features some element has to have to belong to a category. Real human categories (in everyday thinking, as opposed to formally defined ones in the sciences) depend on the closeness of an element to a prototype element. This closeness is gradual, and there is no demarcation to say where the category ends.
Keeping this in mind, all prototypical forms of cooking clearly involve heat, so the ones which don't involve it have a weaker membership in the "cooking methods" category than those which do. But it is impossible to pronounce whether they fall inside or outside of the category. Different people will answer that question differently, and I suspect that even the same person may give different answers in different contexts.
To make it even more complicated, "apply heat" is not the single thing which makes a food-related action resemble stewing (or whatever you take the prototype cooking method to be). So different things you do to food without heat will have a different grade of belonging to the "cooking" category.
People tend to not be aware of all that, and usually trust their intuition to take one side or the other. So you'll find people on both sides who insist they are right, and can rationalize it with some kind of plausibly sounding argument. Reality is more complicated than that, and if you try to prove one of the sides wrong, you will end up in a flame war going nowhere.
Don't agree "all prototypical forms of cooking clearly involve heat". You can cook with an acid. A fish cooked in acid (lemon) versus heat has the same chemical characteristics / tranformations.
"Prototypical" elements are the ones which define the category. They are the one which are the "poster children" of the category, which come to mind first, and about which there is no doubt that they belong to the category. Cooking fish in acid is most certainly not a prototypical cooking method, at least in the English language and among the cultures which speak English as a primary language.
So now this is about language. Is this site limited to cultures which speak English as a primary language? I bet a majority of English speaking people have had crevice or another acid cooked food. Don't get your sense of logic and not going to argue with you. If you have never had fresh trout crevice out on the water you are missing out.
@Paparazzi prototypical items are the ones that are the most 'typical' of items in a fuzzy category. So, dogs & cats are prototypical mammals; a platypus is not. Likewise, sparrows & hawks are prototypical birds; ostriches and penguins are not. Roasting and sautéing are prototypical cooking techniques. Denaturing through acid, sous vide or fermentation are in the fuzzy boundary -- they're at that point where someone has to think for a second about if it's in the category or different people may have different answers. Because of this, acid is not prototypical, even if is cooking.
Read that article. They are not cooking with liquid nitrogen they are freezing.
If you dropped a chicken in liquid nitrogen you would get a frozen chicken.
Another example is cooking with liquid nitrogen. Am I wrong in calling
this cooking?
As a chemical engineer if you define cook as a chemical reaction then yes you are wrong. Freeze is only a state change. If you freeze and melt H2O you get water. Oxidize with an acid is a true chemical reaction.
Traditional cook is oxidation. Heat will oxidize most (if not all) food. Acids will also oxidize and cook. The term acid burn.
Nitrogen is neither an acid or base.
WIKI
The culinary use of liquid nitrogen is mentioned in an 1890 recipe
book titled Fancy Ices authored by Mrs. Agnes Marshall,[14] but has
been employed in more recent times by restaurants in the preparation
of frozen desserts, such as ice cream, which can be created within
moments at the table because of the speed at which it cools food.
-1 for defining cooking as oxidation. I cannot say that no cooking method involves it, but the typical ones do not include it, and when it does happen, it is frequently undesirable. Fats taste unpleasant after oxidation, and vegetable matter looks brown. Heat can even stop the oxidation in vegetables by destroying the enzymes which cause the browning. Also, just because there is one method for food preparation involving acid, this does not mean that every non-heat cooking method must involve acid, so nitrogen's acidity is irrelevant.
@rumtscho Not going to get into the chemical definition of oxidation nor your logic with you.
Traditional cooking involves things like cell wall breakdown, starch gelatinization, protein denaturation/coagulation, caramelization, malliard reactions... certainly there are chemical bonds breaking and so on, but are you really saying that all of those are oxidation reactions?
@Jefromi But it is always a debate with you so I am not going to start. The stated question is does cooking imply heat and I feel my answer does address that question.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.366780
| 2016-10-07T17:17:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/74562",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Joe",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"paparazzo",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
123190
|
Is goat cheese ravioli freezable?
Can I freeze ravioli filled with goat cheese and caramelized onion, even when the package advises not to?
I’ve never frozen goat cheese, but if it undergoes syneresis (the liquid being squeezed out), it’s possible that the cooked ravioli would be more like cottage cheese instead of nice and creamy. I think that ones that are intended to be frozen use starch as a stabilizer
I'd like to see the label, or at least the exact warning & ingredients list. It seems people are not considering all the possibilities when answering this.
It's not going to make it dangerous if you're sensible. The texture might suffer a bit, but it will still be edible - better than wasting it. Defrost in the fridge before cooking, not at room temperature. I have frozen similar products in the past, and honestly don't think they deteriorated at all - certainly less than overcooking.
Mostly when manufacturers say products aren't suitable for freezing, they're worried about 2 things:
trying to cook something (probably raw) from frozen that will seem done when it's not, and risking food poisoning. Defrosting before cooking, under safe conditions, solves that.
the quality suffering, and customers complaining. A few foods suffer badly, like cream, but most don't
I feel that goat cheese does suffer a bit from being frozen. I doubt that it'll be anything major given it's already worked into a ravioli but that might be why it's on the package
@Hobbamok quite possibly, especially if the cheese is in one lump. Harder cheeses freeze better than soft, IME, and goat tends to be soft. I've frozen home made goats cheese varenyky (pierogi), which are similar (though of course a different dough) but I mixed the cheese with the other ingredients and found no issues on cooking. Anyway, just a texture/quality thing.
Based on tons of experience with freezing premade ravioli from Costco, New Seasons and Lucca:
Most ravioli can be frozen. It's pretty much the best way to keep them if you're not going to eat them within a few days. The only exception would be ravioli that have an exceptionally wet filling, because those may burst -- but goat cheese and onion ravioli would not normally be that wet. If the ravioli have very thin pasta shells, that might also be a problem.
If you've frozen them, you should boil them directly from frozen when you cook them. Cook them for around 3 minutes longer than you would fresh. Like usual, you can tell they're done because they're vigorously floating.
This means that you might want to repackage them before freezing if they're not well-separated or well-floured, just to make sure you can get them apart. I recommend making layers with sheets of waxed paper or plastic wrap, and maybe dusting them with a little extra flour. Some brands, like Costco, oil their ravioli before packaging and can therefore be thrown straight in the freezer.
You do not want to thaw them in the fridge. On thawing, the ravioli will tend to become clammy, and may stick to the packaging and each other and be inseparable without tearing.
Of course the ones you get may be a little different to mine, but if I was going to cook them from frozen I'd really want to freeze them spread out rather than having one big lump, probably using one of the methods you suggest, or oiling them myself. But cooking from frozen the pasta tends to overcook, IMO
The problem is that pasta dough that's been frozen and thawed becomes both stickier and more fragile.
Yes, but the alternative of overdone pasta so the filling is hot through, seems worse to me
Has not been my experience.
@ChrisH you can finish it in the sauce, so the center has a chance to warm through. I wouldn’t use it for an uncooked meat filling, but it might be okay for less risky fillings
@Joe good plan if you're going for a proper sauce. With a tasty cheesy filling I sometimes just put a little olive oil over, with garlic, herbs, bkack pepper or similar
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.367413
| 2023-01-29T17:30:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123190",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"FuzzyChef",
"Hobbamok",
"Joe",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69596",
"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
}
|
129316
|
Does it make sense to mature a yeast dough made from gluten-free flour?
Usually, when I make the dough for bread or pizza I let it mature in the fridge overnight.
I bought a gluten-free flour for a friend consisting of:
gluten-free wheat starch
cornstarch
dextrose
buckwheat flour
psyllium seed fiber
rice starch
thickener: guar
Given these ingredients, does it make sense to mature in the fridge or is it completely useless? Of course I add also a yeast for leavening.
Do you add any yeast to this?
@bob1 yes of course, I didn't specify in the question, my fault. I'm going to update it
Are you asking about maturing the flour or maturing the dough made from the flour?
@mkrieger1 sorry for my English, I'm asking about maturing the dough make from the flour, water and yeast
As you add yeast (and presumably activate it, mix into the ingredients with some liquid etc.), then yes, maturation of the dough in the fridge should work.
The purpose of maturation in the fridge is twofold -
First it allows you to make the dough beforehand and leave until the following day. This, of course, isn't absolutely necessary, you can rise on the spot, but this leads into second...
Second, the maturation results in a depth of flavour that you don't get with instant use of the dough. This is because the yeast is still fermenting, albeit slowly, in the fridge. This means that you get more time for secondary fermentations to occur. This results in secondary metabolites, beyond simple alcohols and carbon dioxide. The secondary metabolites are commonly things like esters and other "flavoured" compounds which add the depth of flavour to the dough that you don't get with a short/immediate fermentation.
From my point of view: no, it doesn't matter much. You can skip that step.
For me, the main purpose of "aging" dough is the different texture. It's a way of developing the gluten without kneading, which produces a very nice, pliant texture in the dough, lets you make hand-pulled pizza, and also gives you a better texture in the baked pizza. Since the gluten-free dough lacks gluten (duh), this is not happening in a gluten-free pizza at all.
The best you can expect in the texture department is that a good starch hydration is quite helpful for gluten-free flours. But that part should be achieved by a normal rise (1-2 hours at room temperatures), I don't think there will be much improvement by even longer standing times.
This doesn't invalidate bob1's point about the flavor changes from a long fermentation. But I would argue that these changes are too slight. They will be quite noticeable in a single-grain non-enriched bread loaf. But you're making a pizza, which is an explosion of flavors and fat hitting the taste buds at once. The subtle nuances of a slightly different yeast aroma simply go under for most pizza eaters.
And even for the people who mindfully chew on the crust for a minute, inhaling each detail, there is no automatic certainty that long-fermented will be better than short-fermented. Artisans praise the taste of long-fermented breads (and sometimes pizza crusts), because it's more complex and more difficult to achieve. But people's preferences are all over the place, and that's OK.
So, in conclusion: there will be some difference, but not really that much, and certainly not as important as for wheat pizza base. You're of course free to experiment and see if you find it worth the extra effort. But there is no requirement to always do it, and may go unnoticed even if you do.
When I make pizza or bread with long rise (overnight maturation in the fridge) I notice it's more "digestible". The different taste is a secondary "nice-to-have" feature for me. But I still knead the dough a lot.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.367762
| 2024-10-04T08:07:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/129316",
"authors": [
"Mark",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103683",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"mkrieger1"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
124861
|
Miracle whip vs. Mayonnaise for Pasta or Potato salad
I am wondering if anybody knows if Miracle whip adds more moisture to your pasta salad vs Mayo. Mine always seems to be swimming in liquid a day later. Also I was thinking that boiling the pasta a little over and not rinsing like someone said and letting it cool slowly on it own would allow time for the moisture to evaporate, solving the problem too.
You could always just use Mayo. Turns out the tangy zip of Miracle Whip is mustard.
If your salad goes soggy or watery a day later, a common trick is to mix and store the salad without dressing, and only add it shortly before consumption.
I've used miracle whip in many pasta and potato salads and I've never had a problem with water in it, maybe there's something other than the miracle whip at play.
Look at your other ingredients and whether they shed water. Cucumbers and celery are essentially water with a bit of cellulose to keep it in place, they will add water to your salad.
One thing you said was 'boiling your pasta over', which I am interpreting as deliberately overcooking your pasta. This is the opposite of what you want to do. When you cook pasta you are rehydrating it, if you overcook pasta it will soak up more water then it can hold once it cools, then it will come out later. If you cook it so it's firm, maybe just the teeniest bit underdone it will still be 'thirsty' when you make the salad, and will absorb some of the water shed from other ingredients.
Similar to pasta, overcooking potatoes will also result in extra water, you'll also get mushy potatoes in your salad. Cook them until they are firm, but break up with a fork.
Good call on the vegetables. Note that it takes a while for the pasta to absorb water (at least a few hours refrigerated), so you'll need to keep the salad texture somewhat "dry" when you're initially mixing it if you're taking this approach.
I loved the description of the thirsty pasta. Well said!
"essentially water with a bit of cellulose to keep it in place" LOL! :)
I suspect that a trick for coleslaw will work with other Dressed salads: massage the vegetables with salt. Let them sit for 15 mins or so, then rinse and drain. The vegetables will give up moisture after being exposed to salt, so you can drain it away before it’s affected by the dressing
Yes, Miracle Whip is much higher in water than real mayonnaise. (It uses more water and less oil, sweetened with corn syrup and thickened with modified corn starch, to make it cheaper to manufacture.)
Letting the pasta dry out a bit will cut down the moisture slightly, but won’t make much of an impact compared to the water in the Miracle Whip. Not rinsing the pasta will have very little impact on the moisture, and may make the salad more difficult to mix properly.
It is not just much higher in water, from a quick look at wiki Miracle Whip's first ingredient IS water. The only water there is in mayonnaise comes from the vinegar, and there isn't much of it.
I believe Miracle Whip does use modified corn starch everywhere (the jar I have in my fridge just says, “modified starch”, but I assume it’s corn starch), but I don’t think it’s sweetened with corn syrup outside the US. Here in Europe, at least, it contains sugar and apple vinegar, but no corn syrup. It also contains other thickening agents than the corn starch (guar gum and locust bean gum).
@njuffa fair enough, I wouldn't call that a mayonnaise anymore (even soybean oil...) but if it's what you find in the USA I understand both products will behave similarly.
Because I prefer the flavor Miracle Whip adds to my dishes, I have used it for more than 40 years. It has never turned my potato salad watery. As a matter of fact, I always make the salad the night before and make extra sauce because the sauce is absorbed by the potatoes overnight and I add more so that it is nice and moist for the meal. I don't just dump the MW in the potatoes; I add a bit of sugar,S&P, mustard, and pickle juice to it to achieve our family recipe.
Yes, we have noticed egg salad, potato salad, ham salad etc all get watery after a day. If we are not taking the dishes to a party or dinner we just mix enough salad with miracle whip for our use at that time. I really wish they would go back to their original recipe!!!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.368062
| 2023-08-01T05:59:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124861",
"authors": [
"IMil",
"Janus Bahs Jacquet",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Marti",
"Shautieh",
"Sneftel",
"candied_orange",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27081",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45785",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62602",
"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
}
|
73723
|
Can a pan "cook too fast"?
This is not a product request. I was looking to replace a couple baking pans, the 9"x13"x2" that serve many uses, brownies or cakes among them.
Even with the dimensions stated, to be clear, I'm talking about these. I don't know if there is a more specific word for them.
One review for the product I'm likely to buy said "These pans burn everything I bake in them.... They cook too fast. Have to cut bake times in 1/2 from what recipe says and things still burn.... cakes, brownies, even granola...."
Does this even make sense? I've had to change times when I changed ovens or stovetop burners. The complaint here makes no sense to me, and I'm curious if it's something I should take seriously.
This person is talking about baking, not stovetop, pans. If those sandwiched (i think they have an air layer) cookie sheets can manage to never burn your cookies on the bottom (never: cookies will brown through and through before the bottoms even start blackening), then they can be said to cook "slow". If I am used to those awesome pans, and suddenly switch to a different, thinner, maybe black(?) cookie sheet, I will perceive the second one as "cooking too fast".
@LorelC. - I love my airgapped cookie sheets. These are not cookie sheets, and I've never seen this product shape come as an air gapped offering.
Oh, and I forgot another thing to consider: In some oven designs (eg electric with open heating coils) there is significant radiant, rather than conducted, heat at play - this can heat an object above the air temperature in the oven, and thusly above thermostat temperature, easily. If you put a black baking sheet out in the sun, what happens?
...OK, how badly do you want me to do a FLIR series next time I do cookies?
@LorelC. Deleted some meta-discussion; if you see things you think are unhelpful, feel free to flag. If you have an issue with an answer, please comment on that answer rather than the question!
To everyone else, if you want to answer, please write an answer!
@JoeTaxpayer that sort of double wall pan does (did?) exist. My Mom's had a 13x9 airbake style pan for a few decades. It never got as much (proportional) use as the cookie sheets vs its single walled equivalents did though because she never uses it for anything that might be cut in the pan to avoid ruining it by puncturing the top layer.
This review does not make sense as it's incompatible with the physical laws of the universe. A change in bakeware material or thickness may alter how quickly heat is transferred from the air in the oven to the food, perhaps enough to change cooking time in some cases but not significantly enough to burn things.
Take for example a thick cast-iron pan versus a thin aluminum pan, the aluminum pan will get up to temperature very quickly and the cast-iron slowly as aluminum has a much higher coefficient of heat transfer than iron, and there's less of it to heat. If you're baking cookies then this could make a difference in your overall cooking time as on the aluminum sheet would start cooking the bottom of the cookies faster than the iron, and cooking time is short. In a cake it isn't likely to make any noticeable difference to cooking time at all.
In neither case would food suddenly burn - the heat difference between the food and the oven air isn't enough. If a 350F oven didn't burn food with one pan it's not suddenly going to reduce your food to a pile of ash with a different pan. I don't know what happened with this reviewer, perhaps their oven broke coincidently at the same time they bought the pans, or perhaps they just made it up - who knows! I'd ignore that in favor of other reviews.
Thank you. Will return to 'accept' later. This looks great to me, almost embarrassed I asked this.
@JoeTaxpayer Definitely don't be embarrassed you asked this. I've run across the same thing when shopping for things to use for baking, and wondered about that claim. So, you helped us!
This makes me want to develop some sort of super-conducting baking tray that can miraculously halve cooking times. Perhaps graphene? To the drawing board! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphene#Thermal_conductivity
Most food would burn to a cinder if you actually heated it through to 350f for the time it typically spends in an oven - baking relies a lot on there being a slow heat transfer. Compare what a 350f deep fryer would do to the same food in the same time.
While I agree that baking twice and burning everything sounds like an exaggeration, worth dismissing, I wouldn't dismiss the entire notion along with it. As you've already said, baking times can shift a bit, and it's very easy to burn the bottom of baked goods by cooking too fast. It won't be "reduced to a pile of ash", but can be enough to ruin things.
And people write the most absurd things in reviews sometimes.
I have to disagree with this answer, and agree with Alan's. Because of the difference in cooking methods (conduction vs. radiation/convection) for different parts of the cookie, a pan that transfers heat more readily could cause cookies/etc. to burn on the bottoms before they're cooked. (Changing cooking time/temperature can help fix this, but if you are a "use the recipe" person and don't know much about making adjustments, this can be a problem.)
Cook's Illustrated has demonstrated that different baking sheets can cook differently. They found that some of the sheets would cook unevenly or would even cook faster than other sheets, in the case of a double-layer one they tried. Their results were that finish (light or dark) was not as important in determining how a sheet behaved. More important was thickness and material. Sheets that were thin would cook faster than thicker sheets (overcooking the bottom in the time it took to cook the top) and aluminum sheets behaved better than steel sheets.
wow. the laws of thermodynamics holds even in an oven :-) Seriously it's good to see the experimental proof!
Thermodynamics indicates heat transfer through contact (conduction) is the most significant means of heat transfer. Rate of heating via conduction is a factor of type of material and thickness of material. Law of thermodynamics applies to "sideways" distribution as well as through heating.
So let's take an extreme case: Starting from room temperature, with 50% of the surface covered in cookie dough, would a thin copper baking pan transfer more energy (heat) into the bottom of the cookie dough than a thick silicone pan for a given period of time?
Yes
Copper pan will transfer the ovens energy into the bottom of cookies notably faster than silicone would due to at least 100 fold difference in thermal conductivity. Thermal conductivity Copper 385 (W/m K) compared to Silicon Rubber - at best 2.5 (W/m K)
Thus important in the cooking experience is the rate of movement of heat both across and through a pan.
Note
in this example the top surface of the pan is also collecting heat energy
even though both pans would eventually reach the same equilibrium temperature in an oven, at any given time before the steady state is reached the cookie dough (and subsequent cookie - yum!) would get hotter quicker on the copper pan.
this would cause burning issues if bottom of cookie got too much heat energy in comparison to rest of the cookie, which is heated via convection and conduction through dough (again low thermal conductivity vs copper)
while different baking pan behaviour is definitely possible by law of physics, I would not know if reviewer is credible
some Google searches for above material but overall Rates of Heat Transfer -
The Physics Classroom gives synopsis
I have a silicone loaf 'tin'... I can feel some comparison experiments coming on
50% seems a big difference to me, but if you're comparing against a baking tray that keeps the bottom of the cake cool for several minutes, then switching to one that heats through very quickly will certainly mean the cake has less time-to-live in a hot oven before it starts to "burn". If you're only baking for a few minutes anyway then the time the pan takes to heat is a pretty significant part of the cooking process.
As GdD points out, this supposes that the oven is hot enough to burn the cake at all, in the case of them being left in some minutes past the point of being cooked. My experience is that this often is the case in cookie and cake recipes: if you don't take them out they burn. Where I define "burn" to mean any amount of undesired blackening, not necessarily that they actually ignite. Whereas for GdD it violates the laws of physics to bake cake hot enough to burn, so we're either using different oven temperatures or different definitions of "burn".
If this is what's happening then arguably the reviewer should expect there to be a difference between a paper-thin tray and a heavy one. Or, taking things to even more of an extreme, a double-layer tray like Lorel describes in comments. Or, why not: a Pyrex lasagne dish takes time to heat up. You can bake a sponge cake in one no problem, but you're on your own as to cooking time if the recipe is written for a normal cake tin.
The reviewer's failure to predict the inevitable, or belief that thin baking pans are just plain wrong, doesn't necessarily mean that this is not in fact what they observed :-)
As for why the reviewer can't just make the adjustments and stop burning things: if you want the top of it to cook hotter than the bottom then a thin pan doesn't really work whatever you do to the cooking time. That's not often necessary, but maybe they like their brownies crunchy on the top and squidgy on the bottom?
This information may be completely useless to non-British readers, but also when making Yorkshire pudding the gauge of pan can easily be the difference between burning or not, and therefore require an adjustment to cooking time.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.368427
| 2016-09-05T12:21:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73723",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Dan Is Fiddling By Firelight",
"JTP - Apologise to Monica",
"Jayfang",
"Joe M",
"Lorel C.",
"Lyall",
"Michael Hampton",
"Sue Saddest Farewell TGO GL",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11009",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9036",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
14804
|
how should I cook the steak at home
Possible Duplicate:
How do you cook a steak like those found in fine steakhouses?
hi,
I have tried several times to cook steak at home but they were not as delicious and good as they were at restaurants. I used pan to cook that and just a little oil so that it wouldn't stick to pan. the heat was at the low level.
what is your advice on this? what type of equipment should I use? grill? thanks.
Please see our previous questions on this topic. In addition to the one marked as duplicate we also have How do you properly cook a steak? and really the entire steak tag.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.369239
| 2011-05-15T18:29:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14804",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Hanaa",
"Hawk",
"Zak Gamache",
"gschenk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31193",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15977
|
Preserving leftover double cream
I've got about 200ml of Double Cream (48% butterfat apparently) that I don't think i'll use before it goes off.
What simple (~5 minute) things can you make with cream so that it can be frozen?
At the moment I'm thinking along the lines of chocolate or toffee sauces.
Probably too obvious, but: Ice cream?
@rumtscho Can you make Ice Cream in 5 minutes?
Philadelphia style ice cream is made without cooking a custard. Mix cream and milk, cook up the sugar and vanilla in a very small part of the mix, combine, chill, freeze. Because of the chill, you have to wait longer than 5 minutes before freezing, but the actual work is less than 5 minutes.
nice. Will consider this next time (when I've got more cream)
Actually, above 40% fat, you can just freeze the cream itself. It wont whip as high, if you defrost it and whip it later, but it'll still taste good. Below 40% the results aren't as good.
Caramel sauce. It takes sugar, water, cream, a pinch of salt, and a tsp or so of lemon juice. Optionally, you can throw in a couple TBSP of rum, tequila, or brandy to enrich the flavor.
As far as I know, it'll freeze indefinitely, and it'll keep for MONTHS in the fridge.
If I could accept this answer as well I would. But I went with just freezing it. I think I'll end up making a Caramel (or toffee) sauce with it eventually. Thanks :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.369341
| 2011-07-06T11:49:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15977",
"authors": [
"317070",
"Chris",
"Marcella Bottoms",
"Mohammed shebin",
"Tia Lyve",
"danseagrave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34011",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34012",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6680",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
124931
|
Can you replace red wine with apera/sherry in a ragout sauce for lasagne?
I am trying to make this lasagne recipe.
I have apera¹ in my pantry, which I bought to make stroganoff. Can I use this in place of red wine in the recipe? It may be sacrilegious, but I do not want to buy another bottle of liqueur, especially when I don't drink as I hate the taste of alcohol in general.
The recipe does say to replace the red wine with water, but I was wondering if I could just use the apera.
¹ For those that aren't aware of what "apera" is - it is the Australian equivalent of sherry after some EU shenanigans made Australia unable to use the term 'sherry.'
Alcohol doesn't go in lasagna. Then again neither does cottage cheese, so I'll see myself out.... "I don't drink as I hate the taste of alcohol" - then don't cook with it, as that's the only point. And as someone in recovery, I don't want to even smell it either.
I would argue that the issue that lead to the use of ‘Apera’ was not EU ‘shenanigans’, but everyone else’s ‘shenanigans’. It’s no different from how real Champagne wine is from Champagne (that’s where the name comes from), we just mangled the name Jerez more in English than we did Champagne. Using the name of a place to sell something not from that place is not OK, it just took far longer for this general consensus to catch up with international usage of the term ‘Sherry’.
Strong opinions here. haha
My reason for word choice is to add some humour to my post. Not to be taken seriously. Thanks again for your thoughts. :)
@AustinHemmelgarn living near Cheddar (where they still age their namesake cheese in natural caves), but seeing "cheddar" cheese made all over the hemisphere, I have a handy example of how names do escape their origins.
@ChrisH Good point. I guess the wine lobbyists are a lot more powerful than the cheese lobbyists.
@ChrisH I hear cheddar is gorge-ous(!)
@ChrisH - they sometimes manage to take them back - vis Melton Mowbray pies & Cornish pasties, both given protected status in recent times.
@Mazura flavor is absolutely not the only point of using alcohol in dishes.
stay away from this recipe (if you want to make a good lasagna). Cheddar or Monterey Jack in the Béchamel (but somehow doesn't hesitate to strike down Ricotta as being too "american"?), Worcestershire, sugar, all have no place in there.
@njzk2 any simple and easy lasagne recipe?
@Mazura The taste of alcohol is absolutely not “the only point” when cooking with alcohol. The exact opposite, in fact: the taste of the alcohol itself is precisely what you get rid of by using the alcohol in food. I cannot drink even small amounts of anything that has the taste of alcohol without severe disgust-induced facial contortions, but if you use something like wine in a sauce, enough of whatever gives it that taste evaporates, and the disgusting flavour is gone.
@ChrisH I don’t recall anyone complaining about PDO violations when Americans make hamburgers or eat berliners.
One point about (Spanish) sherries is that they come in vastly varying sweetness levels. They go all the range from bone-dry (Manzanilla, Fino), to off-dry and medium sweet (most commercial sherries), all the way to extremely sweet (Pedro Ximenez or "PX"-based sherries). So be aware of that!
Because the other answers feel awfully prescriptivist to me, and I hate prescriptivist cooking, let me give a definitive
Yes.
You can absolutely substitute a sherry (fortified wine) for red wine in your sauce. The point of adding the red wine into the saucy is not to make it boozy, but to help develop the flavors of ingredients which contain alcohol-soluble flavor compounds, and to add some of the flavors from the wine (though in that recipe, I am going to guess that the wine is pretty much overwhelmed by everything else in the recipe).
Moreover, that recipe isn't particularly traditional (as Tetsujin points out, Worcestershire is really out of place in there; the carrots and celery also feel a bit more French than Italian (to me), and the sugar feels like a kind of weird thing to add). Since you are already making something which isn't super-traditional, I wouldn't worry about crossing some prescriptivist line by further tweaking the recipe.
Experiment, and see what tastes good (and feel free to taste the ragu as you make it).
That being said, it might help to understand a bit what a "fortified wine" (like sherry) is. When a typical red (or white) wine is made, grape juice is fermented over time. In the process of fermentation, yeasts consume the sugar in the grade juice, and... excrete... alcohol, CO2, and other biological waste products. Typically, the process of fermentation stops when either (a) all of the sugars have been consumed, or (b) the alcohol content of the environment becomes inimical to the yeast—this is usually around 15% alcohol by volume (ABV) (or both).
To make a fortified wine, the fermentation process is halted by adding a higher ABV liquor (a distilled liquor, such as brandy) to the wine. Adding the extra alcohol makes the environment hostile to the yeast, and prevents them from further fermenting the beverage. The result is that not all of the sugars are consumed by the yeasts, so the end result is boozier (higher ABV) and sweeter.
In this ragu recipe, the booziness is not really an issue (the red wine is probably around 12-15% ABV, the sherry is maybe 18-22%—a noticeable difference if you are drinking it, but likely a small difference in this recipe), but the sweetness could be. My recommendation would be to remove the sugar from the recipe and substitute the fortified wine for the red wine, one-to-one.
Alternatively, you could just leave the wine out entirely. After a long, covered simmer, the recipe calls for reducing the ragu until it thickens—if you start with less liquid in the recipe, this will go faster. You will almost certainly lose some of the complexity of the flavors—you could rejigger this by, for example, adding some beef stock or vinegar (like, just a little vinegar), but you might not find that necessary.
And, again, taste often. As you are making the sauce, taste it. See if you like it. Adjust as you go.
P.S. Ignore Tetsujin vis-à-vis the Worcestershire. My Jewish mother insists that it is part of a traditional recipe, and it's delicious. :P
I'd add that sherry/apera is made from white grapes rather than red, so the flavours are a bit different for a sherry vs a red wine. Port wine might be more similar to red than sherry, but it tends to be quite sweet (as does sherry), though you can get both in dry versions which are less sweet due to more complete fermentation of the sugars.
@bob1 Indeed. But in the linked recipe, there are so many strong flavors, that I doubt that the substitution of sherry for red wine would make all that much difference. If t'were me, I'd probably just deglaze the pan with half a cup of vodka, and be done with. But, again, taste, taste, taste. Does it taste good? Great! Does it need something else? Throw it in.
I agree, it's all down to personal taste. Personally I use a soffritto, the Italian version of mirepoix, in mine; it does consist of onion, carrot and celery gently fried off, but wouldn't consider using Worcestershire; my non-Jewish Grandmother would have killed me for doing anything other than Meat and 3 veg :0
@bob1 Totally off-topic, but your link to New Zealand-y things brings this to mind: I currently live in a part of the world where traditional foodways are built around sheep (the Diné people started herding sheep about 400 years ago, when the Spanish showed up, and it was the absolute heart of the Diné economy until the US government shut it down in the 1930s). Sheep are still incredibly important, though. I can sometimes get local mutton, but most of the mutton and lamb available at the grocery here comes from New Zealand. It makes no sense, and is infuriating. :/
Ahhh, politics at play I'm afraid. NZ is necessarily a net exporter of sheep meats and the USA a net importer (massively so from NZ apparently) and I think free-trade agreements exist between the two for these sorts of products, so easy pickings for the meat producers in NZ.
Can I, as an Italian, give a final answer on that Worcestershire is NOT traditional? :D
@bracco23 Nothing is traditional until someone makes it a tradition.
@bracco23 It may not be traditional to whatever part of Italy you are from. It is certainly traditional to the version of lasagne that I grew up with, which is heavily influenced by both British and Eastern European Jewish cooking.
@barbecue true :D
@XanderHenderson I'd be extremely surprised if any recipe from Italy uses it. And while we can definitely open a discussion of what "traditional" means and if Lasagne is an Italian dish anymore given how widespread it is, common sense usually says that it is italian and, therefore, traditional recipes are the ones from Italy. But that's usually just academic talk, you're happy to enjoy any food in any way you like and there is nothing wrong about it.
Weird things I've seen in lasagna include: Oysters, broccoli, potatoes, and beer.
Artichokes is probably the weirdest i've seen
@bracco23 "I'd be extremely surprised if any recipe from Italy uses it." We agree. Which is why I was so very careful to point out that I was specifically not referring to an Italian tradition, but to a highly hybridized Jewish-American tradition.
Compare to pizza. There are "traditional" styles of American pizza (New York, Chicago deep dish, etc). These pizzas are deeply tied to local customs, and people take pride in what they see as their traditional pizza. These pizzas typically have very little to do with anything an Italian would recognize as pizza. You can't really say "traditional" without linking it to some place and time.
@barbecue My mother has a tomato-less salmon "lasagne" recipe which uses cream cheese and spinach. It is very, very good. I think most Italians would run screaming at the thought of it being called "lasagne". :D
Agree with the screams, but it sounds definitely interesting taste-wise :D
We once had an Italian-American mailman who was absolutely horrified to see what us Hungarian-Americans did to pasta, such as eating it with ground poppy seeds and sugar. (Or ground walnuts and sugar.) Just like in language, etymology doesn't determine current definition or usage. If you want to call your layered pasta-and-whatever dish "lasagna", nobody's stopping you. :)
@Marti Okay, but is a hot dog a sandwich? *ducks*
@XanderHenderson: Yes, a hot dog is a sandwich because it uses bread as an eating utensil. :) But what they make in Chicago is a pizza-flavored casserole. >:)
@Xander Ducks definitely are not a sandwich!
It depends how sweet your locally made fortified wine is.
Many sherries are too sweet to substitute 1:1 where wine is needed, but not all. Even a sweet one might be usable, in smaller quantities with water to make up the volume, and/or reducing another sweet ingredient.
In robust tomato-based dishes, I've been known to use sherry, water, and a tiny bit of red wine vinegar. The proportions, from memory, would be something like 50% sherry, 45-48% water, and 2-5% vinegar. So quite possibly under a teaspoon, and not enough that you'd be able to taste it if you didn't know it was there.
I wouldn't replace it with just water otherwise. I'd increase the amount of any stock, or use vegetable bouillon, made up weak.
Hey Chris. This is similar to the apera I have: https://www.coles.com.au/product/st-andrews-dry-apera-750ml-1-each-2165715
take a look and please let me know. Thank you for your input!
Even a dry sherry is sweeter than red wine, though not by as much as a sweet sherry. Others have suggested omitting the sugar, which I knew some recipes (mainly American) use, and that's a good idea; I'd omit it even if using wine. When the recipe says to taste and add sugar, I'd taste and add a few drops of red wine vinegar.
The goal is that there are flavors that are alcohol soluble, so other alcohols will work, they will just give other flavors to the sauce. In smaller amounts, it shouldn’t be too significant.
As you mention that you’re not a fan of alcohol, you may also want to see: What is a substitute for red or white wine in a recipe?
Update: you likely want to use less sherry than the amount of wine that the recipe calls for, as sherry is more alcoholic. I would personally deglaze with maybe 1/4 to 1/2 that amount of sherry, let it reduce for a minute or two (to cook off some of the alcohol), then add some other liquid to make up the difference.
And I should have mentioned: sherry tends to be higher alcohol than wine, so you likely wouldn’t want to use a 1:1 replacement
Sorry, gonna throw a whole lot of unsubstantiated opinion in here
Of course there is no absolute ragu/bolognese recipe, every family has their own, but…
Put the apera in, it won't hurt, but for all that is holy [or random chance, depending on $DEITY]… don't put Worcestershire sauce in it!!!
I wouldn't put red wine in a ragu/bolognese anyway, but I wouldn't rail against it if you wanted to.
If I was being faithful to anything, I wouldn't put tomato puree in either. It's too punchy. It drowns your herbs & if you up the herbs, it all gets a bit 'in your mouth'. Reduce it naturally rather than force it with puree.
Eek, the further down this recipe I read, the worse it gets.
No sugar. [That's probably to try counterbalance the puree which doesn't need to be in it either.]
More oregano, less thyme. You do want to taste the oregano, but the thyme should just be the tiniest hint. You could hint a tiny bit of rosemary too, but really don't go mad with it.
Some variants use chicken liver [or even smooth Brussels] pate to soften texture & flavour - again, depends on source recipe.
[tbh, I'd find another recipe]
There are two main 'schools' of ragu.
One is onion, garlic, beef, canned tomatoes, oregano.
The other adds 'extras', carrot, celery, pate, even bacon/pancetta, sometimes [& a favourite of mine] a tiny dash of chilli, peperoncino oil or even a touch of cayenne.
Neither of these schools is right or wrong, but some of the 'extra extras' really don't belong.
But I love Worcestershire. :( I think I'll ignore your advice. :P
Fine on baked beans or a British stew. Not in in ragu. Sorry, but that's just a heinous crime ;)) If you really want the slight vinegar hit, tweak it towards a puttanesca, olives, capers & bacon. That should satisfy the vinegar/umami craving.
Lock me up! Imma do it! It is exactly how my Jewish mother taught me to make a lasagne. (And we all know that eastern European Jewish mothers make the most authentic Italian food.)
Huh, never heard of Worcestershire sauce in ragu/bolognoese, though I guess it makes a little sense if you want an additional source of acid and umami aside from the tomatoes and/or meat. I’d probably use soy sauce instead though if I wanted that (though I guess that too would be an abomination unto Nuggan).
@AustinHemmelgarn My mother makes a mushroom lasagne (no meat---meat and cheese ain't kosher; she is not very precious about keeping kosher, but some recipes are learned young, and never forgotten). Mushrooms + Worcestershire are almost necessary for that umami kick.
@XanderHenderson I'm pretty much vegetarian, and use lentils for the bulk/protein with plenty of mushrooms (fried normal, and/or dried porcini/assorted) and often a bit of yeast extract for umami. As I'm not technically veggie, the anchovy in Worcester sauce doesn't bother me, but I don't tend to use it anyway
That's funny. I always put Worcestershire sauce into the bechamel (as my mother taught me to), so I assumed all the fuzz was about that, not the ragu :D
What you link seems to be a somewhat interesting English/Australian blend of Neapolitan ragù and Bolognese ragù. Traditional recipes would either skip the celery and carrots (and give a more Neapolitan-style ragù) or use white wine instead of red (and give a more Bolognese-style ragù). Neither of them would traditionally have Worcestershire sauce (I’ve never heard of using this in a ragù before, my guess is it’s probably to add a bit of extra acid, salt, and umami to the flavor, which if done well should not be needed), and they would generally not traditionally use tomato paste (adding tomato paste is usually done with stuff like this to compensate for mediocre tomatoes being used in the sauce).
Apera or sherry is likely to be far too sweet for this. When a recipe calls for wine, it usually means a dry or semi-dry wine unless it specifies something else, and most aperas and sherries are significantly sweeter than that (even ‘dry’ ones in many cases). Apera or sherry will also add more alcohol than the wine would (their %ABV is anywhere from 15-22% usually, most wines are in the 10-14% range), which may impact the final flavor in unexpected ways. I would not recommend skipping the alcohol though, the amount used will not impart any significant alcohol flavor, but the presence of the alcohol will alter how everything else blends together. If you don’t want to get a bottle of red wine, I would instead suggest a bottle of white wine, which comes up far more frequently in sauce recipes in my experience than red does (that, and I just prefer white in ragù even when I do a Neapolitan-style ragù).
On an unrelated note, I strongly recommend (real) Parmesan cheese for the besciamella. It blends much better with the tomato flavor of the ragù than things like Colby, cheddar, or Monterey Jack. I’ve also done Emmental once before in place of Parmesan (I did not realize I had no Parmesan, and the only hard white I knew would blend well into the besciamella was Emmental), and that turned out surprisingly good, but every other cheese I’ve tried for this just doesn’t work quite as well in terms of the flavor profile.
Note that the recipe also includes sugar (WHY?!). Take that out, and a sherry or port might fit in nicely. As to identifying regionality, this looks like a very Americanized recipe. As you note, it starts with a bit of an identity crisis (celery, carrots, red wine), adds a bunch of sugar, Wocestershire, and gives options for cheeses which are likely to be easy to find in a Wal-Mart Superstore. It is such a weird recipe. I mean, it's probably tasty, but it doesn't feel like it comes from anywhere. :D
Of course, if you really want to Americanize it, use cheddar. It becomes a cheeseburger lasagne. ;)
Thanks for your reply, I think the celery is common around Australian lasagne. haha I have heard many Italians that moved here that celery is paramount for their lasagne recipe lmao.
@XanderHenderson Sugar is usually used on tomato-based sauces when the tomato are more acidic than sweet, as a way to tame the acidic note. It's a common "trick", usually just a pinch. Also, not to be pedantic, but a Bechamel sauce doesn't have cheese. If you add cheese you get a Mornay :P
@XanderHenderson Sugar isn’t too unusual if you can’t get good tomatoes that are appropriately sweet to make the sauce, and some people even add a bit to offset the ‘punch’ of the tomato paste (often not realizing that they can just skip the tomato paste and get a better result if they have good tomatoes). I think the amount of sugar involved here though is small enough that dropping it and subbing sherry for the wine may still be too sweet (depends on the sherry though, Oloroso or fino would be fine, dry might be fine, dulce or Moscatel would be way too sweet).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.369642
| 2023-08-10T16:16:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124931",
"authors": [
"Austin Hemmelgarn",
"Chris H",
"Cyber",
"Janus Bahs Jacquet",
"Joe",
"MD-Tech",
"Marti",
"Mazura",
"Tetsujin",
"Xander Henderson",
"barbecue",
"bob1",
"bracco23",
"eps",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91386",
"njzk2",
"pacoverflow",
"phipsgabler",
"printf"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
125060
|
What kind of cooking method was used for the chicken in my ramen?
A few months ago, at a very good Asian restaurant, I had ramen with chicken in it. The chicken was cut in small "flakes" (around 2cmx1cm rectangles and really thin), was super juicy, tender and had a special chicken taste like I have never tasted before. Searching for chicken ramen recipes I only found normal ramen recipes with big thick cut chicken pieces. Recreating them tasted like normal soup chicken (also when using msg).
How was this chicken made?
Are you sure it was chicken? That sounds more like bamboo shoots.
Addressing the "special chicken taste" – this could well just be effective use of flavour enhancers like salt, MSG and related condiments like soy sauce, as well as the use of a good stock to make the soup.
are you certain that was chicken? The description sounds more like katsuobushi flakes, which are commonly used as a topping in ramen (or as a component in making dashi). As these flakes contain high levels of inosinic acid they can greatly increase the umami in other dishes, especially when combined with a good source of glutamate (such as MSG or, traditionally, konbu aka kelp) as in dashi. My guess would be that the chicken actually described the base stock of the ramen, and the flakes were katsuobushi not chicken
Finding a link to an online menu might be useful, if it's got pictures - we might be able to get a bit of a better look.
Perhaps the chicken was done Chinese-style, fresh from the wok, rather than pre-cooked. That would give 'tender' & flavour too.
Use chicken breast straight from the fridge. You want it really almost frozen. I have a 'half-way drawer' in my fridge that keeps a temperature of between 0 & 0.5°C, so it can be very slightly icy as it comes out.
Cut each breast in half, down its length, then slice across. I use a fork and razor-sharp boning knife to do this. Hold the fork against the nearside of the chicken breast, 2mm from the last cut & draw the knife towards you, using the fork to keep your cut steady, through in one cut. (You get two pieces per cut this way.) It's no good if you have to saw at it, you'll never get it thin enough. The boning knife has very little drag, so the chicken doesn't try to follow you across the board as you pull through.
I did this for dinner just last night - wish I'd thought to do some photos, because it's easier than it sounds;).
Marinate in light soy, rice wine vinegar, sesame oil, crushed garlic if you like, for 30 mins or so.
Get your wok as hot as possible, add oil & stir-fry the chicken. It will take only between 1 & 2 minutes to get it 80% cooked.
Drop it in your still boiling ramen soup.
Serve.
The chicken will continue to cook on its way to the table.
Most people over-cook chicken.
Sounds like it was perhaps braised or post-roasted and then flaked apart.
I do that in the oven for several hours in a covered Dutch oven, with several inches of liquid.
Flaked apart… into rectangles?
Presumably some cutting was also involved, but the meat was described as "flakes"
If I was attempting to make something like you describe:
I would use chicken thigh meat, which has more flavor than chicken breast
I would poach it at low heat so it maintains its moisture, possibly in a flavorful broth (roasting at low temperature will concentrate flavors, but is harder to get perfect; they might also use sous vide)
I would let it cool after cooking, remove any skin, bones, and cartilage and then slice it thinly (professionals may also have access to a meat slicer; if you don’t have a sharp enough knife, you may need to refrigerate it so it won’t break apart when you slice it)
You could then slice into the smaller rectangles as desired, but when cutting across the grain it will often just fall apart on its own.
After slicing, keep it warm (or reheat it) in chicken stock until ready to serve, so it won’t dry out.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.371352
| 2023-08-24T09:51:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125060",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"Sneftel",
"Tetsujin",
"Tristan",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84477"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23968
|
Safe to eat mac 'n' cheese the next day?
Possible Duplicate:
How long can I store a food in the pantry, refrigerator, or freezer?
I've made mac and cheese. If I put it in the fridge (not freezer) in the original baking dish, covered with aluminum foil, will it be safe to eat the next day?
Is there a better way to store it for a day (better than covering with foil)?
My answer would only be anecdotal, so I'll leave it as a comment - I do this all the time with all sorts of casseroles and have never had a problem.
Is it ever safe to mac'n'cheese?
is this a troll question? I have successfully eaten mac and cheese that is two weeks old, the first day left overnight on the counter. Admittedly, though, in a cold climate.
No Doug, it's not a troll question. I've eaten mac & cheese only a couple of times and only on the same day. Given (my) complete lack of data on the subject, this seems like a good place to ask this information, wouldn't you agree?
@KrzysztofKowalczyk As mentioned in the other question, basically anything cooked is safe to store for several days in the fridge. There's nothing special about mac and cheese. I think this is why Doug found the question odd - most people know that leftovers go in the fridge.
An "exact duplicate" of a question that asks a generic question where answer lists few items, none of which is mac & cheese? Since when all food items are equal wrt. to shelf life?
Make sure your fridge is cold enough
You need to make sure your fridge is cold enough otherwise food poisoning bacteria will still be able to grow. Your fridge should be between 0ºC and 5ºC.
If you’re not sure how the temperature setting or dial works on your fridge, you could use a fridge thermometer to check it’s the right temperature.
Here are a few other fridge tips that you might find useful:
keep the fridge door closed as much as possible
wait for food to cool down before you put it in the fridge
if your fridge is full, turn the temperature down to help keep it cold enough
Cool leftovers as quickly as possible (ideally within one to two hours) and then store them in the fridge. Eat any leftovers within two days, except for cooked rice, which you should eat within one day to help avoid food poisoning.
-1 for the "one day" comment about cooked rice, which is nonsense. Cooked rice isn't special and can easily be refrigerated for several days, just like everything else. http://www.stilltasty.com/fooditems/index/18723
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.371687
| 2012-05-24T03:27:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23968",
"authors": [
"Ashley Cofell",
"Carey Gregory",
"Cascabel",
"Doug",
"Jacob G",
"Krzysztof Kowalczyk",
"Marlene",
"Red Bow",
"Rick Sheahan",
"Scott M. Wood",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54375",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54377",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54378",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54402",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7014",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8499",
"user54378"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16851
|
Can anyone tell me what this is?
It looks to be a double boiler of some sort, but we're not sure what it is.
It's an egg poacher. Looks like this exact model.
Note that these don't really actually "poach" eggs, the result is more like a coddled egg. They do essentially work like double boilers.
If you put a dab of butter in the bottom of the cup and and a raw egg over it, then steam it, you'll have coddled or shired eggs.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.371923
| 2011-08-13T14:04:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16851",
"authors": [
"Nick",
"Sudeep Reddy",
"dtech",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36033",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36037"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
83687
|
How to clean a cork bottle stopper?
I was given a cork bottle stopper as a gift. Should I clean it after each usage? What is the appropriate way to clean cork? Since cork is porous, I would be concerned washing it could encourage bacterial growth.
From hunker , here is info and instructions for sterilizing corks:
Corks are used to cap wine and other types of bottles. Before corks are used to seal bottles, they are cleaned and sterilized to prevent any contamination. It is relatively easy to sterilize corks for reuse by steaming or boiling them for an extended period of time. Once the corks have cooled and dried, they can be safely used to store homemade wine, handmade vinegar or flavored olive oil.
Step 1
Add sufficient water to the saucepan so that it won't boil dry during the sterilizing period. Add the corks to the pan. If you are using a steamer or steamer basket, fill the pan with water to the bottom of the basket.
Step 2
Add the corks, cover the pan and boil or steam for 90 minutes. While the corks are boiling, sterilize the tongs, jar and lid or container by immersing in boiling water while the corks are being heated. Once the implements have been in the boiling water for five minutes, drain and place them on a clean dish cloth. Check the corks to make sure they have enough water.
Step 3
Drain the water off the corks once the 90 minutes are up. After the corks have cooled and dried completely, use the tongs to place the corks in the container or jar and cover and use as needed.
Also, for just cleaning and not sterilizing, this article from hunker will take you through the steps of cleaning cork stoppers.
I think this is overkill for a simple decorative cork stopper that is used to close an already opened bottle.
@Max Just answering the question. :)
I would simple rinse it under clear water and let it dry normally.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.372107
| 2017-08-14T02:10:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83687",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"Max",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180"
],
"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
}
|
27902
|
using polenta to make hamburger
Hello I am cooking vegan today and I want to know, if I can use polenta to make some kind of food, that is similar to hamburger meat.
( I want to use polenta, because I already bought it and try to find a use for it. )
I don't think you're going to get a good ground beef substitute from polenta, for that I would recommend TVP or other vegan soy crumbles, seitan or even mushrooms. However, if you're interested in making a veggie burger out of polenta, I'm sure you could look online for a recipe (for example here, but you may find others). It's certainly not going to taste anything remotely like beef, though.
There are a whole bunch of recipes for veggie burgers using soy crumbles, TVP or seitan. Your polenta would make a delicious side dish, or I've seen recipes for polenta "fries." Just do a google search. Good luck!
Thanks. yup, I think i am gonna find a good use for the polenta, as a side dish.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.372295
| 2012-10-20T12:26:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27902",
"authors": [
"David D. Dunagan",
"FeNiX",
"Till Lange",
"Wilva",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13990",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64111",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64113",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64114",
"lemontwist",
"rob3c"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
77661
|
Can I put my cast iron pan with wood handle in the oven?
Can I put my cast iron pan with wood handle in the oven? This is what it looks like.
Finally I've decided to buy a cast iron only pan to make sure I would not degraded the other pan.
When I have a fry pan with "other" material handle and want to put it in the oven I wrap it in 3-4 layers of tin foil first and no problem. Usually the oven isn't any higher than 375 degrees Fahrenheit. Hope this is helpful.
I was thinking the same as you but I finally decided not to do it since this is a le creuset pan that belonged to my mother.
Personally, I would not put it in the oven. You may be able to get away with it if you are not broiling anything for an extended period of time, but heat does not play nice with wood and after extended use I would expect the wood on the handle to blacken or even crack.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.372396
| 2017-01-21T18:07:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77661",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14033",
"vinni_f"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
82691
|
Are hardware store themocouples food safe?
I recently finished reading The Blue Bottle Craft of Coffee: Growing, Roasting, and Drinking, with Recipes. The authors of this book put a strong emphasis on accurate measurements and measuring tools, both for coffee and baking, and regularly make use of general purpose thermocouples as shown in the excerpt and picture below:
One of the greatest kitchen gadgets you can have is a thermocouple (shown below). A thermocouple is an electronic temperature sensor that can be purchased at the hardware store, and is typically used in science and industry for testing the temperature of ovens and air conditioning. They’re fairly inexpensive, absolutely accurate, and very easy to use and clean. I use mine for verifying my oven temperature and for taking temperature readings on sugar syrups and other temperature-sensitive recipes, such as Homemade Yogurt. It’s an invaluable and extremely accurate tool that is worth investing in for both baking and coffee preparation.
I can see the appeal of these "hardware store" thermocouples, but are they really safe to use in and around food or drinks? None of them claim to be suitable for cooking. Is there a likelihood that they could leave behind undesirable chemicals or metals?
The cheapest IR thermometers are cheaper than the chepaest thermocouple solutions, and are non-contact. I have both -- neither bought mainly for food use, though the thermocouple is good for checking the oven calibration and the IR thermometer is nice for answering curiosity.
You are correct to be concerned.
In all likelihood, the hardware store thermocouple is not suitable for food use as it would contain metals you don't want to ingest. Here is a table of industrial grade thermocouple materials, note presence of some undesirable metals:
Source.
You would want a thermocouple specifically made for food use. Example. I found that one by searching NSF thermocouple, a cautious approach since NSF (National Sanitation Foundation) certification entails high standards. But most thermocouple advertised for food should suffice, such as this $16 one.
Nickel, Chrome, Manganese (not sure if that table is chemically correct and means magnesium, or manganese) and Silicon are common alloying elements in steels used for food-contact tools and containers. So their presence in itself does not NECESSARILY mean unsafe.
Base on my research about Thermocouples it is a safe devices to use and also saves electricity consumptions. The reason behind is that Thermocouples has two dissimilar electrical conductors forming an electrical junction. And it produces a temperature-dependent voltage as a result of the thermoelectric effect, and this voltage can be interpreted to measure temperature. Now, if it safe to store food in it, well base on my research the device provide extremely accurate food temperature readings, so you can ensure meat, fish, and dairy items are safe for customer consumption.
It looks like you just pasted in sections of the Wikipedia article on “thermocouple” and added a spam link.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.372502
| 2017-06-28T02:05:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82691",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"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
}
|
42595
|
Safe to buy food baked in plastic containers:
I recently bought some baked goods (corn break I think) from Fred Meyers, and it seesm to be baked right in the plastic container it came in.
Is this safe?
This question makes it seems like this is unsafe?
How dangerous is it to bake food with plastic?
How do you know that they were baked in the container that you found them in? Or are you saying that they come with instructions for you to bake them in that container?
There are plastic oven bags like this
Source http://lamiacucina.wordpress.com/2014/02/20/saumon-en-papillote-au-citron-vert-lachs-in-folie/
that can be used at temperatures at least up to 200°C. I am sure that there should be equivalent baking pans with similar properties for baking goods.
In conclusion, referring to your link to another question: It depends on whether the plastic is supposed to be baked or not. The questioner of the other thread said he had forgotton to remove a piece of plastic that he had been supposed to. In your case: It is very likely safe.
Evidently, based on a review at Cook's Illustrated (paywall, but some content is visible), there do exist disposable plastic baking pans that are safe up to 400 F--and many baked goods are baked at or below that temperature.
The question I ask myself when I see tempting food cooked in plastic is "How likely is the purveyor to have taken safety concerns into account when purchasing the containers and prepping the food?"
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.372785
| 2014-03-07T22:34:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42595",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Fatima",
"John London",
"Pandah Sykes",
"River Wood Used Furniture",
"Rob4067",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"feedmewifi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109920",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99503",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99510",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99538",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99546",
"spammer",
"user99505"
],
"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
}
|
85641
|
What's a good substitute for sport peppers?
Sport peppers are a key ingredient in the Chicago-style hot dog.
From Tomato Growers Supply Company's page about Sport peppers:
Sport: This Capsicum annum type of pepper is popular for its use as a pickled pepper to go on hot dogs and other sandwiches. It is especially well known as an essential condiment in a Chicago-style hot dog. Peppers resemble Tabasco peppers, but the Sport pepper is larger, about 1-1/2 inches long and 1/2 inch wide. They are medium-hot and produced in great abundance on sturdy plants. 75 days.
These are not readily available outside the US (at least in my region). What is a good substitute, particularly for making the hot dog?
Not sure where you're located, but any pickled pepper will work. In Europe and the Middle East, peppers like this are popular:
I personally use pickled jalapeños if I don't have sport peppers, but the ones in the images (Turkish pickled peppers) would be the most similar if you can find them.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.372950
| 2017-11-14T15:40:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85641",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
34256
|
Is this type of vegetable peeler effective?
On eBay there are cheap ceramic vegetable peelers like this:
Do they work well? Right now I have a simple, knife-like peeler with a hole in the middle which I hate and I'd like to change. Does this type work better?
An assessment of worth is a personal value judgement. You might want to change your question to "are they effective". And the answer is yes. Would I personally buy them from ebay, maybe not.
You can get them almost as cheap from Amazon and from a reputable brand and source... And the Kuhn Rikon ones work well. (Don't think they're ceramic, though).
@derobert, modifying the Kuhn Rikon search for ceramic, I found incendiary reviews for their ceramic models. Appears different than the pic posted above, so I'm uncertain of the brand. The prices are consistent however.
Yes: I find they work very well on easy-peeling vegetables; for example on nice straight carrots or parsnips, I can trim a very thin peel easily and consistently.
No: But on more difficult vegetables, they aren't very good at dealing with tougher or rougher skin. For example on jerusalem artichokes or knobbly potatoes which need eyes removing, they fail miserably.
For a good all-round peeler, I use either a Lancashire (fixed-blade) or Jonas-style (in-line swivel-blade):
A guy from work got the peeler i asked about and wasnt impressed. He suggested the same as you.
I've seen ceramic Jonas style ones. Something worth considering is ceramic chips and most of the blade unit is plastic
How deep a peeler cuts into vegetable matter depends on how big the gap is between the two blades.
If you're used to a narrow blade spacing, and switch to a wider one, you'll be horrified at the depth of the peel, Conversely, if you're peeling for stir-fry, a wide spacing, thick peelings, might be preferable.
So whether the pictured ceramic vegetable peeler will work well for you will depend on what its blade spacing is, and what blade spacing you're used to having.
I find them horrible. The wobbly top doesn't allow to put any pressure and instead of cutting into the vegetable, it flips and scrapes it or slides. The theory that it will follow the shape of the surface is flawed - to get it to sink under the skin you have to push and the flimsy construction feels like it were to snap. Also, the angle is good only for biggest vegetables, you'd have a hard time trying to peel a smaller potato, and with softer vegetables the required pressure will squeeze them. If you try to peel a raw carrot, the blade will catch, flip and then scrape instead of cutting. If you peel a boiled one, it will drag the skin or just snap the carrot if you press harder, to cut.
vincebowdren suggests a better model, the blade is fixed to the handle, at an easy to use angle (the fact the blade is perpendicular like in a shaving razor, is a marketing trick to suggest it works as well as one; it doesn't, trust me.) You can control the angle and pressure better, and it only maintains cutting depth, plus the tip is great for picking out "eyes" out of potatoes and the like.
The difference between that and what you already have is really just the position of the blade with respect to the handle. With that, you pull along the direction of the handle to peel, while with your current one, you push perpendicular to the handle. (Assuming I understood your description of your current peeler right, anyway.) Which of the two you prefer may be mostly personal preference, though I find that the angle you end up holding your hands at is nicer when you're pushing perpendicular.
You haven't said why you hate your current one, but I'm guessing it's because it's dull, and possibly uncomfortable to grip the handle in order to exert the force you need. (Note that it takes more force when it's dull.)
So your problem may well be solved simply by getting a new, sharper peeler, preferably one with a handle you find comfortable to hold. I'd suggest going to a physical store and actually holding them to get an idea of what you like.
Ceramic vs metal blades is a factor too, of course - ceramic holds the edge better. But I'd worry first about getting something comfortable to use. Better to have something comfortable to hold that has to be replaced a little more often than a nice sharp ceramic blade attached to a handle you hate.
+1 for suggesting going to the store and trying them. (you might need to bring a few carrots and a potato, just to really try it out)
Which is better? Its very subjective and depends whats easiest for you personally. I prefer the straight type peeler. I've tried the perpendicular ones and I find that I'm only able to do short sections of peeling at a time with it since it knocks against my fingers of the hand im holding the veg with. No such issue with the straight one, I can do long sections of peel quickly. (Try peeling a whole apple or potato in one long piece with the other type!)
Every time i see someone using the perpendicular type, they are so slooooow. With a straight one i can get 3 times as much done in the same time. I'll challenge anyone to peel quicker than me if they are using a perpendicular one !!
This is my own peeler which I have had for about 10 years. Still sharp and the little point on the end is good for digging eyes out of potatoes etc. But like i said, it all comes down to preference. Try both and compare, see what you like best.
They do work well. As far as ceramic vs metal blades go, ceramic will last longer. But giving the general cheap price it does not really matter.
As an alternative I find these the best and easiest to use:
They have the point on the end for removing holes/knobs etc.
And they shouldn't run you more than a few dollars.
You haven't really tried to explain why they're "best" or "easiest to use". What makes them preferable to any other peeler?
@Aaronut They just are :-) What do you use?
@TFD: You know as well as I do that that's a very low-quality answer by this site's standards. It's not even really answering the question. What I use doesn't matter - in fact I've tried several types and don't really have a favourite; much like a razor, I think the weight matters more than the orientation.
This doesn't really even answer the question. "Does X work well?" "I use Y!"
@Petah, where can you buy that orange colored peeler? Had one, but now broken. You had a picture of it but I could not see the manufacturer. Bought mine in Greece ten years ago. (asked for Simon, a new user)
@Jolenealaska they are just at any old supermarket here. Or really any general store that sells kitchen stuff. E.g. http://shop.countdown.co.nz/Shop/Browse/kitchen-homeware/cutlery-kitchen-utensils/peelers#url=/Shop/ProductDetails%3Fstockcode%3D278445%26name%3Dfor-your-kitchen-peelers
That type of vegetable peeler can be very effective. A lot is going to depend on the sharpness of the blade, so it will vary from brand to brand. The Kuhn Rikon peelers of that style (with steel blades) have a very good reputation. I have personally used them to do everything from peeling vegetables (carrots, potatoes, eggplant) to making Parmesan shavings, and it worked beautifully for all of the tasks.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.373070
| 2013-05-22T16:54:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34256",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"AdamO",
"Allan",
"Andrew Fan",
"Cascabel",
"Charles",
"Erik",
"Gabriel",
"Joe",
"JohnnyApplesauce",
"Jolenealaska",
"Journeyman Geek",
"Kat Didemus",
"Lawrencia Tetteh",
"Lorraine Best",
"Petah",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sharon Gien Cambier",
"Sheri Adams",
"Sixtyfive",
"TFD",
"Wesley Strickland",
"Yurrian Pierre-Boyer",
"daveloyall",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18412",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79738",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79739",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79740",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79803",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79804",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79810",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79811",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79813",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79865",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79868",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79899",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79900",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79975",
"internetofmine",
"liebs19"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
58303
|
Seasoning skillet: What am I doing wrong?
Since two months I have a DeBuyer 28cm skillet from the Mineral B line. Upon buying it I followed the instructions they gave me in the store: Wash it, fry (without oil) a thick layer of salt and oil it up before putting it away. This gave me a light brownish seasoning.
In the weeks after buying it I used it a lot, mainly for sautéing vegetables. Every time I used the pan the seasoning became darker. But every time I washed the pan (no soap, just hot water and a plastic brush) part of the seasoning would fall off.
After about two months I decided that there must be something wrong with the first layer of seasoning. So I used soap and a steel brush to remove all the seasoning it had. Then I heated it slowly and with a paper towel I brushed in a small amount of oil in thin layers, until the pan started the color and smoke. I did this 3 times.
Today I fried two burgers in the pan, thinking this time I had seasoned it properly. I warmed the pan for a couple of minuted on medium heat and put the burgers in with a dash of sunflower oil. Unfortunately, the seasoning came off exactly at the places where the two burgers rested (see photo.). Though nothing came off while cleaning the pan.
What am I doing wrong?
What type of oil are you using to season it?
I used sunflower oil for seasoning. For frying I used either sunflower oil or butter.
Just in case. You are seasoning it in the oven, aren't you?
Use polyester (3M) scourer between seasoning to get the layers of polymerised oil to stick together
It simply takes some time and experience to learn to do a seasoning well. Yours was too soft to work. The good part is that you can repeat it on the same pan until you got better results, the pan is not going to suffer from it.
First, there is the oil. Modern oils are engineered to be higher in unsaturated acids. This is done for health reasons, and some sources suggest them for seasoning specifically because they polymerise more easily, for example recommending flaxen oil for seasoning. In my experience, while it is much easier to create a good looking layer with them, this layer is way too sticky and soft for use. Personally, I prefer to use a sticky oil as the base layer, and put a few layers of lard on it.
Second, there is thickness. If a layer was too thick, it will peel off. A good seasoning is built up from many layers, each as thin as possible, and hardened separately, with full cooling down in between. If you can see thickness in your layer (the thickness of a standard office paper sheet), it's already dangerously thick. Wipe each layer before hardening, you don't want to see it pooling.
Third, there is temperature control. If this is your first iron pan, you might not have learned it yet. A new seasoning tends to be more damageable than an old, baked-on one. If the first few foods stick, they may "take off" some seasoning with them. I guess that, if you're good at frying precisely, you can start doing more adventurous stuff in the pan right away. But if you are not, better start with the kind of food which you know how to fry without it sticking. For example, this picture looks like you put lean burgers at too low a temperature and they cooked onto the seasoning instead of crusting right after hitting the pan. If you have a food you know you can crust well, use it (I do new pans best with crepes and scrambled eggs, but it needs the correct recipe, Ruhlman's crepes work). If not, start with greasy types of food with sufficient protein content and work from there. Introduce watery foods later, when the seasoning is doing well. Also leave starchy foods for later - although they work well enough if there is enough protein and some fat in them, see the crepes point above.
In the beginning, you might also want to not wash the pan. Simply wipe off excess fat with paper without introducing water. Of course, this is somewhat dependent on the success of the last point - if you have pieces of food stuck to the pan, it becomes harder to deal with them (a salt scrub can work better than water though). In the ideal case, the food peels off your seasoning without leaving anything to clean.
I also failed my first tries to get a pan well seasoned. But I also noticed that, the closer you get to a good seasoned state, the easier it gets, simply because each of the points is easier to follow through when you have less sticking. The beginning may be hard, but once you get in the positive feedback part of the process, it's worth it.
Well, the burgers were too lean. I agree with that. Next time I'm asking my butcher for a more fatty cut :)
So if I understand correctly, your advice is to warm the pan thoroughly before each use, mostly use it for bacon and similar for now, and not to worry too much?
It's not completely that simple, as too high a temperature won't work either. I was more trying to say: start frying stuff at the temperature at which it unsticks from the pan on its own. Certain foods (like burgers with enough fat) have a wider temperature range in which this happens. But overshooting the range is not better than undershooting it.
If you can, I'd suggest seasoning it in the oven—at least for the first few layers.
It sounds like you got it good and clean, and maybe even roughed up the surface a little before seasoning. Good.
Prepare the oven with both racks. Put foil on the lower rack to catch any oil dripping from the pan. Set the oven to 450°F, no need to wait for it to preheat.
Heat up the pan stovetop (but not so hot the oil smokes). Wipe on a thin layer of oil (you may want to hold the paper towel with some tongs); put in the oven, on the top rack, upside down (with the cooking surface facing down).
Once the oven finishes heating (now with the pan in it), bake for an hour. Then turn off the oven, allow the pan to cool in the oven.
If, after cooling, the seasoning is at all tacky, bake it for another hour at a higher temperature. How high you need seems to depend on the exact oil you're using.
To put another layer on... repeat the entire process.
[As an alternative to heating on the stovetop, you could heat it in a moderate oven.]
The trouble with this is that the handle of the pan is coated with plastic. I don't know if this plastic likes the oven.
@PeterSmit ah, the handle isn't in your picture. Definitely check the manufacturer's specs for how hot you can get it in the oven.
No difference using oven or stove top. You just need to heat oil till it polymerises
You're gonna be fine. Keep cooking with it and those burger imprints will go away. You need a stiff nylon dish brush to clean with hot water. Then dry the pan after cleaning by placing it on a burner on low heat. When completely dry use a paper towel with a good teaspoon full of shortening. I use Spectrum Organic shortening which is exactly like Crisco but is not trans fat. You want a "solid at room temp" shortening product. The shortening will stick to the pan and season it. Best to hang the pan in a rack in the open air. Or keep it on the stove top. Not stacked in a cabinet to rust and stain. You need to use the pan often and have patience as this will take a few months to get to the point where you can say it is seasoned properly.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.373671
| 2015-06-16T17:31:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58303",
"authors": [
"Chanel Pennell",
"Dr. belisarius",
"Gowri V",
"HRH Moustafa",
"Peter Raw",
"Peter Smit",
"TFD",
"derobert",
"donna ellis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138911",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139396",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18503",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"maria teresa miramontes pinon",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
52003
|
Pressure cooker rice quality vs high-end rice cooker
I'm considering buying a proper rice cooker, as we've eaten most of the non-stick coating of the cheap one. The forums rave about induction heating, Zojirushi, Tiger, Toshiba RC-18NMF with its cast-iron pot, Buffalo with their stainless steel pots. And now there is also the Tefal RK704 with its ceramic pot to consider...
Occasionally it comes up that folks cook rice in their electric pressure cookers, and it takes them on the order of 10 minutes! That speed sounds like a major advantage. Why would anyone use a rice cooker? (At least the expensive ones?)
Comments such as this one seem to indicate that the high-end rice cookers do something special, resulting in longer cooking times (50 minutes) and better-tasting rice.
So my question is: is this difference real? Is it noticeable by ordinary people? Has anyone tested this side-by-side, with the same rice?
Is there any other reason I'm missing that a rice cooker be more convenient than a modern electric pressure cooker?
I have a Cuckoo rice cooker (10/10, excellent, would buy again) and it is a rice cooker AND electric pressure cooker! It has a turbo mode that cooks rice from start to finish in like 15 minutes, but the slower settings produce better rice.
The other advantage to a rice cooker is that Japanese ones come with timer functions. I know of no electric pressure cooker that would allow you to load rice and water in the morning, and come home to just cooked rice for dinner. This helps to offset the 45-1hr cooking times for brown rice, if it can be "set-and-forget".
@fontophilic the Instant Pot does that.
There are some advantages to a pressure cooker, but I don't think that the rice QUITE finishes in 10 minutes in my experience. For proper texture, it still seems to take some time for the rice to fully hydrate and steam itself after the heat is off. A normal well-covered pot of (most kinds of) rice takes approximately 25-30 min after it comes to a boil, and 10-15 minutes of that is resting with no heat. The pressure cooker might save 8-10 minutes off of that, because I think you'll not need as much time on heat.
The downsides of a pressure cooker include: 1) It's much too easy to cook off too much water and burn or dry out the rice while on full heat, because you cannot see how much water is inside. 2) It doesn't hot hold the rice very well. (In Japan, Korea and China, it's generally considered rude to serve cooled off rice). and 3) It's also not so easy to cook a small amount of rice, because the minimum amount of liquid (by manufacturer recommendations, based on capacity of the vessel) may be higher than you'd need for a typical 180ml scoop of rice. Items 1 and 3 can be mitigated with practice, I suppose. I had pretty good results with a stovetop pot that wasn't a pressure cooker back when I did it regularly, and I think it's not that hard to adapt to the difference with a pressure cooker, but I've certainly made my share of timing and water volume mistakes.
The induction rice cooker I have does have a "quick" mode, which finishes in about 23-25 minutes (similar to stovetop). The cycle doesn't seem to perfectly steam the rice compared to the regular or eco mode cycles, however; texture is a bit firmer than it ideally should be. The 43 minute standard cycle produces very good results, never burns, and keeps hot without major texture compromise for up to about 8 hours (after that texture degrades, but mine will keep even longer if I leave it on). Some models even have an "okoge' feature to simulate the traditional cast-iron pot technique that was common in Japan through the early 20th century, which results in an intentional slightly crusty bottom. IH and Fuzzy Logic rice cookers make constant subtle adjustments that you may not need to make if you're very consistent in timing and volume with a stovetop or pressure cooker.
Mostly the value of a rice cooker is that you set it and forget it. Once you start it you can focus on the prep work for other things. I use it even when I'm using the pressure cooker for lentils or whatever. The hot holding, which is still essentially an extension of "set it and forget it," is another key advantage.
It's perfectly easy to cook, say, 1/2 a cup (~140ml) of rice in a pressure cooker. Put the rice in a small metal container, add 3/4 cup of water, place the metal container on top of the steamer trivet that comes with most pressure cookers, add 1 cup of water to the cooker (not to the container with the rice), and cook at high pressure for 4 minutes, let the pressure release naturally. And rice does cook perfectly, in my experience, in approx 10-12 minutes all told (including time to let the cooker come down in pressure naturally) in a pressure cooker.
I don't think most pressure cookers come with a steamer insert (maybe it's more common with electric ones? I didn't see any stovetop ones that had anything like that when I bought mine) but that's an excellent suggestion for cooking smaller volumes of rice.
My Fissler came with one, and it's not electric. But even others I've seen have a steamer insert and a l'lle trivet to put it on. The trivet is generally needed for any type of cooking when the food is placed in a container inside the cooker, not just while steaming. I've stacked multiple containers on the trivet to cook, say, rice and lentils at once.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.374364
| 2014-12-27T05:55:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/52003",
"authors": [
"Anthony J",
"Dan Chin",
"Diana Barker",
"JasonTrue",
"John Havel",
"SourDoh",
"fontophilic",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24962",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51912",
"verbose"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
40378
|
My bread cuts doesn't expand the way I like
I can't seem to get that final rise in the oven. I would expect and prefer the cuts to show a more prominent rise.
This bread is
- 310g water
- 501g bread flour (13%protein)
- 12g salt
- 20 grams fresh yeast.
Cold water and other ingredients. Machine pounding it for 14 minutes.
First proofing 1h50 minutes. Second proofing 45 minutes. Kitchen temp is about 24C, 76F.
I brushed it with oil before second proofing, covered it in clingfilm. It is dry here at wintertime.
The actual bread was quite nice.
The odd picture is just to acknowledge that most frying pans seems to be coders.
The top related question is http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7749/why-doesnt-my-bread-rise-in-the-oven-not-first-rise Does that answer your question?
@Jefromi I am doing most of the tricks in the top answer. Still thanks for the pointer.
You have only 62% hydration for a dough with lots of protein, and then you put it for whole 14 minutes in the mixer.
You must be aware that gluten is a strong elastic mesh before it is baked. When you pull at it, it pulls back. Similarly, when the steam and other gases in the bread try to expand in the hot oven, the gluten keeps them from expanding too much. It is like pumping up a bicycle tire - the harder the tire rubber, the less it expands, even if you pump lots of air into it.
You must be aware that 1) French bread recipes at 60% hydration are meant for AP flour at ca. 10% gluten, not bread flour at 13% gluten (the flour variety for bread flour is not common in Europe), and 2) 15 minutes of kneading is typical for hand kneading, not for machine kneading. The combination of low hydration, high gluten flour and long machine kneading will give you a very strong gluten which will be quite resistant to expansion during rising.
If you want to have softer, larger loaves, you should work with more hydration. I frequently use 70% even with AP flour, it is still quite easy to work with with a good technique. You can also consider less kneading and/or using a softer flour.
If you want a stiffer, denser bread, you cannot get more rise. It is normal for these recipes to stay less risen. In this case, keep everything as it is, and eat the bread the way it is now - I see nothing especially wrong with it.
To encourage oven spring, you want to have a steamy environment in your oven for the first 5-10 minutes of the baking period. This will delay the setting of the crust, allowing better expansion.
For more details, see:
How to build steam in the oven for getting an oven spring?
How can I create steam in a normal oven to promote bread oven spring?
Good slashing can also help, allowing the dough to expand where it has not formed a tight net of gluten strands holding the loaf closely together. You can see some examples of the effect of different slash patterns at:
What effect do different slash patterns have on bread oven spring?
See also:
* Why doesn't my bread rise in the oven? (Not first rise)
The manner of the slash makes a difference too. A slash down vertically into the bread rarely gets good results. A more oblique slash results in more pronounced 'ears' and generally a better looking loaf.
I did vertical slashes. Not sure wether that made the whole difference though. The slashings SAJ shows are amazing.
Since steam has already been covered, I'll skip to other points (but yes, steam, you need steam).
One of the most important points is that you don't want your bread to be absolutely fully proofed before you bake it. Instead of getting the maximum volume while proofing, you want to have a few inches of expansion left that will happen in the oven. This will help to really open up your slashes.
High oven heat helps to generate more steam to expand your loaf in the oven and give you cleaner cuts. This works in tandem with steam though, so if you can't get some steam into your oven it won't do you much good.
Finally, your cuts need to be deep enough to really open up. You could basically think of them as expansion joints. In a properly proofed loaf, if you cut one inch deep, you can get 2 inches of expansion (each side of the cut is one inch, so when stretched out, it allows 2 inches total). You're not just creating a weak spot in the outer gluten sheath of your loaf, you need to actually cut down into it a bit. I've seen some bakers cut over a quarter of the way through loaves when scoring. If you have trouble with the dough dragging on your blade, you can dust your loaf lightly with flour. Rice flour is frequently used for this.
So, the takeaway: try a slightly shorter final proof, a hotter oven (provided you have steam), and deeper cuts.
Steam, has already been mentioned.
Put your bread in a bread basket for proofing.
For my taste it is too much yeast for that time.
How will a basket make any difference for oven spring?
In the basket the bread will keep his tension and will not flow. There will be more power left to rise while baking. And this makes a nice set off crust.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.374811
| 2013-12-18T22:08:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40378",
"authors": [
"Baster",
"Captain Giraffe",
"Cascabel",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Gene Brown",
"Moovendra Dhinesh babu",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sam",
"X627",
"codyshir6969",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93886",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93889",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93942",
"sillis"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
39815
|
Does oil/butter help rise the dough?
When I'm baking regular white bread: wheat flour+water+yeast. I often find my first rise to do well, but my second rise halts prematurely. It does not double.
I think/guess the reason is mostly because of a drying out effect on the outer layer, impeding the rise. I don't think it is the yeast running out of steam; when I cut the loaves before the oven, the cuts makes a significant change in the rise.
Would the drying out effect be lessened if I added oil or butter to the mix?
If so, how does this effect the wetness of the dough?
This is the result of 2 hours for the first rise, 50 minutes for the second.
Update: Following the advice provided gave me a wonderfully light and smooth giant loaf of bread. I used oil and cling wrap instead of kitchen towels for both proofings.
If you can provide a closeup picture, around one of your cuts or slashes, I am sure that would help identify if you are having drying issues.
@SAJ14SAJ Just thought of that. I'll try and upload a pic from my phone.
The paleness of that crust makes me think it's quite dry (unless it just appears that way from your flash?). You could also mist it with water a few minutes before it goes in the oven.
Oil or butter are dough enrichments, and they will change the quality of your loaf. This may be a positive change in flavor and texture, as well as making it stale more slowly, but it is a change. They will also slow the action of the yeast slightly.
Instead, if the cause of your failure to get a second proofing is that the outside of the loaf is drying out (which from the edited in picture appears to be the case), coat just the outside very lightly with oil or butter, then cover loosely with cling wrap. I like to spray cling wrap with spray oil, then lay it over the surface of the loaf.
You may also want to improvise a proofing box with your microwave, by boiling some water in the chamber for a few minutes, then using the cavity as the proof box. You still want to oil and cover the loaf while it rises.
This will keep the outside from drying out and losing its elasticity, so that the proofing can continue.
A second possible cause is that the yeast are running out of readily available sugars to digest, and so their action is just slowing down considerably. You might try adding a teaspoon of sugar to the liquid when you are first making the dough to provide some extra food for the yeast.
I have only used cling film with the first proofing. Will try. My last attempt was a 2 hour 1:st proof, 50 min 2:nd proof, the surface seemed really stiff by then. Some good cuts before the oven showed me, the bread had a lot of rise left in it.
No, the oil/butter won't really help with the rise of the dough. But it WILL affect your oven spring if the skin is dry. You may be expecting too much of the second rise, it's not supposed to be a bunker-buster like the first one.
A reputable baker told me the following:
You get double or more with the first rise, if you punch the
bread, the second rise will be give you another 30% and the once more third
rise will be another 10%.
If you get a 20% spring in the oven, you're doing great.
You want to avoid the hard skin, but keep in mind that yeast growth is much stronger than the skin and if it is growing, it will simply crack the skin and push open. In the oven on the other hand, the hard skin will stop the spring dead in its tracks. This is one reason bakers use humidity controlled ovens.
Finally, unlike fermentation in wine, as the yeast produces more the CO2 it is trapped in the bread and makes it acidic and less hospitable to the yeast. Even if you feed it more, you won't necessarily get the yield you'd imagine.
I never punch the bread, I try to be gentle. Yes the oven spring is about 20%. I guess because of my plentiful cuts.
I usually spray water into the oven when I put it in.
It helps. if you put a rimmed cookiesheet and pour boiling water, in it helps, as well. No match for a commercial oven though.
If your second rise halts prematurely, it's probably due to the yeast running out of nutrients. You could try starting with less yeast, adding a bit of sugar, or giving it a shorter first rise.
If the outer layer is actually drying, it will crack, but keep rising. To prevent this drying, the dough ball is usually coated in oil or butter and then topped with plastic or a damp towel. Adding butter or oil to the mix won't significantly prevent the dough from drying, but it will make it more supple (to a point) and make the finished bread softer.
If I cut it before the owen, the owen rise does alot. That's why I'm so hung up on the drying issue. Let me add that to the question.
I do find very small long cracks. Fine white lines.
Please substitute owen for oven in the above message.
If it is drying, adding oil or butter to the dough won't help much. Instead you want to COAT the dough in a very thin layer of oil or butter, and then cover it with something to prevent contact with air. That's where the plastic or cloth cover comes in. Dough with oil may take a few more minutes to dry out, but it's not going to help that much (and especially if it's drying so much that the dough can't rise beyond it).
Your username inclines me to tell that I do not have this problem with sourD'OHs, only yeast based ones.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.375217
| 2013-11-27T21:58:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39815",
"authors": [
"Captain Giraffe",
"MandoMando",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SourDoh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28184
|
How can I make Pacman muffins?
I'm a huge Pacman fan and therefore I would like to create some Pacman muffins next week. I was searching for a receipt in the Internet, but couldn't really found one. I could find quite a few pictures of Pacman muffins, but nowhere is a guideline how those muffins were made.
These are likely cupcake, not muffins, though the two are very similar.
What makes pacman muffins different from any other muffins is only their decoration, not their content. So of course there are no special recipes for them.
You should pick any recipe for iced muffins, or even pick two separate recipes, one for plain muffins and one for icing. Buttercream would be a good choice, as well as other soft types of icing. Then you have to color your icing yellow and black, and place it on the muffins in the desired shape.
As it seems that you are a beginner in cake icing, some help would be good. Icing can be a messy process, and creating patterns is harder than plain icing. I would place a paper strip folded in the middle on the muffin to separate the yellow and black areas, and only remove it when both colors are done. Fixing with toothpicks may be helpful.
You sound like you have never tasted fresh pac-man before. I prefer it roasted but it can be pureed into muffins. Ghosts and pellets make excellent garnish.
I only buy 100% cherry-fed 8-bit certified pacman myself.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.375667
| 2012-11-02T19:53:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28184",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Jenia Be Nice Please",
"Nix",
"Pvo",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64845",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64847",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64851",
"jstraj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
89495
|
When to apply a white egg wash on white wheat bread?
My go to bread is a much appreciated result of many tips from this site. It is a basic 75% hydration high-protein wheat bread that proofs in total for about 4.5-5.5 hours. I think it qualifies as a no knead bread.
I wanted to get a shinier and softer surface so I tried to brush on a white egg wash with a 3:1 whites:water ratio. I can't imagine this to be an issue.
I applied the wash just before I tossed it in to the oven at 240C -> reduced to 200C after the initial steam (about 40 grams of water I threw in) wore off.
The result was disappointing in that I didn't get it as shiny as I'd hoped for and the brushing looked like it was painted on, not a part of the crust. The crust also has none of the softness I'd expect from something with egg-white protein in it.
I hope my question isn't too broad, my immediate concern is, should I brush on the egg white just after final shaping: 20 minutes before it goes in the oven or is it fine to brush it on immediately before?
After the answers:
This is a poor reference: My main problem was that my electronic scale was off in an unpredictable fashion.
Do you really want the egg wash to be with only the whites?
@Jade I think so. I don't want any extra color or flavor.
@JadeSo please don't answer in comments, I know this seems like a small thing but it is actually breaking most of our quality mechanisms. See https://rpg.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6533/should-users-refrain-from-answers-or-partial-answers-in-comments for a longer explanation.
@rumtscho sorry I didn't think of it as an answer really, thats why I used it as a comment rather than in the answers. It seemed like it was more of a possible guess.
@rumtscho where would be a good place to put possible options then; because by no means was that comment a full answer.
@JadeSo An answer does not have to be full. If you think that something has a chance of working, you can write it up as an answer. If you find it so far fetched that it shouldn't be in an answer, please don't post it at all. I know that personal conversations function differently and that one feels compelled to offer anything on the topic rather than staying silent, but we have found out that this model doesn't work well here. Anything that addresses the question should be an answer, and you are not obliged to write anything if you think you don't have a good answer.
You are trying to counteract the formation of a crust - which is the opposite of what a good hot bake works towards.
The key to this is to keep the surface of the dough as moist as possible and this starts already after the shaping during the second rise. Apply the first wash at this point. I personally go for a whole egg, mixed with a splash or two of milk. This will reduce the “skin” that tends to form on the surface. Repeat the egg-washing right before you bake your bread. A generous steaming will also slow down the crust formation.
If you don’t like the slight color caused by the egg yolks, using more milk or pure cream could be a start in the right direction.
But without eggs, it’s difficult to get a soft crust and that lacquer-like gloss. This is an enriched dough, twice brushed with cream and baked at 200 - 180 C for about 45 minutes:
The crust is super soft, though.
For hard crusts on bread, a quick spray or wipe down with water just a minute or two before you pull it out will be the simplest way.
I think what JadeSo might have been hinting at is that using a whole egg will make the crust of the bread just as shiny as the egg white, without compromising on flavor or color. I usually brush on the egg right after the shaping of the loaves to keep make sure the top of the loaves don't get dry, and then brush on egg again immediately before baking. Crust is going to be "crusty" and not as soft as the inside of the bread. Hope that helps.
Dryness is a concern.
Try a 50:50 whites:water ratio at the last 5-10 mins of baking (depending on the oven temp), be sure the egg wash is fully mixed but try not to aerate the egg whites.
I honestly think you should try a typical egg wash with yolk and all (same ratio though), it won't add much if any flavour given how little you'd be putting on. This should also give you that desired glossy top.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.375830
| 2018-04-30T00:25:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89495",
"authors": [
"Captain Giraffe",
"Jade So",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66642",
"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
}
|
123146
|
Dominique Ansel book - ambiguity in the recipe
I have this book https://www.amazon.com/Everyone-Can-Bake-Simple-Recipes/dp/1501194712 at home. And I wanted to try the "White Chocolate Glaze" from page 253.
But I am baffled about this step:
Make the syrup: Combine the glucose, sugar, and 60 grams (¼ cup) water in a medium saucepan and clip a digital thermometer to the side of the pan. Bring to a boil over high heat. Cook until the mixture reaches 113º to 122ºF (45º to 50ºC), about 10 minutes. Stir in the gelatin mixture with a spatula until incorporated. Remove from the heat.
These steps seem in contradiction to each other. How should they be interpreted so I may proceed?
I would assume a typo - change one(!) letter and the logic fits again:
Bring to a boil over high heat.
Cool until the mixture reaches 113º to 122ºF (45º to 50ºC), about 10 minutes. Stir in the gelatin mixture
Further explanation:
If something is unclear and temperature is involved, you need to always check for a °F/°C mixup, but given the “45° to 50°C”, which matches the numbers in °F, we can pretty much exclude that.
Gelatin should never be boiled, because then it loses its binding/thickening properties, dissolving in warm liquid is standard procedure.
So as we have confirmed that the target temperature is what the writer intended, the only way to get there from boiling is by letting the mixture cool down.
There's also the nonsensical "remove from heat" instruction at the end to contend with...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.376196
| 2023-01-27T08:19:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123146",
"authors": [
"Marti",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.