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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
7558
|
How do you remove cayenne pepper (capsicum oils) from your hands?
Possible Duplicate:
Cure for burns from hot peppers / capsicum oil?
The cayenne pepper crops are in and I have been stringing peppers for winter use and drying, I also tend to use a lot of peppers in my dishes but inevitably an hour after processing those peppers I will rub my eyes, and that is a lot of burn. I know I could use latex/rubber gloves but I am not going to. I have tried everything including dishwashing detergent, the dry kind, lava soap, vinegar, and coffee grounds nothing seems to work. How do you remove those oils from your hands?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.445256
| 2010-09-23T15:04:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7558",
"authors": [
"Kelly",
"Ritch Melton",
"endian",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15521",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15523",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15595",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15599",
"karen",
"user1790945"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
62756
|
Does this type of frosting have a name?
I've previously asked about converting a family recipe for a cocoa frosting to a coffee frosting instead, and got a pretty good answer, but it's all very theoretical and "try this" and "try that", and I just don't have the time or, to tell the truth, the patience, to experiment like that. I think what I want is an established recipe, or rather, a way to search for an established recipe. Problem is, if you search for "coffee frosting", you get various types of buttercreams, all of which involve copious quantities of powdered sugar.
If I could instead search for "coffee [insert type of frosting here]", I might have better luck. Problem is, haven't the faintest idea what this frosting method/technique is called (assuming it has a name).
Here's the recipe:
Ingredients: 2 heaping tableserving spoons Dutch-processed cocoa (the original recipe just calls for 2 big spoonfuls, but in family practice, this has morphed to a whole lot more cocoa than that), 3 to 5 tablespoons granulated sugar (depending on how heavy-handed you were with the cocoa), 5 tablespoons water, 8 egg yolks, 2 sticks unsalted butter.
Method: combine everything except the butter in the top of a double boiler. Cook slowly, stirring pretty much constantly, until very thick and sticky. (It'll take a while, and your arms will get pretty tired.) Let cool. Meanwhile, whip the butter until light and fluffy. Combine the completely cooled chocolate mixture and the butter.
Does anyone recognize this type or method of making frosting? Does it have a name?
Looks like I need to edit to make it clear that it's the method that I'm after, not a vague resemblance of the ingredients.
So, the method, in more detail: combine starch (cocoa powder, in this case), sugar, a relatively large quantity of egg yolks, and a relatively tiny quantity of water. Cook in a double boiler, stirring constantly. If you find yourself scraping thickened mixture off the bottom of the pot while the rest of the mixture isn't as thick, immediately remove from the heat and stir like crazy until smooth. Rinse and repeat, until your arms are screaming, and the mixture is so thick that when you lift the whisk, the cream slowly falls off in clumps, rather than in a solid stream. Let cool completely. When cooled, the mixture is about the same texture as butter, just stickier. Thus, you can simply dump the entire cooked mixture into the butter (or the butter into the mixture, makes no difference), without worrying about curdling or separating, and whip away until no streaks remain.
As you can see, there's no cooking of sugar syrup, there's no hoping-the-sugar-will-cook-the-yolks-without-curdling-them, there's no dropping-the-butter-into-the-cream-in-small-cubes-and-praying-it-incorporates, and there is starch, so it is absolutely, positively NOT a French buttercream. The relatively tiny quantity of liquid means that this doesn't really resemble a German buttercream or a "flour buttercream", either, though a German buttercream made creme mousseline style (i.e. with pastry cream instead of custard) gets tantalizingly close...
If you were using alcohol instead of water, it might be a Zabaglione ... but that also doesn't have the butter in it.
It sounds like a German buttercream which is an egg yolk custard that is blended into whipped butter.
Hmm, this is getting closer to the right track, especially if made with a stiff pastry cream instead of a softish custard... Next time I make "my" frosting, I'll have to remember to take a picture of the cooked mixture. It gets really thick and sticky: even when still hot, it falls off the whisk in big clumps rather than a stream, and when it's cooled, it's about the same consistency as the butter. There's no issues with curdling or separating with "my" frosting. ("My" because it's really not mine, it's my great-grandfather's recipe.)
@Marti Yeah, I meant "custard" in the sense of "sweet goop thickened with eggs" as opposed to "sweet goop thickened with starch" (pudding). The link mentions using thicker custard for a thicker buttercream.
I've been reading up on German buttercreams online, and it does sound like the family recipe is basically a version of it, with a particularly stiff pudding/custard/pastry cream/whatchacallit.
Looks like the term you want is "French buttercream".
American buttercream is, as you say, full of sugar but rarely has eggs, relying on powdered sugar and butter with a bit of wet in the form of a dash of milk, cream, or alcohol.
French buttercream is based on egg yolks and contains relatively little sugar and is cooked over a double boiler.
French buttercream is made by heating a sugar syrup until it reaches soft ball stage and then whipping it into beaten egg yolks and soft butter. This is the shiny, rich frosting of your dreams.
Italian Buttercream is similar but uses egg whites rather than yolks, so it's more of a meringue.
It's similar to French buttercream in that you use a boiling syrup of sugar and water and cook it to soft-ball stage but then you pour it over beaten egg whites to create a meringue. As the meringue cools, you slowly add butter and mix like your life depended on it.
The ingredients are similar, but the technique is vastly different: French buttercream involves a stage of candy-making, plus you have to worry about getting the proportions and temperatures just right so that the hot syrup safely cooks the yolks. The recipe being asked about skips all of that: you combine everything but the butter and cook it until thick, then add it to the butter once it's cold.
I don't see how French buttercream comes even remotely close: it contains no starch (and one thing I learned from the last go-around is that cocoa contains a fairly significant proportion of starch), and the method doesn't resemble my recipe in any way.
Why do people keep upvoting this? It's completely the wrong answer!
I don't know what this method is called, but if you want to make a coffee cream frosting, then that's what your search for. I get three excellent results for "coffee cream cheese icing".
I don't think cream cheese would go well with a hazelnut torte, so no, I don't want a coffee cream cheese icing. (Also, I'm puzzled: what part of my question gave you the idea that I want a cream cheese frosting?)
It was your reference to wanting a coffee frosting. I didn't see anything about this being a hazelnut tort.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.445352
| 2015-10-23T22:06:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62756",
"authors": [
"Anton",
"Dawn McGrorty",
"Escoce",
"Gareth Batte",
"JPmiaou",
"Joe",
"Kenyatta Davis",
"Marti",
"Mary Sharp",
"Rory Jones",
"SourDoh",
"Tobie Wethington",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149292",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149538",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149584",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39087",
"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
}
|
8961
|
How to peel chestnuts?
The chestnuts on an open fire question reminded me: Is there a trick to peeling chestnuts easily? I always end up with bits of hairy skin stuck to the chestnuts (ick), and/or stuck under my fingernails (ouch). We usually roast them in the oven (after slitting them suitably, of course); is there a cooking method that results in easier peeling?
In case it matters, I'd want the chestnuts either for eating out of hand, or for making chestnut puree.
Related : Is there a good technique for cooking chestnuts
My experience has been that the freshest chestnuts can be peeled pretty easily if I do it while they're still hot (I usually roast them). This does mean that one's fingers can get burned, though! I wonder whether some of the recommended techniques for peeling garlic cloves would help with "sticky" chestnut-skins? [Choosing fresh chestnuts over moldy ones is a problem in itself; off to see if there's a question about that!]
+1. The "secret" is that supermarket chestnuts aren't fresh. Go to a good-quality Chinese market for fresh chestnuts.
I use a dishtowel to handle and peel them, when very hot, and this reduces most of the burning but my thumbs are usually very sore when I am done. It's worth it though!
I was told but I never tried, so try this at your own risk
Put the chestnuts in microwave (yes the whole chestnuts with outer skins) for 30 seconds. The skin should crack open and the hairy skin will come off nicely.
Please don't vote me down if this sounds stupid and I will remove this.
I did this a number of times and it works. I did score the outer skin, though.
I tried the uncut in microwave 30 seconds...a few worked a few blew up...but what a laugh we had doing it...I’ve researched and tried anything you can name but I think the answer is much simpler than that, I buy my stuff at supermarket and I think it’s just they are not fresh enough...I’ve seen people scoring the chestnut with a sharp knife I’ve had to use a a sharp knife and a hammer..my skins are rock hard..I’ve read the best place to buy them is Chinese supermarkets..so I’ll try that next...good luck all..
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.445976
| 2010-11-08T23:43:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8961",
"authors": [
"Austin Priebe",
"BaffledCook",
"Craig Stuntz",
"Deniz",
"Joe",
"Kate Gregory",
"Waquo",
"abaker",
"bettravechelou",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18329",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18331",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18336",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18440",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/346",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"polishsputnik"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46592
|
Can I convert this cocoa frosting to a coffee frosting instead?
Our family's go-to recipe for celebration cakes is a hazelnut torte with a semi-sweet, cocoa-based chocolate frosting. The torte is completely flourless, and pretty sweet (gotta get structure from somewhere!). Thus, the frosting is minimally sweetened to provide contrast, and to prevent the whole thing from becoming sickly-sweet.
Problem is, we have two close friends who are allergic to chocolate. A few years ago, I got the excellent suggestion to use a coffee-flavored frosting instead. We (my sister and I) tried it, and it worked as far as the flavor goes, but the frosting just wasn't as good as the chocolate original: it had texture issues, and despite doing our utmost to make sure we didn't add too much sugar, it was still too sweet.
I've looked for coffee frosting recipes, but they all seem to involve several cups of powdered sugar. Riiiight.
So, can y'all help me convert this recipe to using coffee instead of the cocoa? Bonus points if the end result is gluten-free (just to uphold the tradition, really). Also, the torte is made with 8 egg whites, so it would be nice if the converted frosting recipe would continue to use up the 8 egg yolks.
Ingredients: 2 heaping tableserving spoons Dutch-processed cocoa (the original recipe just calls for 2 big spoonfuls, but in family practice, this has morphed to a whole lot more cocoa than that), 3 to 5 tablespoons granulated sugar (depending on how heavy-handed you were with the cocoa), 5 tablespoons water, 8 egg yolks, 2 sticks unsalted butter.
Method: combine everything except the butter in the top of a double boiler. Cook slowly, stirring pretty much constantly, until very thick and sticky. (It'll take a while, and your arms will get pretty tired.) Let cool. Meanwhile, whip the butter until light and fluffy. Combine the cooled chocolate mixture and the butter.
What kind of coffee are you using? This is one of the few places I would use instant.
Ooh, I want your Hazelnut Torte recipe!!
@Jolenealaska: thoroughly butter (using unsalted butter) an 8x10 cake pan. Blanch & roast hazelnuts and grind to a fine meal using a nut grinder. Whip 8 egg whites with 280 grams powdered sugar until very stiff. Gently but thoroughly fold in 280 grams of the hazelnut flour. Spread in prepared pan; bake in medium oven (325°ish) until sides separate from pan, about 30 minutes. Cool 10 minutes, then turn onto rack and cool thoroughly. Trim off edges and cut in half lengthwise to make the two layers. Fill & frost with chocolate frosting (see recipe in question).
Cool! Thanks! :) Is that 8x10 inches? Of course I can't imagine what else it could be, it's just an odd size to me.
@Jolenealaska: yes, inches. It might be 8x12; I always forget what the standard rectangular cake pan size is.
I don't see the nuts in the recipe part. Is it complete?
@MichaelE.: which recipe? The frosting doesn't have nuts, they all go in the torte. (And the torte doesn't have chocolate, it all goes in the frosting.)
You can also find Instant Espresso powder - check specialty grocery stores. You can even add a small amount of very finely ground coffee - the darker the roast the better.
The first thing I notice is that you are missing starch. Cocoa powder is 60% carbohydrates by weight. It will change the texture a lot, giving body and smoothness. The rest is fat and protein.
I would suggest that you start with 60% as much starch as your usual cocoa, and 5 tablespoons brewed coffee instead of the water. Cook your pudding - you may have to cook it through instead of using the double boiler, I don't know if cocoa starch is behaving differently, but when adding cornstarch to custard, it is normally cooked through because 1) it thickens better and 2) the yolks can "eat" your starch within a day, liquefying it, unless deactivated by heat. You can try small batches with both versions and see which one turns out better.
The fat in the cocoa is not so much, so maybe it's not worth replacing it. But if you want a fat which gives the whole thing a bit more solidity, add cocoa oil, about 15% of the original cocoa powder weight. Or even add more of it and reduce the butter for a stiffer effect.
Using your original amount of sugar and Arabica coffee should result in a recipe which isn't too sweet. But if you still have problems with sweetness, try adding small amounts of acid, maybe cream of tartar (citric acid has a noticeable flavor of its own).
I'll have to ask the allergic friends whether cocoa oil is OK for them. (It might be; one of them definitely eats white chocolate without any ill effects.) This is basically what we tried - cook a pudding, add butter. Like I said, the texture wasn't quite there - it was too, I dunno, I want to say "watery", but that's not really it. Also, the frosting developed cracks after about 12 hours on the cake.
(I'm being somewhat vague because I don't remember the details of what we tried, probably because my sister was primarily responsible for the frosting. For example, I don't know whether she used corn starch or wheat flour, and I imagine those two starches could behave very differently.)
Sorry, I meant coconut oil. Of course, cocoa butter is even better if your friend can eat it. I don't know about the "watery" part, this is my best guess but I have never made neither the original pudding nor the modification, it was a theoretical idea.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.446207
| 2014-08-23T00:28:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46592",
"authors": [
"Aishling Paige Hanlon",
"Amanda Hall",
"Deborah Prather",
"James McLeod",
"Jolenealaska",
"Marti",
"Michael E.",
"Steve Pike",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112311",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4976",
"john3103",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
27625
|
Why do my cookies fall flat and not cook on the bottom?
I'm fairly new to baking, but I've been attempting to make cookies lately. They taste good, but come out looking like this:
The bottom looks like this:
They spread out a lot in the oven (they went in as balls ~1 inch diameter and came out as flat disks ~4 or more inches across) and don't really have a crust on the bottom. I used these ingredients:
1 stick butter
1/2 cup sugar
1/2 cup brown sugar
1 egg
1 tsp vanilla extract
1/2 cup pumpkin puree
1 1/2 cups flour
1 tsp baking soda
1/4 tsp salt
2 tsp pumpkin pie spice
~1/2 - 1 cup milk chocolate chips
To cream the butter with the white sugar I let it sit for about half an hour, cut it into small chunks, let it sit a little longer, and then alternated beating them with a fork and a hand mixer with beater attachments. I'm looking into getting a stand mixer. The dough for the pictured batch was chilled in the fridge overnight.
How can I keep them from spreading out so much and develop a crust on the bottom?
Edit: I baked them at 350F, fully preheated, for around 15 minutes on a bare cookie sheet. I peeked after about 8 minutes and then probably two more times after that before I took them out.
What temp. oven are you using and for how long?
350F, they looked "done" after about 15 minutes
I took another look at your recipe and realized that the recipe I'm familiar with is identical except that it requires 1 3/4 cups flour (and that's without the added liquid ingredient - pumpkin). Just thought I'd mention that.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice first I will point you to an article in our blog Silpat, Parchment Paper or Plain Baking Sheet. @KatieK contrasts these cooking surfaces.Look at the instructions for time and temp. Are you thoroughly Preheating? You pictures indicate that you are using parchment, but you don't mention time/temp.
My first inclination based on what I see is that you are baking them too long at too low a temp, and not fully preheating. If you raise the temp and shorten the time the cookie will not spread as far. With 'scoop' cookies you expect the dough to spread some, but you are getting too much spread. The higher temperature will cause the cookie to form a solid (ok, solidish, it should be soft but 'strong enough' to hold form) This will also give you better "bottoms" as they will bake faster as well.
Another thing you might be doing is opening the oven door too often, this releases a lot more heat than you think, extending the correct baking time and slowing the process. I know it is sometimes hard to resist peeking, try to not open the door till you are at least 75% through the projected time.
I made the exact same dough, planning to test different cookie sheets, with or without a little extra flour, and at 350 and 375. The first baseline cookie I made I left in for 12 minutes without opening the oven door, and it came out great! Thank you.
Those pictures suggest two things to me:
Butter too warm. The point of letting your butter sit on the counter is to let it warm up to room temperature. But if the room is too warm, then the butter gets too melty. Aim for about 65 degrees F, a somewhat cooler room temperature. (FWIW, I never bother to cut butter into cubes for cookies - the stand mixer handles that for me.)
Too much wet stuff. Try without the pumpkin puree just to see the structure of these cookies "plain". Half a cup is an awful lot of liquid for a batch of cookies.
To all the excellent advice already given, the best of which is that your dough is too wet, here are a couple more things to consider:
Just because the oven knob says 350 doesn't mean that's the temperature. Actually, that was my first clue my oven was broken - my cookies spread too much and didn't brown on the bottom. If you haven't done this already, use an oven thermometer to confirm it is heating to the correct temperature.
Your cookie sheet will affect outcome - I wanted to love my new Airbake sheets with their layer of air, but they did not allow my cookies to get a good bottom crust so I gave them away and went back to my old single-layer steel or aluminum pans.
I always make a test batch of a couple of cookies. Based on your photo, I would have added more flour then run another test batch.
Lastly, following a recipe exactly, especially when you're a novice, is usually your best bet. Yes, there are occasional mistakes or bad recipes but arbitrarily using off-recipe ingredients or making alterations will more likely waste your ingredients (and who wants to throw away expensive and tasty stuff like chocalate chips?)
Best of luck with your baking - the world needs more cookies!
It turns out the cookie sheet I was using is insulated. I compared it to another sheet, and they cooked a bit quicker and a little bit more on the bottom when on the solid sheet. Thanks!
Woop woop! I'm glad to know my years of cookie experience actually helped someone. :-)
If you want non-spreading cookies, you chose the wrong recipe.
use a shortening-based recipe. Shortening has very different melting qualities from butter. It stays solid for longer.
Use cake flour instead of all-purpose flour, it soaks up a bit more liquid so it helps reducing spread.
you also need a more acidic dough against spread, says Corriher (sadly, she doesn't explain why). Use a baking powder-based recipe, not baking soda.
With that pumpkin puree, you can also slightly increase the flour amount while keeping the rest the same.
chill not just the dough in a bowl, chill the baking sheet with the cookies on it. They get a bit warmer during portioning at room temperature.
These changes will change the taste of your recipe. Baking powder will remove the typical soda-taste, and butter tastes much better than shortening. You can try it and decide if shape is that important for you, as I would always prefer butter-tasting cookies over good-looking shortening cookies. You can also try to do a compromise and mix butter and shortening in equal amounts, which will give you some reduction in spread and some butter taste.
Temperature control is important too, but Cos Callis already covered the main points.
It's possible to make perfectly good cookies with all-purpose flour and butter (in fact that's essentially all I've ever made), and as long as the kitchen isn't too warm, you can do it without chilling the dough. (Though it is possible the OP's process let the butter soften too much.) I don't think those factors are nearly as big a deal here as all the extra liquid.
Are you at sea level?
Try cutting both of the sugars a bit (maybe by 1tsp each) and raising the temperature by 25 deg F. If the cookies are too dry after doing that, try adding an extra egg yolk.
Source: Cook's Illustrated
I don't think the problem is that thy cookies were too dry.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.446610
| 2012-10-05T20:35:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27625",
"authors": [
"Brian Hebert",
"Cascabel",
"Chris lonsbury",
"Corinne Rowe Juniel",
"Dharini Chandrasekaran",
"Gary Martin",
"Isaac Wasserman",
"KatieK",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Mark Overgaard",
"Metagrapher",
"Susan Barnes",
"Tom Smilack",
"Tricia Pentheros",
"dorhanner",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62361",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62362",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63880",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9262",
"user62356"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
67005
|
Did I ruin my stoneware dutch oven by heating it on a gas stove?
I was following this baked beans recipe. Relevant excerpt:
Place a cast iron Dutch oven over medium heat and stir in the bacon, onion, and jalapenos until enough fat has rendered from the bacon to soften the onions, about 5 minutes. Stir in the tomato paste, dark brown sugar, and molasses.
Drain the beans and reserve the soaking liquid. Add the drained beans to the Dutch oven. Place the soaking liquid in a measuring cup and add enough vegetable broth to equal 4 cups of liquid. Add the liquid to the Dutch oven and bring to a boil over high heat.
I don't have a cast iron dutch oven and wasn't sure everything would fit in my cast iron pan, so I started the process in the pan and transferred everything to my stoneware dutch oven (smooth and shiny - possibly enameled?) once it was time to add the beans and broth.
I had preheated the liquid in the dutch oven on low on my gas stove, and once I added everything else, I cranked it up to high. After a few minutes the bottom of the dutch oven darkened quite a bit, so I googled and found that you're not supposed to put stoneware on a direct heat source. I turned off the heat and transferred everything back to the pan (where it thankfully just fit) and resumed the recipe from there.
The dutch oven returned to its normal color once it cooled off, but I know that not all physical changes are clearly visible. It probably spent 5-10 minutes on low and 5-10 minutes on high.
Is the stoneware now significantly more likely to crack when heated? Or because it survived the endeavor, is it still okay to use it normally?
It sounds like you had a lucky escape. It's not temperature itself that would damage stoneware as it's fired at over 1000C in manufacture (Wikipedia). Differential thermal expansion is what breaks things, e.g. heating the base much faster than the sides, or heating a thin layer quickly before the rest has time to warm through. By preheating it slowly you probably avoided that.
I would however be a little wary for one or two uses - handle it carefully and use it when you wouldn't be devastated if it broke and ruined the meal. Also inspect for cracks.
The temporary darkening is a bit odd but unlikely to mean anything.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.447195
| 2016-03-01T21:21:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67005",
"authors": [
"Jen Spice",
"Ray Schwarz",
"Sabine Reichelt",
"Warren Ford",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160665",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160667",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160712"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
8416
|
Why should a stock be simmered and not boiled?
Anthony Bourdain's Les Halles cookbook says that a stock should NEVER be boiled, why is this? Does the higher heat extract bitterness or something else undesirable?
It seems a little strange because the bones used to make the stock were previously roasted in a hot oven.
I've only made stock once, well I guess it was a broth (see this post) but would like to improve on my technique.
You know, I experimented with this a long time ago and these are my conclusions:
Stews where you want to eat the meat, should NOT boil, because you ruin the cells before the tough stuff can gelatinise
people translated this to stock, but you wont eat that meat (if any), so this is nonsense
volatiles escaping when boiling in stead of simmering? difference of five degrees or so? Yes, because of the bubbles and the mechanics of the movement, but I never tasted any difference really
cloudy because of mechanic emulsification: yes. But cool it down, get rid of the fat, and filter with paper. You will have a pretty clear stock.
Why a clear stock anyway? Beats me. Visuals I suppose.
Makes boiling and getting muddy stock a different taste? mmmm, if you really boil them, yes, (see emulsion). If you de-fat and filter? None.
So: a perfect clear broth is a status symbol, like a gold watch: it takes effort to get it, but it is pretty useless really. It shows that the cook made an effort, but taste difference is pretty much zero. Boil your stock if that is easier for you. Use it unfiltered and with the fat still in it, makes great greasy sauces. Cool it down, and scoop that fat off if you want to be a bit more fancy. Filter it if you want to impress even more. Use the egg white method if you want near-perfection. But dont worry about boiling or not and checking for hours and hours.
"clear" is more a matter of cosmetics, as far as I can tell.
Mrs Beeton said "A boiled stew is a spoiled stew".
Keep it under a boil, so a couple of bubbles come up now and them.
If it bubbles away, some meats go tough, some flavour is lost and steam causes condensation in the bathroom upstairs. But eggs boil nicely.
Put the lid on, you will trap the heat and all the water wont evaporate. Turn it down a bit. Good to steam puddings.
Full rolling boil is only for pasta and jam.
I think the question was more focused on the stock/broth than the meat that is in stew or left after the stock is made. Good advice for the areas you address, though.
If you hold your hand above a pot of boiling stock, you'll discover another reason not to boil. It seems that the fats and oils from the stock get into the steam and then travel wherever the steam travels. Boil 8 or 10 batches of stock and you'll find your kitchen covered in a thin layer of grease if you don't have a ventilation system.
Simmering your stock reduces steam, which reduces the amount of fats and oils that escape from the pot.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.447410
| 2010-10-22T15:06:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8416",
"authors": [
"Chris",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Sam Devine",
"Stefan",
"Vanessa MacArthur",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156510",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17298",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"jj5939",
"russell molyneux"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29983
|
Why would I prefer carbon steel (rust prone) kitchen knife?
I've seen this question and obviously carbon steel (not stainless) knives look quite bad without extra care (picture from the linked to question)
Now my question is - why face the trouble? Why would I prefer a carbon steel kitchen knife over a stainless steel one?
Carbon steel is more malleable and less brittle than stainless steel. This means that it is easier to hone on a knife steel, to maintain an extremely sharp edge.
Some folks feel that the benefit of that sharp edge–for example, in easily slicing tomatoes, and other very fast prep tasks–is worth the compromise of more persnickety maintenance.
No!!!! Carbon steel is MORE brittle than stainless steel. Carbon steel is structurally harder than stainless, which typically results in better edge retention and hardness, but at the cost of brittleness (i.e. more prone to chipping). Contrary to popular belief, hardness is not always the most desirable quality when it comes to steel...optimal steel depends on what the knife is being used for and what kind of maintenance the user is willing to do on the knife.
It's also a myth that hardness makes a difference with slicing tomatoes, cucumbers, etc. The "toothiness" of the edge grind, geometry of the edge bevel and blade, and stiction of the knife blade surface as it slices through the product make a far greater difference to the feel, precision and resistance felt slicing a tomato than the material of the blade.
The exact carbon content and heat treatment will determine if the steel is brittle or soft. Stainless steel simply gives up a little of the overall "quality" of the steel to make itself stainless, carbon still will always be able to outperform it on any hardness measure, but will rust.
Lots of opinins but not much metallurgical knowledge.....reminds me of hotroders thinking something is better if its made out of billet instead 6061 AL (same thing). Where's that crazy smilie?
Carbon steel is actually a misnomer, in many industries carbond steel is refered to a mild steel alloy that isn't stailness. What our knives are made of is a medium to high carbon tool steel with a enough carbon that it can be hardened (all steels have some carbon). Stick with asking for carbon steel at the kitchen store or they won't know what you're talkning about, but thats the truth of it
Hardening means heating it past the critical tempurature (roughly red hot) and quenching it (differently mediums for different alloys, ie water, oil, air). After hardening, the steel is 'tempered' which means its reheated to a much low temp to 'let down' the steel or make it less brittle. This also reduces hardness, so the maker wants to create the right balance - different tools get different tempers depending whats expected from them - ie an impact tool is tempered at a higher temp to let it down more so it doesn't shatter. Left dead hard after a quench, the blade would be too brittle - it could shatter if dropped sort of thing.
Incidentally, this is what the japanese laminated cutting tools are all about - leave the inner tool steek very hard and use soft outer ducticle steel to give it strength.
Carbon steel knives were not created for sushi. They predate any stainless knife which is essentially a perfermance compromise - not has hard a steel (which IS edge holding ability) but the don't rust.
Carbon steel can be made extremely hard. even slightly harder than HSS (high speed steel) whose advantage is hardness at heat (up to red hot). This is an important foot note as grinding does expose the steel to very high temps - not all over but where the steel molecule meets the abrasive. Temps are high enough to effect the temper. This is why HSS is preferable for say a drill bit or even a chisel so it can ground and why you have to carefull with carbone steel if you're grinding so you don't wreck the temper
Anyway, maybe more than you wanted to know, but thats facts around the differences.
Carbon steel is, as you've mentioned, a lot harder to maintain than stainless steel. However, carbon steel is a harder metal than stainless steel, meaning that it will be less vulnerable to the physical stress of everyday use and will hold an edge longer than stainless steel. As such, carbon steel knives are generally regarded as better for heavy or extended use in busy kitchens, as the chefs won't have to stop and hone their blades quite as often throughout the day. Stainless steel knives, on the other hand, are much more resistant to staining and corrosion, but they are harder to sharpen and will require more frequent sharpening overall than carbon steel knives.
Each material has its pros and cons. In the end, you're really just trading one shortcoming for another—extra cleaning with carbon steel and extra sharpening with stainless steel—so the choice really just depends on what the knife will most often be used to do. If you frequently do a lot of hard chopping or slicing, investing in at least one quality carbon steel knife for heavy-duty applications may be a good idea. But if you're at home just cooking for your yourself or your family and will usually only need the knife for basic tasks and low-impact cuts, stainless steel will probably do just fine in most situations.
You can find more information on common knife materials in the following article:
http://www.jesrestaurantequipment.com/jesrestaurantequipmentblog/knife-guide-chefs-knives/
Hope that helps, and good luck with any future knife shopping!
I have a a few of each I don't k ow much about the science behind the making of them but personally I find I can get a super sharp edge on my carbon steel knives in no time at all which they hold well where as it takes me longer to get a no where near as sharp edge on my stainless steel knives and they don't hold it as long. This however could simply be my sharpening skills. Overall I find carbon much sharper and a lot nicer to use and I would always choose them over stainless but if I'm in a hurry I use a stainless. Personal preference I guess but I would recommend trying a carbon I got a small paring one to start and was so impressed I decided to splash not on a chefs knife.
Carbon steel is much cheaper than stainless steel although that isn't the only reason.
This is not correct. There is a great deal of price overlap between carbon and non-carbon steels, and high-end carbon steels can sell for 2x to 4x the price of stainless steels. For example, see http://www.alphaknifesupply.com/bladematerials.htm
Also, very cheap knives are almost always soft stainless.
Non-stainless alloys can be made with less (in percentage) alloying elements than stainless.
An alloyed steel is not a homogenous, amorphous mixture of whatever is stirred into the melting pot; things can form coarse or fine structures very much dependent on the specifics of the smelting, forging (or rolling), and heat treatment processes. The more admixtures, the more complex it gets to get it right. Unwanted coarse discontinuities, especially if they are not well attached and/or very hard and brittle or soft, make sharpening (or keeping an edge) precisely very hard because abrasives (or cutting medium) will have a different effect on these spots than on what is around them. At the same time, such spots in a controlled size can be welcome because they help stabilize the material. All a matter of balancing.
The thing is, inexpensive stainless steels used in medium-priced cutlery ($30-$150 price range) are commonly of a type that due to these limitations does not reach the hardness or fineness that just using carbon steel will afford you.
There are more modern semi-stainless/stainless steels considered equal or above carbon for culinary applications - these are, however, not often found in the medium price range - except the VG steels*, eg VG10, which are becoming more and more popular in that segment - but these are considered above (hard and robust) in some, below (not as hard or fine as the kind of carbon steel you would use for a sashimi knife) in other aspects. (To knife geeks: I'm referring to stuff like Silver-3, Niolox, or PM stainless, or SKD-anything-ish semi stainless at beginning of paragraph.)
Also, somebody producing carbon steel cutlery can usually assume that his customers will expect his wares being dishwasher- or snap-proof, so he has no reason to further limit hardness/use a more conservative grind/edge, trading in sharpness/edge retention for robustness.
*If you want to get a knife in VG steel, just look for any reputable but non-specialist retailer trying to sell you a damascus knife - chances are very high that you will end up with a VG steel knife.
I have one of each - I do a lot of general prep work with my stainless but prefer the Carbon for dismembering cuts of meat. The sharper blade tends to cut through ligament and tendon easier.
The high carbon steel knifes are self sharpening as much as they are rust prone. You may have to sharpen it under heavy use but on gentle use on veggies you'll eventually get an edge that will last a decade or more. As the edge wears sharp, will the sides. A thinner blade will result. My mother has been using these types of knifes for 80 years.
Unless you're considering going into Sushi preparation where a razor sharp edge to your knife is required I'd stick to the easy to maintain stainless steel knives.
Carbon steel knives are primarily intended (but not exclusively) for sushi preparation. The Japanese are fanatical about sushi hence the whole carbon steel knife industry surrounding it.
No surprise that the majority of the best carbon steel knives originate from Japan.
Stick with stainless steel which is fine for all kitchen uses apart form sushi preparation.
Not entirely accurate I'd say... I have a Chinese cleaver (such as the one in the picture in the original question) which is Carbon steel. I also can't think of very many cases where a sharp knife wouldn't be better. Though the maintenance is the biggest tradeoff
@talon8 I said primarily intended (but not exclusively). Carbon steel knives and the associated hassle of looking after them is not required by your average home cook, unless you're doing sushi. I stand by what I've stated.
I was disagreeing with your statement about them being "primarily intended for" sushi.
My three carbon steel knives are used constantly in my not-fancy home kitchen. Cut, rinse or quickly wash and drain cutting edge down.....very simple to maintain. I would use no other!
The one SS knife I use is a small, serrated paring knife. It does the job pretty well. Part of the secret...maybe a lot of it, is the serration. In the case of carbon steel they are tiny...and effective.
I should add I am one of those cooks who cannot cook W/o cleaning as she goes. It makes me crazy to have pots and pans strewn all over the kitchen. And most would be on the floor as country space is limited. So maybe that is why I do not mind the trade off of cleaning the knife.
Happy cooking, whatever your comfort zone is.
Linda
Are you saying you are using serrated carbon steel knives?
Hello Linda, it is unclear what your answer is. Your answer just states:"I like them and they do the job pretty well." Other knives do their job pretty well, too and need less maintaining.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.447947
| 2013-01-11T13:33:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29983",
"authors": [
"Carli Williams",
"Deemoreena Duvall",
"JaKaiser",
"John Hammond",
"Jonathon",
"Julie clarkson",
"M.Herzkamp",
"Margo Moore",
"Nimra Malik",
"Oxnard Don",
"Puffafish",
"R.Miti",
"golobitch",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136737",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152144",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35227",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39427",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6440",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69899",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69900",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69902",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69903",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69932",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76944",
"marianoju",
"rackandboneman",
"spiceyokooko",
"talon8",
"tohster"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24720
|
Is having an extending blade near the knife handle a serious risk when cutting food?
Here's an example of a very typical knife design:
Look at where the arrow points. That's a blade part that extends from the handle orthogonal to the knife axis and it's pretty thin and its side actually continues into a very sharp blade edge.
My concern is the following. Suppose I need to cut a chicken carcass. I will want to stick the knife deep and then start cutting. What if while I'm sticking the knife my hand slips along the handle onto that edge pointed to by the arrow?
I expect an epic cut should that happen so I've been avoiding such knife design for years and always preferred knifes where there's a piece of plastic extending from the handle in from of that blade edge (kind of hilt or guard). Maybe I'm just overly paranoid about this.
Is there real risk of having a cut while cutting food in the scenario I described?
If that bit wasn't there, you'd be even more likely to slide down the blade. Besides, You don't stab with a knife, and I wouldn't use that tiny blade on a chicken. It's improper tools and usage that's going to kill you.
No, there is not a risk to getting the kind of cut you describe, as long as you treat your knife with the respect it deserves.
If there's a dull, raised part at the back of the knife, it is called the bolster, otherwise it's the heel of the blade. The raised version is a common trait in forged knifes, and is supposed to add strength to the blade.
From experience: yes, you can cut yourself on the heel of bolster-less knifes, but generally not in the way you describe. I would not avoid them, or avoid knives where the blade tapers from the handle for safety reasons. I've cut myself a couple times on the heel of the blade when grabbing for a knife in a hurry, but these kinds of cuts are generally superficial and fast healing.
There is also a significant advantage to bolster-less blades: they're much easier to sharpen, and have more usable length to the blade.
I think the key is the respect part. With a good grip and a recognizing that it's a very sharp tool should be enough. My preferred knives are of Japanese design and look more like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Japanese_knife_blade_types_B.svg I've never cut myself on that part of the blade, and my knives are about a sharp as you can get. And I debone chickens with them.
For the knife shown, the biggest advantage to me is that my knuckles can fit below the handle while the blade is on the chopping board. Makes it much easier and faster to chop.
The knife in the picture is a paring knife. The way to use such a knife is completely different from what you pretend (cutting a carcass). A paring knife is used with the sharp end facing you and pushing the small food items across.
For cutting a carcass, I'd recommend a regular chef's knife, a Chinese knife or, preferably, a cleaver.
It depends on what I am actually doing with the knife. I would indeed not use a knife like this for work requiring some force. Slicing tomatoes is one thing, but image that you actually cut a chicken with that knife and in a forward motion with some force hit e.g. a bone. There is a definitive risk, that your finger will slip over the ridge and slide along the blade.
Going back to a more generic knife design, there is usually a "guard" between the handle and the blade, numbered 9 in this picture (source. Wikipedia):
Even if a kitchen knife rarely has such a pronounced guard, I would at least make sure that at least the shape of the blade prevents your hand from slipping, like on this kitchen knife (source. Wikipedia):
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.448932
| 2012-06-28T10:36:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24720",
"authors": [
"Chris Cudmore",
"Steve",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7407",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
9133
|
How to prepare a KFC - like coating for fried chicken?
Possible Duplicate:
How to make extra crispy and crunchy breading like KFC?
Hi all.
What is your experience on this? I know that probably it is not possible to achieve the same flavour as for the oryginal recipe but I would like read your recipes.
I can not come even close to this on myself...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.449255
| 2010-11-15T10:13:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9133",
"authors": [
"Monolo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18700",
"user18700"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
9216
|
knife advice - good knife and good care
Possible Duplicate:
How should I care for my knives?
At home i have this knife:
http://www.bedbathandbeyond.com/product.asp?SKU=11097073&RN=1038&
I picked that one up several years ago, but haven't done much in the way of any maintenance on it. I did pick up a cheap sharpener but it didn't seem to have much effect so i stopped using it.
The knife seems dull to me. It doesn't cut through things as easily as i think it should. For example, resting the blade on a ripe firm tomatoe, i would think the blade should be able to slice through without me applying much, or any, downward pressure and without pushing in the shape of the tomatoe. It should basically just start slicing through under it's own weight and without squishing the tomatoe at all.
Let me know if that sounds like an unrealistic expectation.
So i have 2 questions:
is that (or was it before i didn't maintain it correctly) a good knife? In searching here i saw victorinox suggested as a good value. Is the one i have worth keeping or should i purchase a new one?
Does anyone know of a chain store (or local store in the LA area) that i can take it to to get it re-sharpened? And what should i be doing to maintain it's usefulness after it's re-sharpened?
I assume the answer to the 2nd part of question 2 is this: How should I care for my knives? - specifically the part about getting honing steel? does it matter which one i get or can i just get a $10-$15 one on amazon?
Thanks
This question is primarily asking for shopping advice, which isn't something we provide. However, because there are good answers, I'm going to merge this with How should I care for my knives?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.449320
| 2010-11-18T00:45:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9216",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Bob Provencher",
"Brad",
"Paul Fin",
"cyndie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18845",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50190",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50198"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
39714
|
Saving my 'bacon'
I bought one of these recently, smoked shoulder or something like that.
Given that it 'looked cooked', I just sliced it and figured we could eat it cold. But it didn't look particularly cooked inside, and was awful chewy.
So, I think I've screwed up. Given that it is now in slices, what can I do to avoid throwing it away (or having to eat it all myself because the rest of the family refuses to!)?
Can you post an image of the slices? To me the item pictured might be raw but covered with a smoked paprika rub or something similar.
That looks like a a fully cooked, cured ham.
These are salt cured, and so will have a pinker appearance, but are ready to eat. They are perfectly safe despite the color.
Many people enjoy them better sliced thinly, so that they are not as chewy.
You can use the slice in sandwiches, or chop them as an add-in to soups. You can just heat them up eat them as (I like them with mashed potatoes). Ham is extremely flexible.
Yes, well it did look cooked to me, as I said, but the extreme chewiness made me doubt. Maybe I just had bad luck and got a low quality chewy pig :(
Silly me, checking on the internet, it even said that it needed cooking on the packaging, I just didn't think to look.
In the end, I was saved by my Romertopf. After an hour and a half in their, the slices came out non-chewy, not dry, (and still ridiculously salty). Success!
If its too salty, its worth soaking in fresh water overnight. Or one of the other methods for removing excess salt.
@NBenatar. Yes I made the mistake of thinking 'oh, juice!' when I finished cooking it, and using it to make the accompanying couscous. Eating it was... an experience.
Oops. Well at least you wont make the same mistake twice.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.449485
| 2013-11-24T20:48:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39714",
"authors": [
"Benjol",
"Didgeridrew",
"NBenatar",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3680"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44723
|
How to convert slow cooker recipes to pressure cooker with different cooking times?
Google results for this question either don't answer the question at all or don't address what happens when multiple ingredients have different pressure cooking times. I'm specifically looking to convert this recipe:
This site says if it takes 8 hours in the slow cooker, it'd take 1 hour in the pressure cooker. Okay, but the recipe involves parsnip and turnip, which my pressure cooker manual says to cook for 1-2 and 3-5 minutes, respectively. I have a 4 quart Presto pressure cooker that goes up to 15 psi which I believe is the standard pressure.
Is there a better conversion rule than 8 hour -> 1 hour (assuming 15
psi)? In my experience, at 15 psi, stew beef would fall apart after
only 30'.
What do I do about the different cooking times? Am I supposed to
cook the meat by itself for 1 hour, quick-release the pressure under
cold running water, add the turnips, bring the cooker back to
pressure, quick-release again, add the parsnips, and finally bring
the cooker back to pressure again?
There is no rule, you should use the cooking times in your chart or a reputable timing chart, I use this one hippressurecooking.com/pressure-cooking-times
Basically, you'll want to phase-in the ingredients. That means, cook the beef roast for the time your cooking chart says, say 30 minutes, then open the pressure cooker and add the vegetables and pressure cooker them for their cooking time 4 minutes.
BTW, that same blog has a section where you can post a recipe and they will convert it to the pressure cooker for you. That's here: hippressurecooking.com/recipe-conversions
Yup. I use this site and their pressure cooking times. So far, all that I've used have been bang on.
I've also made stews in the pressure cooker and do what Dana recommended - cook the meat for a while, release pressure and open, add potatoes & carrots, bring back up to pressure, and so on. If there are softer veggies added at the end that only require a few minutes to cook, I'll finish the stew stovetop not under pressure.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.449666
| 2014-06-08T22:29:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44723",
"authors": [
"IKBALSINGH DHANJAL",
"Isaac Francisco",
"John Reist",
"LMAshton",
"MatthewTheBird",
"cloud trasformation spam",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106205",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106258",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25061"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
12227
|
Best Practices for Cooking with Psyllium Husk?
A couple months ago, I went on a diet primarily consisting of Nutraloaf (with Tabasco or other flavor-adding sauces) for meals, and sunflower seeds for occasional snacking. Three weeks in, I started experiencing some digestive problems and a general malaise, and my doctor referred me to a nutritionist. Long story short, my diet was seriously lacking in fiber.
I've found psyllium husk fiber to be far superior to traditional options, and have since been consuming it as a daily supplement. What I'd like to do, however, is integrate it into my cooking. There is a serious dearth of psyllium husk-based recipes on the Internet, which leads me to query the experts here.
How should I go about modifying my recipes to use psyllium husk? Also, should I worry about heating psyllium husk, and possibly changes its digestive qualities?
Did the nutritionist seriously say "you're getting everything you need, except fiber"?
@Jefromi she did not "approve" my diet per se, but she did say that I should be fine, and that I'm better off than the traditional American diet (fast food, high-fat, processed, etc).
@JJ: Ah, okay. I'm wondering if even once you solve your fiber problem you might be left with some malaise, if there's some other missing nutrient.
Nutraloaf?!? Isn't that what recalcitrant prisoners are forced to eat?
Adding the [gluten-free] tag because the most common culinary use for this stuff is gluten-free cooking (as noted on Wikipedia).
Not as any form of answer to cooking with psyllium husk, but to the fiber problem... eat an avocado every day. 1 avocado has ~8.5g fiber, and tastes a ton better than the 2tbsp (psyllium husk has 4g fiber/tbsp) of psyllium husk will...
@Doug: Yes, I believe so - see here: http://awesome.good.is/transparency/web/1105/lunch/flat.html
I'm guessing that you should be able to simply add it wherever you would add some sort of grain or flour. The wikipedia article mentions:
Other uses include gluten-free baking, where ground psyllium seed husks bind moisture and help make the bread less crumbly.
If you add some to your Nutraloaf, if it's enough to have an effect, it'll help it bind together and absorb some moisture. You might have to add some more liquid to cancel that out, if you find that the result ends up too dry, but otherwise it should be fine. Cooking isn't going to destroy the fiber.
I'd also note that you don't necessarily have to go all-out on the fiber: there's plenty in other grains, too, like oats. You might decide that you simply like it better with a different fiber - justkt suggested a few in the comments; thanks! And I know you're not exactly looking for variety here, but I might as well suggest it. You really could get a little bit of variety for minimal effort, say by adding in a different canned or frozen vegetable each time you make it, or by varying the source of fiber.
+1 for answering the question. I second the suggestion of the other fibers. Mashed sweet potato, whole rolled oats, and cooked brown rice are some of the best sources of fiber out there.
Psyllium husks are traditional used as a thickening agent and can be added to soups and stews to make them have a creamier consistency.
I personally make my pysllium into little muffins which taste great on a lowcarb diet. The finished result should be eaten over 3 days until your body adjusts to the pysllium, otherwise it could cause cramping later on if you ate it all at once.
1 tbsp psyllium husks
1 egg
1 tsp baking powder
3 tbsp baking stevia or sugar
1 tbsp greek yogurt
Mix together, pour into muffin pan (make them shallow) and bake at 350 for 20 mins.
I also like to add 1 to 2 tbsp of sugar free maple syrup which makes them taste like pancakes.
I wanted to lose weight but continue to take psyllium. I used to put it in muesli and was happy with that but cut that out to cut calories. I experimented with crackers and now I make them every day. They are virtually calorie free and yummy. I mix a tbsp psyllium husk, a tbsp psyllium husk powder, a dsp of sesame seeds, salt and pepper and water. Sorry, I Don't measure the water. Too little and you won't be happy trying to roll it out, too much and it will be too sticky. I flatten it between sheets of baking paper with a rolling pin then nuke it for 3 mins, cut it and turn it inside to the outside then nuke (microwave) it for another 3 mins (or longer if it was too moist). They're done when they're crisp. Yummy with a low cal dip and a drink. You have to have the drink.
I was really trying to find out how much to put in an apple crumble to thicken it up. I think I'll experiment.
Yes, use with or in place of flour as thickening agent, but no more than 2-3 tbsp.
Basically, 1 tbsp is equal to 1/4 cup flour in terms of thickening sauces on stove. You may also use as a binding agent as in meat loaf. Again, don't add gobs of it. A tablespoon or two is plenty. If you add too much you'll end up with library paste and a possible bowel blockage. Moderation is key!
Hello Hellion, and welcome to the site! We are strictly a cooking site, and do not discuss nutrition or give medical advice. I had to remove this part of your answer, but the rest is OK.
That Nutraloaf recipe is appalling both in philosophy and implementation.
If you eat a wholesome, varied diet there should be no need to supplement it with stuff like this - if your diet is making you feel ill and your nutritionist disapproves it might be time to switch to a diet consisting mostly of freshly cooked vegetables, plenty of pulses, cereals, wholemeal rice/breads/wholemeal pasta (if you can bear it) and get your protein from fish and not too much lean meat.
EDIT:
If you absolutely must eat the husk, its probably most palatable in tablet or easily swallowed form. Remember to drink plenty of water if you do eat - it has been known to cause intestinal obstruction. I've heard of the elderly and constipated sprinkling it onto foods - ideally those with a strong taste and a bit of liquid to them e.g. vegetable curries.
I'm intrigued as to why you want to eat this stuff - most people who do are taking it to lower cholesterol or as part of a less-than-sensible crash diet. Your Nutraloaf recipe, based as it is on all that beef, suggests you're not concerned with cholesterol or major weight loss ...
EDIT #2:
I am not alone in my rejection of 'Nutraloaf' :
EDIT #3
Just saw the [gluten-free] tag so resorting to psyllium Husk makes more sense now - but there are better ways of eating tasty gluten-free food :-)
@5arx - while I agree with this sentiment, this isn't an answer per se.
@JustKT - I take your point and have updated my answer accordingly.
I'd actually like to see all the "anti-Nutraloaf" content go away here. I think it's appalling too, but there was plenty of this going around when the topic of Nutraloaf first came up a couple of months ago. If it's appropriate at all, it's good at a comment on the question maybe, but I'd keep it out of answers as it has nothing to do with cooking w/psyllium husk.
I don't think it's fair to say that Nutraloaf is appalling - it's more neutral and has no flavor.
@JJCaldwell - the 'appalling' (mine at least) doesn't apply (necessarily) to the taste, more the overall philosophy. IMO it tastes awful, but that of course is an opinion and in places such as the US where meatloaf in general is an acceptable dinner-party foodstuff it is likely not to be a common one.
My gripe is more to do with this idea that you can bake a 'wonderloaf' and just have a slice at every meal. For most foodies this is appalling precisely because we espouse the numerous benefits of eating fresh, freshly-cooked food and all that entails nutritionally, socially and psychologically.
I use psyllium powder. Take a tablespoon of psyllium and add enough water to make a paste. Mash in a banana. Top with Chia seeds or your favorite nuts and enjoy! If you can't have banana, try a different fruit, or maybe even mix the psyllium into some mashed veggies.
Would you suggest that he add the whole banana/psyllium/chia concoction to his existing recipe?
Mixed with chopped peanuts, it's also great as a sprinkle on ice-cream. The cold prevents the fiber from turning slimy.
I love adding ground psyillium to my coffee. 1 or 2 teaspoons to a full cup. It is much much better than those crappy fake orange flavored sugared fiber laxatives I tried to take before discovering psyillium. (My Coffee Recipe: every morning I make my coffee and instead of milk and creamers, I add psyllium, 1/8 cup coconut milk instead of milk or soy, and cocoa powder and when I want a little sweetness, I use Truvia or Stevia, NOT sugar or other sweeteners).
I have transformed my diet to a mostly primal/paleo diet, so am actually getting quite a bit of fiber, but I have a lower back injury and one of the side effects is continual problems with constipation. Adding Psyllium has helped that a lot - though I should say that for normal people without special circumstances (i.e. if I did not have this back injury) - if a person is eating sufficient amounts of vegetables (6 to 8 servings a day) and some fruit every day (my goal is weight loss, so picky about fruit I eat, and quantities - choosing berries, tomatoes, avocados, and the fruits highest in nutrition/benefits).
Here is a paleo bread recipe I found that I have been experimenting with/changed a bit - by adding psyllium to
Bread
1 ½ cups blanched almond flour
2 tablespoons coconut flour
1/4 cup ground flaxseed
1/8 cup of ground psyllium
1/4 teaspoon sea salt
1 ½ teaspoons baking soda
5 eggs
1/4 cup of water (this one you might have to play with a little
1/4 cup coconut oil
1 tablespoon honey
1 tablespoon apple cider vinegar
Place almond flour, coconut flour, flax, psyllium, salt and baking soda in a bowl and blend together (if you have a food processor, pulse)
Mix (or Pulse) in eggs, water, oil, honey and vinegar
Pour batter into a greased small greased (coconut oil is good) bread pan
Bake at 350° for 30 minutes
Cool and serve
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.449893
| 2011-02-16T05:04:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12227",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Cascabel",
"CrystalFire",
"Doug",
"Gabriele Kadyte",
"JJ Caldwell",
"Mindwin Remember Monica",
"Nathan Wheeler",
"Obversity",
"Ray Butterworth",
"SourDoh",
"Tami",
"Twila Flegel",
"bikeboy389",
"doggy2shooz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126574",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25193",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25226",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25227",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50004",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91776",
"immutabl",
"justkt",
"ms. mann",
"qris",
"r0berts",
"rumtscho",
"user132907",
"user25241",
"w1xbetthai2 spam"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
10504
|
Beef: Red on the outside, brown on the inside
Take bright-red ground beef and put it in a freezer for a few days. After
taking it out and letting it thaw, it looks fairly red on the outside, but brown
on the inside. Why is that?
From the answers to this question,
I understand that fresh beef initially becomes bright-red upon exposure to oxygen, and
then browns after long-exposure to oxygen.
I also understand that oxygen can pass through the plastic packaging.
What I don't understand is why the the ground beef on the inside turns brown
before the outside? If oxygen is the cause of browning, shouldn't the opposite happen?
The meat is brown on the inside not due to too much oxygen but due to a lack of oxygen.
Oxygen can pass through the packaging but not, generally, through the meat itself. Thus, the interior of the meat runs out of oxygen faster than the exterior (which is still exposed to oxygen from the air) and browns for this reason.
I'll quote the full-explanation from the USDA, just for reference:
Why is pre-packaged ground beef red on the outside and sometimes dull, grayish-brown inside?
Oxygen from the air reacts with meat pigments to form a bright red color which is usually seen on the surface of meat purchased in the supermarket. The pigment responsible for the red color in meat is oxymyoglobin, a substance found in all warm-blooded animals. Fresh cut meat is purplish in color. The interior of the meat may be grayish brown due to lack of oxygen; however, if all the meat in the package has turned gray or brown, it may be beginning to spoil.
It's hard to initially judge the freshness of ground beef by looking for color.
Very fresh ground beef is red-purple. The plastic wrap they use in grocery stores is oxygen permeable- that is oxygen can get through. This means that a few hours later, the part of the ground beef that is exposed will turn that bright red (oxymyoglobin) that we associate with fresh meat.
The inside will still be that deeper purple red color. The color difference can make people think that fresh ground beef has spoiled, when in fact it's fine. In fact, if you open s package and expose the purple- red meat to air, it will change to a bright red color.
Note that this is different from slightly older meat. As the meat starts to age the myoglobin changes to metmyoglobin, which is grey- brown in color. This doesn't indicate that the meat has spoiled, but does have an unappealing color when raw. It doesn't effect the cooked product- it cooks the same.
Meat that is really old often is grey or grey green. That is an indicator of age & long exposure to light- oxygen. Steer clear.
In general, color isn't a good indicator.
It is better to use your nose and smell for sourness, or feel for a tacky or slimy texture. If you detect shy of these, pass.
Besides, bacteria and other pathogens can harm far before the ground beef gives you signs of spoilage. You should be careful and always buy the freshest possible product.
These changes also happen in frozen meat. Proper wrapping can minimize exposure to oxygen,
I haven't seen this in a long time, but purchased ground beef from a larger store and opened to make hamburgers. It smelled fine, inside and out, but that red-dye actually showed up on my hands after forming patties.
some of it comes from the dyes some places use to redden the meat to make it look more attractive. my butcher explained that some places use this dye but it can also come from oxygen which reacts with both the dye and iron. the meat should be good through out if it was properly cared for (proper refrigeration or freezing well wrapped)
When freshly slaughtered meat is cut into steaks, the muscle tissue comes into contact with oxygen in the air. The myoglobin in the meat binds this oxygen, forming oxymyoglobin and giving the meat a red color. However, if fresh meat sits for a period of time, generally over the course of several days, the structure of the myoglobin changes. The iron molecule in the middle is oxidized from its ferrous to ferric form and a different complex is formed called metmyoglobin. This compound turns the raw meat a brown color. The meat is usually still safe to eat when cooked, but the brown, unappealing color turns off most consumers. To avoid having your fresh meat turn brown, use it as soon as possible after purchasing it.
Doesn't address the question. The OP indicated that he understands this, and asks about the difference between the outside of his packaged ground meat (red) and the inside of the same meat (brown).
This is an old trick by the meat department at large grocery stores. They often take the meat that was prepacked and browning and grind it. It is now browning ground beef. they then take the not so pretty meat and place it outside of the view of the purchaser. This is a great way to keep food costs down as nobody would likely by brown hamburger meat. Meat does not brown from the inside out but
the outside in.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! This is really a comment, not an answer. With a bit more rep, you will be able to post comments.
Seems like an answer to me. Maybe not a correct answer, but if the OP's grocery store does pack their meat like this, it'd explain what they're seeing.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.450762
| 2010-12-26T17:21:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10504",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Daniel Griscom",
"JA Roberts",
"Lori D Foley",
"Metamaterial girl",
"christina Manoj",
"dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22378",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87472",
"jdhaar"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24129
|
Can you really keep feta for 3 months in a milk bath?
I just came across some instructions on how to store feta cheese, mentioning you can keep it for about 3 months in the fridge in a brine or milk bath:
Store the cheese in a brine or milk bath if you do not intend to use it for a long period of time. A milk bath will result in a creamier, softer taste, while brine will add depth to the cheese and retain its pleasant saltiness. To make brine, mix 1 lb. of kosher salt in 1 gallon of water.
Place the feta into an airtight container and cover it with the brine or milk.
Cover the container with a lid and store it in the refrigerator to keep it fresh for up to three months.
From: http://www.ehow.com/how_6496964_store-feta-cheese.html
A similar claim is stated here:
If you will not be consuming it immediately, store feta cheese in a brine or milk bath. The milk bath will reduce the saltiness and help keep the cheese moist and mild in flavor. Properly stored in brine or milk and refrigerated, feta cheese will last up to 3 months. Feta cheese is not a candidate for freezing.
From: http://homecooking.about.com/od/cheeseinformation/a/fetatips.htm
I can believe the feta will keep that long in the brine, given the pound of salt that goes in. But I'm more skeptical about the milk bath. Wouldn't the milk spoil a lot sooner and affect the feta too? Or does enough salt leak out of the feta to act as a preservative for the milk as well? Or is the idea simply that you regularly replace the milk (though the instructions don't mention this)? Does anyone have any experience with this?
I don't know what the actual risk is, but the fact that this article comes from ehow makes me doubt its credibility.
Yeah, I'm as dubious as you. Milk? Really?
@Rinzwind by linking to eh0w, you are actually increase the google ranking of the copied eh0w artical. Feel free to unlink it :-)
I'm not sure when that about.com article was written, but if it was posted less than about about 8 months ago, it may have plagarized The Culinarian: A Kitchen Desk Reference by Barbara Ann Kipfer. In that, Kipfer provides "Hints" after the description of what feta is (p. 224-225; you can view it on Google Books):
Consumers who dislike feta's salty taste may soak the cheese in fresh water to leach out some of the salt...Feta cheese is best when eaten fresh, so always check the date. If you will not be consuming it immediately, store feta cheese in a brine or milk bath in the refrigerator. The milk bath will reduce the saltiness and help keep the cheese moist and mild in flavor. Properly stored in brine or milk and refrigerated, feta cheese will last for up to three months. Feta cheese is not a candidate for freezing. Barrel-aged feta sold straight from the barrel may be wrapped in lightweight paper, then wrapped in a plastic bag or plastic wrap and stored in the refrigerator. Keep the feta in paper, even when the paper gets soggy from the cheese moisture.
Emphasis is mine to show you that the bit about the milk bath matches about.com's article word for word.
Since The Culinarian was published by Wiley & Sons, a reputable publisher that puts out a lot of textbooks and academic and trade journals, I would assume that it was properly fact-checked. Given that Kipfer talks about salt leaching out into regular water and the milk bath reducing the saltiness of the cheese, I would guess that there's a strong chance enough salt leaches into the milk bath to act as a preservative.
Take all this with a grain of salt, though (no pun intended); I've never tried keeping feta in a milk bath myself.
I like your answer! But it gave me the idea to use the Internet Archive to check how far back the about.com page might go and it has a copy from March 2009 (http://web.archive.org/web/20090322231826/http://homecooking.about.com/od/cheeseinformation/a/fetatips.htm) on which the text I quoted also appeared, while the book you are referring to was published in October 2011 according to Amazon. So it seems the book might actually be plagiarizing the about.com page, rather than the other way around.
@Rinzwind Interesting. I would still hope that anything published through Wiley was thoroughly fact-checked, but I also would like to know where about.com got their information! I may ask the guy at my local cheese shop if I go grocery shopping this weekend and see if he knows anything about this.
@Rinzwind The book does only claim to be 'Compiled by expert researcher, lexicographer, and food lover Barbara Ann Kipfer ' so it is possible that sources are attributed in the book.
Just a note: You should not "store" feta in a milk bath. If you wish to reduce the saltiness, soak what you are going to immediately use in milk for a couple of hours prior to use.
Otherwise you want to store feta in a brine solution, preferable 12-16% salt by weight. The recommendations of 1 pound of salt per gallon of water is a saturated brine and will increase the saltiness of your feta. On the other hand, if you want to store the feta for months that is likely the way to go, and then just do the soak in milk thing for what you are going to use.
I make my own cheeses, including feta and it is quite amazing how much misinformation is available on the web.
I’m Greek and have eaten feta all my life. It is common practice for all Greek people to store their feta in milk once they bring it home from the shop, and in an airtight container, in the refrigerator. This does make the cheese creamier and less salty. It also preserves the cheese longer but definitely not as long as 3 months. You will be lucky to get 2 weeks maximum from this method. Feta cheese turns very quickly so it must be eaten as soon as possible. It does not freeze well.
I knew a Greek family back in the mid 1960s that introduced us to Feta. The dad bought it in bulk packed in brine. He advised my Mom to repack it in milk. It did not stay long. Never spoiled. Been doing that for decades. (Not buying in bulk). His cheese was creamy. Took me years to find 'creamy' feta. Similar to what we know as Bulgarian or French. Hope this helps with info.
@JanDoggen By 'It did not stay long.', I think she means it was all eaten rather quickly.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.451199
| 2012-05-30T21:51:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24129",
"authors": [
"Ariel",
"Cindy",
"Dirk Le roux",
"FuzzyChef",
"Laura",
"Rinzwind",
"Robyn",
"Spagirl",
"TFD",
"bluesky",
"dierdra",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4012",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54820",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54821",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54822",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54883",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"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
}
|
10825
|
Turning raw/baking cocoa powder into instant cocoa (Kaba/Nesquik)
The question on Dissolving cocoa powder in milk describes the two common workarounds for making chocolate milk with raw cocoa powder. While obviously it works easiest with hot milk, making cocoa slime/mud is a functioning alternative. It's however not very practical, which is why I want to renew this topic. However I'm not settling for anything but achieving something comparable to instant cocoa. So would rather like this question to border on food chemistry or industrial espionage. (Most likely the solution is some food additive though..)
So what's the magic behind Kaba or Nesquik? How do they turn cocoa dust into instant chocolate milk powder?
I've already figured out that ordinary baking cocoa is the weakly de-oiled one. Obviously the oil stipend contributes to the difficulty of mixing it with cold fluids. - So I went out and bought some strongly de-oiled cocoa, which subjectively mixes better already. (But that might be just post-purchase rationalization.) Adding glucose powder also helps both flavour and mixing abilities.
Yet that doesn't solve the issue satisfactory and still requires making a slurry. So there is probably really some food additive necessary. I've also (can't find link) read somewhere about steam (hot water) playing a role in turning cocoa powder into instant granules. But also obviously, I'm looking for something you can do in an ordinary kitchen, and which doesn't involve inventing complex machinery. So, do you have any tips, expert knowledge, links?
The magic emulsifier is probably soy lecithin.
According to Wikipedia:
It is used commercially in foods requiring a natural emulsifier or lubricant. In the food industry it has multiple uses: In confectionery it reduces viscosity, replaces more expensive ingredients, controls sugar crystallization and the flow properties of chocolate, helps in the homogeneous mixing of ingredients, improves shelf life for some products, and can be used as a coating.
The magic soluble is probably a hydrochloride:
Converting insoluble amines into hydrochlorides is a common way to make them water- and acid-soluble
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.451678
| 2011-01-07T03:14:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10825",
"authors": [
"KOTIOS",
"Kirk",
"Mr. JavaScript",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22190",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22202",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22203",
"notfurlong"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
14736
|
Broil pork chops before roasting?
I've had great success preparing chicken using variations of the following procedure:
Arrange chicken pieces in a roasting pan with a lid
Add other flavorings (whatever I have on hand or am in the mood for)
Roast covered for 30 min at 425 F
Uncover and broil for 15 more min
The chicken skins crisp during broiling, but the insides stay wonderfully moist, exactly the way I like them. Now I'm thinking of adapting this for pork chops, but I'm wondering whether I might have more luck if I broil the pork before roasting it. Pork chops don't have skin, obviously, and I'm wondering if broiling first will help to seal in moisture and flavor.
There's really no such thing as 'sealing in juices' when it comes to meat. Skin-on chicken breast stays relatively moist because of the fat in the skin; because the skin is on top, it pretty much self-bastes. Broiling just crisps the skin afterwards and will do nothing moisture-wise.
With pork chops, however, the fat is around the side and so will drip off during roasting, and broiling beforehand will just dry out the surface of the meat. I'd suggest rolling the fat in some salt, then placing the chops fat side down on a warm pan for a few minutes. This will render out the fat. You can then drizzle this on to the pork to help keep it moist and impart extra flavor.
I'm sorry if I'm being stupid, but I don't see the point of roasting these pork chops, unless you want to use the broiler for some other purpose while they cook.
I line the broiling pan with aluminium foil, so the fat from the chops cannot escape into the bottom, and cook pork chops under the broiler. The only disadvantage is that they need watching, which is not the case if they are wrapped and roasted.
The two stage process makes sense when you have chicken skin to crisp up.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.451859
| 2011-05-12T15:41:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14736",
"authors": [
"G. Blake Meike",
"Glenn",
"Tommy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31037",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31038",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31039",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31121",
"keroro",
"sfjac"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29445
|
How to improve the taste of sour coffee beans?
I was given a few packs of grain coffee. The smell was pretty nice and it was written that it's 100% arabica. That encouraged me to grind some and brew it in moka pot.
The result I got was not horrible, but way to sour for me. I tried one bean and indeed it was little sour, compared to Starbucks Espresso Roast, which is not sour at all and has great almost black color.
I am sure this will not be my coffee of choice, but it would be nice to upgrade it somehow (before I throw it away), though I have no idea how to do it. I thought about roasting it in the oven (210-225 Celsius; 410-437 Fahrenheit) for 10 minutes.
Do you think it might be a good idea?
I think your question isn't so much about the possibility of re-roasting beans, but how to improve the taste, so I suggested an edit to the question title.
very alkaline water? would creating a salt (acid+base) be as bad?
Yes, you can roast the beans some more. However the results will probably not be great.
Roasting results in quite a bit of smoke. If you are going low tech, I would do it in a wok in a very well ventilated area. It's pretty easy to set off smoke detectors. A stove top with a range hood might be good enough if you have a particularly good range hood. Outside with the wok on a BBQ is probably best.
Roast over a low heat and stir continuously. You want to get the beans as even as possible, trying not to burn them. The beans will continue to roast after taking them off the heat. So stop one or two roast levels before the desired colour and tip your beans out into a colander and continue stirring to cool. The residual heat will cook the bean some more.
To aim for a desired roast level, compare the current roast colour to your desired roast colour and maybe to a roast level chart. Google image search "coffee roast level chart". Guesstimate the roast level that is one or two levels below your desired colour to stop at.
Once again there will be a lot of smoke.
But will this make the coffee less sour?
Hard to say without knowing what the bean is. But as you take the roast darker, you tend to get more caramel flavours and any fruitiness tends to be reduced.
This rather informative blog post indicates that the more volatile acidic compounds in coffee can be roasted out. Quinic and Citric acid, however, will remain even in a dark roast. Excessive amounts of Quinic acid come from incorrect roasting (poor heat transference) and citric acid from using immature beans. I'm not confident that re-roasting will really help, but it's not impossible.
I don't think I would re-roast them. I think you would be better off trying a different grind, or preparing the coffee with a different method. Find ways to work with the acidity, basically.
A coarse grind and a french-press might work a bit better with the brightly acidic beans.
For moka pot and french press I always grind it coarsely. Though in this case particularly it does not change much, so this is why I came up with the idea of re-roasting.
Sour could be under-roasted, but it could also just be that particular bean variety, or the age of the bean. I would not try re-roasting already-roasted coffee.
What I would do is blend those beans with something to complement them. You can find flavor charts around the internet, such as this one from Coffee Bean Corral.
I'd probably look for something in the "Earthy" and "Chocolatey" realm. Maybe a Brazilian or Colombian. And if you like the roast flavors, look for something that's been roasted to a city+ or so. In addition to the color, oil on the beans is an indicator of a darkly-roasted bean.
Another vote against reroasting. The general consensus I've seen over the years from hobbyist roasting forums is that once the roast loses temperature, that's it, there is no saving from reroasting.
Although I don't believe bitter is the opposite to sourness, extracting on the bitter side will help and possibly make it drinkable. To pour bitter you can try a combination of techniques such as:
Extracting at a higher temperature
Grinding finer and overextracting
Pour longer, getting more of the bitterness that comes at the end of the pour after blonding.
Why not try a small batch and decide for yourself. Rather than throw out beans, I’ve reroasted beans which were too blond for my taste, they were too expensive to just pitch. They tasted pleasant and milder after a reroast. I know all the experts naysay reroasting but it’s you that’s going to drink it.
I agree with the above sentiment that re-roasting is probably not a good idea, and offer an alternative suggestion for salvaging the beans.
If you are not opposed to flavored coffee, a bit of cinnamon and/or clove thrown in with the beans when you grind them could hide the bitterness.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.452077
| 2012-12-25T09:30:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29445",
"authors": [
"Anders",
"Bernadette Ford",
"Brandon M",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Dumitru Szabolcs Mihai",
"Megasaur",
"Pat Sommer",
"Raf Szalansky",
"S. Lee",
"Spectrum",
"amruta",
"coudy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14899",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68456",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68464",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68554",
"lemontwist",
"malia",
"rmpbklyn",
"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
}
|
36405
|
How can I get thinner pancakes?
I've been messing around with the pancake recipe that calls for the following ingredients in the past few days.
1 cup all-purpose flour
2 teaspoons baking powder
1/2 teaspoon salt
1 cup milk
1 large egg, lightly beaten
1 tablespoon canola or vegetable oil
They come out really thick, slightly more than half an inch thick. I can get it thinner if I spread the batter out using the ladle, but that's a bit of a messy solution.
Is there anything I can do to tweak the recipe to make the pancake batter come out a bit thinner from the start?
To make you pancakes spread more, and thus be thinner, increase the amount of liquid in the recipe. This will make the batter less viscous, so that it will spread more before beginning to set, thus giving you thinner pancakes.
I would start slowly, perhaps a couple of tablespoons extra milk (or just plain water) until you find the consistency that you like.
You will also have to experiment to determine the appropriate cooking time, as the additional
liquid will somewhat need to be cooked off to get the best texture.
Of course, there is nothing wrong with using the bottom of your ladle to help the batter spread out a bit more. This is normal, and will somewhat even out as the pancakes cook.
A bit late on my part, sorry about that. I tried it out, and adding a little extra milk did the trick.
Depending on how thin you're looking for, you may also want to check out other recipes for different styles of intentionally-thinner pancake-like items, such as
Crepes (as mentioned before, "crêpes" when you get real fancy)
German-style Pfannkuchen
Blintz (or blini or other names)
Good luck!
Also pannekoeken (Netherlands), pannkakor (Sweden), pannekaken (Norway), and British pancakes. Typically none of these have chemical leavening in them. See https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/72915/67
Another answer already mentioned adding more liquid, which was my first thought, so I'll just mention a few other possibilities.
Depending on the amount of batter you have or need from the recipe, you might find it easier to add a little less flour rather than more water (like maybe a tbs less to start with and recalculate after trying it?). Aside from having physically less batter, this would also make your pancake taste a bit richer and less bread-like, effectively leaving the mix with a higher proportion of eggs and oil and even salt, instead of diluting the batter with milk or water and the extra flour.
You might also try using just a little less baking powder, if the height is a moderate problem - it should make the pancake a touch denser and less fluffy, which may actually be useful depending on what you were looking for out of a pancake.
Also, you mentioned your objection to spreading the batter out for a thinner pancake is because it's messy... if you don't have any other objection than that, and especially if you like the flavor and texture (which meddling with the batter will alter), you might try spreading the batter out with the back of a ladle dhosa-style - that is, as soon as you pour the batter, use the ladle to make a tight spiral out from the middle, which smoothly and evenly moves the batter outwards. You can actually make the pancake as thin or thick as you like with practice, dhosa are usually fairly thin and crisp but the basic technique is adaptable by picking which hight you're holding the ladle at. The results are fairly aesthetic, either a smooth circular pattern or, if the pancake was a bit rawer on top, it might even smooth out the spiraling, and it really isn't difficult - and you don't have to wash an extra tool like using a crepe spreader would require.
Alternatively, if you have a steady hand, you can pour the batter in a ring or spiral in the first place. If you dump the ladleful of batter in the very center, it can kinda pile on top of itself and only spread slowly from the edges - and often start setting before it has time to finish spreading. If you spiral it out as you're pouring, it spreads from every edge both inwards and outwards until it meets the next layer (or finished setting), and will settle at a lower overall height. You might have some gaps or thicker puddles while you figure out the technique of how quickly to pour and how much space to leave between (and you can patch a bit with more batter or a swipe of the ladle to spread and thin), but it can work with patience and hand-eye coordination.
I too like thin pancakes and my husband likes them thick. I have only made pancakes from scratch a couple of times and they came out good, but I will say I use the original Aunt Jamima mix and requires you to add egg and milk. We use rice milk and it comes out good and I learned a trick from a restaurant to add vanilla and it makes a big difference they come out so good. I make my husbands batch of pancakes first (thick) and then I just add additional rice milk to thin the batter and make my and they come out great. We use real syrup and it makes a big difference. You can try that with your homemade recipe. Hope this helps.
I don't quite see what's wrong with thick, fluffy pancakes. So, I'm going to venture to guess that you may mean tough pancakes. In that case, be sure to not beat the batter too harshly. If you do that, you excite the gluten in the flour and then end up creating more protein strands, leading to tough pancakes.
So, fold, fold, fold. Ever so gently. Resist the urge to get all Emulsifier on it. :)
I bet if you try that, they may be a bit fluffier and not so thick.
Also, try crepes if you want something thinner.
Some people don't like their pancakes fluffy. Other times there's particular applications which call for thinner pancakes, like making a pancake sandwich or roll-up of some kind.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.452504
| 2013-08-29T11:35:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36405",
"authors": [
"Enrico Tuvera Jr",
"Funny Geeks",
"Joe",
"MichlF",
"Snack Exchange",
"Sudip Sinha",
"Tim walker",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19416",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85427",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85429",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85430",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85431",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85438",
"masaharu okubo",
"meszi",
"uwu spam bad boy uwu"
],
"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
}
|
7020
|
Is It Possible to make corn tortillas at home without a press?
I don't own a tortilla press and until I have more cabinet space, one is not in my future. However I value making as much as I can from scratch and love using tortillas in my cooking. I have made whole wheat tortillas using a variation on this recipe, subbing oil and butter in for the shortening to try and get a bit more flavor out of the tortillas.
I'd like to move to homemade corn tortillas, but every recipe that I have seen instructs one to use a press. With flour I was able to roll my tortillas as thin as required, but will I have trouble when moving to masa trying to do it with a rolling pin, or will I be able to get thin corn tortillas without a press?
Yes, you can do it without a press. Place a ball of dough between two layers of plastic wrap. Use at least twice the area of wrap that you think the final tortilla will be. Squish the ball flat with a pan, book, or your hand. Now use a rolling pin to roll the dough between the sheets of plastic. Make sure the thickness is even, and don't get it too thin or it will break when you cook it. Bonus: you can store the uncooked tortillas in the plastic until using and they won't dry out.
I have done the same, but using waxed paper instead. Doesn't the plastic stick to the masa?
@daramarak: Plastic wrap might be a little stickier, but it peels off fine, unless you have the masa too wet.
Just use the bottom of a flat, heavy skillet. I wouldn't try using a rolling pin: they stick to it pretty well. Probably want to put some wax paper underneath, or it'll stick to your counter.
I'd never buy a press unless I planned on making tortillas en masse: just one more thing to take up space in the cabinet.
How to make thin corn tortillas
Water temperature is one of the most important things and is hardly even mentioned. It should be medium.
Thinner dough can be achieved with adding touches of warm water. The more malleable the dough, almost to being sticky, the thinner you can get them. Most people use Maza Harina. I use Masteca flour.
Don't bother with a press. Use the advice above: two plastic bags (gallon size). Form the dough first into a golf ball size. Put round dough onto a plastic bag and press it out with your fingers into a round shape with a ridge around the edge.
Place other plastic bag on top so the dough is between the two bags.
Get a pizza stone, a pizza oven slider, or a book. Press down; pound it going out from the center.
Meanwhile I use two pans which are heated to medium/high. Lift the book (or whatever) and check the tortilla. Should be beautiful and round.
Peel off the top plastic bag, take the other one with the tortilla still stuck to it, and slap the tortilla into the first hot pan. It should peel off of plastic and lay there. I work the tortilla from one pan to the other; flipping sides so both get done. Then I flip it back to the first side in the first pan. After a moment tamp down on the tortilla. Its center should rise a bit, fluff up. It is done.
Nothing like what you buy in a store.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.453071
| 2010-09-09T14:06:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7020",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Danimal",
"Eayre",
"Matthew",
"PeeWee",
"Sharon Singleton",
"daniel",
"daramarak",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14302",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14306",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40444",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65207",
"sov"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21904
|
Chicken smells like eggs
I purchased some fresh chicken a few weeks ago and immediately froze it. Today I took it out and put it into boiling water to start making soup. Before I added anything else, the whole room started to smell like eggs (not rotten per se, but strong).
Is something wrong with the chicken? Should I throw it out?
Was the chicken an odd colour or slimy at all?
@ElendilTheTall No. All else seemed normal.
Did you defrost it for a long time? I find that my chicken, whether in the meatpacker's original packaging or my local grocery store's repackaging, smells a bit if I defrost it much longer than four hours.
Which smell came first, the chicken or the egg?
Raw meat should not have a smell to it. When it has an odour to it it is a sure sign that it is starting to spoil. Blood will spoil quicker and some rare conditions causes the smell on the meat. Washing it off helps to reduce the odour but it is best to just toss it out to avoid being made sick by eating it.
Salmonella enterica infected chickens will release hydrogen sulfide gas, which smells like eggs. It is found largely in chicken products and eggs. It is killed by cooking at high temperature, but it is best to avoid using it if the chicken starts to smell like that. Salmonella is the second most common bacterial cause of enterocolitis.
I have had this happen and have received conflicting answers. Some say the chicken is off. However, when Amazon Fresh (local grocery delivery service) ships chicken, they include a message that the gases used to pack the chicken may smell like sulfur but that this should dissipate quickly. I have had chicken where the smell went away quickly and times when it stuck around. When it stuck around, I got rid of the chicken.
Usually, chicken's smell isn't good in all cases, but in order to decrease this smell you have had done the following:
Wash the chicken after getting it out of the freezer.
Pass a little amount of vinegar or lemon juice all over it, it will reduce odors.
Rewash it, then put some salt all over it, then boil it or do whatever you want to do;
this makes it even taste better.
upon cooking, try adding some paper laurel to decrease the smell.
throw it out, smell indicates the chicken is spoiling.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.453378
| 2012-03-02T01:38:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21904",
"authors": [
"Alison Brown",
"Ashtin Manthe",
"Callithumpian",
"Carol P",
"Dave",
"Double AA",
"Edwin",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Ranjeet Singh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114311",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51722",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54620",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54928",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70859",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8483",
"random-forest-cat"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22244
|
How do I speed up the preparation time for chocolate chip cookies?
I've been charged with the task of making 100+ chocolate chip cookies every other day. As it stands, it takes me over 10 hours to do this. I was wondering if anyone had any advice on how to cut down the time for this?
My recipe is here and workflow (with time) is like this:
(make) 6x the dough (this takes about 25-30 minutes)
let the dough chill in freezer for about 30 minutes
preheat oven to 325F (this takes ~ 20 minutes, but I let the oven sit at 325 for another 20 minutes)
bring out dough (in parts), measure and compress dough into 56g
(~2 oz.) balls (this is the time sink)
Once I have 18 balls, I rip them according to the recipe's
instructions, place 9 on one cookie sheet, and 9 on another.
Bake the cookies for 24 minutes (swap racks and rotate sheets at
12 minute mark), simultaneously "process" more dough.
Take cookies out, let sheets cool for another 10 minutes, and put
another batch of 18 in the oven.
Since it's clear that I can't make my cookies bake any faster, I think my bottle neck is the "processing" of the dough. I'm okay with getting cookies that are 56g +/- 3g, anyone have any time-tested suggestions?
It sounds like you are doing 2 and after that 3, instead of at the same time - is there a reason for that? Or was it just an ambiguous description?
Is #2 necessary? I've never done it and my cookies have always turned out OK. Also, for #4, do you really measure that precisely? Being that accurate will cost you time.
Hmmm 24 minutes seems like a very long time to bake chocolate chip cookies. I like my cookies soft and chewy and I bake that for about 10 minutes. Nevertheless 24 minutes sounds like it would produce charcoal disks. Perhaps look into a recipe with much shorter bake time. that'll save you 14min X 5 = 70 minutes at least.
I do #2 and #3 basically at the same time. As for the 24 minute bake time: I'm using an air insulated pan, and when it was just one pan in the oven at the center rack the bake time was ~ 18 minutes, so I never thought too much about 24 being outrageous... And for the measurements, I'm selling these cookies, so I figure it's only fair if the weights are somewhat uniform.
Preheat while doing other things. That's not a step that should take any effective time.
Don't measure so obsessively. Unless these need to be immaculate cookies, just accept a little variety. Scoop roughly with a spoon, or just your hands, and form into balls with your hands if necessary. If you desperately want precision, you could use a cookie dough scoop. But 56±3g sounds kind of over the top to me. Given that you said this is the main time sink, I'd suggest loosening up a bit.
Are you filling your cookie sheets fully? Do they fill your oven? Following a recipe's instructions to the letter, baking only 9 per sheet, is obviously the wrong thing to do if your cookies or baking sheets aren't the same sizes as those in the recipe. Note also that if you have many cookies per sheet, you can often fit more by tiling in triangles instead of squares.
And finally, reconsider your recipe. I'm sure this one is great, but keep in mind that most standard chocolate chip cookie recipes bake at 350F or 375F, and times more in the 8-12 minute range. If your recipe gives you exactly the cookies you want, and others don't, then stick with it, but if you're unnecessarily sticking to a recipe, try something else.
Edit: one more thought! Chilling the dough is probably important to your recipe, but you could measure/scoop while it's warmer and easier to work with, then chill in balls, and do the final forming once chilled.
And another, having seen your comment: given that you increased the baking time upon filling up the oven more, and are using insulated pans, you might actually want to increase the temperature to 350-375F and see if you can get back down to the 15-18 minute baking time. They may end up closer to the originally-intended consistency!
Can you post a link for the triangle tiling? I don't think I follow. Also, if you have any "thick and chewy" recipes that call for 350 or 375F, I'm game to try them out. Links?
The idea of the triangle tiling, if I'm reading the answer correctly, is that instead of your basic unit being four cookies in a square two inches apart from each other, do two cookies two inches apart and then a third making the point of a triangle two inches from either corner. Then tile that across your sheet. You end up with rows where every other row is shifted over slightly and shorter.
@StevieP: ack, I had a link to an image there before... not sure how I managed to remove it. And... this isn't a recipe request site. You could try asking in chat for recipes if you like.
An alternate version of the explanation: put them at the vertices in a triangular grid, not a square one. This is also called hexagonal packing; it fills more of the space - pi/sqrt(12) =~ 90% instead of pi/4 =~ 79%. (Of course, this only matters if you have enough cookies per sheet.)
+1 for using a scoop (aka disher, ice cream scoop) to dish the cookies. This is both accurate and fast.
Also you don't necessarily need a different recipe to bake at a higher temperature. You've already found that crowding your oven effectively reduces the temperature (you got a longer baking time). Increase the temperature to compensate. (See the last paragraph.)
You know what, I'll try that right now!
At 350F, two sheets with 10 cookies each took 19 minutes (I swapped and rotated sheets at 8:00).
Finally, tried the same configuration of cookies at 375F, and found it takes ~ 16 minutes.
@StevieP, but the end result is still satisfactory right? I'm glad you were able to cut your bake time by about 10 minutes each.
The end result was satisfactory, I think I'm going to play around with the temperature at 350F, though. I noticed later that the 375F batches were a bit crunchier than I would've hoped.
To speed up measuring, use a long plastic tray or a half pipe to make a cutting mould.
Measure your dough and work out the required distance between cuts, sort of like a builders mitre box.
Stuff the tray with dough and slice through pre-measured cuts. Dump the cut portions onto a tray and chill.
I can't say if this is the best answer without trying it, but it's certainly a good sounding answer. I'm not sure how serious you are, but I will absolutely consider trying this.
This is only for accurate measuring. If a scoop will do don't bother with it
I'm not sure if this is the proper etiquette, but I'd like to compile the results of my experiments. Using inspiration from TFD and Jefromi:
I found that making the dough, and (while the dough was still "warm") using a tea-cup as my impromptu measuring device sped up the whole "56 +/- 3 g" affair. I decided to loosen up my tolerance and measure for large balls that fell within 109 and 114 grams. After I made all the balls, I put them on a wax paper lined tray and let them chill (over-night) in the fridge.
Note: I chose to double the portion, so that when I went to recreate that "jagged" texture as per the instructions in the recipe, I needed only split one large ball in half and then throw both halves on the tray.
When baking time rolled around, I used the triangle tiling suggested by Jefromi to finangle 10 cookies per sheet (whereas before I only got 9). I also experimented with baking at 325F, 350F, and 375F and found that for 14:00 - 16:00 at 375F I got cookies that were sometimes a bit over-done on the edges. If I baked the cookies for 17:00 - 19:00 at 350F I didn't experience that edge problem. I'm sure the edge problem could be remedied by pulling out the bottom tray a bit earlier than the top...
I taught Home Economics for years. Some of our cookies could not be completed during one class period. We made a log of the dough, wrapped it in waxed paper, put it in the frig until the next class period, then sliced the dough just like you would with bought cookie dough. It worked great. Make sure the diameter of the log is going to give you the desired size of cookie you want after baking.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.453616
| 2012-03-14T00:40:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22244",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"FrustratedWithFormsDesigner",
"Jay",
"Karlene Grelck",
"KatieK",
"Piotr Sarnacki",
"Saper",
"StevieP",
"TFD",
"Tomas Greif",
"Yamikuronue",
"ddipp",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49891",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49897",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49899",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49924",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50005",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8827",
"rumtscho",
"tobibeer",
"user49891"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20298
|
Is it bad to cut onions and other vegetables on the same cutting board?
Is it bad to cut onions and other vegetables on the same cutting board? Does the type of cutting board matter? For example, do wooden cutting boards that are regularly used to cut onions (or other potent veggies, garlic, etc.) start to smell permanently like onions?
It's good to cut cheese on a board that's just been used for onions. If you like the taste of oniony cheese, that is (as I do).
Closely related: Do chillis impregnate a wooden chopping board?
Do people normally have separate cutting boards for their regular vegetables and then for onions and garlics? I might have missed the memo haha.
No it isn't bad.
It's all a matter of flavor. I don't really mind getting some onion juices into my next dish, unless I'm making something sweet like fruit salad - in this case I would rinse the board before moving on.
My advice to you about boards is: Get yourself a proper wooden or bamboo board or butcher's block, treat it with care (clean it an soak it with mineral food grade oil every now or than...) and that's all you'll even need.
I've been using my favorite board for over 10 years now. And it doesn't smell of onions.
Assuming that you'll soon be cooking the vegetables in the same pan as the onions/garlic, you have little to worry about in terms of 'contaminating' the former with the latter.
Softer boards will accumulate scores and grooves from knives which will trap oils and juices from onions and garlic which may eventually start to make them smell. However, it's a good idea to replace your cutting boards every few months anyway to guard against bacteria build up, so it shouldn't be too much of an issue.
I've never heard cutting boards should be periodically replaced...
Of course they should, especially those you use for raw meat. They wear out just like anything else and they're not exactly expensive. In the case of raw meat boards, the more scores and grooves there are, the places there are for bacteria to hide in.
I know contamination is a concern with scarred plastic cutting boards, but I was thinking of wooden boards, which I've always heard are relatively safe (http://faculty.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/faculty/docliver/Research/cuttingboard.htm). This study doesn't seem to address the possibility of long-term buildup, but unless the wood was kept regularly moist and hardly dried out, it would be hard to see how bacteria could build up.
Is it bad to cut onions and other vegetables on the same cutting board?
Cutting board flavor transfer concerns are a factor of:
Is it really important to the recipe at hand? Example, if cooking a gumbo, cutting board protocol is simply not needed. Some recipes might need special handling, but none come to mid.
What is the cutting board surface (maple, bamboo, plastic, glass etc.)
How you clean the cutting board: frequency of cleaning and does the method of cleaning match the board material
I cooked in restaurants for 10 years, and at home for 40 years: I've never had a problem with undesired flavor transfer of onions (or garlic, or shallots, or powerful seafood etc.).
Whatever your cutting board is made of... come back here and research how to clean it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.454642
| 2012-01-10T06:38:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20298",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"D Rooke",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Jay",
"Jonathan",
"Markus Mikkolainen",
"Ron",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44475",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44493",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44700",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8682",
"slim",
"tariqews",
"wedstrom"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17002
|
Meals safe in danger zone
I'm on campus for most of the day, and since eating on campus is expensive, I would bring leftover dinners with me. Since they would sit in my backpack for several hours before eating, I would use one of the many microwaves on campus to heat it up to kill any harmful bacteria that may be present.
I'm at a new college now, and there appears to be only one public microwave on the entire campus, which makes bringing leftover dinners inconvenient.
The Problem: The food I bring with me will sit around in the temperature danger zone for several hours before eating. Heating it back up and keeping it cool are not very feasible.
The Need: Meals that don't need to be kept cool or heated up. The only thing I can think of is sandwiches, and the only sandwiches I can think of are boring turkey slices on white bread. So, what kind of meals can I make then?
Sandwiches can be interesting. Need not be just boring cold meat on sliced bread. First change the bread, try baggets, wholemeal, buns, with sesmi and other nuts. Then change the filling. I used to get ckicken tika, BLT, smoked salmon with lemon mayo and so on. Even if you stick to ol' ham and cheese you can get various cures of ham and hundreds of cheese. If you want it hot you can aways toast the sarnie.
Not food-related, but I'd ask around and see if the grad students in your department would let you leave your food in their refrigerator during the day. As long as it's not big and doesn't stay over night, there's a good chance they won't mind.
May I suggest investing in an insulated lunchbox and ice pack (decidedly un-sexy, but practical), or storing in a campus fridge? These can extend length of time food is at a safe temperature considerably.
Thermoses are wonderful things; a good thermos that is filled with fully heated/cooled food and kept properly sealed will keep the contents out of the temperature danger zone for at least 4 hours. The brand-name manufacturing site claims 6 hours in the safe zone for commercial products, with up to 16 for hot substances.
Failing this, cheese or PB&J sandwiches are pretty nonperishable. Remember that cheesemaking was originally intended to preserve the nutritional contents of milk for prolonged periods without refrigeration, and harder cheeses stay safe for longer. The catch is that they will exude some oil if kept warm. A similar principle applied to heavily cured meats, which are treated with nitrites or smoked, allowing them to be safely kept at room temperature.
A personal favorite meal for me is baguette, cheese, and a cured sausage. If you want to go even simpler, you can have a quite satisfying meal with a really good artisan bread and a dipping container of herbed/peppered olive oil.
Would an ice pack last long when temperatures are consistently over 100 F?
@Jesse: Dry ice is used to ship frozen products cross-country. If you get yourself a dry ice pack, it definitely will last 4 hours.
Dry ice everyday seems a bit impractical to me.
+1 - @Jesse J - An insulated pack is probably the best idea. Starting with everything cold will make a big difference in how long it will last. For my wife in a similar situation, I would make her lunch the night before and put the whole assembled insulated lunchbox (with the 'lid' open) in the fridge the night before. In the morning, toss a ice pack from the freezer, zip it up and go. Walking from class to class in 100F shouldn't be a big deal - surely your classes aren't actually meeting outside at 100F?
+1 for the thermos. Not only can they keep things hot but they also keep things cold. You can fill the thermos with chilled foods and keep the cold until microwave time.
@Jesse J: In an insulated bag, I'd expect an ice pack to last a while even in high ambient temperatures. A thermometer will let you know for sure. Also, another trick you can try, for things that won't degrade from freezing, freeze them and let the thaw in the lunch bag.
From when I went to school in Alabama, we'd freeze lemonade overnight in a thermos (plastic, not vaccuum; leave the top off when freezing), and on the walk home it'd have thawed to a point where it was still a little bit slushy. Of course, on the days it was 100F, my mom would try to pick us up so we didn't have to walk those days.
You can find sexy lunch-boxes out there. Of course they are more expensive, but not excessively so.
We've mentioned the more sandwich-type stuff ... but some other things if you're getting sick of sandwiches:
A container of peanut butter plus some food item to scoop it out with: apple slices, carrot sticks, celery
Anything that hikers will put into trail mix or granola : nuts, dried fruit, dried coconut, candy coated chocolate (so if it melts, it doesn't get messy)
Fruitcake. Yes, lots of people can't stand it, but it comes from a way to preserve food for long journeys.
+1 for scooping. Hummus would be a good choice here too.
First off, no egg, poultry or fish products which are not made to be stored without refrigeration. An exception would be pickled eggs.
There are only about a bazillion things you can haul around without refrigeration. I am very enamored of sardines, cheeses, crackers, nuts, olives, pickled almost anything, some home prepared foods such as chunky guacamole, bread, roast beef*. Take a stroll through your local grocer with an open mind.
Eating crackers with cheese and salami chased with a kalamata olives and a bite of carrot is tasty nutritious and fun.
When in remote areas working I regularly carry a sack with peanuts, sardines, summer sausage, cheese and beef jerky.
Carrots, wedges of cabbage or chunks of lettuce, celery, baby beets, green onion, leeks, cherries, apples, etcetera are all easy, health and fun to eat.
Have used beef and cheese to make sandwiches using only butter or avocado as a spread, and bringing a pickle and tomatoe and onion, which I slice up with my nifty pocket knife for a bonus meal, a pear for balance and a candy bar to top it all off.
Bottom line: use your imagination, and don't use foods that will poison you after a few hours without the refer.
*there are many traditional recipes which use cooked beef without refrigeration for short term nourishment.
Salad is pretty good for that kind of situation. Add some toppings that won't go bad: olives, carrot sticks, sun-dried tomatoes, dried berries, slivered nuts, beans (garbanzo beans are good), artichoke hearts, hearts of palm.. go crazy. Make/buy some sort of vinaigrette and put it in a separate container, then put it on when you're ready to eat.
Like BobMcGee said, some cheeses and meats would also be safe if you feel the need.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.454942
| 2011-08-20T18:38:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17002",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"BaffledCook",
"Brendan Long",
"Daniel",
"Elthuen",
"Jesse J",
"Joe",
"Kheldar",
"Kumar KS",
"Marc Dubeau",
"Michelle Quansah",
"Nikita Zernov",
"Preston",
"Rincewind42",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140078",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36441",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36463",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36848",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36865",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7130",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17047
|
I left fully cooked lasagna out all night
I left fully cooked lasagna out on the counter all night. My house is 72 degrees Fahrenheit (22 degrees Celsius). Is it safe to reheat and eat?
Aaronut has written some excellent food safety answers, such as http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16665/is-it-really-necessary-to-wash-a-skillet-that-will-be-heated-up-again-soon/16672#16672 and http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12992/why-is-it-dangerous-to-eat-meat-which-has-been-left-out-and-then-cooked/13009#13009 - have a look at those, before you even think about trusting the more "adventurous" (i.e. potentially dangerous) answers here.
There are a lot of similar questions out there. The fact you post it means you know, deep down, that it's not safe.
There is insufficient information in the question for anyone to give a definitive answer. For example, how was the dish covered? was is in a container or open for flies and cockroaches to crawl over while you slept.
I don't have any professional experience so just anecdotal and your mileage may vary: I have done so many times, with lasagne and spaghetti bolognese etc. also where it wasn't covered by any means. I have never been sick. Also, I know plenty of people (including my parents) who will always leave what remains of pizza, lasagne etc. in the oven for the next day so it is just a matter of turning on the oven to heat it up. Seems this is just how they were brought up, and has never caused problems. I will usually put in the refrigerator unless I forgot. But I do, I will eat it anywyay.
Throw this out. The general rule of thumb is that food that isn't otherwise preserved (through large quantities of acid or sugar for example) must not be in the danger zone from 40-140 degrees Fahrenheit for more than 2 hours. In practice this is an oversimplification - see the incredible and incredibly detailed food safety section in Modernist Cuisine for the whole story. Overnight is way too long. It is quite possible for bacteria to have multiplied and secreted toxins which are heat stable. E. Coli and Staph. Aureus both do this, for example. Reheating will not make this safe. It isn't worth making yourself or your family horribly ill. Order pizza.
Well, if my lasagna had a bunch of living staph or e coli in it after I'd cooked it, I'd think there were bigger problems than it sitting out for a while. There are more sensible bacteria to be concerned about in cooked food, at home.
It doesn't take "a bunch". One cell of these microorganisms, if allowed to thrive in a warm, moist environment for 12 hours could grown into billions of them. Unless of course your house is a surgical operating theater and your tomato sauce contains bleach.
+1 Completely agree here. Your kitchen isn't a sterile environment - well a normal person's kitchen. Its not like any lasagna is worth a potential trip to the hospital. Odds are you'd be fine, but how stupid would you feel telling the doctor at the ER that you ate the food sitting out all night and thats why you're there. If in doubt, throw it out.
@michael: With a double rate of about 20 minutes, you'd need 10 hours just to get one billion, assuming the contamination was instant, the food was in the dangerzone, and also that the food was an ideal growth medium. In practice, you're more likely to get the e coli poisoning from your side salad. I'd put it at higher risk than raw eggs, but at a lower risk than raw chicken.
@michael I strongly disagree with your perspective here. Staph will not be present unless someone sneezed on the lasagna post-cooking.
E coli will have been killed during initial cooking, and will therefore have already released all the toxins they can. If it was safe the first time, and not sneezed on or re-infected with E-coli, it will continue to be safe if reheated.
Well let's take one obvious way it could be contaminated. Presumably it got wrapped with tin foil. Were the hands of the person who handled that tin foil absolutely sterile? Not likely. It is perfectly possible for a few germs to be present on those hands, which get transferred to the foil or plastic, and from there into the food where it will find an inviting warm, wet environment in which to multiply. This isn't just an opinion, it is the law for food handlers everywhere.
@Peter, this isn't an issue of agree or disagree, it's one of fact. There are at least a dozen common household bacteria that thrive in warm, moist environments and produce toxins within 2 hours. 4 hours is the absolute maximum time you can leave hot or warm food out and still be safe. Doesn't matter if it's cooked or not. Obviously the danger is greater with raw meat, but that's only because raw meat has a greater likelihood of being contaminated in the first place.
@michael: It'll find a layer of cheese, which is a crappy growth medium (it's dry, and it's the byproduct of a ton of intensive bacterial growth, which means less food for newcomers). And then a layer of tomato sauce, which is a crappy growth medium (it's acidic and salty). And no, I wouldn't serve it in a restaurant. Restaurants are like hospitals: you'll find more germs there than any other sort of kitchen, and more potential cross contamination. They are held to a high standard for a reason. In a home environment? The risk is much lower. It's not nil, but I wouldn't worry about eating it.
And let me cite one more source: the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service: fsis.usda.gov/factsheets/Danger_Zone/index.asp, which is crystal clear on the subject. Two hours in the danger zone, period. Overnight isn't even remotely close to safe.
@Satanicpuppy: Please, tone it down with your food safety rants. Unless you're an expert on microbiology, you have no basis from which to make such broad, sweeping claims. The fact is, tomato sauce does not have a high enough pH to stop bacterial growth, home kitchens are not sterile environments, and the type of cheese used in lasagna (mozzarella, ricotta, etc.) is more than moist enough to support bacteria, especially after being drenched in tomato sauce and water from the cooked pasta.
@michael: This is the same USDA that thinks I need to cook my thanksgiving turkey to 165F, right? They make recommendations for being as close to 100% safe as possible. Overnight lasagna ain't it. Nor a hamburger with pink in it, or a pork loin with juice in it, and you can throw your steak tartare out the fricking window, because that is like the worst thing imaginable from their point of view...Or you can accept that sometimes its worth not being 100% safe.
@satanicpuppy - you are right that some of the USDA advice is overkill (and actually, it turns out some of it is underkill - Nathan Myrhvold spent some time with them trying to get them to update some regs based on the research for Modernist Cuisine). However, the degree to which they overprotect is relatively small. If doublings are every 20 minutes, the difference between 2 hours and 14 hours is 2^36 bacteria - about a factor of 68 billion times the original count. Not close. Just because they are a little overprotective in some cases doesn't mean you should throw out basic research.
@Satanicpuppy: Yes, exactly, they USDA and other agencies post guidelines that minimize risk. That is exactly what they do, and that is exactly what we need to do when answering food safety questions. It is the only responsible thing to do. We can certainly go into more detail and attempt to quantify the risk and let people make their own decisions if they wish to ignore the dangers, but simply telling people to ignore the guidelines because you think it's safe is extremely irresponsible and inappropriate. By all means add a caveat to the accepted guidelines but don't ignore them.
@aaronut: And I didn't add caveats, where? The bias here is so far the other direction that any statement of the form "this probably won't kill you" is viewed as the rankest heresy.
@Satanicpuppy: You can't say with authority that "this probably won't make you sick", at least not based on any facts presented so far. The best you can say is that it might not, and that's not really a very useful or interesting answer to a question which asks, "can this make me sick?" The chances of a plane crashing or falling out of the sky are similarly low, but they still keep oxygen masks and life preservers on board, because a small risk, taken over millions or billions of trials, turns into a near-certainty.
I haven't had the pleasure of reading Myhrvold's research, sadly. I will say I agree generally with @satanicpuppy's perspective that I would eat reheated lasagna under the terms described above. I agree with Michael and Aaronut that it would not be suitable for guests and certainly not at a professional food establishment.
Update, I didn't realize Aaronut and Satanicpuppy are in an extended debate on this site re: food-safety questions. I'll bow out now.
@Peter: It's fine if you would eat it. Really, it is. But the question doesn't ask, would you eat it? It asks, is it safe to eat? Those are two different questions.
@aaronut: I said "Kill you" not "Make you sick." And even there I said "Probably."
@Satanicpuppy: Who cares? Death isn't the subject of the question, or of food safety in general; sickness is.
Was the pasta in a sealed container? If it was left open to the air or was touched by anything that could contaminate it, it might not be ok.
On the other hand, I have left rice and pasta out overnight in the pot with the lid on at room temperature numerous times and never had a problem. This "two hours at room temperature and throw it out" thing is really overkill almost all the time. Only if you are pretty unlucky will the food be unsafe to eat.
Food safety is not about being safe most of the time, or safe unless you're unlucky. There are a lot of people out there, and we want them all to be safe, not just the lucky ones. If everyone follows your advice, a lot of people will get seriously sick.
If by reheat you mean get the internal temperature up over 140F for more than 10 minutes (and it won't really taste "hot" until you do so), then it's totally fine, provided that it was fully cooked originally.
That said, if you cooked it fully originally, unless there's something a little funky about your ingredients, you're probably fine to eat it cold right now. Of course "probably" is very different than definitely.
Hence, 140F if you wish to be sure. Alternately, touching 165F would be plenty; don't even have to wait the ten minutes.
I'm sorry, but this is dangerous, terrible advice. Bacteria can leave toxins that you can't destroy by reheating.
@michael: Eh. I think the lasagna would be fine, but I agree that you shouldn't think heating makes you safer.
See my answer below, and read http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/extension/poison.html if you have further doubt - there are several bacteria which produce toxins that you aren't going to destroy by reheating. This lasagna could make someone really sick.
I have thoroughly reviewed the link you post, and stand by my general advice. Which bacteria listed on that link do you believe are at risk of growing here, (and note, at a rate which will cause significant toxins being left out 12 hours?)
If the lasagna was safe to eat at first (and in this case, it seems to be, since the author has posted this question), there is nothing on that list that poses a health risk if the lasagna has been re-heated the following day.
Food safety is important, but there's no point in spreading fear needlessly.
See my comment on your answer. Staph and E-Coli would need to be re-introduced to be a significant risk based on the parameters of the question.
I've explained in the comments above how easy it would be for them to be reintroduced.
And let me cite one more source: the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/factsheets/Danger_Zone/index.asp, which is crystal clear on the subject. Two hours in the danger zone, period. Overnight isn't even remotely close to safe.
The problem is that there could be something funky about the ingredients, or the prep/cooking/storage conditions, and we just wouldn't know. "It'd be fine 99% of the time, with no way to tell if you're the one in a hundred who gets sick" is not really an acceptable answer to a food safety question.
So there is lots of evidence that proves that this might be unsafe, but there is no evidence that actually proves that it is. The USDA regs are a ridiculous standard ... they introduce more harm by over-sterilization then they actually fix. If this was cooked properly to start with, and the food smells good, then eat it and stop wasting your money.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.455527
| 2011-08-22T18:19:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17047",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Alice ",
"BaffledCook",
"Cascabel",
"Gene",
"Kirk",
"Marilyn",
"Michael Natkin",
"Morty",
"Oast",
"Peter V",
"Rincewind42",
"Satanicpuppy",
"clcto",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36576",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36589",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7166",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96735",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/982",
"rfusca",
"user36589"
],
"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
}
|
16813
|
How do I adjust for a recipe to bake in an oven instead of on a grill?
I have a recipe for grilling a pear crisp that calls for grilling for 15 to 20 minutes over indirect medium heat.
Can I instead bake this in an oven? At what temperature should I bake it?
Yes. You want it to brown, so I'd do it at about 375 or 400 Fahrenheit. Depending on how thick and wet it is, it could take anywhere from say 20 to 40 minutes. If you have a thermometer, you can figure it is done at say 180 degrees in the center. Otherwise just look for bubbling juices and a nice brown top.
I think 375-400 might be a bit too hot, and the topping would get too brown before the pears cooked down. I'd try 350 degrees Fahrenheit, for the first time.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.456577
| 2011-08-11T17:25:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16813",
"authors": [
"Ellis Godard",
"Niklaus Messerli",
"Susan",
"brettfelts",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35897",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36313",
"laktak",
"vitz3"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19125
|
Which type of pan can you recommend for pan-frying tofu?
Which type of pan can you recommend for pan-frying tofu, stainless, aluminum, or carbon steel?
The correct pan is the one you're most comfortable with. Any of those materials can give you good results if used correctly, and you might even get away with cast-iron or nonstick cookware.
In fact, this is true for most cooking tasks. Exception: if the food will ruin your pan, as with acid on cast iron/carbon steel, and eggs with many materials, if not oiled enough.
For a beginner, I'd recommend a non-stick pan, and a wide one. Otherwise, you're liable to have the crust on the fried tofu stick to the pan. Most tofu is fairly delicate.
Two tips:
1. dry and press the tofu before frying it
2. do not crowd the pan.
If you're an experienced cook, see BobMcGee's answer.
Cast iron rules! but if i was to choose from the options you provided i would pick the heaviest / thickest one regardless of the material.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.456680
| 2011-11-24T19:55:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19125",
"authors": [
"Bobby",
"Mike G",
"Rosemary",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41556",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41715",
"penny",
"ttulinsky"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17805
|
Red beans and rice with salt pork
Does salt pork have to be fully cooked before you put it in your dish?
I am cooking red beans and rice, and the dish calls for a ham hock. I don't have one of those, so I opted to use salt pork instead.
No it does not; you can put it in raw and it will cook with the red beans.
I prepare it every year by:
Soak red beans in cold water over night;
fry off the diced salt pork, onion, green pepper, celery and garlic in the pot I will use to make the red beans;
add the beans and liquid and cook till tender & serve over rice.
Your could also prepare this dish without frying the salt pork first, just stick it in the pot with the beans.
One warning: Salt pork is salty, really really salty. If your recipe tells you to use two pounds of smoked hock, don't use that much salt pork - would advise using 1/8 or less as much salt pork as you would use smoked pork.
You can pressure cook the salt pork in more water than usual, to remove most of the salt before you add it to the soup. This also helps if the salt pork is homemade, and you couldn't find cuts of pork with enough fat to make it tender.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.456803
| 2011-09-17T14:05:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17805",
"authors": [
"Daniel T Lawton",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74016"
],
"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
}
|
21396
|
What qualifies to be an "all purpose flour"?
I have Atta, and also Maida.
Which one of them qualifies as all purpose flour?
If this all purpose flour has got some special name, please enlighten me.
Of those two, Maida flour is the closest to 'Western' all-purpose flour (which is an American term. It is called plain flour in Britain). Atta flour is made from durum wheat, which is used for things like pasta (and of course Indian breads like chapatis).
Maida flour is made with 'regular' wheat, but it also has a lower protein content than all-purpose flour (8-10% as opposed to 9-12%). The impact of this lower protein level will depend on what you're cooking. Maida flour should be good for making cakes, for example.
All purpose flour (sometimes abbreviated to just AP) has a protein level in the middle of the range for wheat flour. Flour with high protein level is known as 'bread flour', and flour with low protein level is 'cake flour'. Flour containing more protein will develop more gluten, making for a stronger, stretchier, chewier dough. That's great for bread, particularly breads that you want to have a chewier texture and firmer crust such as baguettes, sourdough, rustic breads, and so on. Lower protein flour is used for softer products such as cakes, muffins, and biscuits (in the American sense, meaning chemically leavened dinner rolls, not the British sense of cracker or cookie). With its medium protein level, AP can be used for either breads or cakes and will give a product that's neither very chewy nor very soft.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.456921
| 2012-02-16T11:21:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21396",
"authors": [
"Glen",
"JNelsen",
"Samson",
"Shairys",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47323",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47356",
"rocksNwaves"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18050
|
Are heads of shrimps safe to eat in US?
I wonder if heads of shrimps bought from US grocery stores are safe to eat.
Personally, I don't know what it is about them, but whenever I eat a whole shrimp (usually tiger shrimp, fried), no matter how much I chew, it seems to tickle on the way down, and make me gag.
Why would you eat their heads? You should peel that off and throw it away (or make fish stock with it).
@Mien: Because there are meat inside the shell of the head.
@Mien: And Tim forgot to mention: The heads are the best part! The shell is edible if cooked properly and/or if the shrimp variety naturally has a soft shell.
@Mein : never throw away ... always make shrimp stock. (shells + heads + water, simmer, strain ... even easier than chicken stock, as there's no bones to crack)
If it's safe to eat the shrimp, it should be safe to eat the head. The US food authorities (FDA) have, in a way, approved of the shrimp you have bought, so it's safe to eat.
Thanks! I wonder if some poisonous material such as some heavy metal is accumulated in the head.
I'm not sure about that, but the bigger 'blue' fish (tuna, salmon, etc) are more worrisome as they live longer and accumulate more 'heavy metal'
Well the sea cockroach diet of sea seawage is of more concern than the mercury in the water.
Yes , they are safe. In fact there are many people who think it's the best part of the shrimp. Although the way it's normally done is by sucking the liquid out of the head rather than eating the whole thing shell and all.
Nothing to worry about, specially if they have been frozen.
Actually, some fish stock recipes call for shrimp heads or shells.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.457076
| 2011-09-27T21:24:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18050",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Deborah Dykstra",
"ESultanik",
"Joe",
"Mien",
"Neil Meyer",
"Tim",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2064",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"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
}
|
17030
|
How do I get rid of mayonnaise smell?
Today for the first time, I tested classic egg mayonnaise.
All I can say that it smelled strongly like yeast!
Is there a way to get rid of that smell? Do mayonnaise in general have that smell?
Enlighten please.
Can you post something of your recipe (at least the ingredients)?
The strongest smells in mayonnaise should be vinegar and egg. There shouldn't be any yeast, and therefore any yeast smell, so that is a bit concerning. I am not sure what might imitate a yeast smell.
I don't know how to counter the smell since I am not sure what the origination of the smell is. Does it taste okay? Is the texture okay? I do find that homemade and store brand mayonnaises have pretty different smells in general.
I agree; I have never found a mayonnaise that smelled of yeast, both in Italy and USA.
Katey, thanks, perhaps you are right, I am confusing the smell of vinegar with yeast. I smelled vinegar yesterday, and it smelled exactly like the mayonnaise.
In that case it's probably that the ratio was off or you didn't get it to emulsify completely and the mayonnaise cracked. Keep experimenting!
I didn't experiment anything, I purchased it from the market.
In my experience, mayonnaise smells like mayonnaise. I can't distinguish store bought from homemade by smell. It should be smelling more like vinegar, so maybe the brand you are using has a yeasty component.
Thanks it was vinegar's smell which I was finding confusing
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.457254
| 2011-08-22T05:26:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17030",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Cheryl Greening Anagnost",
"Katey HW",
"Latency",
"Nina Alto",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Valeria Aguayo",
"avpaderno",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36530",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36555",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36620",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36621",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7082",
"trafalmadorian",
"walbuc"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16737
|
Explanation of the phrase "Eye of Round Roast"
I need to translate the type of meat called "Eye of Round Roast" to Danish.
It would be extremely lucky, if anyone here speaks Danish as well as having a quite good English cooking technical knowledge. It might be a long shot.
So, if there isn't any Danish speaking helpfull mind here, I would really appreciate if I could get a good definition or explanation in English of what the eye of round roast is.
I have tried with no luck the Google translator, www.ordbogen.com (a Danish very indepth dictionary), and other kinds fx www.thefreedictionary.com to try guessing the actual meaning. I need a dictionary with cooking specific technical phrases, and that is not exactly lying around.
Reach out to Wikipedia User:Ysangkok [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ysangkok]. This is the person who authored the US Beef Cuts diagram and appears to be Danish.
You could show your butcher the image located at http://classconnection.s3.amazonaws.com/1903/flashcards/626191/jpg/round.jpg . The muscle label "2" is the semitendinosus, which is called the eye of round.
I think the Danish use the English style cutting and names not the US style, so direct translation is not really possible. The round is often just English "Roast Beef"
The main part of the round we would call topside, which is Danish is Inderlår og klump (topside and rump)
The top part we call Silverside is the "Culotte" (leg)
There are other untranslatable parts like Tyksteg, Lårtunge, and Couvette; these are referred to as just "Roast Beef"!
In the UK it's topside / silverside roast, but I don't know how standard cuts are across the rest of the EU. Certainly France and UK are far more similar than UK and US, but for Scandinavia it might vary more.
You'll find the joint in any butcher or supermarket in UK as a standard cut for a Sunday lunch. Very similar to rump roast.
If you're in Denmark, I would take one of the wikipedia diagrams, or just head to a butcher where there will be a diagram, and then point to the bit you want.
My grandmother is Danish, and would know, but at this point has had far too many strokes to be know what a cow is, otherwise I'd ask.
Do you need it to be eye of round? If you're translating recipes between countries the cuts can vary a fair bit. It might be easier to not translate the cut directly, and rename it to something more local and appropriate, or there might be a similar dish with a name you can use. eg. in the UK, just saying roast beef would often imply a cut like this. A better cut would be spelled out - rib roast.
Eye of round is just part of the ass of the cow, basically. It's the round muscle with a small layer of fat on the top.
I need it to be eye of round roast or something similar in the way, it will be cooked. I comes down to how tender it is, and I have to translate "eye of round roast", which is used as an example of a cut of meat not very delicate and tender in contrast to fx tenderloin. I could also use some other example of a cut, which would require same cooking time and similar.
By the way, I'm translating an American manual, and "eye of round" is very frequently used. That's why it's getting on my nerves.
That going to the local butcher with a Wikipedia diagram print idea is actually not bad...
In terms of cut and tenderness, etc, rump would be the most generic in UK terms. Not sure how that spreads across the rest of the EU. I did find this: Dansk (Danish)
n. - [zool.] ende, [zool.] hale, tyksteg
idioms:
rump steak oksetyksteg
Very good! Thanks. So in UK terms rumb and eye of round have the same characteristics and both can be used as an example of a (well known) tough piece of meat requiring more work?
I don't know if this helps, or just confuses the matter further, but the USDA Instutional Meat Purchase Specifications defines :
Item No. 171C - Beef Round, Eye of Round (IM) - This boneless item consists of the M. semitendinosus and shall not be severed on either end. The eye is separated from the top and outside rounds and heel between the natural seams.
M. semitendinosus is the main muscle to force the knee of the hind leg to bend, and is located on the back side of the femur.
The word "eye" in the name of a cut of meat is like in the phrase "eye of the storm" - a round part in the middle of something. There are well known cuts like rib eye, and less well known ones like chuck eye. The Round specifically refers to part of the cow. There's a good diagram at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beef#Cuts and if you scroll down, you can see the UK cuts, which not only have different names, but different boundaries.
What exactly does it mean then, when there is "eye of" in the phrase too? Is it then a specific part of the round or just any round part? Does that bit have different characteristics compared to the rest of the round? I can translate "round", but not the "eye of" bit.
A round steak or round roast isn't necessarily round. And any round piece of meat doesn't qualify as round steak or round roast. It refers to a steak or roast cut from the hindquarter of the cow. Within that general area, there is a muscle (I actually think it's the wide end of the tenderloin) that is called the eye because it's round. If you translate "round" literally, you'll confuse people. Instead, find a meat chart that uses the Danish words and boundaries, and use whatever the Danes call that cut.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.457421
| 2011-08-08T21:59:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16737",
"authors": [
"Alex",
"Demietra95",
"Didgeridrew",
"Kate Gregory",
"Linda",
"Marco Prins",
"Paul Cline",
"Steeven",
"Tony",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1761",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35712",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35713",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36054",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6968",
"jennifer"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16780
|
How do you grill Shish Kabobs so they aren't so chewy?
We cut beef stew into one inch cubes and pierce them on a stick with cherry tomatoes, onions, green peppers, etc, and grill them nicely.
The meat is brown and grilled on the outside, pinkish in the middle, vegetables are grilled, but the meat ends up being not so tender.
How can I make the Shish Kabobs tender?
Many varieties of kabob (other than shish) actually use ground meat as opposed to whole pieces. Think of it like moulded meatballs on a skewer. The grinding has the benefit of helping break down any connective tissue in the meat, which will prevent chewiness. It also allows you to more easily flavor the interior of the meat without resorting to long marination/brining.
Using a cut of meat without too much connective tissue will definitely help. Talk to your butcher about good options. Stew meat isn't the best choice; it contains a lot of connective tissue which breaks down during the long, slow stewing process. Grilling is too hot and quick to break down that tissue. If you do grill stew meat, lower temperature and longer cooking time may help some, but in that case you'll probably want to do the veggies separately.
A good marinade will help. You can add some meat tenderizer, or make fresh pineapple juice one of the marinade ingredients. Pineapple contains an enzyme that'll break down some of the connective tissue, but it has to be fresh -- canned juice will have been heated, destroying the enzyme.
Totally agree with above. Start with a more tender cut of meat. The easiest option is to buy meat that is inherently tender. Most marinates do more "sealing" of the exterior of your meat than breakdown of connective tissue. So your meat is juicier after grilling but not necessarily more tender. Meat tenderizer may work - I have never used it. I have jacquard "tenderizer" with 20 or so tiny razor blades that I use to tenderize tougher cuts for grilling - it is a dream.
Also, they aren't as pretty with this strategy, but I've begun skewering my shish kabobs more in line with cooking time than for aesthetics. So I will skewer all my meat together...
This would allow you to cook your meat kabobs seperately and only until they are cooked rather than trying to get everything on the kabob to cook at the right time. Admittedly, I know once you get really good at this, it's totally doable (to cook it all on the same skewer), but I'm not there, and it might make your life easier as well...
We do this as well. Might not be so aesthetically pleasing, but the textures are way better.
I have found a pin style meat tenderizer (before you cube or marinade the meat) to be very helpful in using a cuts that might otherwise prove "too chewy".This model is on Amazon.
Once penetrated by this type of tenderizer a good marinade (BEER) will work wonders on those connective tissues.
A Jaccard is great for tenderizing meat, however, that is really the only thing that would be breaking down the connective tissues. Unless you let the meat sit in a very acidic marinade for a very long time (weeks), or unless the marinade contains some type of enzymatic tenderizer (e.g., papaya), the marinade is only going to add flavor.
@ESultanik I have read both that beer (as a marinade) will or wont tenderize beef. This link claims that it will. My experience suggests that when I marinade in beer (for even just a few hours) the meat is more tender, but maybe it is just with a little beer I don't care as much :o).
I've heard both claims as well. There is no dispute that strong acids will break down connective tissue, however, academic research has shown that relatively low-acid liquids like beer and vinegar have no tenderizing effect: "Results of this work indicate that acid marination with 0.1 to 0.5 M of the three analyzed acids had no effect on tenderness."
That study concluded that the best way to tenderize via acid marination was to use highly acidic (0.75 to 1.5 molarity) lactic or acetic acid for a period of fourteen days.
Having done a great deal of "less-than-academic" research into the effects of beer I can categorically say "I enjoy my shish kabobs more when marinated in beer."
a proper marinade helps, but if you want juicy soft meat there is no substitute for fat. The meat must have marbling and not come from an old animal. Also, scoring the meat before marinading helps the liquid penetrate.
tenderizing chemicals like pinapple juice or papaya do work, but they can leave you with a mushy texture - not very appetizing. Experiment before you get a nickname and a place in the family history...
Another option is to cook the meat low and slow. Once the meat is tender, let it cool in the fridge.
Once it's cooled, you can skewer it on to the shish (or is it the kabob?). The high heat will now caramelize the outside and warm the inside.
At least in theory.
It is the shish :) the kabob is the cooked meat.
@rumtscho: Oh, good, should have Gooo**gled that :-)
try marinating stewing beef in your favorite marinade...then sprinkle some coffee grounds into it. mix thouroughly. i did this last week...marinated in the fridge for a day. the tough cut was sooooo tender and cooked quickly with the veggies. i sliced the stew beef in at least half to get quarter inch thick pieces. my buddy was amazed....as was i.
I know I'm coming late to this discussion, but thought I'd answer for those referencing or googling the topic!
I use stew beef for souvlaki and shish kabob all the time. The 2 best ways to get it tender are:
1) Marinate over night in yogurt, just google yogurt marinades, but make sure you are using plain Balkan style yogurt
2) brine.
This is my favourite because it's more adaptable. Brining is not just for poultry or pork. Just google brine for beef, but this is the ratio I start with
2 3/4 cups water
1/4 cup salt
3 tablespoons brown sugar
2 cups ice
Bring water salt and sugar to a low boil to dissolve sugar and salt. Do not lower amounts of salt or sugar. These are what break down the meat fibres and make it tender. The meat will not be salty. Add 2 cups of ice and let cool completely. Place meat and brine in a baggie and keep in the fridge for a minimum of 2 hours, but preferably overnight. Rinse the meat. Pat dry. Put on skewers with whatever accoutrement you like and grill away.
That is a basic brine. I like to add extra stuff depending on my mood. During the boiling stage I'll add things like mustard, herbs, vanilla and/or liquid smoke. Many have mentioned beer. Instead of ice, add alcohol during cooling stage. I like adding Guinness. Other faves are whiskey/bourbon or a bold red wine like Shiraz. Do not add alcohol during boiling stage ( particularly whisky), as it will flare up.
Hope this helps!!
Ps- if I'm adding a BBQ sauce ( I rarely do) I only add it in last few minutes of grilling, and I try to use something similar to the brine. Guinness BBQ Sauce if I had Guinness in the brine for example.
Pps. Also makes a difference to whole kabob if you Marinate the veggies. Just use a cheap store brand Italian salad dressing. Place pre cut veggies and dressing in a baggie and Marinate for as long as you like.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.457846
| 2011-08-10T02:04:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16780",
"authors": [
"Aitnes",
"BaffledCook",
"Cos Callis",
"David Joseffer",
"ESultanik",
"Işın Demirşahin",
"Jen",
"Michael M.",
"Sandra Andre",
"Shivam Malhotra",
"Stephen Ó Connor",
"florencelogan",
"helpfulfriendly",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35798",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35799",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35802",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35835",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36007",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36008",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6701",
"justkt",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16474
|
What vegetable for sauteed zucchini could I use instead of tomatoes?
I like to fry or sautee onions, garlic, chilis, spices (for flavor) and zucchini (the main ingredient); then stir them in a can of chopped tomatoes and simmer for a few minutes. The tomatoes are a way to add a sauce with some thickness that brings all the ingredients together. I want to get close to the texture and consistency, but I'm looking for something else so the dish does not always taste the same.
Is there another vegetable or fruit I could use instead of the tomatoes?
today at lunch I used onions and a little ground beef in my sauteed zucchini. That time of year.
Does it have to be a vegetable? Why not some other sauce? Why not zucchini and a protein?
I suppose it doesn't have to be a vegetable. But, something with the same consistency, somewhere between a sauce and a soup.
Cottage cheese will keep it consistent and match very well with the zucchini & spices.
Interesting -- for the cottage cheese, how long does it have to cook? Does it have to simmer, or just warm it a bit? (I have no experience cooking with cottage cheese)
You could use coconut milk and curry-type flavorings (e.g. coriander, cumin, turmeric, galangal, ginger, lemongrass, any type of chili pepper, cilantro), for a very different taste with a somewhat similar texture.
Diced eggplant (aubergine) with some coriander and cumin cooked with the zucchini would also give a very thick sauce consistency. I would cook the eggplant first, until it is quite 'mushy', so as not to overcook the zucchini. If you needed to thin the sauce you could add some stock or a little tomato paste and water.
Top it with a big blob of natural yoghurt at the end if you like that type of flavour.
I like to cook mushrooms with my onions, garlic, and zucchini. I prefer cremini (baby bellas), and I salt them so that they give up a lot of water, which can make things a bit sauc-y. And, of course, you can always mix up the spices.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.458572
| 2011-07-28T21:41:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16474",
"authors": [
"George Henne",
"Jason Sandeman",
"Joe Moeller",
"Kate Gregory",
"Thomas",
"Tritium21",
"adriansw",
"d l",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35105",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36077",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6868",
"nachoproblem",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16845
|
What is included in "Spices"
In the U.S.A., when a product's ingredients include spices what can this legally cover?
The term Spices on food labels can cover a very wide range of ingredients. This general term is only allowed when the ingredient is in a small quantity and not a major constituent of the product. Spices can be any vegetable sourced material that is used for flavour or arroma. Spices may be whole or ground, may be dry or fresh.
For details look at this page on the FDA website:
DEFINITIONS:
1. SPICES - General Definition - Aromatic vegetable substances, in the whole, broken, or ground form, whose significant function in food is seasoning rather than nutrition. They are true to name and from them no portion of any volatile oil or other flavoring principle has been removed.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.458759
| 2011-08-12T23:55:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16845",
"authors": [
"0 _",
"Dan F",
"Holly W",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35970",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35978",
"tomvo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
14632
|
Ingredients: Danish local specials
I'm visiting Denmark. I'd like to bring home some local Danish ingredients so I can prepare a meal from Danish cuisine. (It can be Scandinavian, if Danish is too narrow.)
It doesn't necessarily have to be a full-blown meal, it can be a snack or something equally simple.
Additional requirement: It should survive flight, so I'm thinking more about either something dry, or canned, or similar.
Do you have any recommendation?
Bfore you attempt this, you should check what the import laws are in your country of origin. I've had cat food confiscated when re-entering the US ... because it's made with meat (I was transporting two cats, and had bags of food taped to the cages so I could feed them; they didn't attempt to take the food that was in the bowls in with the cats, though). No meat or fresh produce can come in, although I have declared spices before and they were okay with it. (which was good, as it was a couple ounces of saffron)
@Joe - Poland and Denmark are part of the EU, it's 800 km ish from Denmark via Germany. It's a bit like driving from Maryland to Michigan, no real borders to worry about
@TFD : I wasn't sure ... but if someone else were to read this question, and think the same response applied, they could be quite annoyed if they come home only to have their items confiscated. Hell, I even had a time when I changed planes in Madrid (from international to domestic within Spain), and they made me go back through security, meaning I had to give up items bought at the duty-free shop as they were liquids and I only had my carry-on.
Liquids on aeroplanes are a different issue - that's something to check before you board. Last time I went through Spanish airspace I was allowed to carry two bottles on board because the seals were intact. My wife had to throw her cola away, though.
I'm from Denmark but I've lived in so many other places. Here's a list of things that usually go well:
leverpostej, similar to foie gras, tastes very good on rye bread.
marineret sild, marinated herring, also very good on rye bread.
flæskesvær, crunchy salty pig skin :-) people say it tastes a lot better than it sounds, and though I personally disagree, my foreign colleagues like it.
"proper" (strong) liquorice like Haribo's Super Piratos or Leaf's Lakrisal - because anything with less than 6% ammonium chloride is for wusses!
various kinds of cheese and bread, as has been said already.
wienerbrød, Danish pastry, especially kringle and spandauer are delicious.
makrel i tomat, canned mackerel (fish) in tomato juice, yet another delicious treat on rye bread.
+1 Wouldn't it be easier just to get rye bread and potatoes :-)
Are flæskesvær similar to the UK pork scratchings, or US pork rinds?
@klypos Yes I think those are comparable but I don't know them.
Huge thanks for the answer. I can hardly express how good it was. Danish names helped with shopping. And despite we have similar things in Poland, where I live, these things come in different flavors, e.g. I haven't eaten herrings marinated the ways Danish folk use. All in all, great answer.
You're welcome, I'm glad I could help. Smacznego!
The Danish do a nice line in pickled cucumbers, cheeses and crispbreads. Cheeses to look at include Havarti, Samsoe, Esrom, Maribo and the various kinds of Danish Blue. The pickled cucumbers are very much a local thing.
There are a variety of breads you could get - a lot of sourdough, rye and seed breads. Open sandwiches are popular in Denmark, for some reason. Also Danish salami can be very good.
Licorice (danish: lakrids). But, er, buy a bag first and see if you enjoy the local interpretation or not.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.458880
| 2011-05-10T09:10:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14632",
"authors": [
"Bruce Satow",
"Bxx",
"Darkhogg",
"Joe",
"TFD",
"Tobberoth",
"Torben Gundtofte-Bruun",
"Xavier Lowmiller",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42515",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42516",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42517",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5397",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"klypos",
"pawelbrodzinski"
],
"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
}
|
14651
|
How do I make chai latte at home?
I want to be able to make chai latte at home, but I don't have an espresso machine, and I don't really know if it is worth buying one just for an occasional drink.
Is there a way to froth the milk without an espresso? Is there any other way people know to make chai latte?
Just as a side comment.. Although Chai-Latte is synonymous with frothy spiced tea in the US, the word 'Chai' just means normal tea (generally served with milk) in India. The spices are not that common..
@ntt: Actually I knew that. According to my boss "Chai" is also the word for tea in Russian. (I work in a multi lingual office)
I believe it's shared by many languages in that region, from Russian, to Turkish (Çai), to Chinese (Cha).. Funny how words move in the world.. :)
According to Wikipedia, the word for tea in many languages is based on either of two pronunciations of the Chinese word 茶 (tê or chá). It's also interesting to note that “consumption of tea within India remained low until an aggressive promotional campaign by the (British-owned) Indian Tea Association in the early 20th century, which encouraged factories, mines, and textile mills to provide tea breaks for their workers.” See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea#Etymology_and_cognates_in_other_languages and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chai#History
Frothed milk is not essential to Masala Chai, it's normally made with plain milk; the frothed-milk version is mostly a Western variation. But I assume you like it with that little extra. You might try using a milk frother, you can get them much cheaper than the deluxe model I've linked to here. If you're very particular about your frothed milk though, it seems from some quite detailed instructions I found, that a proper milk steaming attachment as found on espresso machines is the way to go. The author of the instructions states that “With a little care, you can create steamed milk that is velvety smooth like the texture of wet shaving cream. The bubbles will be so small that you can barely see them! This is the way it’s supposed to be, because this way, it will blend with the espresso, creating a harmony of the flavors instead of a dry, tasteless cap floating on top.” The same author provides instructions on how to make Masala Chai with or without frothed milk:
In its most basic form, chai is black tea that is brewed strong with a combination of spices and is diluted with milk and sugar.
The spices vary from recipe to recipe, but usually consist of cinnamon, cardamom, cloves, pepper and ginger. Chai tea is traditionally consumed hot and sweet. The sweetness is needed to bring out the full flavors of the spices.
How to Make Chai
Here is a simple recipe to make chai yourself at home. This is what you will need:
[...]
Chai Latte
I just love a good chai latte! A chai latte is just the spiced tea mixed with milk that’s steamed from an espresso machine. I love the soft foamy texture the steamed milk adds to the chai.
You can get these at coffee houses, or if you can make them yourself if you have an espresso machine. I have detailed instructions on steaming (or frothing) milk in the coffee section of this site.
You can follow the above directions just don’t add the milk. This makes a strong tea. Then add the steamed milk straight from the espresso machine.
Practice to make velvety steamed milk and use fresh ingredients. This will insure that you make the perfect chai tea latte.
Source: http://www.2basnob.com/chai-tea.html
You may also want to take a look at the page titled “Milk Frother Tips” on coffee-makers-cafe.com, which gives a comparison between different methods of frothing milk. But note that that page also states you will get the best results with an espresso machine's steam wand:
The only way to produce true microfoam is with a good quality steam wand that has enough pressure to swirl the milk and the ability to heat the milk to the correct temperature. You won't get microfoam with a frother. Microfoam is like a thick milk... like runny-yoghurt in consistency. If you swirl it around in the jug it has a shiny, acrylic-like appearance.
Thanks, a $10 gadget is a lot easier to justify than a $100 espresso machine that will take up a chunk of counter space
+1; an excellent answer. You mention that frothed milk is unnecessary for masala chai. I'd just like to add that the traditional drink was made by simply heating milk and water with tea and spices, and this method is still the norm today in India and many other places. The switch to steamed or frothed milk is (I believe) mostly a Western modification. (I'm not trying to suggest one way is better than the other, mind you.)
@Jefromi: Your comment made me realize that it sounds like I meant you can use plain milk as a substitute, while frothed milk is the norm. I'll edit it to make clear the version with frothed milk is mostly a Western variation. Thanks!
You don't need anything fancy to make chai. My home made chai latte is pretty simple:
boil water (as you would for ANY tea)
steep the chai tea bag
-OR-
steep normal tea + some spices (some combination of: cinnamon, ginger, cardamom, allspice, star anise, cloves, mace or nutmeg, fennel. There are many recipes on the web if you google for "chai spices mix")
warm milk in a sauce pan, or microwave
after tea is steeped, remove bag, add milk, enjoy.
A great alteration in the summer is to skip warming the milk, and pour it ice cold into the super strong tea, then add some ice cubes.
Many of the comercial places like *$ use the steam tube on their espresso machine just to heat the pre-made mix they keep in the fridge... on more than one occasion when I've been getting a hot chai latte during peak hours, the steam tube on the espresso machine was busy frothing milk and they've used the microwave instead.
My brother does something similar, but he actually makes a large batch of quite strong tea/spice blend (approx 1qt or 1L), then chills it down, so he just needs to warm it and the milk up together, rather than brewing the tea each time.
there's something to be said for the efficiency of that @joe, but I love the smell of the brewing tea.
For as much as I enjoy various espresso drinks, I must offer up that simply microwaving your milk and pseudo scalding it will bring out a lot of the richness in it. The microwaving will also change the texture of the milk somewhat. You might consider nuking a few shots of milk at different power levels and times to see what might work best for Chai Latte in particular.
There's also vitamin/protein fortified Bolthouse pre-packaged Chai Latte; it's entirely unauthentic and tastes more like a candy cane than tea, but it sure is tasty nonetheless.
Will try the microwave idea, as for the bolthouse I don't think they sell it here (israel) But there are some good Chai teas in a tea bag which I drink a lot of
The best chai tea recipe:
750ml cold water
1/4 teaspoon ground ginger
1/4 teaspoon cinnomon
4 cardomom pods
3 teabags
Bring water and spices to the boil and leave to simmer for 10 minutes
Then add milk and as much sugar as you want! Full fat milk is the best but you can use half fat aswell!
This makes enough for 4 mugs and i just take the teabags out and put the rest in the fridge to heat up for later!! it tastes EXACTLY like the chai lattes from starbucks which i was addicted to until i found this recipe!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.459210
| 2011-05-10T14:58:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14651",
"authors": [
"Bhupinder",
"Cascabel",
"Chris",
"Christin",
"Eugene",
"Harts",
"Joe",
"KalenGi",
"Melanie Smits",
"Rade_303",
"Rinzwind",
"Zachary K",
"aryn.galadar",
"cabbey",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30862",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30864",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30877",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30878",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4012",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4284",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"notthetup"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17004
|
How to make red wine sauce?
I have tried to make red wine sauce using this recipe, but it didn't end up so well.
One problem was this step:
Bring to a boil and let boil boil over high heat until mixture is reduced to a thin layer in bottom of saucepan.
How much is a "thin layer"?
Ideally, I would like to see a movie of how it should be done, but YouTube doesn't have such.
Does anyone know a recipe that is explained more in detail?
"Didn't end up so well" how exactly?
@Aaronut : It was too thin. When I order red wine sauce at a restaurant, it tastes so good, that it can be eaten alone =) Mine didn't have that nuances flavour. So I am a bit lost on how to improve.
What quality of wine are you using? It may be that the fancy restaurant wine sauces are being made from a higher quality wine, or maybe a wine with a more substantial body. Just a thought.
@Katey Ψ : I used just the cheapest I could find =) Tomorrow will I try to use a cheap one again, but this time with a strong flavour.
If the problem you're having is that it is too watery (I assume that's what you mean by "too thin"), there might be two causes:
The recipe you linked to calls for a sizable amount of stock/broth, relative to the wine. It might be assuming that you have something closer to homemade stock, which has a high concentration of gelatin, as opposed to store-brought "broth", which is more like meat-flavoured juice.
You might not have reduced it enough. A "thin layer" could mean anything, but it's not thickness you're concerned about, it's viscosity. When the sauce has been reduced enough, it should have the consistency of... sauce. As in thick, sticky, and slow-moving. If it still looks and pours like water, it's not reduced enough.
On the subject of taste, there's also the question of which wine you use. The wine sauce is going to taste like the wine (stronger, actually), which is one of the reasons why chefs will tell you not to cook with any wine that you wouldn't drink.
It's pretty easy to make a reduction - just continue to let water boil off until it turns into the consistency you want. If you overdo it, you can always add a little extra wine to compensate.
As noted in the comment clarification - if you're simmering at a reasonable temperature, expect to wait at least an hour, and for no less than half the water to evaporate.
When I boil the red wine to reduce it. How should this substance be? Very thick, thick, same a final sauce, thin, very thin?
@Sandra: The butter may help to thicken it very slightly as it cools, but those sauces you've had in restaurants? That's about the consistency you should be expecting. You may have to simmer for a fairly long time; if you've been waiting any less than an hour then you probably haven't waited long enough. You should lose at least half the volume.
Your recipe seems to have left out the flour to coat the butter.
Beurre manié is a paste made from flour and softened butter
Toss your butter cubes in flour first and you will get a velvety sauce.
No, this is changing the recipe. The recipe is for a liaison sauce, which is made with butter only. Using beurre manié is a different technique entirely.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.459811
| 2011-08-20T20:25:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17004",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Gina Lava",
"Jan Wierenga",
"Junco",
"Katey HW",
"Parker",
"San",
"Sandra Schlichting",
"Xander Henderson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36444",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36445",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36462",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89265",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16748
|
Red tomato sauce recipe
As of late, I have found myself incredibly interested in perfecting a red sauce recipe.
While I don't have the recipe in front of me, I know most of what I put in it off the top of my head. I would like to know if anyone has some tasty additions I could try, or substitutions I should make. Really, I am looking for any advice at all that would help me improve the taste of my sauce. Please note that I am going for a "lighter" tasting sauce, if that makes any sense at all.
The ingredients are the following ones, as far as I remember:
3 tbsp Extra Virgin olive oil
3 cloves garlic (mashed)
1/4 cup white onion (chopped)
2 tsp oregano
4 tsp thyme
2 tsp basil
2 tsp crushed red pepper flakes
1/4 cup white whine
1 can crushed red tomatoes
** And possibly some others I can't remember right now.
I would love to hear any of your tips!
Try and simplify it a bit. Choose one herb and highlight it (like 1 - 2Tbsp. of marjoram or thyme). A tomato sauce should taste like tomato, first and foremost. Add the other herbs and spices to complement the entire dish.
What can I add to X questions are not considered constructive unless there's a specific goal beyond "improve" (which means different things to different people). Please follow the above link for examples.
I second @DHayes answer, although what I do is that I generally start with a base of onions, carrots and celery (which you can also precut & mix and keep in the freezer) which you mix with a little bit of extra virgin olive oil and you let brown a little bit. At this point you may add the tomatoes, a cup of water, forget about it... and let it cook for a while.
You can add herbs at the end, fresh basil works very well, as does oregano.
Then, depending on the recipe you may add chili, anchovies, garlic (all of which I would add before the tomatoes) etc.
Adding a teaspoon of sugar is also good to counteract the acidity of the tomatoes.
But, in summary, keep it simple.
+1 for carrots. I've always found them in italian recipes and add a great sweetness, without changing consistency if chopped finely.
This question might get closed, but I'll toss my 2 cents in. I think you're going about it the wrong way. Instead of trying to perfect an involved recipe for a single sauce, I would suggest you strive to create a good simple "mother sauce" that you can branch out from. My go to sauce contains all of 3 standard ingredients (Can of tomatoes, butter, and an onion). From there I may add other ingredients like garlic, basil, sausage, etc. It depends on what sort of flavor profile I want, but the base sauce is always the start. If I want spicy, I can add hot peppers. If I want sweet I can add a little sugar or honey. Or if I just want to taste tomatoes, I'll leave it as is.
Also, I highly suggest using San Marzano tomatoes for whatever sauce you come up with though. There is a huge difference between a generic can of tomatoes and a good quality can of San Marzanos.
I even leave out the onion. As I have different recipes that call for a different cut on the onion (fine - medium dice, sliced, etc.). But I always add some carrot (finely shredded) to sweeten just a tad. But I agree this is the best way to go.
Ingredients are only half of the story! Do you use a long-simmering method, or is this a quick cooked (fresh) sauce? If you use a quick method, I would recommend substituting some of the olive oil for butter because olive oil reacts with some flavor compounds in the onion to produce a bitter taste that takes a good amount of simmering to cook away. What size can of tomatoes do you use? That is going to affect the ratios of the other ingredients. Other than that, since tomato sauce is really about highlighting a few prominent tastes, you should focus on getting the best ingredients possible.
Butter gives a completely different taste to onion, that does not necessarily always work (I don't really like it with tomato sauce in general). If you slowly heat up the olive oil you won't have any side taste from the onions.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.460101
| 2011-08-09T12:43:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16748",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Alex",
"Ascendant",
"CHRIS",
"Gerri Rivera",
"Hugo",
"Janice",
"Karlie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1761",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35735",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35737",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35743",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36009",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6755",
"jdmcnair",
"jeffwllms",
"nico",
"talanb",
"user2070653"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17350
|
What are good ingredients to put into a Scrapple soup stock?
I'll try to make this as focused as possible, so that a reasonable answer can emerge. I have a (loaf?) of scrapple, which Wikipedia describes as:
traditionally a mush of pork scraps and trimmings combined with cornmeal and flour, often buckwheat flour, and spices. The mush is formed into a semi-solid congealed loaf, and slices of the scrapple are then panfried before serving.
I'm fairly new to cooking, so this is a question about soup stocks in general. Given the ingredients, is it possible to create an edible soup stock from it, as one would from other leftover meats? If so, what kind of ingredients would pair well?
If you are not going to make scrapple, leave out the cornmeal. And you won't have to cook it as long. Scrapple traditionally uses the head and other parts (see Joy of Cooking), which are long cooked. The meat is picked out and placed in the broth, the fat skimmed off, cornmeal added. The whole thing is allowed to set up in a pan and some of the fat is poured over the top to seal it and preserve it.
It's actually really good - kind of high in fat though.
The purpose of stock is to dissolve collagen out of the meat and bones into gelatin. The liquid is then not so watery, collects a lot of flavor, and can be reduced for sauces if desired, etc.
The problem with the scrapple is that, while it does have a some gelatin, it also has a ton of fat and starch. The fat would melt and have to be skimmed off again. The starch would gelatinize. This would result is not a stock but a gravy.
The solution would seem to be to find recipes where the starch and fattiness would be desirable. The first thing that would come to mind would be a thick stew. I would cube and sear the scrapple before adding it. It might take some experimentation to figure out how long to let it stew to thicken the stew without turning the crapple to mush.
I don't think it would work too well to just throw scrapple in a pot and make a soup. You'd be better off trying to make something "inspired" by it, trying to duplicate similar flavors in a soup. I'd try a thick pork soup, almost a stew, with chunks of pork shoulder and cornmeal-buckwheat dumplings, some sage and corriander and plenty of pepper. I'd definitely use a pork stock made from pork bones (and a pig's foot, sawn in half, for extra body), and ramp up the flavor with a ham hock. Maybe simmer some greens in there for the last few minutes to give it some color.
As for what to do with your existing loaf of scrapple, well, slice it, fry it up, and eat with fried eggs and ketchup for breakfast.
+1 for pan frying + eggs + ketchup, although I could eat that meal any time of day, not just for breakfast. Using maple syrup instead of ketchup is also popular (but I still prefer ketchup).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.460785
| 2011-08-31T02:37:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17350",
"authors": [
"Brice M. Dempsey",
"ByteWelder",
"Craig",
"Diane",
"ESultanik",
"Frankie",
"Jennifer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37239",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37240",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37250",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37302",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7092",
"timtim"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18608
|
What do you need for Chinese style Hotpot at home?
I love going to hotpot at the restaurant.
How can I do it at home? What sort of equipment do I need?
You will need the following:
A pot that's about 12" in diameter and 4 inches deep
Put the broth in the pot, you can buy broth packages usually at Chinese/Asian supermarket. You just need to mix it with water and boil.
Food you want to cook in the pot. Sliced beef is my favourite, but mussels, beef balls, fish balls, shrimps, veggies, etc.
You will need chopsticks, hot pot scoop that looks like the following, so you can scoop the cooked food to your own plate:
To add flavour, usually you dip the cooked food in soya sauce, but a mixture of raw egg, soya sauce and satay sauce is used as the deep. You can even add chopped chili, green onions and chili oil to it.
Just make the broth. Cook the food you like as you eat. That's it!
It's important to add the heat source which you can use those single electric stove, induction or not. Induction does heat really fast. You can do it on the stove but it's pretty inconvenient. The hotpot sauce can be bought in stores which is quite convenient.
Pots
There are two options for Chinese hot pot. Either one large pot that everyone dips into or several small pots, one each that you cook your own food in. Both styles are popular in China. It is also common to see the large pot with a divide in the middle allowing one side to have more chilli and spice than the other.
Left: Large pot with divide. Right: Individual pots on burners.
Heat source
Missing from the other answers, you need some way to heat the pot and keep it simmering. In China, people have individual electric hobs with temperature controls specially designed for the job. You can find them online http://www.alibaba.com/showroom/induction-stove.html
For the individual pots, a paraffin wax burner is used blow the pot. Similar to the heater used in a buffet restaurant to keep food warm.
Cheating
Really any pot and a little gas stove would do just fine:
In pot spices
This can vary considerably depending on what region of China you are in and what you like. You could just use plain water or a light broth of chicken or fish. I've seen some that resemble cream of tomato soup. Commonly you will see wolf berries, chilli, ginger, garlic, black, white and red pepper corns, bay leaves and Chinese dates. You really could use anything you like.
Dips
Again this varies. Usually each person has a small bowl into which they mix their own dip. This may contain rice vinegar, soy sauce, peanut or sesame paste, chilli paste in oil, crushed garlic, pickled garlic, picked chilli and some other pastes of things I have yet to identify. You might be able to buy ready mixed spices for dips in you're local Chinese supermarket or online shops.
Food for cooking
Typical food for cooking includes: Thin cut beef or lamb (occasionally pork), fish of any type, shrimp, oysters and such seafood, thin sliced potato or sweet potato (yam), egg noodles, tofu (either fresh or frozen or the skin shredded), and vegetables such as cabbage, bok choy, lettuce, spinach or whatever greens you have to hand.
Hot plates don't have to use induction - normal electric is probably cheaper. Also, be really careful - propane camping stoves are not safe for indoor use.
You don't need to use induction, but it is more controllable. It's certainly the choice of every restaurant and home hotpot I've ever had. As for propane camping stoves - In the USA or UK they probably do have a warning sticker on them. In China they are common place. I have seen stoves, very similar to the one photographed, in use in a five star hotel's kitchen. I've also seen similar looking things on sale for home use.
My understanding is that it's possible to make a propane stove safe for indoor use, but that camping stoves don't bother, hence the strong warnings in the US. (I don't know if the ones in China are safer, or simply risking carbon monoxide poisoning.)
I've dropped the word "camping" from my answer, though it would be quite safe to use a camping stove in your garden and have hotpot.
You can use those gas cans with the burner kit or use the electric plate. It's so common in chinese people's home, not unsafe at all.
To add to your options, because part of the fun is the interactive/participation, cook something you like that you may not see on the menu at the sit-in place. Our house likes slices of that pinkish potato taro.
We have a propane fired table top stove much like what you can find for camping equipment. The pot which is more wide than deep is resting on this mini stove. It goes without saying that the surface must be safe and stable. In the past, we used a electric non-stick breakfast griddle that was shaped like a elongated casserole dish. In both cases, a matching lid was present. The other characteristic is a wide mouth opening because you expect many guests to scoop and dip constantly so the pot needs to be accessible from the farthest end of your table.
You can make a simplified broth by boiling water in a smaller pot on the kitchen stove. Then transfer into (pour slowly and very carefully) the hot pot set-up, start with white napa cabbage or bok choy, (shitake) mushrooms, and green onions. Cover with a lid and watch as you bring it to a boil. As soon as the greens soften, you can lower the temp down and begin cooking the morsels of food. The smaller water pot on the kitchen stove is also helpful to "top off" the hot pot as people scoop out broth as soup or the liquid boils and evaporates.
Leave the sauce ingredients out for individual tastes. Each individual can personalize their dipping sauce. For example, soy sauce, vinegar, chili paste, raw egg, green onions (chopped), sesame oil, Vegetarian BBQ Sauce (https://www.99ranch.com/asian-spices/bbq-sauce/bull-head-vegetarian-bbq-sauce) are spread out and some will skip the egg or the chili.
To finish the meal, you can introduce bean thread noodles to cook with a fresh sprinkle of greens like spinach. This helps if your guests have big appetites as the bite size morsels may seem like snacks. It also takes advantage of the rich broth that results from the many items cooking and blending.
Be careful - actual propane camping stoves are definitely not safe for use indoors.
I have to agree. Practice safety first. I should clarify that I do not mean a set-up using a propane tank! The mini stove is fueled by a small spray can like container.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.461049
| 2011-10-27T22:01:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18608",
"authors": [
"Ariel",
"Bhaskar Vashishth",
"Cascabel",
"Eric",
"Huangism",
"Rincewind42",
"Tikkes",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40302",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40306",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6615",
"user20031",
"杜興怡"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18749
|
When should I add melted chocolate to reduced sugar meringue?
I'd like to know when melted chocolate should be added to reduced sugar meringue, and what will the end result be. Will the meringue stiffen up like cooled chocolate, or will it be light and fluffy?
The only ingredients you add to a meringue before the stiff peak stage should be ingredients related to stabilizing the meringue itself - acid and maybe a little salt near the beginning, sugar during the transition from soft to stiff peaks, and starch or other stabilizer at the end of stiff peaks. It's also OK to whip in small quantities of things like extracts or citrus zest near the end.
But if you're trying to actually incorporate something into the meringue, whether it's chocolate chips, melted chocolate, or anything else large, then you always, always want to fold it in after the meringue is stiff, just before you bake it.
Adding anything to the meringue too early or whipping it in too forcefully - especially fat (which chocolate contains a lot of) - stands a very good chance of permanently collapsing it. You incorporate other ingredients at the point when it's most stable and incorporate them very very gently.
If you're only whipping up to the soft peak stage then I guess you'd add the chocolate then, but the result would be very unstable, and most meringue cookies are normally whippied to stiff peaks.
Note that if you're incorporating cocoa powder then you can and should whip it in, rather than folding it in, during the stiff peak stage. Many if not most "chocolate meringue" recipes involve a certain amount of both cocoa powder and chocolate.
As for how it will turn out - it won't be very stable or rise much, the chocolate weighs it down a lot, and expect it to crack significantly. It will still be more like a meringue cookie than a solid block of chocolate, unless you add far too much.
If you want some chocolate flavour but the stability of a pure meringue, just add cocoa powder by itself.
David Lebovitz has this chocolate cake recipe, where one after whipping the meringue folds melted chocolate and butter into it. The it is immediately baked in a water bath in the oven. http://www.davidlebovitz.com/2007/01/shf-27-chocolat-1/ The texture right after baking is very soft, but it becomes more cake like after cooling.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.461550
| 2011-11-03T21:45:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18749",
"authors": [
"Cheri",
"Dan Sandland",
"Fowl",
"danielle hathale",
"donnie e. goodlad",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40628",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41470",
"soegaard"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18942
|
Espresso Machine coffee amount
I have a DeLonghi EC-155 espresso machine. I can operate the machine, but I don't know how many shots I can make with one load of coffee.
How much ml has a shot to be?
How many shots I can make?
The EC-155 comes with two coffee filters and a measuring spoon; the smaller filter one is for one shot of espresso and the second filter is for two shots (see user manual at, e.g., here).
Fill the smaller (or larger) filter with one (or two) loosely filled spoons and press lightly using the disc that is attached to the machine.
A single shot is considered to be about 30 mL (1 US fluid ounce) but this is really a matter of taste and personal preferences. For a single shot in a standard size espresso cup, I would suggest starting with filling half a cup and then adjusting the amount of coffee that you pour to accommodate your taste (and need for caffeine...).
Hmm i see. I suspected the "taste" measurement. I've already gathered some tastes with my cups at home hehe, thank you for the information!
Got one. Like it well enough. But I haven't used that dinky little filter thingy since the first week I owned it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.461763
| 2011-11-14T08:52:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18942",
"authors": [
"Herr",
"Jane Smith",
"dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41086",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7976",
"user41092"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17324
|
Do I always need to peel the avocado or I can just chop it?
Do I always need to peel the avocado, or can I just chop it?
In case you're not aware: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/1913/6317 explains the easiest way to get avocado chunks. Peeling then slicing is not recommended; using that technique you can slice the avocado into chunks then invert the peel to release them. Much easier.
I certainly wouldn't want to be chewing through avocado skin. Unless you plan on throwing it in a blender and liquifying it, it'd be pretty nasty.
+1. Just out of curiosity, I just tasted some avocado skin. It is bitter and nasty. No redeeming qualities what so ever.
The skin has a toxin in it, blending it for consumption would perhaps be a very bad idea.
Some varieties of avocado do have edible skin (e.g., "topa topa"); however, such varieties are rarely cultivated since they are extremely perishable. The vast majority of avocados that are marketed in the USA have skins that are too thick for consumption. If you are in doubt, just cut off a small piece of the skin and chew it. If it feels like you're chewing leather, chances are you'll have to peel it. Eating the skin is harmless unless you're a domestic animal.
Sure you can. My favorite brunch is cutting an avocado in 1/2, scoop out a little extra then add an egg in each 1/2 and bake till desired done-ness which is about 20 min for a done yolk. This softens the skin of the Avocado and makes it quite pleasant to eat. Add your own twist but I suggest you top with cheese and serve with a hash brown or grits. Nom, nom, nom!
So you can skip peeling it if you're going to bake it? In my experience thicker avocado skin is still pretty tough to eat at that point, and that does pretty drastically alter the texture of the avocado - not necessarily the most useful thing for someone who wants fresh avocado.
Wow, interesting. I've never heard of a preparation like this.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.461901
| 2011-08-30T18:36:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17324",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Henrik Söderlund",
"Joe Gettings",
"Loonuh",
"Mark Avenius",
"Mutlu Anne",
"Preston",
"Sally",
"Sandy",
"Travis J",
"Yamikuronue",
"h t 5",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37187",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37316",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97669",
"user2980081"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17332
|
Can I cook Brussels sprouts in a pan?
Can I cook Brussels sprouts in a pan, with olive oil or butter?
I bought them in a plastic bag. Should I chop them, or can I just wash them and put them in the pan?
You can, but the surface-to-mass ratio means that the outer layers will overcook well before the inside is cooked, so unless you're interested in that texture, your two main options are:
Steam them (add some liquid, then put a lid on it)
Cut them smaller. (halve or quarter before you saute)
I tend to halve smaller ones, and quarter larger ones, cutting through the stem each time so they don't fall completely apart while cooking (after trimming a little off the stem if it's showing signs of drying out). Then saute 'til the outside has browned a little bit, and hit with salt and whatever spices (or bacon ... dice up some bacon and render the fat while you cut up the sprouts, then use the fat for cooking the sprouts)
You can just throw them in like you would asparagus. They will be a bit crispy: ideal!
I have two ways I make brussel sprouts.
One is to simply coat them with a little olive oil, lots of chopped garlic (i love garlic but you can adjust to your taste), some salt and roast in an oven for about a half hour until they get a little crispy.
Second is to saute them in a pan with some garlic olive oil and salt. Saute for a few minutes then add some chicken stock/drippings just enough to cover them a third of the way. Cook on med-high heat until all the stock reduces. Then wrap the sprouts in tin foil with a slice or two of lemon and roast for 20-30 min.
You can also add some rosemary, italian seasoning, or pepper to change the flavors slightly.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.462115
| 2011-08-30T19:32:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17332",
"authors": [
"Fiona - myaccessible.website",
"James",
"Jean-Benoit Harvey",
"Shruti",
"cesarse",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37195",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37196",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37314",
"user37195",
"zapOwzapOooh"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
9716
|
What's the secret for Chinese fried rice?
I see a lot of recipes for fried rice, but never seem to be able to give the gorgeous lightly browned color (and therefore flavor) to my rice.
This is before adding soy sauce or anything else. Is this a question of heat, or quantity of oil? How do they do it in the restaurant (e.g. young chow fried rice)?
Related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/51655/how-do-restaurants-make-chicken-fried-rice-what-ingredient-am-i-missing/51656#51656
There are really only a few secrets to good fried rice:
Day Old White Rice (Make it the day before, let it cool, place it in the fridge)
This I'd say is absolutely, the main thing.
The texture will NOT be right if you use freshly cooked rice. There will be too much moisture.
HEAT!
Your Wok needs to be hot. You want everything to cook quickly.
Cook stuff separately.
This is a follow-up from 2. You want it all to cook very quickly, a crowded pan will hinder that.
Cook Meat to 80%, take it out, cook the other stuff, add the meat back in.
Don't touch it.
Unless you have a blazing professional burner, your food needs time against the wok. Put it in, leave it for a bit, mix it some more.
Fish Sauce & Chinese Sausage
They add great flavour.
If it all seems complicated, it really isn't. Use day old rice & give it lots of heat.
Here are a couple of recipes that give further detail and have great explanations:
Shrimp Fried Rice on Steamy Kitchen
Secrets to Cooking the Best Chinese Fried Rice on Steamy Kitchen
Chinese Fried Rice on Rasa Malaysia
Thanks so much for the answer / links! A couple of things that I wasn't doing were NOT keep the rice moving (I don't have a gas burner) and using fish sauce.
My wife (then fiance) once made a stir fry and mistook fish sauce for soy sauce. The experience was so traumatic I haven't been able to stand the smell of fish sauce ever since.
Haha, well @Sobachatina that would do it. I wouldn't say that's an absolute, absolute essential ingredient (though I do love the flavour). IF you can get that "unami" flavour from something else like the chinese sausage or some other protein, you could still get a tasty fried rice.
the secret ingredient is oyster sauce. http://goo.gl/Oj1GM
+1 but also adding: most fried rice you get from real Chinese restaurant are not from day-old rice. They use fresh rice. Also using oyster sauce or soy sauce to fried rice is more common in westernized asian dishes. The "secret" ingredient in Chinese restaurant has always been Chicken broth or Chicken stock powder.
You can play quite a bit with the soy sauce type and quantities. Different sauces will impact different flavours to the rice. Some you may like, others you might not.
@Sobachatina Similar story...I kept fish sauce in the door of my fridge. The bottle of my fish sauce bore an unfortunate resemblance to a half drank bottle of Dr Pepper. I got thirsty...
I think it's four major things:
Use enough oil - If you don't use enough, you don't really get a proper frying action, and rather just heat it. So make sure you use enough. The downside, is that too much can make it disgustingly greasy. So be careful, but don't skimp.
Let it sit - When you put the rice in, don't stir it too much. Let it sit for long enough that the rice in contact with the pan starts to crisp up. This will give you that restaurant flavor and texture and is part of what's giving that color you want.
Hot, hot, hot - You want a big wok, screaming hot.
Soy sauce - I know you said that's not what you wanted, but in my experience, it's an integral part of the color of fried rice. If you're not getting the right color and you're not using soy sauce, that's part of the issue.
Mostly, I think 1 & 2 are what I see being the most over looked parts of restaurant style friend rice, but 3 & 4 are just as important.
Living in China for six years I know that the best way to ruin your rice is to put oil in. Really you need hardly any oil at all. Also you do not want you wok to be hot hot hot. That's for stir frying vegetables. It will just burn your rice. Chinese use a wok, hot plate or griddle for fried rice. The temp should be similar to what you use for cooking pancakes. This will let the rice warm through without burning.
The secrets to my fried rice:
Fried eggs: start by frying some eggs, scrambled with some salt, at high temp, in oil. It should turn brown and fluff up in layers. I usually let it sit until it forms an omelet-like circle, then turn it over to brown the top. The browning is essential for the flavour (I wouldn't eat my breakfast eggs this way). Remove from wok, slice into pieces, then add back in at the end.
Soy Sauce: turns it brown, makes it salty
Chinese BBQ pork (the red kind): adds some sweet, garlicky flavour
After everything is done, drizzle with sesame oil. Not too much!
Add your eggs back in
I've made it with other kinds of meat and it's not really the same. If you're making it vegetarian I'd recommend frying up some vegetables in garlic and sauce (I'm not sure what the red bbq pork sauce is).
BTW I agree with the other suggestions about high-heat and slightly dry rice.
Something to add onto the answers given above. "Chinese fried rice" is a very broad term. Because different regions in China produce a wide variety of rice, there are just so many different ways to fried them.
While using day old rice is common among house-holds to deal with left-over rice, it is not the authentic way to fried rice.
Most chiefs use fresh rice. They cook rice with less water and remove them from the cooker before it gets completely cooked. That is to give rice the moisture and chewiness while at the same time, perserve its rigidity as it gets fried. Day-old rice will easily crack into two or more pieces as you apply the turner, and absorb sauce or broth very inconsistently.
Out of the "Chinese fried rice" context, Korean and Japanese almost never use day-old rice for frying. Chinese from the north also do similar. Using day-old rice seems to be a concept for Thai-type rice or southern type rice which are more brittle, dry and less chewy. To deal with this physical properties, southern restaurant often fried their rice in clay pot in medium heat. If you go to a high class Canton restaurant, this is how it's done. If you see fried rice where the rice is crack apart - they are not good. Fried rice is not just about the taste, texture and feeling are also crucial classifying indicators.
The browning of rice are not from the sauce (supposedly)! At least this is not the right way to brown the rice, and many real chief fried rice without soy or fish sauce. The browning comes from the natural browning of the ingredient, such as garlic, onion etc. Brown the ingredient before adding rice will brown the rice.
As to how most, real Chinese restaurant flavor their fried rice? Answer is chicken broth or stock or powder.
I find making a good Chinese style fried rice both simple and difficult at the same time. It is simple in concept but difficult in practice. I also like to differentiate between a home style as well as a restaurant style fried rice. I do believe there is a difference.
Home style fried rice, this is the common recipe of day old rice and then whatever ingredients you have to add flavor and texture to the dish. Rice here makes a difference as the Chinese and Thais tend to use "long grain" rice. While Japanese and Koreans like the medium to short grain rice. I find that long grain rice works best for fried rice or "chao fan". Less sticking and clumping with the long grain.
Restaurant fried rice, uses freshly cooked rice, that has been cooked with slightly less water so make it less sticky. Can you imagine a restaurant wasting space with day old rice specifically for making fried rice? And let's face it, most people are taking about the fried rice at their favorite Chinese restaurant, right?
Anyways the keys are really the wok and high heat. These two things are the keys to making a good fried rice or just good Chinese restaurant food. A well seasoned wok will allow you to toss the rice easily so as to make for even browning. The high heat will allow you to brown it without drying it out. You could make this in a flat pan but it is a bit more messy and for me not as fun. Another secret for the home cook is adding beaten eggs to the rice, this gives them a coating to prevent drying and sticky clumpy rice. We don't have as much fire power as a professional chinese kitchen.
As with all good cooking technique, have your ingredients prepped and ready to go before you even think about cooking them. In this case have your rice ready, add enough beaten eggs to coat all the rice, mix it well till all the grains look yellow. If you are adding some kind of meat, this is the time you would half cook it first in the wok. Wash out your wok and then prepare to cook the rice. Raw vegetables can be cooked with the rice later or precooked with the meat.
In a hot wok, add some oil and swirl it around the wok till it covers the wok, then toss this oil out, and add fresh oil. Wait just a second or two, then add the rice to the wok and spread it out over the sides for just a second or two. This allows the rice to get it's initial browning. The hotter the wok the less time it takes, the less hot the more time.
After initial browning, it's time to toss the rice, this is where the wok outshines any other pan. Moving food in a wok is very easy as the sloped sides naturally allow the food to come back to the center, you don't have to chase the food. If you coated all the rice grains then they will not stick to each other, they will slide around easily. If they do start to stick, add just a few drops of oil around the edges of the wok and let them slide to the center of the wok.
When you can smell the delicious aroma of rice then you can start to add whatever ingredients you want. Some of the meat and vegetables and some extra beaten eggs if you want. At the very end of cooking time, is when you add the wet ingredients, this will keep your rice moist and soft. Soy sauce (dark or light or both), oyster sauce, and or sesame oil. When you add the wet stuff, drizzle it along the edges of the wok and let it slide to the center. This adds a bit of steam and also doesn't reduce the heat too quickly. Heat is your friend in wok cooking. A few more tosses and you are done.
For a visual demonstration just go to Youtube.com and type in "cha han", "chao fan" or just plain old "fried rice"
For a Chinese fried rice, it is best when it is just made of old cooked rice, eggs, green onion, and oil;
fry the eggs first, set aside
fry the previously cooked rice with some oil and some green onion
combine the cooked eggs and rice and fry them together
My process is this. Makes a full meal for 1 or an side amount for 2 or 3:
Make rice ahead of time, cool and put in fridge. If anything, slightly under-cook your rice.
Heat medium-sized saute pan to medium or medium-high.
Add about a tablespoon of veggie oil.
Add rice, a little salt and pepper. Cook about 2 minutes.
Add soy sauce and stir.
Add frozen veggies (like one of those Asian veggie mixes)
Keep cooking and stirring until veggies are completely heated through, about 5-7 minutes.
During the 5-7 minutes above, grab 2 eggs. Break into a small bowl. Add salt and whisk/mix.
(optional) I add in a little sliced jalapeno. Cook another minute.
Push/pile rice onto one side of the saute pan.
Pour eggs into free area. They should take about 1-2 minutes to cook almost all the way.
When they're almost all the way cooked, stir the eggs and rice mixture all together. Cook another minute.
Pour onto plate and enjoy!
The whole process takes about 15 minutes and only dirties one saute pan and a small bowl, plus your eating plate.
I just started making fried rice a few months ago and now make it this way at least once a week! It's so good and the frozen veggies make it a snap.
everyone's comments are spot-on from my experience. but you might also want to consider changing the KIND of soy sauce you are using. try some of the chinese (not japanese!) soy sauces at asian markets. maybe a lighter flavor, or a sweeter one, or something like that will give you the intangibles you are looking for. japanese and chinese soy sauces taste very different, and in addition to that, i'd stay away from some of the ones made in the U.S., since those just taste wrong, haha.
As FRANKO wrote, every comment above is based on personal experiences. Nobody mentioned anything about using vinegar in the process. That is the "secret".
How much should I use?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.462313
| 2010-12-02T20:59:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9716",
"authors": [
"Charmaine",
"Dan Fox",
"Eric",
"J.Doe",
"Jolenealaska",
"KMC",
"Kevin Glynn",
"Paul",
"Rincewind42",
"Rudy",
"SaidbakR",
"Sobachatina",
"Susan G",
"Trudy Jones",
"Volker",
"Weston Anson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104559",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112894",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113843",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19862",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19864",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19865",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19868",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19911",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3631",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8434",
"roryparle",
"talon8",
"user1049697",
"user39931"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17229
|
Why do drinks drunk from a glass instead of a bottle taste differently?
Cola drunken out of a glass instead to a bottle/can taste differently to me; it is much better. Is this due to more aroma smelled by your nose when drinking out of open glass changing the kind of perception? That is the only explanation I can think of. Does anyone know some detailed medical links on this topic?
I think you mean to ask: "Why does cola sipped from a glass taste better than cola sipped from a can or bottle?"
I'm with you to think that a) it's nicer from a glass, b) it's probably the amount of aroma you can smell that increases the experience.
It has long been known that receptacles influence the taste and appreciation of beverages.
Wine glasses, for example, are optimal for giving the nose an opportunity to experience the wine. They enclose a volume that allows you to swish the wine in the glass (without spilling it) to impart the aroma to air in the glass. The usually tapered opening keeps the aroma from dissipating before your nose can sense the wine.
Champagne flutes, keep the effervescent champagne or prosecco bubbly and cold long enough to enjoy the drink without it going flat.
Different beer glasses are optimal for showcasing the "head" and are tall for the same reason as champagne flutes (to keep the effervescence going as long as possible).
I think it is absolutely the case that the same kinds of considerations apply to cola and other effervescent soft drinks. My opinion is that the best glass for such beverages is a "collins" glass. It it tall and narrow and keeps the bubbles going for a longer time than a wide glass, it is like a champagne flute but holds a larger volume which is needed for soft drinks.
With particular reference to "Cola" one of the factors that affects the flavoring is that a "glass" of cola is frequently served from a "fountain" where the syrup is freshly mixed, and often stronger than at the bottler.
[Edit: I am also reminded that at a fountain, the water being mixed is (most often) city tap water, which may carry it's own 'flavors'.]
It'd be an interesting experiment - to pour soda from a can, a bottle, and from the fountain all into the same style glass and then do a blind taste test.
that would be a worthwhile experiment.
@rfusca We've actually done quite a few of similar experiments. The results range all the way from people who can't tell any difference to those who can distinguish all kinds with ease; there's a few tricky parts to it, though - e.g. the can contents can have very different composition to bottles (e.g. have more sugar). And I've even noticed that cola from a fountain with the flavour is running out (so it's not a perfect mix) can taste like a different cola brand :D Doing a blind test on the receptacle is a bit more complicated, unless you use a straw.
When you drink from a bottle, you put the bottle upside down and you drink from the bottom of the liquid. When you drink beer from a bottle, for example, you don't drink in the head (foam) because the head is far away from your mouth. So you get fewer and smaller bubbles. (Bubbles expand in size as they rise.)
This is different from drinking beer from a glass where you drink with the head at your mouth.
Drinking from can is also different. While you drink from the top, just like glass, the can's opening agitates the liquid quite a bit as it passes through the opening, causing turbulent and generating lots of foam.
When you drink from a bottle, there is also agitation but not as violent as the case with can. As you drink from bottle, a small stream of air sneaks into the bottle. Compared to can, this flow is smaller and steadier, causing less turbulent.
None of the above is scientific or measured. Just my observation.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.463400
| 2011-08-28T19:49:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17229",
"authors": [
"Angelo",
"Ann-Marie Casinelli",
"BaffledCook",
"Collins",
"Cos Callis",
"Dotid",
"Eris",
"Jorge Luis Vargas",
"Luaan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36987",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36988",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36992",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37006",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83746",
"rfusca",
"user11585"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16833
|
How can I approximate wasabi taste?
I want to obtain a taste very similar to wasabi, but without wasabi ingredients. How do I do it?
are you looking for taste or heat?
@sarge What do You mean by heat?
It means the spicy taste.
@kiamlaluno yes, that.
A good portion of the "wasabi" that you buy is a mixture of western horseradish, mustard, green food coloring, and occasionally, a token amount of actual wasabi.
So if that's the experience you're trying to replicate, use western freshly grated (or prepared) horseradish and a small amount of powdered mustard.
Having eaten fresh wasabi, I can say that the sensation is more pronounced than the taste. If you're trying to mimic freshly grated wasabi, you're going to have a harder task ahead of you, but the primary objective will be to find ingredients that have a clean aroma but have a marked pungency. Freshly grated western horseradish comes pretty close, though there is a difference.
horseradish is a common substitute for wasabi.
Most of the "wasabi" that you can buy is not really wasabi, but a mixture of horseradish and other things.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.463741
| 2011-08-12T16:24:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16833",
"authors": [
"Astra",
"Danger14",
"David",
"NoOne",
"auz2",
"avpaderno",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35944",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35945",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35952",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35962",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36139",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7189",
"novice cook",
"sarge_smith",
"user712092",
"Рамиль Галимов"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28605
|
Cuisinart 12 cup coffee maker - How many grams of ground coffee to make a full strong drip pot?
I just bought a fancy Cuisinart 12 cup machine and some fairly pricey freshly ground coffee.
The machine came with a scoop that is equal to 5 g (1 tsp). The machine advises not to use more than 15 scoops. 75 g (2 ⅔ oz) is a dangerous amount for some reason, probably overflowing or clogging the filter basket.
Anyway, how many scoops of coffee would you recommend to make a full 12 pot?
Your machine's instructions call for 15 TABLESPOONS (see bottom-right corner note at page 3). 15 tbsp = 225 g.
Are you sure the scoop measures 5 g? All the coffee scoops I've ever seen (from different makers) are 7~8 g (½ tbsp).
The fineness of the grind will affect how the coffee maker deals with the grounds. My experience is that if I use the "normal" full-pot amount of a finer ground, my basket will overflow.
@J.A.I.L. 1 tbsp of coffee is 5g not 15g. A tablespoon of sugar is 15g, but coffee is less dense than sugar. So 15 tbsp is 75g not 225g, 225g would be a full small pack of coffee for one pot!
Have you bought supermarket pi--water breakfast blend, or something that puts hair on your chest from the local Syrian, Lebanese, Turkish or Yugoslavian market? It makes a HUGE difference to the quality of the Joe that comes out the bottom end of your coffee pot. Do not be fooled by high price beans. You can spend a lot, and still get crummy coffee. Best to shop in a store where they have a culture which knows how coffee should taste, how it should be ground, and how it should be brewed. If, when brewed, you can see the bottom of the cup, you have done something wrong.
Normally retailers estimate between 7g and 8g per cup for normal coffee. Try 8g and work your way up. So 12*8=96g for starters.
You might find this article by Harold McGee interesting.
When I dropped the strength close to Mr. Hoffmann’s preferred 1.5 percent by using a third less ground coffee (about 12 grams of coffee to 180 grams, or 6 fluid ounces, of water), the fruity aroma was much more evident, and the flavor generally brighter and more lively. Clarity is a good word for the overall impression.
Edit: Note that I'm talking about espresso cups that are 60ml as opposed to McGee's 180ml cups. Multiply the amount of coffee for the amount of water you are actually using.
I worked as a coffee roaster for a number of years and met a lot of people. There is a lot of variation to this answer.
What I found works the best is 10-11 g of coffee per 6 oz cup, or 180 mL, so 12 cup maker would be 120 g. Also, the coffee should always be ground to suit the particulars of the brewing method.
You bring up a very important point -- many coffee & tea devices measure in 'teacups' (6 fl.oz), not the standard american measuring cup (8 fl.oz). So a '12 cup' coffee maker might be 72 oz (~2.1L) or 96 oz (~2.8L)
Most of these answers are confusing for two reasons:
1. A cup is not a cup when discussing coffee.
2. And measuring coffee grounds by volume introduces too much variability.
The recipes should be stated as ratios. I found this ratio on a bag of beans sold by Charleston Coffee Roasters: one gram of coffee per 17 grams of water. I have been using this ratio successfully with my old cheap drip coffee maker.
But I just bought a Cuisinart 3200. Using the marks on the carafe I see that 60 ounces equals 12 "cups" or 5 ounces per cup. One ounce of water = 29.57 grams.
If a Cuisinart scoop (tablespoon) of coffee is 5 grams, Cuisinart's recipe--one scoop per 5-ounce cup, the ratio is 30 to 1. That's much weaker than the Charleston Coffee Roasters recipe. But it almost works if you hit the Bold button on the Cuisinart 3200. Otherwise for me that recipe produces watery coffee.
Bottom line: use weight not volume. Once you find the ratio that gives coffee you like, you can achieve consistent results every time.
The Cuisinart Pot measurement is 5 oz=1 cup. So a full 12 cup pot is 60 oz.
If you are used to an 8 oz cup, the pot will yield 7.5 cups.
Coffee standard is 7 or 8 grams per cup of water for normal tasting coffee. At 7 grams per cup, you would be at 52.5 grams of coffee grounds per pot. At 8 grams, you would use 60 grams.
If you are used to a 6 oz cup, the pot will yield 10 cups.
Coffee standard is 7 or 8 grams per cup of water for normal tasting coffee. At 7 grams per cup, you would be at 70 grams of coffee grounds per pot. At 8 grams, you would use 80 grams.
I roast coffee in a bread machine with a heat gun. I roast Kenyan AA to city + and grind the coffee on #2 (fine) in a Cuisinart grinder. I use 60 grams of coffee per 60 oz of water (12 mark on pot, 1800 grams) and it makes an awesome cup of coffee. This is almost half the recommended by SCAA ratio of 1 to 15. it is more like 1 to 30. The Cuisinart 1000 will not take much more grounds of coffee than that with out overflowing. At 75 grams it is the strongest coffee you can get without grinding finer coffee grounds. I measure with the scoop heaped up and put in 6 scoops, and have measured it many times on the scale and it always comes to be around 60 grams.
Note I use the same grind in a pour-over pot. I use 20 to 30 grams (3 heaping scoops) to 16 oz of hot water. this is a 16:1 ratio (480 to 30 grams) and this is the same ratio that the SCAA recommends for specialty coffee. It makes the same strength and brew of coffee as the Cuisinart 1000 above.
Good Brewing to All. SH
So, first, assume that the coffee maker will not brew properly, either with temperature or brew time. In fact, almost 0 home coffee makers brew coffee properly (exception being the technoverm which is rather pricey).
Usually you can assume 1-2 TBSP per 6oz cup of coffee, but this can vary greatly based on grind and your coffee maker. Your best bet is to start with 2TBSP/6 oz cup (so 12 TBSP, or 3/4 cup) for the full 12 cups. Then, if that's too strong or not strong enough, adjust based on your tastes and how the coffee machine brews. Like all tools, every one is a little different so you'll have to play with it to hone in exactly how you like it.
Also, if you switch brands of coffee, expect to repeat the process once again.
100 to 200 grams of coffee for 10 to 12 cups is the average, depending on how fine the grind and what TYPE of grind. If you are using a conical burr grinder then less is better. If you are using a chopping grinder, you may need more. If it is a finer grind, you need to use less. You still have to experiment. To start, use 150 grams per pot of coffee. Then go up and down as needed. Different types of coffee will produce different results even when ground into the same size.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.463899
| 2012-11-23T08:52:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28605",
"authors": [
"Berni Aulavemai",
"Flyingfirepig",
"Haley Neal",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Jody Farnsworth",
"Joe",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Lori Rae",
"Michelle Gourley",
"Nancy",
"Netherzapdos",
"Trusteo spam",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"Zakariya Tshankie",
"Zohaib Hafiz",
"chim",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106246",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156459",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66090",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66091",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66155",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66165",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66171",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"stephanie",
"user66171"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18738
|
Fried Spaghetti
Pasta, as far as I'm aware, is always boiled to serve. However, their eastern cousin, noodles, are often fried. Are there any well-known Western (Italian) dishes that use fried fresh pasta, instead of boiling it?
If not, why do you think that's the case? Does pasta not fry well?
I have a stir-fried fusilli recipe, but it's not traditional, just a chef rebooting classic carbonara.
We used to have fried spaghetti for leftovers growing up. Take cooked spaghetti in sauce and put it in a warm frying pan with a little oil.
I've also had noodle fritters with leftover spaghetti, take undressed spaghetti and dip in a batter, then pan or deep fry. Somewhat like a potato pancake, we would eat them with sour cream.
Would you count Toasted Ravioli - breaded and deep fried (and delicious!)?
I guess I would, although I've never heard of this and the Wikipedia page implies it's a modern invention... I wonder if there's any traditional fried pasta dishes?
Deep-frying itself is relatively modern (a few hundred years among the wealthy, and only since the industrial age among non-elites), due to the historically high cost of extracting large quantities of oil. What do you consider "traditional"?
When making pasta e fagioli my grandmother (from Lecce, in Apulia) would fry some of the pasta and cook most of it with the bean soup: then she would add the fried pasta to the boiling pot at the last moment, so that it would retain some of its crunchiness. It is a good trick, guests are always very surprised by the variation in texture.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.464425
| 2011-11-03T11:20:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18738",
"authors": [
"Anthony Reynolds",
"David O'Brien",
"JasonTrue",
"Xophmeister",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40609",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40800",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7860",
"new chef",
"starsplusplus",
"user1845360"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17843
|
Preparation of gravlax versus lox
I have prepared lox and gravlax in the past. In both instances, I have brined and lightly smoked the salmon; in the case of gravlax, I have then put finely snipped fresh dill on the flesh side of the salmon, put a bit of olive oil on the dill and pressed it into the fish and left it to age for several days in the refrigerator.
These techniques never seem to give me a product similar to those I have tried in restaurants and at commercial outlets.
It seems that I am doing something wrong, especially with the gravlax, which never seems to achieve the fine texture and flavor of the gravlax I can purchase.
I use about 3 tablespoons/50 ml of salt and about half as much sugar per pound/450 grammes for a dry brine, which is then put in the refrigerator for a day, before smoking.
Has anyone made this? Why isn't it coming out correctly?
Frankie, normally gravlax isn't smoked. It is only cured in salt, sugar and sometimes a little alcohol. Lox is, of course, smoked in a very cold smoke. What temperature are you smoking these at?
Cold smoking, just enough to get some color. This only works for me when it is cold at night, gets to warm in the summer time.
Thank you so much for asking this. I always assumed lox was just short for gravlox and they were the same thing.
I'd say you probably brined the salmon for too long. Gravlax goes generally from 12 to 48 hours in a dry brine.
You have to know that
The longer the salmon is left in the brine the more it gets cooked
and firm. Try shorter brine time (12-48h).
The more saltier the brine is, the firmer the salmon will end up. Try increasing the sugar ratio in your mix.
If the result is uneven, you should flip the fish each 12 or so hours. After the brining and removing all the salt under running water, let the fish rest (dry) for a few hours to let the flavors balance inside the fish.
For the smoking, you should take care of cold smoking it (fish temperature should be kept below 37°C [100°F]) as to maintain gravlax properties. However as it was mentioned in the comments, it should then be called smoked salmon instead of gravlax as the gravlax is generally not smoked. Inserting a thermometer in the fish is helpful to control temperature during the whole process.
A trick to maintain gravlax properties and confection, but to add some smoke flavor is to add some smoked tea to the brine.
So you think that less time or a weaker brining or more sugar will do the trick? What about the smoking bit? You didn't mention anything about that.
I've updated my answer to answer the smoking part.
It is also often pressed with pans and weights, and re-seasoned half way through. It is also not commonly cured with oils in my experience, though I'm not sure if omitting oil is for curing, or for food safety.
You can use liquid smoke from a butcher supplier and use the traditional method of not smoking.
Every cook has their own recipe. The Gold standard for Jewish deli Style Belly Lox is the ACME lox product. Folks gravitate toward NOVA these days, not lox, but smoked salmon product. Gravlax is never smoked. It is just brined. I make let my gravslax sit on the salt/sugar mixture 2-4 days (usually 3). Commercial makers use a ice water brine. For home we just use salt (lox) or 50/50 salt and sugar (gravlax). I think my belly lox is as good as the ACME product. The only ingredient they list on the label is salt.
Thanks for this answer. I'm craving that Jewish style lox and not the smoked salmon. Smoked salmon is too firm and flaky.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.464604
| 2011-09-18T22:06:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17843",
"authors": [
"Bruce Alderson",
"Eric Nadler",
"Etienne Racine",
"Frankie",
"FuzzyChef",
"Gayle Holl",
"IAM5t4r ",
"Preston",
"Vishaal Kalwani",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110362",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1822",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65862",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72379",
"mamagoods",
"user65862"
],
"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
}
|
19201
|
The cooking temperature 15 degree is consider as ...?
When we perform cooking on devices such as in the oven, the temperature is considered as the cooking temperature or the normal temperature?
For example, when I cook a potato in the oven in a temperature at 15 degree Celsius, is it the same than putting a potato in a room at a temperature of 15 degree Celsius?
I'm really not clear on what you're asking for here. There is isn't some different temperature scale for ovens -- a degree celsius is a degree celsius.
I don't think it will cook at 15C. But if you put it in a room that was 150C, it would be the same as putting it in an oven that's 150C. Of course, if your oven has a convection fan, the very hot room would also need a fan to make it more equivalent. ;)
@FuzzyChef, Actually FustratedWithFormsDesigner had answered my question. At first, I was thinking that the 15 Degree Celsius in a room is different than the 15 Degree Celsius in a oven but FustratedWithFormsDesigner had enlighten me.
@FrustratedWithFormsDesigner, Please put your comment as answer and I will mark it correct. (By the way, actually I am trying out a slow cooking with a low temperature in a room)
@Anderson Karu, don't do that. You need a cooking temperature of at least 60°C to kill bacteria. I doubt you can keep a room that hot. If you leave food in a room which is 35°C, not only will in not get cooked, it is dangerous to eat.
@Anderson Karu: Done.
@rumtscho, +1 for pointing that there is no such thing as low temperature cooking (e.g. 15 degree) and require at least 60 degree to kill bacteria.
... was the OP really thinking he could cook something at 15°C?
There are two kinds of "cooking" processes that could run at temperatures that low: chemical pickling/curing (as in the science of chemistry, not using stuff that comes in skull and crossbones jars. Eg salt and/or vinegar cured dishes, macerated fruit...), and fermentation of various kinds.
I don't think it will cook at 15C. But if you put it in a room that was 150C, it would be the same as putting it in an oven that's 150C. Of course, if your oven has a convection fan, the very hot room would also need a fan to make it more equivalent.
Cooking normally involves higher heat than you would feel comfortable in a room; the application of heat is what changes the molecular structure of food and kills bacteria, making it both tasty and safe to consume. There's otherwise no real magic to it: if it's a hot enough day outside, you can put a frying pan on the hot pavement in a parking lot and fry an egg in it as though it were on the stove. If for some reason the apocalypse was happening and it were 350F outside, you could bake a cake the same way. But you'd probably be dead.
+1 for pointing that there is no such thing as low temperature cooking (e.g. 15 degree).
I think dashboard cookies were an actual thing during a heatwave a few years ago?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.464946
| 2011-11-29T01:36:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19201",
"authors": [
"Ademos",
"Amador Mendez",
"Anderson Karu",
"FrustratedWithFormsDesigner",
"FuzzyChef",
"Ismael Miguel",
"Reinstate Monica -- notmaynard",
"Simon H",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41743",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41744",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41781",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41803",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8129",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho",
"stonecrusher"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18556
|
Cooking defrosted then rechilled beef in a slow cooker
Is it safe to cook 500 grams of browned diced beef in a slow cooker?
This beef was defrosted in the fridge, browned and placed back in the fridge overnight to place in the slow cooker the next morning.
From the sounds of it: Probably, yes.
It's about total time spent in the 'danger zone' (40°F - 140°F,5°C - 58°C). Total time shouldn't exceed two hours.
According to your process, the only time should be been whatever cooling time happened between it being browned and placed back in the fridge. Your slow cooker is going to bring it up to above that temp slow enough that there is a time there that will happen.
So, on the very safe side, if you slow cooker takes 1 hour to get up to that temp and you kept your cooked beef out to cool before going fridge for less than 1 hour (that would be 2 hours total) - then you're safe.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.465307
| 2011-10-25T18:21:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18556",
"authors": [
"Ashley",
"GirlPower",
"Hillbilly Goddess",
"emma jones",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41466",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41467",
"s1ns3nt"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16609
|
Does pesto go bad?
I have some basil pesto but I'm not sure how long its fridge life is. It is in a sealed container. How long does it last before it is not safe to eat anymore?
Exact time is impossible to judge, as we don't know how it's been prepared or stored.
For instance, was this something commercially made? If so, was it sold in a jar and shelf-stable, or was it sold in the refrigerated section?
Also, what's in it? Just basil? Oil? Garlic? Preservatives like vinegar? Please see this related question: How long can a bottle of self-made basil sauce last without rotting?
Also, you're keeping it in the fridge? We usually pour our pesto into small tupperware containers and throw them in the freezer, and they are good for an entire year or more.
Practically as soon as you buy it in the fridge, I love pesto but it's a nightmare to keep.
I believe that the best indicator of freshness is the colour of the leaves. Once they turn from green to brown, it is all over for the pesto.
To boost the 'shelf-life' of the pesto in the fridge, make sure that it is completely covered with olive oil before sealing the container.
In regards to the part of the question asking about storage lifetime, and with respect to the other answers on this question: pesto is a low acid food at risk for botulism:
It contains garlic, which is harvested out of the ground, so may have spores (as might the basil leaves, but less likely)
Underneath the oil layer is anoxic (no access to oxygen from the air), which is necessary for botulism growth.
Therefore, pesto should not be stored for very long (whether home made or after a commercially canned product is opened) unless frozen.
Per the University of Georgia's National Center for Home Food Preservation which is admittedly focused on canning, but note the instructions on using fresh product as well (emphasis added):
How do I can oil with herbs? Can I can pesto?
Herbs and oils are both low-acid and together could support the growth
of the disease-causing Clostridium botulinum bacteria. Oils may be
flavored with herbs if they are made up for fresh use, stored in the
refrigerator and used within 2 to 3 days. There are no canning
recommendations. Fresh herbs must be washed well and dried completely
before storing in the oil. The very best sanitation and personal
hygiene practices must be used. Pesto is an uncooked seasoning mixture
of herbs, usually including fresh basil, and some oil. It may be
frozen for long term storage; there are no home canning
recommendations.
This should be the accepted answer, as it uses an authoritative source and gives a reason, instead of just "well, look at it."
Commercial pesto (at least some brands) is said to keep about a year unopened, and 5-7 days in the fridge after opening.
as in most cases, the answer is "it depends". If this is a commercial product, it has probably been pasteurized. It will also feature a "best before" date. It also depends on whether this was designed to be stored at room temperature or in the fridge. What can go wrong? The olive oil can go rancid, the basil can spoil (particularly if parts of it are exposed to air).
On the other hand, if it is random pesto made by a friend of yours, ditch it. The fact that you are asking the question indicates that it has already been there for too long. In the Italian tradition, pesto is not a "keeping" sauce. It is made right before use - and of course if it is good there are no leftovers...
Basil is one of the fastest herbs to decay. I recommend freezing leftover pesto in an air tight package. It's easy to thaw and if the container is airtight, flavor won't be compromised.
I have used pesto a month or more after making with no problems. Just refrigerate and I would say it is okay. This pesto contained only basil, parsley, olive oil, salt, pepper, pine nuts and garlic.
I've been cooking commercially for 10 years
Commercial pesto certainly doesn't keep that long in the fridge after it's been opened. My current bottle says 2 weeks. My last bottle started growing mould after about 6 weeks!
It should keep substantially longer before it's opened, but most commercial bottles should have advice about storage length on the label.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.465439
| 2011-08-03T15:17:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16609",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Afroz Alam",
"Daniel",
"Guest 2019",
"Joe",
"NickAldwin",
"SQB",
"William",
"Wyrmwood",
"alan2here",
"blaedj",
"davemx_5",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18801",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35435",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35436",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35920",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35954",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35967",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42794",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/939",
"leonbloy",
"user79197",
"user79220"
],
"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
}
|
18851
|
Where can I get Chocolate Bar shaped silicone molds from in the UK?
I need to find some chocolate bar shaped silicone molds, ideally about 100 grams in each bar, although I could go for smaller bars but not much.
Could you please let me know where I can get some from in the UK as I could do with ordering them by the weekend, only I have got fudge bars I need to make.
Amazon have a couple:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Silikomart-Silicone-Easy-Tablette-Mould/dp/B002VLQNBQ/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1320833045&sr=8-4
http://www.amazon.co.uk/ScrapCooking%C2%AE-Silicone-Bakeware-Chocolate-Tablets/dp/B0058GI0BW/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1320833045&sr=8-2
The Cake Decorating Company in Nottingham sell a wide range of moulds.
http://www.thecakedecoratingcompany.co.uk/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=209_348&products_id=3628
I've done business with them and can recommend them.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.465814
| 2011-11-09T09:26:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18851",
"authors": [
"Broccoli",
"Niranjana",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40847",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41468",
"xerxesbeat"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16386
|
How to achieve a thin caramel sauce/coating that stays fluid when refrigerated
I want to make a caramel coating for cheesecake, or other cakes, that stays fluid in the fridge, and doesn't become hard/solid.
I don't mind if the caramel sauce/syrup contains any butter/milk or not; if it's only made by sugar and water is OK.
I made a caramel sauce, which was fluid for some time, but when I coated the cheesecake and put in the fridge, it became solid and I just sticked this out and threw it away.
If you have a recipe for this I would be glad to hear about, just as long as it is caramelized sugar, not clear syrup (slightly heated water plus sugar).
How "fluid" do you want it to be? Can you give some examples of the desired viscosity? Maple syrup-like? Melted chocolate? Molasses? Peanut butter?
Usually caramel sauce is made by adding cream and/or butter to you caramel. Or you going for the type of caramel sauce you see to top sundaes or dip apples in at the supermarket or something else.
Actually, lthe fluidity must similar to clear syrup, or golden syrup, honey, etc... A thin glaze to top the cheesecake. I added butter/cream but still becomes very hard when refrigerated
If you make caramel acidic, it won't harden. So use cream of tartar (neutral taste) or lemon juice (easier availability) to create a non-hardening sticky caramel fluid.
I am not sure if you can add dairy (milk, cream, butter, etc). to acidified caramel, but there is a small chance that it will curdle, so I'd advice you to use clear caramel (browned sugar and water only).
I don't know how much acid you need to keep caramel at a certain viscosity at a given temperature, you'll have to experiment for that. Or maybe somebody else can supply this information. IIRC, a good starting point is a tablespoon of lemon juice per 100g sugar, but this is very imprecise.
The other option would be to make a semifluid sauce (cream, or starch-thickened milk, or diluted syrup) and add caramel to it, but the taste would be much weaker. My preference would be the clear caramel + acid route.
thanks for the answer. for the first option it is not possible, I added enough lemon juice, bit since the sugar is a solid, when it cools it becomes a solid again. Needs to be diluted, but how? (since adding wated will evaporate...) The second option seems possible, maybe addind caramel to clar syrup can do the trick with some experiments... I want to give you a vote for this, but the system says I have to be registered for this, and I posted as a guest.... Sorry about this
I might try it tonight, if I have enough time. But 1. caramel is not sugar, and 2. sugar + acid is not sugar. There are chemical changes which can lead to a product which is fluid when cooled (I don't remember what concentration you need for fridge cool). As for dilution, you just add more than the amount that would evaporate.
Corn Syrup will stop the sugar from crystallizing also(same as adding an acid). Not sure exactly that this will keep it as fluid as you are looking for.
@Taste Five sugar syrup crystallizes because it is supersaturated at low temperatures (the solubility of sugar in water is higher when the water is warm). Adding acid to the syrup will split the sugar into fructose and glucose, which have greater solubility, and corn syrup is already a mixture of fructose and glucose. But the reason caramel goes solid is a phase change, it is independent from solubility matters here.
@rumtscho: Is that possible to add a lot of water, as you say? I have heard that adding a lot of water may 1) crystallize the caramel, 2) Make it bitter Also, regarding your saying that adding an acid will change it into fluid, I don't think it's possible without water. For example, clear syrup is around 1:1 water/sugar, and then boiled and removed from fire (but without caramelizing). So definately, needs a liquid
@rumtscho, Yes adding acid will work as you described. But adding corn syrup(all glucose), will also stop crystallization by upsetting the balance of fructose and glucose. And I agree the question has nothing to do with crystallization. But that was why I made my comment. Adding an acid is really only effecting crystallization it really wont help in keeping it fluid necessarily. However corn syrup will soften the texture of the caramel as well. It is a fairly neutral sweeter and wont change the flavor of what he is looking for to much as well.
I just made caramel sauce for the first time with very simple ingredients: water, sugar, cream and vanilla this recipe. The recipe asked for heavy whipping cream and I used half and half instead because it was all I had. My sauce turned out very very thin, but still rich with flavor. It has been in the fridge for a day and still flows like liquid.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.465921
| 2011-07-25T12:10:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16386",
"authors": [
"ESultanik",
"Guido",
"Mewari",
"Nick",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6755",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6825",
"jeffwllms",
"rumtscho",
"user4779566"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16213
|
What can I do to dry out my marshmallows?
The recipe that I used did not call for cornstarch or corn syrup. The result is that they are slightly wet. Can I do anything to dry them up, such as dusting them with corn flour?
I did dredge them in a mixture of confectioners sugar and corn flour; it helped a little, but I think I will find a recipe that has corn starch in it for next time!
I think you need to tell us which ingredient you did use instead of the ingredient you didn't use.
I don't think I've ever seen a marshmallow recipe without corn syrup, except maybe for methocel marshmallows. But assuming these are standard gelatin marshmallows, you can dredge them in confectioner's sugar and that will make them easier to work with.
Don't "dust" them, actually dredge them, otherwise you'll just end up with globs of wet sugar attached to the exterior. This might happen anyway if your marshmallows are particularly watery, so you might need to dredge them a few times.
Also, don't cover them; it's important to let any moisture evaporate. Gelatin is pretty stable as a gelling agent, but fresh marshmallows are still prone to syneresis, and if you leave them in an enclosed container, the condensation will cause more problems.
If worse comes to worst and the sugar doesn't help, just leave them out in the open for a longer period. The water will continue to evaporate over time and eventually they will reach the consistency you want - although they might shrink a fair amount before then.
Recipes marshmallows
Special Occasions
Soft & Squishy Marshmallows
Makes about 40 marshmallows
Ingredients
60 ml ( ¼ cup) Cold Water
37 ml (2 ½ tbsp) Gelatine
185 ml ( ¾ cup) Boiling Water
500 ml (2 cups) Huletts White Sugar
1 Egg White
Pinch of Salt
3 ml ( ½ tsp) Vanilla Essence
The recipe calls to dust the marshmallows in corn flour, which I did but it did not help.
@Yurisa: Please edit your question by clicking the "edit" link under the tags; the recipe you tried is important information which belongs in the question rather than a comment.
Separately, @Yurisa, as I pointed out, dusting in anything will not help, you need to dredge, and I would use confectioner's sugar rather than corn starch. Corn starch isn't going to have very good flavour and confectioner's sugar already has corn starch in it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.466283
| 2011-07-17T07:16:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16213",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"BaffledCook",
"Baygirl",
"JanetW",
"Yurisa",
"dineshdileep",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34516",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34517",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34644",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6775",
"niemion"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29456
|
Is it safe to eat a chicken that leaked a ton of red fluid after roasting?
I just roasted a small chicken, and after taking it out of the oven after about 1 1/2 hours, a large amount of watery, red fluid leaked from the bird.
Did I somehow mess up cooking the chicken? Is it edible?
The chicken was cooked, alone, in the oven at a temperature of 180 Celsius (356 Fahrenheit). There was nothing else done to the chicken (no brining or anything).
I would microwave it.
What exactly was the appearance of the "red fluid"? How exactly did you cook the chicken, and with what additional ingredients? Did you take the temperature when it came out? If so, what was it?
The chicken was cooked by itself in the oven on 180C for one and a half hours. There was nothing else done to the chicken (no brining or anything). The fluid was a watery red fluid.
What was the internal temperature of the chicken itself. That is what is important, more than the color of juices that leak from the bird.
Based on the given information, it does not sound like the chicken was actually cooked as planned; maybe the oven's thermometer is off, or there is another problem.
It sounds like raw meat juices (water and myoglobin, not blood, and I cannot remember the technical name for this fluid just now). If the oven was truly at 180 C (about 355 F), this would have evaporated or the heat would have destroyed the red color.
Since the chicken was held at unknown temperatures for an extended period of time, I wouldn't risk eating it.
I would recommend discarding this chicken immediately, and buy an oven thermometer immediately, to check its calibration, and if it is off, get it serviced.
As another answer points out, the liquid consists of the liquid contents of the chicken's cells. It is mostly water with some proteins dissolved in it.
I think that your chicken was cooked enough. If the liquid is raw, it will look a lot like slightly watered down blood. This is how most people describe it. The fact that you call it "watery red fluid" already sounds to me as if it had the clear, red-tinted appearance of cooked meat juice. Also, 1.5 hours in a hot oven should be more than enough to cook a chicken, even if your oven's thermostat is discalibrated.
My assumption is that the chicken had previously been frozen, you cooked it too long, and/or cut it up too early. All of this can increase the amount of meat juice which flows out of the cooked meat instead of staying inside and making it juicy and tasty. Sadly, it is not as tasty as a properly cooked chicken. But the good news is that you have no safety concerns whatsoever. So you can eat your chicken.
To make it completely clear, because I haven't seen your chicken: If the juice which flows is bright red and cloudy or translucent, it is undercooked. If it is clear/transparent and the red has a warm, slightly brownish hue, it is probably cooked (clear juices are not a 100% indicator of having reached a safe temperature, but raw-looking juices are a 100% indicator that you have to cook longer).
One of these two answers is completely wrong since they are opposite--if it is the one I put up, it should be deleted. To me the description sounded like the juices I see from completely uncooked chicken that accumulate in the packaging, or while letting it sit (I like to salt 24 hours ahead of time as a dry brine). Frankly, the only explanation I could come up with was near total oven failure. I cannot imagine a well cooked chicken with a "a ton" of juices having come out--it tends to evaporate and reduce in the oven.
Of course, the whole question would have been easily answered with an instant-read thermometer as the chicken was removed from the oven. I cannot recommend one enough. They help with both food safety and with quality.
@SAJ14SAJ we can both keep our answers; none of us knows for sure what the state of that chicken is. The juices could be raw or cooked. "A ton" is subjective, and the amount of cooked juices can be high under some circumstances. Your opinion is that the OP should err on the safe side, while I think that a visual inspection combined with the long cooking time is enough to dismiss the "raw" hypothesis with a reasonably high probability. The viewpoints are a matter of opinion. And I fully support your point about the thermometer check.
The color of the fluid is a clue to whether or not your chicken is done, not a canonical guide. You are asking a question where no determinate answer can be given. Your chicken is safe when it has been pasteurized. 165f for instant kill (well, 10 seconds), for example. So temperature is your guide to safety. You can have red juices and safe chicken. Similarly, you can have clear juices and unsafe chicken. Get a good instant-read thermometer to be sure.
Be smart... if the chicken is leaking water red fluid ,
go ahead and boil it for fifteen minutes so all the fear for uncooked chicken and / or blood that may be contaminated is killed
once that is done , try roasting the chicken again or frying it and it would be more than safe to eat
I had a similar problem with my grilled chicken. I decided to put the chicken back on the grill for a couple minutes. It worked fine and my family ate it. Well none of us got sick so I am going to say success
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.466497
| 2012-12-25T20:19:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29456",
"authors": [
"Charlie52",
"Cynthia",
"Fong",
"FryRiceProductions",
"Jannie M. Armbrust",
"Michal",
"R J Elliot",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sean Hart",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68491",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68492",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68500",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68529",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80038",
"rumtscho",
"victoriah",
"wakinnwhitt",
"xxyxxyxyx1"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16878
|
Slow-cooking pork 'chops'?
I was in Austria recently, and at a restaurant there I ate a very simple dish that consisted mainly of two large pork chops in a light, thin gravy. The pork chops were super tender and came apart really easily.
So I have some leftover pork chops at home and I want to know how I can cook them so that they are like that. I usually fry chops, but that gives a different kind of texture I think.
I'm not really sure what to do with them. I don't have a crockpot or a slow cooker so I don't have too many options. I guess the choice is either boiling them (e.g., in gravy, or a stew) or cooking them in the oven, but I have no idea on how to do either of those things without turning it out horrible. Do you have any tips?
Try making braised pork chops with onions. Salt and pepper then brown chops on both sides in a heavy frying pan or skillet. Remove chops, add a little oil if needed, and add a sliced onion, stirring occasionally until the onion is lightly browned. Add water or chicken stock or a combination to the onions to deglaze the pan, then nestle the chops back into the onions, cover and reduce the heat to a very low simmer. Cook this way for about a half hour to 45 minutes (test for fork-tenderness). Check occasionally to add more liquid as needed and to turn the chops.
Given that this was a restaurant, it's possible that your pork was cooked sous-vide (vacuum packed and placed in a low temperature water bath for an extended time, and then quick-seared). Cooking pork chops at precisely 140F for a couple of hours can create the effect you describe, but that requires specialized equipment. There are ways that you can replicate the effect without a dedicated sous vide machine and vacuum sealer (google for "ghetto sous vide"), but those are frankly a bit sketchy for anyone but dedicated hobbyists (Upside possibility: perfect pork chops, tenderloins, and steaks. Downside risk: Death from botulism or salmonella).
Boiling pork chops absolutely will result in horrible, horrible food. Baking pork chops will end up with okay-but-not-particularly-tender-or-interesting food.
Were I in your shoes, I would pan fry them, but try to do so for less time than you usually do. If you're in North America, you don't have to worry about trichonosis, so it is no longer required to cook pork as long as the previous generation had to. Medium-rare pan-fried pork chops can turn out tender, juicy, and flavorful, without any health risks.
+1 for "if you are in North America..." Please put that in boldface
I've heard of fairly recent trichinosis outbreaks in North America; they are rare of course, but they do occur. Where did you read that it's no longer necessary to fully cook pork?
The rarity of trichinosis is such that the FDA no longer suggests that commercially raised US pork be cooked any differently or longer than any other meat. Pork cooked to medium rare is just fine.
I make pulled pork all the time in the winter (usually from inexpensive shoulder roasts) using a heavy cast iron dutch oven, by filling it about 1 cm with water and letting it cook at low heat for 4-8 hours. After cooking it pulls apart with no resistance at all.
The important thing is to use a moist-heat cooking method and low heat. Braising is ideal. Just add a little liquid and cover it so that the steam does most of the work. If you don't have a dutch oven, you could probably use reasonably deep metal dish and cover it with aluminum foil.
+1 for braising pork chops, its a winner (I cringe at oven baked pulled pork though...no smoke ring :( )
Boil on stove with lid on. I boil mine for like 2-3 hours with season salt and garlic salt and boil carrots amd potatoes with onions in it. Yummy!
for large electric broiler (with insert pan):
2 cans of Cream of (insert favorite) Soup, 1 can of milk, 1/2 tsp of fresh ground pepper, 1/2 cup chopped red onion. mix well, place in suitable sized casserole dish (precoat inside with veg oil first, to ease cleanup), and slather up your chops with the mix, coating the topsides well.
put ~1/2 inch/1cm water in the insert, place the dish on a baking rack clear of the water's surface.
Preheat broiler, then bake at 225degF/110degC for 1 1/2 to 3 hours, depending on size/number of chops. check meat temps after the first 1 1/2 hrs.
use spatula or similar to serve--they might just fall to pieces otherwise.
this works in a regular stove, provided you place a pan of water under the dish.
enjoy!
This is going to sound weird if you've never heard of it done before, but sear them and boil them gently in whole milk, enough to cover them along with garlic/onion/lemon/whatever you like. I do this with pork and chicken, the calcium in the milk breaks down the meat and once finished you can turn it into a nice gravy.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.467174
| 2011-08-14T22:16:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16878",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Dave Griffith",
"Dominic",
"Dr. belisarius",
"Jeff Kubina",
"Kutzeh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36102",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36133",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3819",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"rfusca",
"user3509165",
"user36102"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16879
|
Tomato skin in roasted tomato soup?
In preparing roasted tomato soup, which includes tomatoes that I roast in the oven at 200 °C (392 °F) for 30 minutes, and then simmer for a long time, I am having an issue with tomato skins. I find these skins largely inedible: They separate from the pulp and become very tough. Since these skins might contain some flavour, I simmer them with the rest of the tomatoes, and only then throw them away. This is a bit fidgety and takes a while.
I noticed that some tomato varieties, namely the ones that are sold on vines, have much softer skins that do not separate from the pulp and remain edible.
Do tomato skins have, in fact, any flavour that I would want to keep? What is the correct way to handle tomato skins?
I wouldn't bother keeping the skins, if they're hurting the texture. Many recipes using tomatoes end up removing skins for this reason. My exec chef showed me an easy way to remove the skin from tomatoes (we were doing tomato concasse):
Wash tomatoes thoroughly, and slice a shallow cross in the bottom.
Bring a pot of water to a rolling boil, and also prepare an ice water bath nearby.
Drop tomatoes into the boiling water for 30 seconds to a minute, until the skin starts to crack.
Using a slotted spoon, transfer tomatoes to ice water to cool for a minute or two
Peel -- the skin should already be peeling back around the X-mark.
My exec grandmother showed me the same!
Yep, this works great. One tip: you don't really need to boil them for 30 seconds - even 5 seconds is enough to loosen the skin.
Isn't this just blanching?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.467668
| 2011-08-14T22:47:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16879",
"authors": [
"Dr. belisarius",
"Dungarth",
"Michael Natkin",
"Random user 123",
"eccentricSam",
"fectin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36104",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36105",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99055"
],
"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
}
|
15480
|
Is it possible to make hoop cheese out of acid-precipated milk curds?
I've never tasted or seen "hoop cheese," a product that appears to have been made on a small scale years ago, and was popular in the South.
Is it possible to make this cheese by pressing and waxing salted curds made by a method similar to making paneer? I've done this before and it's rather easy, heat a gallon of whole milk slowly to the right temperature and add white vinegar. The strained, pressed curds make up paneer.
Do I need rennet to make the curds?
not a big deal kiamlaluno, but one of your edits made the whole question have less of a global world-view and more US-centric one.
I have also not tasted hoop cheese. All descriptions of it that I can find describe it as unsalted, pressed cottage cheese.
While you can definitely press out extra liquid from acid set cheeses, the proteins are not as firmly set and the texture is going to be very different.
I think you will find that using rennet is not much more difficult and opens a wide variety of cheese experiments.
Junket also provides quite a few recipes and I have had success with many of them:
http://www.junketdesserts.com/cheeserecipes.aspx
This recipe for cottage cheese uses the bacteria in (fresh) buttermilk to acidify the milk. Then with the addition of rennet a curd forms that is much firmer than what you get with acid alone.
Making their cottage cheese recipe and pressing it into a hoop should be easy enough for you. I use the end cap of 6" PVC pipe with holes drilled in it as my mold and bungee cords for the press.
For an excellent page on home cheese production in general check out this page:
http://biology.clc.uc.edu/fankhauser/Cheese/Cheese_course/Cheese_course.htm
My first experiment with rennet was a failure. You also need buttermilk or something to culture the milk, an added step. --- By multitasking, I've made really easy inexpensive cheese via acid-precipitated milk curds, but they lack flavor and keeping qualities. Thanks for your answer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.467846
| 2011-06-15T02:33:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15480",
"authors": [
"DF_",
"Joao Leal",
"Joy",
"OpenID-test2",
"Teafairy",
"eli",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32793",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32794",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32795",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32802",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32811",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6241",
"marsh"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16827
|
Can I use boiled potatoes in Spanish omelette?
I have some leftover microwaved potatoes. Can I use these potatoes in Spanish omelette? Also, I read that tomatoes are not part of "authentic" Spanish omelette. Is that true?
I think Boiled and Microwaved potatoes will act very differently. Microwaved are closer to baked surely? Which do you have?
I "had" microwave-d potatoes, consider me stupid but are baked potatoes different from boiled ones? I never found any difference :(
They will act very differntly when added to an omellete or if you try to slice them.
You shouldn't use boiled potatoes as you have to fry them.
This is a good recipe, and no, tomatoes are not part of "authentic" Spanish omelette. In Spain we call it "Potato omelette" an the only ingredients are eggs, potatoes, olive oil, salt and sometimes onion.
sometimes onion means no onions at all? the answer is bit late, I used the boiled/microwaved potatoes, of course I fried potatoes, thanks.
yes, i always do it without onion but many people add onion to the recipe.
Why do you have to fry boiled potatoes?
and sometimes green pepper.
In Spain other common additions to tortilla are haba beans, garlic shoots (ajetes), and asparagus.
Being grown in Spain I've eaten boiled potatoes Spanish omelette a few times: when my mother wasn't in aim for cleaning the splattered oil after cooking. She stopped making omelettes that way: it simply didn't have the taste it should have.
IMHO potatoes should be deep fried in olive oil as that will give them a crust/scratching outer part with an inside part with the consistency of boiled potatoes. To archieve this I heat oil up to 180C (350F) and when I put the potatoes in, immediatelly set the temperature at 120~140C (250~280F), having the potatoes an irregular cutting.
I've seen potatoes omelette having added: onion (wheels or slices), green pepper (sliced, never red, don't know why), cooking chorizo or even jamon serrano dies (between .5 and 1cm (.93in.) cubes). But never seen tomato being added to a potatoes omelette.
Why would use olive oil for that? You're suggesting heating it to the smoke point, and even if you stop short of that, it'll already have lost all the flavor. (See for example http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27415/is-this-video-showing-an-exception-of-the-common-wisdom-that-you-shouldnt-cook)
Frying in olive oil is not for giving taste, but for creating that "crust". I use that temperature (180C/350F) as above it the oil began to smoke.
It's not EVOO the one used for frying, and according to (Wikipedia)[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke_point] it hasn't reached the smoke oil yet.
@Jefromi : there's more than one type of olive oil. Extra light olive oil is excellent for frying. Extra virgin is not : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/705/67
@Joe Okay, sure; it's in my experience not what people usually mean when they say olive oil, but maybe I'm basing this on a time before EVOO was a buzzword.
I didn't deep fry but managed to create the "crust". For me it was creating a "Jeera Aloo" (or Cumin Potato) sans Jeera/Cumic recipe with eggs added at the end. I never add tomatoes in omelette, never made any sense to add tomatoes. And green pepper/chillies, not bell pepper, are must. I even sprinkle some oregano at times.
@Jefromi: When a Spaniard speaks of cooking with olive oil, he usually means something light, as in the typical Spanish kitchen it would be unusual to cook with virgen oil, which is used for salads.
@DanFox Thanks, we did establish that's what J.A.I.L. meant here - it's just that in the US, at least, "olive oil" usually refers to (extra) virgin olive oil, so it is actually necessary to clarify. If you tell a random American "fry it in olive oil" they will do the wrong thing.
David G. has the 'correct' answer, but you can in fact use boiled potatoes. Mash the boiled potatoes with a generous helping of olive oil (to taste). Crude extra virgin olive oil (EVOO) has a different flavor than cooked. It really stands out. Then, go ahead with the rest of the recipe.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.468030
| 2011-08-12T06:02:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16827",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Dan Fox",
"David G.",
"Ian",
"Ian Salewski",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Joe",
"Kit",
"Kumar",
"Mary Fisher",
"Moira",
"Mr C C SASIN",
"Toby Allen",
"Wad Cheber",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19865",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35927",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35982",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35985",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35986",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7030",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/711",
"user35927"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18989
|
How to know whether the teflon coated pan's life has reached end?
I use oil for cooking in the Teflon coated pan. I put the pan on a very low fire. (Simmer) Lately I have found that the onions get stuck to the bottom of the pan.
How to know whether the teflon coated pan's life has reached end? Does it change colour or something else?
Anisha, a utensil typically refers to a spoon, flipper, strainer, or other small hand-held thing you use during cooking. The teflon coated item you put on the stove and cook onions in is almost certainly a pan, probably a frying pan.
Not sure if Teflon looks any different when its worn out, but if it does its not much different. Exempting, of course, things like scratched & peeling Teflon.
If your pan is no longer giving you the nonstick performance you want, and you've tried basic stuff like giving it a good scrub (using a non-scratching sponge, of course), then it seems like you've answered your own question: if its worn to the point it no longer meets your requirements, then its at its end of (useful) life, at least for you.
(There may be ways to adjust what you're doing in the pan to get more life out of it; after all, a lot of us sauté our onions in stainless. But that'd be a different question, I suppose.)
Thanks I''ll ask this There may be ways to adjust what you're doing in the pan to get more life out of it; after all, :)
@AnishaKaul: I don't see your new question posted, so I guess I should clarify I mean ask as a different question (e.g., click "ask a question" up top). Assuming there aren't already questions on browning onions (or whatever it is you're doing).
I said I will ask that. :) :) Future tense. :) You were helpful, thanks. I'll ask that question within a few days.
@AnishaKaul: OK, I just wanted to make sure you weren't waiting on me to answer (e.g., in another comment).
Because you have used oil in a PTFE pan (Teflon is a brand of this), it is most likely that it has partially over-heated in due to typical hot-spots on domestic stoves and caused the oil to polymerise to the PTFE
This forms a slightly darker layer over the PTFE which is not a good release agent, unlike polymerisation in a cast iron pan
It can be removed by vigorous rubbing with plastic scourers (like 3M brand). Use dish soap as a lubricant. This may remove more than you want, so be prepared to ruin your pan entirely! If done carefully it will restore normal PTFE functionality
If you use PTFE, use a medium heat (less than 200°C) and no oil
if you want to use oil, use a normal metal pan
I don't let it heat more than 30 seconds usually, will that be harmful too?
It's not time, it's temperature. Keep the temperature below 200°C or you risk destroying the PTFE layer
Actually, I keep the gas always on "simmer". Does that help? I use this stove: http://www.sunflame.com/Cooktops.asp
Isn't polymerised oil the basis of pan seasoning — which is supposed to be fully non-stick?
@gidds yes it’s the basis of seasoning … but no, it’s not fully nonstick. Different oils polymerize differently and the ones that cure harder tend to be less slippery.
Rather than scrub the teflon harshly, try boiling water in the pan with added vinegar. This will help remove any stuck food or polymerised oil “seasoning" that has stuck to scratches in the teflon. Rub off with non-scratch pad.
If the teflon is intact, see if it is still non-stick. I always add oil when frying on teflon, making sure the pan is suitably hot before adding food.
To save my worn out pan from the dump, I sand blasted it back to bare metal and seasoned it as though it was a cast iron skillet. Good results so far.
I decided my high quality teflon coated stir fry pan was worn out when food stuck to it, even if the pan was oiled. It was scratched, and the teflon was turning a slight brown colour, probably due to over heating.
So I had it sand blasted back to stainless steel bare metal, leaving a microscopically rough surface that seemed perfect for “seasoning” with polymerised oil. It’s now a somewhat blotchy golden brown colour, that is turning black with time. Should hopefully last forever like American cast iron skillets.
If it has ANY scratches on the teflon coating or if the teflon surface seems to have worn out, do not use it. Do anything you can in order to prevent pieces of teflon to find their way into the food, as teflon is REALLY unhealthy for you and your family.
Personally, i try to avoid teflon as much as possible - i have a feeling that the long-term effects of cooking with teflon utencils (or equipment :-) ) are yet to be discovered.
Cast iron / copper rules!
Lots of people have Teflon replacement joints in their body, doesn't seem to be harming them? Are you not confusing the edge case when Teflon is heated to way over 200°C (392°F)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.468382
| 2011-11-17T08:26:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18989",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Daphne Burgess",
"Dave Cousineau",
"Grandma Jo",
"Jason Newton",
"Joe",
"Kate Gregory",
"Louise",
"Pedro V. G.",
"Robert Corey",
"Stephen S",
"TFD",
"derobert",
"gidds",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41189",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41190",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41196",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61831",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61833",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68458",
"user2649681",
"李嘉瀅"
],
"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
}
|
8727
|
What is this Italian Cookie called?
I'm looking for a recipe for an Italian cookie that I remember having as a child. The cookie is shaped like a gnocchi or cavatelli but is much bigger, about 1.5 inches long and slightly larger than a quarter in diameter. It is distinctly 'C' shaped, though. The cookie was fried, probably deep fried, and then soaked in honey. The color is a very deep, dark brown.
The cookie is very dense but flaky. There was not a very strong flavor other than the honey that I recall (i.e. not anise-flavored or something strong like that). The texture is what I'm really after, I think.
It is not a Zeppole (it doesn't puff up) or a Bow Tie (not as brittle in texture, certainly not as thin) or the little pea-shaped cookies (Struffoli?).
Based on our family tree these are probably going to be a Southern Italian cookie, from Calabria. But that's just a guess/hint.
It sounds delicious!
Hey ... the cookies are fried ! Why the "baking" tag??? :D
Gnocchi shaped? I am pretty sure they are Turdilli! .
It's a traditional Calabrian recipe:
They are deep-fried:
And hot-soaked in honey too:
Same biscotti, slightly different shapes:
Bear in mind that fried cookies soaked in honey are a traditional treat for carnival and Christmas seasons all over Italy, so you may find many, many similar recipes. From http://www.marinacepedafuentes.com/2010_02_01_archive.html :
Evviva i Dolci di Carnevale rigorosamente fritti, che ricevono nomi diversi secondo i luoghi.
In Toscana chiacchiere o trecce, e poi frappe laziali, castagnole romane, frittelle di riso molisane, fritole triestine, nigelan altoatesini, sfincitelle siciliane, tortelli romagnoli, bomboloni fiorentini, cicerchiata umbra e chi più ne ha più ne metta!
At left with figs syrup, at right with honey:
A full blown italian fritti feast:
Turdilli recipes in Italian
Turdilli recipes in English
Video: Making Turdilli
A shop near my house sells turdilli (hold your envy)
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner -- thanks!!!!
LOL: Your shop is blocked as 'pornography' from here!!!
@Benjol It works for me. Perhaps you have some kind of anti-fat filtering :)
These are definitely Tordilli..deep fried and dipped in honey. I have made these for years.
I make a cookie like that. Our family calls it Conalicle. I it rolled and deep fried, then can be covered in Honey or heated caro. If your still looking for the recipe, I have it. I also have a picture, but it is too large to post here.
Stack Exchange does not support private mail between users. Better to post the recipe here if the ones in the accepted answer do not cover it. And you can reduce photos in size before trying to post here or you can post elsewhere and put a link here.
I believe you might be looking for Cartellate, or Honey Pinwheels? Check this site out and see if they look familiar. http://www.mangiabenepasta.com/cartellate.html
There are a lot of different recipes for them, but some of what I came across look like what you were describing.
No, definitely not -- the shape is all wrong. The cookie I'm remembering is a cylinder about 1.5 inches long.
It sounds like the cookie my family makes. we call it a dudela it is a dough that gets rolled on a grater then deep fried and soaks in honey with an orange peel.
You must be southern Italian, like my family. I believe my grandfather called them "durdeel", which would be the southern pronunciation of turdilli.
Maybe you are thinking about Krumiri? They are very popular in Italy.
They don't seem to be fried or covered in honey, so I'd say no. Both of these things were a fundamental part of the cookie, so I don't seem them as a simple variation.
Ops, misread you question :-)
my family calls them sculeete, but not sure that is the right spelling. Ours were braided and had whiskey, ginger, etc
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.468801
| 2010-11-01T14:46:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8727",
"authors": [
"Anna",
"Benjol",
"Bluebelle",
"Donna Pace",
"Dr. belisarius",
"Fraser",
"Indiana Kernick",
"Jean",
"Jim Green",
"Jim from Boston",
"Joe Casadonte",
"JudyM",
"Kyle Banker",
"MLT",
"Mansfield",
"Olivia",
"Sklivvz",
"WLPhoenix",
"Willeke",
"ack_inc",
"gkr2d2",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1659",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17880",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17902",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17911",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17915",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18706",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18723",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18757",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18758",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18789",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2065",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94116",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96426",
"hungneox",
"ngot",
"tom",
"user937372",
"wmcarlos"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
70544
|
Should I par-boil my pickled potatoes before roasting them?
I am attempting to make some pickled fries, similar to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnRvRDUtgY4
However, I don't have a frier (nor do I want to fry on the stove top), so I was thinking of cooking them in the oven like I do usually with potato wedges - par boil for 5 mins, season, then add to roasting tin with hot oil.
This yields nice crunchy wedges.
My question then - my potatoes are pickled, should I par boil them before I put them in the oven? Or will this in some way... de-pickle them?
It shouldn't "de-pickle" them (I'm fairly certain there's no way to accomplish that) but you should definitely par boil them shorter than you normally would because they will be somewhat softened by the pickling already.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.469154
| 2016-06-08T17:30:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/70544",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
1819
|
Is canned or jarred minced garlic substantially different from fresh garlic?
I am always in favor of fresh ingredients when possible. I recently discovered that minced (and crushed and chopped) garlic is available in very inexpensive jars in the produce section of the grocery store. I've always bought garlic and chopped it for a given meal, but I wonder if such jars of prepared garlic are worthwhile.
Would purchasing prepared garlic in a jar be a time saver in some situations, or is the quality reduced such that it is not recommended?
As a side question, does minced garlic in a jar keep for very long once opened?
Yes, it is different. Does it matter? It depends.
If you're going to use garlic in a stew or anything else that would 'dissolve' the regular garlic anyway, it doesn't really matter all that much in my opinion.
If you want to preserve the texture and/or create a more 'urgent' garlic flavour in short-cooked food, I'd go with fresh.
Sidenote: most of the prepared garlic comes with additives, consider if you want to have those as a part of your diet.
As for keeping time once opened: no worries really - bacteria really don't like garlic all that much, so refrigerated you should have no problems hitting 6+ months.
Agree, with the caveat that a seemly-obvious thing to do, storing fresh garlic in olive oil in the fridge, is a great way to grow botulism bacteria! Unlike things like sun-dried tomatoes, which are acidic and safe to store in oil, garlic is neutral and is a perfect site to grow anaerobic bacteria. If you want to use chopped garlic in the fridge, buy it from a company that knows what additives to use to make it safe.
You can also just peel it and throw the whole cloves in the fridge to save some of that time. If you've got a garlic press, or you like to grate it as hwillow suggested, the peeling might be the most time-consuming part.
Alternatively, you can puree a bunch of fresh garlic, and then salt and ferment it like a sauerkraut. It obviously gets sour and is salty. But the storebought minced garlic I've tried before was all acidified with vinegar, and was bland and didn't smell like much to boot. The fermented garlic still smelled and tasted really strongly of garlic, just without any kind of burn. The initial peeling is rough, but on the bright sie, I'm a lot faster at peeling garlic than a lot of people I know now...
I think the main reason pre-prepared garlic exists is that some people don't like working with raw garlic directly i.e. getting their fingers/hands smelly.
You can't go wrong with raw garlic and it's easy to keep and prepare.
I agree, we owned a couple of restaurants, and we had numerous "canned ingredients". We never ever ever in 20 years of cooking thought of even getting canned garlic.
I think fresh garlic is much more flavorful! I tried the jarred garlic before, and I could definitely taste a difference. Yes, it's more convenient, but it's not as strong as fresh. A hand grater is useful when using fresh garlic. You won't have to chop and it helps prevent biting into larger pieces.
The other benefit to choosing fresh garlic is that you can remove it.
Sometimes, particularly for a saute or other pan-cooked dish, I want the flavor of garlic, but I don't necessarily want to bite in to it. I'll cut the garlic into thick slices, or just smash it and throw it in whole, with the intention of removing it before serving.
Production line, people! I’m Italian and we use garlic! So once a month I buy garlic bulbs, cut off the big ends, split the bulb to peel and drop them all into a nut chopper to speed-mince. Then I place 2-3t into a jello-shot container, snap on lid, place several into ziplock sandwich bag. Then I place as many of these bags as I think I may use in a week into a freezer proof gal.ziploc, date it and pitch into deep freezer basket-InstaMincedGarlic!!
This answer doesn't answer the OP's question, but is an interesting alternative on how to get ready-to-use serving sized portions at home.
In my experience, fresh garlic is great for when you want texture, or to slow down the flavour infusion. For example, when baking potato chunks, I put fresh garlic in, and then the flavour doesn't take over the entire dish.
For other times, especially recipes that call for minced garlic, I have a jar of frozen crushed garlic that I bought at my local grocery.
I'm not sure what's available where in the world, but in my area, the frozen garlic is cheap and has no additives in it at all.
Generally, one heaped teaspoon of frozen crushed garlic is equivalent to an average garlic clove.
On the other hand, for those times when you do want fresh garlic, a few drops of lemon juice on your hands afterwards and a quick rub will get the garlic smell off your fingers.
I believe one cannot taste the difference between minced(canned) and fresh garlic once it is cooked. Especially if it's been stewed for hours in a slow cooker) So if I want a lot of garlic in my stew, I use minced one and save time!
You can always buy fresh garlic, then chop it up yourself and freeze it in a plastic bag. Then when you need it, just take out one teaspoon or so for each clove you need and store the rest.
I think some jarred garlic tends to have sort of a "sour" taste and doesn't have that delectable garlic sensation that gives garlic its reputation.
I've used both. I do use the jarred for those who don't like the fresh sliced one. They don't know the difference. I personally like fresh sliced garlic in everything. Think of it this way, people do not like onions,
so I use onion flakes. I like the flavor of BOTH!
if you are going to use it where the garlic is cooked and disolved into a sauce, not that much differenT. If you are using a lot of it and it will remain largely whole, Go fresh (particularily if it is on pizza or something). I can taste the difference. Jarred garlic has a really off taste. Like it has gone slightly bad. It is a bad comparison, but I always think of the smell of a sewer when a pizza place uses it as their garlic.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.469266
| 2010-07-18T19:40:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1819",
"authors": [
"Captain Comic",
"Cascabel",
"Harlan",
"Jordan W.",
"Mark Pim",
"Matt Garrison",
"Roshan Vermezyari",
"Waleed Al-Balooshi",
"bob1",
"dassouki",
"gummihaf",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22941",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3292",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3589",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98883",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9976",
"ingh.am",
"kitukwfyer",
"newportliving"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
10650
|
Is it safe to wash a little Sterno down a sink drain?
I've recently been cooking and using Sterno to keep things warm - or cook. However, from time to time I need to stir, scoop, or manipulate the Sterno in some way. Is it safe to rinse off my utensils, which have come in contact with Jelled Cooking fuel, in a kitchen sink?
Sterno is gelled denatured alcohol. It is denatured alcohol (a combination of methanol and ethanol) so that you can't, safely, drink it, but it is still mostly alcohol, which will dissolve in water and clean up just fine.
While I wouldn't dump a lot of it down the sink, you should have no problem with cleanup. And while Sterno isn't safe to drink, it won't be a problem if you touch it in cleaning up.
I just double checked the Sterno site and they confirm water cleanup and say, additionally, that it is biodegradable.
Be careful with this in more official, controlled contexts, or if you're disposing in large quantities. The MSDS's for all of the various fuels can be found at http://www.sternopro.com/sds. Each MSDS contains a section on disposal. The ethanol gel, Safe Heat, and Hot Spot sheets all say "Must not be disposed together with household garbage. Do not allow product to reach sewage system." Realistically, for casual situations, I'd interpret that to mean sufficiently diluting or otherwise neutralizing the product before it reaches the sewage system satisfies that recommendation.
Sterno should never be put down a sink as it will eventually get into the water/sewage system. It should be considered hazardous waste and be disposed of properly.
Contact your local sanitation department for the location of a hazardous waste drop off near you.
The OP was asking about cleaning utensils, not disposing of Sterno in bulk.
I think this answers the question, though: "it should never be put down a sink" and therefore needs to be cleaned off the utensils in a different way.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.469842
| 2011-01-01T02:43:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10650",
"authors": [
"BigHandsome",
"Carrie",
"Erica",
"Jason C",
"John",
"LucyBoyce",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21831",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21835",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21854",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"scravy"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
61979
|
What happens to pound cakes if I forget the flour and then add it after baking a little?
I was making pound cakes. I put the mixture in loaf pans, noticing the consistency looked off. I put them in the oven and about 5 minutes later I realized I forgot to put in the flour. I took the pans out, added everything to the flour and put them back in the oven. They are cooking at 300° for 1 hour 25 min. Will they turn out or not?
Tough to say, but when you find out, you should answer your own question!
Hi peggym7. How'd your cakes turn out? As you can see, a number of people are curious. Posting an answer would be a great way to teach the rest of us! Hope all went well and they were yummy!
Wow this question was posted in 2015..I think the cake was too bad she had to quit stackoverflow
So it’s July 2024 and I just baked a cake, put it in the oven and 5 minutes later I realized I forgot to add the sifted flour. I pulled the cake out, mixed it together for about 30 seconds and put it back in the oven. It turned out to be the most moist and flavorful mile high Lemon Pound cake I’ve ever made. But I won’t try it again!
Hi. Did you do this after reading this question to see what would happen, or do it by accident, go googling, and find this question? Also, if it was your most flavorful and moist cake ever, why not try it again? Maybe you’ve discovered a new method.
@Damila: I suspect it would have been a mess unless you had another pan to put it into, as you’d have disturbed any release that was on there (or would need to fully clean it, then re-grease). And adding hot water when making bread is a thing in some Asian recipes that’s supposed to help it stay moist. I wonder if something similar happened here.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.470032
| 2015-09-23T16:06:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/61979",
"authors": [
"Adriana Chavarria",
"Arthur Nelsen",
"Carl Richardson",
"Damila",
"Joe",
"Patty White",
"Sheri Vanderhoof",
"Sue Saddest Farewell TGO GL",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147150",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147173",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68856",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76675",
"logophobe",
"manu muraleedharan",
"sue Buckley"
],
"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
}
|
77102
|
Does ingredient order matter when making Yorkshire Puddings?
With a mother-in-law who hails from the North of England I am well aware that when I make Yorkshire puddings my method is scrutinized. Luckily I have been assured by the master of such delights that my method is correct. First put in the flour, then the egg then the milk - any other way (as in putting the milk before the egg) just does not work! OK, it may sound silly, but I would never consider doing it any other way.
Can other methods work, or is this the only one which will give good results?
#rumtscho you have changed the whole ethos of my question by editing it. The point that I was trying to make is that there are only three ingredients, and a true Northerner would and could not even consider making it any other way, than flour, egg then milk.
@rumtscho simply changed the wording so that your question would not be subject to closing.
@dougal you can of course re-edit the question. What I wanted to remove was the question "has anybody else tried it, and what happened", because we don't take this kind of question. If I misunderstood you and you were interested in knowing something other than "do other methods work", you can change it to explain what exactly you wanted to know. Of course, if you were to change it into something that should be closed, we will try to work with you and find a different version, and only close as a last resort.
OK, I fail to understand what is wrong with my question = @dougal you can of course re-edit the question. What I wanted to remove was the question "has anybody else tried it, and what happened", because we don't take this kind of question." - I really want to know, "has anybody else tried it, and what happened?" - what is wrong with that?
Asking "has anybody else tried it" isn't constructive. If you spend five minutes reading Yorkie recipes, you'll find dozens of different methods. We're not a chat board and, while personal experience is certainly valuable, the reality is that someone doesn't actually have to have tried it. It is only necessary to know if it is possible, which is what the rephrasing has done. Just because I personally haven't tried this method doesn't mean I can't write an answer based on information I find on the web rather than personal experience.
I don't even see why it's a question. You've been taught a way that works, that you're happy to do, and that your family member nods approvingly at. You presumably enjoy the cooked product. Why do you want to know if the handful of other ways you could do it might work? Why is trying them when you're alone not an option? Why are you asking?
@dougal there is nothing wrong with that, but we don't deal with this type of question. Asking it here is like going to the bakery to buy a frozen cow carcass - you will be asked to go elsewhere with your request. "Has anybody else tried it" is what we call a "poll" question, with one true answer per person answering, but not a single objective answer for everybody. It can be asked on a discussion forum, but it breaks our format and is not accepted here.
People for decades have been convinced that there's one "right" way to make Yorkshire Puddings. The reality is that most if not all of these "tricks" are either unnecessary or outright hurt the outcome.
Kenji over at Serious Eats went a bit bonkers and tried out just about all of the different methods and has summarized it in an article which is paired with his "best Yorkshire puddings" recipe.
While testing the order of adding milk and eggs to flour actually wasn't one of the things he does, the first step of his recipe is to simply mix together the flour, eggs, and milk (plus a tablespoon of water and some salt) - all simultaneously.
Combine eggs, flour, milk, water, and salt in a medium bowl and whisk until a smooth batter is formed. Let batter rest at room temperature for at least 30 minutes. Alternatively, for best results, transfer to an airtight container and refrigerate batter overnight or for up to 3 days. Remove from refrigerator while you preheat the oven.
If you're really interested in Yorkies, I strongly suggest you read his article and consider trying the recipe out for yourself. If you want a summary, I've created a shorter version of it in an answer on this previous question.
Being British gives me some insight into how a Yorkshire should look and taste like, certainly no added water, not even a drip. It would be like me trying to tell a Mexican how to make a Tamale!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.470222
| 2017-01-04T11:43:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77102",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Cindy",
"Kate Gregory",
"dougal 5.0.0",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53089",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
67690
|
Can I leave Easter side dishes in a closed (off) oven for three hours safely?
I have people coming for Easter dinner immediately after church. I don't have a timer so if I cook the side dishes in the oven, can I leave them there with the oven door closed? Will the be ready to serve 3 hrs. later?
Do you mean you want to leave the oven off and hope it stays hot enough to be safe? Or that you want to leave it on at a low temperature?
what are the dishes? Do they normally take three hours to cook? Are you concerned with them staying warm, not drying out, not getting overcooked, not being undercooked, or what? Please edit your question to add more details
Sorry, but there isn't nearly enough information to even make a stab at this. There is no mention of the types of foods, whether drying, oil-pooling or melting are concerns, or the foods are cooked or uncooked when left in the oven. Please provide additional information.
I agree with the others, the situation is unclear. If this is a food safety question about a turned off oven, it is a duplicate, see http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34670 and http://cooking.stackexchange.com/tags/food-safety/info for more background. Else consider adding more detail, then we can reopen the quesiton.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.470543
| 2016-03-23T14:53:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67690",
"authors": [
"Bena Brown",
"Bobby Glenn",
"Cascabel",
"JB Leibovitch",
"Jim Gow Mister Gow",
"Kate Gregory",
"Linda McMahon",
"Russel Lidtke",
"Shalryn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162519",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162520",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162521",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162541",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
67800
|
Can beef bourguignon be halal?
I'm preparing for the next master chef and want to show off. But I only eat halal. Can it be prepared without alcohol, bacon and cream?
Being that combative when you don't even know us does not promote your cause. Thank you for pointing out the issue, it is an easily fixed oversight.
Yes, the fact that you are the first to ask a question that requires a tag does not say anything about the community. Your rush to judgment says more about you.
Isn't cream considered halal? http://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/18477/are-there-any-special-rules-about-dairy-foods
Questions about religious restrictions cannot be answered here, it is up to a religious authority to define what is halal.
By definition, Boeuf Bourguignon contains wine. However, non-alcoholic wine can work just fine. Bacon and cream are optional. You can tweak the recipes to make the final product exceptional.
Doesn't most "non-alcoholic" wine contain some alcohol, making it haram?
Some non-alcoholic wine does contain trace alcohol, I know that some "wine" is considered halal.
FWIW, the resulting dish is allowed for consumption when the alcoholic content is not sufficient to intoxicate a person. That may well be the case for this dish.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.470707
| 2016-03-27T10:59:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67800",
"authors": [
"Carols Ann Stratton",
"Elizabeth Haselbah",
"James Francis",
"James McLeod",
"Jolenealaska",
"Julie Kowba",
"Matt Lafflin",
"Moacir Gomes Leite",
"Niamh Kerr",
"Nicholas",
"Rita Stillwell",
"Travis Kersey",
"andrew white",
"aross",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162804",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162805",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162806",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162807",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162811",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162813",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162815",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60640",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
63975
|
Chicken sticks to bottom of pan when I boil bones for soup
I like to make what I call boiled bone soup. The leftover stripped chicken carcus is broken up and boiled with leftover veg and stuffing with some seasoning to produce a stock. I seive this, add the stock to the pan with fresh veg and the meat juices from the original roast chicken, then bring to a boil adding the left over chicken. After boiling I reduce the heat to a simmer. My problem is here, the chicken always seems to stick to the bottom of the pan and burns unless I stand there for 2 hours. Why? How can I prevent this?
Don't boil it.
You want a bare simmer when trying to extract the flavor from the bones. If you're boiling, you'll both run into the problems that you mention (sticking & burning), and you end up with a worse broth -- much of the flavor is in the smell of the soup, and boiling too hard will both destroy compounds you want and kick them into the air (and thus not in the broth/stock).
My normal procedure is:
With either a good cleaver, or poultry shears,can crack the longer leg and thigh bones.
Cover with cold water by an inch or so.
Add whatever scrap vegetables you have. (whatever you have that's getting a bit sad looking in the fridge, but isn't to the point of being spoiled. I also have a bag in my freezer of vegetables that were past their prime).
Heat the water 'til you see bubbling, then back off the heat to maintain a bare simmer.
Cook for 2 to 4 hours, checking on it every 30 min or so. (Once you're more experienced, you may not need to check on it as often ... but you need to watch for the water evaporating too quickly or things starting to stick)
Strain out the bones & vegetables.
Cool down the broth if not serving that day, put into smaller containers, and put in the refrigerator.
On the day you're serving it, add in whatever diced vegetables and/or meat and heat through. Adjust the salt & acidity if needed, and maybe add some herbs.
For something starchy like stuffing, heat it through separately and put a scoop in the bottom of the bowl, then pour the hot soup over it. (to avoid it turning into complete mush)
I like to roast the vegetables before adding
@rbp : agreed -- it works well for both the sad veggies at the beginning, or the good ones at the end (unless they're already cooked, in which case, don't do it). You can also roast the bones first to add more flavor, but it won't end up developing the same mouth feel. (I think it screws up the gelatin).
@rbp +1 for that bit of advice.
Can you reduce the heat somewhat? It will take longer to get to a boil, but I find that once it is boiling the level of the burner doesn't matter as long as it is enough to maintain the boil (my stove does this around level 4 out of 9 on the element heat settings). A lid will help with this.
Another option may be to find a small rack that will fit into the bottom of your pot to elevate the carcass and keep it from the direct heat on the bottom of the pot. I cooked a whole turkey in my pressure canner and kept the rack under it to keep it off the bottom and that worked well. Perhaps the same will help you. Just make sure that it is food-safe. One meant for the oven may work well.
Agreed with the rack of using a pressure vessel (where you can't stir anyway). If you put it in a regular pot, though ... it'd mean that even if there was sticking, it'd be almost impossible to scrape the bottom before it burned.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.470886
| 2015-11-30T17:58:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63975",
"authors": [
"Dana K",
"Emma Vu",
"Escoce",
"Jess Mathew",
"Joe",
"Pamela Wiggs",
"Steve Mc",
"Tapes To Digital South Yarra",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152404",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152410",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152411",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152412",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rbp",
"sunniva brenchley"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109977
|
Making tomato mix thicker without surge in calories
I got on trying to eating more healthy and as a part of that, I take a few tomatoes, cucumber and garlic and blend that into a sort of a drink. It's far more convenient and quick to smash a bunch of veggies into a blender and mix the crap out of them, rather than slicing and hacking. It also scales better - making a mixaroo of 3 or of 5 tomatoes takes the same amount of time, whereas slicing time is proportional. So I'm aiming at eliminating any obstacles along the way to wiser food choices.
I'd like to make it less liquidish, aiming for a thicker texture. I've tried adding broccoli, cauliflower, nuts and seeds. I tried adding oat flower and soy protein powder. It gave an improvement but to be acceptably substantial, I need to push in quite a lot, which kind of defeats its purpose.
Is there something very calorie thin but structurally dense that I could smash into my drink? Extra bonus if it's rich on fiber.
is there a reason you can't just slice them into a salad, which is composed of solids, and just eat that? Why are you trying to make a thick drink? Without knowing that, suggestions are hard to come up with.
@KateGregory because that’s a different food? The answer to “how do I improve my smoothie” is not “make a salad instead."
But knowing what you want in a smoothie is key to improving it
@KateGregory I agree with the comment by Sneftel (although I'd word it much more humbly and cautiously). As to your question, the choice of medium (or whatever we may call it) is that it's far more convenient and quick to smash a bunch of veggies into a blender and mix the crap out of them, rather than slicing and hacking. It also scales better - making a mixaroo of 3 or of 5 tomatoes takes the same amount of time, wheras slicing time is proportional. So I'm aiming at eliminating any obstacles along the way to wiser food choices. So, have you a suggestion on thickening?
This happens a lot, that I ask "why x" and people hear "you shouldn't x". Thanks for answering despite thinking I was saying "make a salad", which I wasn't. The answers below are pretty good, really. Another possibility might be crushed ice.
@KateGregory Well, technically speaking you're right. Asking why X doesn't imply that you question the choice of X. However, as the convention of language is lain, asking how to X and getting why X without provided suggestion on how, tends to be interpreted as opposition. Nevertheless, your suggestion on ice is actually pretty great. It will not only thicken the gazpachish smoothie. It will also additionally increase the water content, hence giving volume with less calories. You should post that as an answer, in my opinion. Thanks, dude. Dudess? Not sure what's feminine for dude.
If your goal is specifically to prevent a "surge" in calories, you shouldn't be blending it. Because if you had larger bits, your stomach has to break down cell walls before it can get to the nutrients / calories to be able to use it. Chewing also helps to slow down caloric intake vs. just sucking down some juice. (and it uses calories in the process)
@Joe You're right. But I also consider the component of time restriction and convenience. In a normal case, I'd invest 30-45 minutes preparing the meal, pondering on which spice to pick (before deciding on garlic and turmeric or curry, as I always do), picking the right oil (always ending up in hazelnut or avocado) and stuff like that. It's meditational and very satisfactory. But in this case, we're looking at minimum effort, just push it down and mix. If I sense that I'm going to reach for candy or other crap, it's best to shoot it down ASAP.
Your primary option if you want to add a thickener, you can use any hydrocolloid you wish. I will not list them here again, since it isn't necessary that every single question on thickeners on the site gets the full list. You can download Martin Lersch's free reference book, Texture: a hydrocolloid recipe book, and start experimenting. I can also not tell you which one will be the best for your case - they all produce different textures, and it depends on your personal preference which one to use, and anyway, you have to see which one is accessible for you.
A second option for getting any tomato based liquid thicker is to either cook it down on your own, or to replace some of the fresh tomatoes by concentrated tomato paste.
The third option, deseeding, was already given in Keith Ford's answer.
And you already mentioned the fourth, bulking up with dry ingredients such as your soy powder.
I would say the four together give you a pretty wide range of alternatives, try them out and see which one you can best live with.
I've never heard the term hydrocolloid, so I'll be doing some googling now to see if it's what I'm looking for. If it is, this will be a perfect answer. Will notify you how it went.
I've found two alternatives available. Guar gum and xanthan gum. Any opinions in their regard?
@KonradViltersten be careful with xanthan...goes from thickening to snotty in texture very quickly. Start with .5%. You probably won't go over 1%. Wait a bit after mixing in, before you decide to add more.
@moscafj Oh, so xanthan is that potent? Thanks for the heads up. I'm going to try the guar gum first, as it's advertised as absolutely zero absorption substance as far the body is concerned. Have you heard of that? Any opinion about it (except that I probably want to go easy on that too)?
@KonradViltersten I suggest that you simply get Lersch's book and see how he suggests using xanthan and guar, instead of trying to glean the knowledge about using it piece by piece - you don't have to go to a library or pay money, just download it, it's CC. Information on bioavailability is off topic on the site, moscafj cannot answer even if they have something to say about it :(
@rumtscho Perhaps I got confused. I googled previously the name Martin Lersch and found a webpage called Khymos but it's taken down and has been for a couple of days now, if not more. So I assumed it was a dead-end. Maybe I can try again in a few days, unless you happen to have a better link to the material?
@KonradViltersten ouch! I never realized the site is offline - and apparently nobody else on the internet kept a copy available. What a shame!
@KonradViltersten That's the beauty of the Wayback Machine! I had already edited rumtscho's post to include it. http://web.archive.org/web/20200420203644/https://blog.khymos.org/wp-content/2009/02/hydrocolloid-recipe-collection-v3.0.pdf
@ElizaWilson I'm getting a 503 error at that link. I'd like to humbly suggest that at least some basic information about hydrocolloids be added to the answer, even if it seems redundant with other answers on Cooking.SE. We can't know the future of those other answers or linked content - providing some of the information here give this answer greater resilience, clarity, and completeness.
@ToddWilcox the book lists 16 different hydrocolloids, each of which can be used for the puprose of the OP, and the only thing they have in common is that they 1) thicken, 2) are edible, and 3) most of them have no calories. Everything else - in what pH range they work, what is the texture quality of the gel they produce, do they have special requirements about temperature, sugar content, etc. - is different. If we were to reproduce this here, it would mean reproducing the book itself minus the recipes.Besides their having been mentioned elsewhere on cooking, adding 16 paragraphs is too long.
I was just suggesting a list of the most likely hypercolloids with no additional details. Not 16 paragraphs. As a way to improve the answer. What about at least removing the broken link?
@ToddWilcox I was able to get the book from the wayback machine now, so maybe the link is not completely broken? From the 16 hydrocolloids listed there, I would say 14 are about equally likely. I'd remove starch because of the calories and isomalt because the OP presumably doesn't want a sweet drink (although, it isn't as sweet as sugar, and if they only want some thickness, the isomalt may be sufficient). Also, there are other options in other books on hydrocolloids - I don't believe that listing all hydrocolloids available makes a good SE answer.
@KonradViltersten and Todd Willcox: the site is back online, I replaced the link with the original.
Your "drink" sounds a lot like gazpacho. When making gazpacho, bread is often blended in, primarily to increase the viscosity...not necessarily "calorie thin", but an option. Olive oil is also emulsified into the mix, creating an enjoyable texture, and adding to the flavor.
Ah, I realize now that I'm not the first person to discover a nice dish. Apparently, like you just mentioned, there's already something like that. Well, yeah, we're trying to make something gazpachish, here. I've tried extra virgin olive oil and it made a notable difference. I'm also sure that some bread or maybe oat flour will do that to. However, we have the calorimetric as an important parameter. I need to find something oily, floury that's "pure plastic", so to speak. Suggestions?
@KonradViltersten see rumtscho's response. Go hyrdrocolloid. Unfortunately, the Lersch website (Khymos) appears disabled at the moment. But there is plenty of info on hydrocolloids on this site and on the nets.
I've found two products in my local store, which I'll visit tomorrow. One is guar gum with zero absorption (basically tummy plastic). The other is xanthan gum. Any thought on any of them?
The reason that your "drink" is thin, is that you are not removing the water and seeds from the Tomato. Peel them and take away the water and seeds before you put them in the blender.
Go here https://www.deliaonline.com/cookery-school/techniques/how-to-skin-and-de-seed-tomatoes
Based on another comment, I realized why it's important to thicken the existing state instead of not getting into it. I didn't realize it explicitly before but the main reason is convenience. And peeling/drying tomatoes doesn't scale very well if I would go with 5 instead of 3. Mixing the stuff, on the other hand, take the same amount of effort.
@KonradViltersten I don't understand the suggestion to peel the tomatoes. But you can easily get rid of much of the liquid with little time and effort just by cutting the tomatoes in half and scooping out the insides by hand.
@Daron : depending on the variety of tomato, you can sometimes just cut in half, give them a squeeze and a bit of a flick, and remove a good amount of the seeds & gel.
I suggest adding flax meal. This is very high in fiber, but not very high in digestible carbohydrates. It won't take too much, so the surge in calories won't be so bad. You will have to measure it out. Unfortunately, the Omega oils in this have some calories.
The option that better fits your criteria is psyllium husk powder; plenty of thickening and fiber, yet almost no calories. 30 grams will be 100% of your daily fiber, but just 100 calories. That would make your drink plenty thick, with not to much taste.
I prefer the way flax tastes though, and it is super healthy with Omegas and protein and such.
There are some more things to add on this list; perhaps Chia? I haven't tried them all, so can't comment on them. It might be worthwhile to research each individually.
I've never played with psyllium husk, but ground flax makes a decent gel when you mix it with water. (it's a common replacement for eggs in vegan baking)
One alternative, instead of adding thickeners, would be to remove some water. As mentioned in Keith Ford's answer, you could remove some water manually by de-seeding the tomatoes.
OTOH, there are various ways to systematically reduce the moisture of the smoothie itself:
The old-school approach would be to reduce it in a pot on the stove. That is, keep it just barely simmering, uncovered, for a long time, to evaporate off a bunch of the excess water. This does, of course, imply that the result will be cooked, which may not meet your criteria. (Side note: if you are okay with cooking it, you can get a lot of thickening out of a small amount of starch by mixing it in cold and then cooking the whole thing for a few minutes.)
A classic, no-cook, but still time-consuming option would be to pour the stuff into a food dehydrator, using the liner sheets that are used for making fruit leather from fruit purée. The heat in a dehydrator is low enough that you're not cooking anything, just speeding up evaporation. If your objective is a thicker drink, as opposed to a 'leather', just take it out after a fraction of the time given in fruit leather recipe instructions.
The quick, easy way to make a thicker smoothie without using a thickener is to use a juicer instead of a blender. Juicers separate the liquid and the pulp as they go, so you can easily just take the heap of pulp, mix however much of the liquid back into it as it takes to get the consistency you want, stir well, and dispose of the leftover liquid any way you like (down the drain, use as cooking liquid, etc.).
Another option would be to put it into a cloth bag or similar, and let some of the liquid drip away. (look up recipes for "tomato water", and save the other part). Also, cooking might cause additional thickening besides just evaporation as tomatoes contain pectin
A super-easy solution with an ingredient many people have in their house:
Mashed potatoes.
I've successfully used a bit of mashed potato to thicken salad dressing, it might suit your needs here. (You can even buy dried mashed potato powder, which thickens stews nicely but has usually had most of the nutrition processed out of it.)
I also sometimes sweeten soups with sweet potatoes, but they have a more noticeable flavor that doesn't fit your list.
That's a good suggestion on the thickening part. However, thta can be achieved by e.g. oat flower too. My consideration are the calorimetric - I want to get as little calories per volume unit as possible and flour/potatos hit over 300 kcal per 100g, which is rather much.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.471238
| 2020-07-31T23:48:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109977",
"authors": [
"Daron",
"Eliza Wilson",
"Joe",
"Kate Gregory",
"Konrad Viltersten",
"Sneftel",
"Todd Wilcox",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83884",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
70687
|
Is it feasible to freeze a whole pig?
How long can I freeze a pig whole? How can I keep it from getting freezer burned?
We are having a wedding in September and it's June but the pig is already currently at the size we need it to be. I was told that the pig will get freezer burned by then.
I would be most interested to know what kind of freezer equipment you have. Anything less than commercial grade and I would stongly advise against trying to freeze a whole pig.
@RichardtenBrink Can you articulate why? What about the wide consumer stand-alone freezers? Do commercial freezers freeze better?
@Insane I should think that they generally freeze colder and are bigger and are less prone to temperature fluctuations.
@Catija Cool, just wondering
@Insane commercial freezers for quick freezing (a) run much colder than a home fridge; (b) have fans to further speed cooling. For storage, they also run colder.
Are you planning on cooking it whole? If so, you'd have to freeze it whole ... which would make thawing it interesting, too.
Are you going to butcher the pig yourself? Are you planning to cook pig whole? I am not getting how a bigger pig in Sep is a problem. Just don't serve the whole pig.
@Joe - obviously from my answer I was assuming that they planned to cook it whole. (Why else try to freeze it whole?) But you're right: defrosting a whole pig is most easily carried out in a commercial chiller too. Without that option, I'm guessing they'll not be using their bathtub for a few days...
@Paparazzi : it also affects cooking time ... and if it'll fit in whatever they're planning to cook it in. (if they're not digging a hole for it ... they might be using a 'china box' or similar)
@Paparazzi - I obviously don't know the OP's reasons, but keep in mind that pigs grow really fast. If the desired pig is now relatively small, in 12 weeks it could easily gain over 100 lbs. That's a lot of expensive feed to pay for if you don't want a bigger pig, you need the equipment to deal with a pig that large, and the meat won't be as tender.
my suggestion is to fin another pig that can be ready in time for the wedding and keep this one for yourself; butcher it and store in small chunks.
@Joe They might be doing a lot of things. That is why I directed the question to the OP.
@Athanasius Correct we don't know. That is why I asked to OP.
I agree with the comment by Richard ten Brink: you can't really do this in a home freezer and expect good results. Even with a large home chest freezer, it will take way too long for a whole carcass to freeze all the way through. Freezing requires a lot more energy than maintaining something that's already frozen, and the process for a pig carcass would probably take several days (depending on the size of the pig). You'd likely get significant quality degradation during the freezing process itself: slower freezing means more damage to cells, which affects meat quality when defrosted, not to mention that it could take many days for the interior to freeze solid (which could also impact quality).
And "freezer burn," by the way, isn't necessarily caused by long storage: it's the result of poor packing, usually combined with temperature cycling in a freezer, which allows air near the surface of food to lead to oxidation and dehydration. Yes, a poorly packaged food will get worse over time, but a properly packaged food will last years in the freezer with no freezer burn. (For a whole hog, you'll need a large chest freezer at home, preferably one without an auto-defrost cycle.)
Anyhow, my personal recommendation would be to seek out a local meat packer or meat processor with access to a commercial freezer. (Perhaps there's someone who people take game meat to for processing or something?) Ask them if they'd be willing to freeze the carcass after slaughter and vacuum seal it for you. The vacuum sealing will significantly help to prevent freezer burn. I don't know whether vacuum packing is feasible depending on how large the pig is (many processors only do it with small whole pigs), but that would be your best bet.
They'd also be able to advise you on the feasibility of freezing a larger pig for that long if they can't vacuum seal it. But my guess is that it should be fine for a few months if you can keep it consistently below 0F and away from temperature cycling.
Are there any consumer-in-price commercial freezers? Might be worth noting why it would be impossible (or not) (due to cost) for someone to just buy one themselves. Obviously I don't mean getting a walk in freezer installed in your home.
@Insane - It's not just the "commercial" status of the freezers, but their overall size and power. There are relatively small commercial freezers like you'd find in a small restaurant (which aren't that pricey). But they also wouldn't really be the best way to freeze a whole pig -- they simply wouldn't have the necessary power to freeze it as quickly as a meat packer's larger freezer.
Ah, I got ya :-)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.472364
| 2016-06-14T02:07:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/70687",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Catija",
"Insane",
"Joe",
"Max",
"Richard ten Brink",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
86131
|
how to cook boneless chicken breasts for curry?
I am trying to make chicken curry my way. I have already prepared curry and now I want to add cooked pieces of chicken into it (cooked separately). I assume the chicken needs to be cooked separately, and I am not sure how to cook it. I am using boneless chicken breasts, and I want my cooked chicken to be soft and juicy.
Or should I be cooking chicken in the curry that I made? My curry consists of grinded onion, yoghurt, water and spices.
Have you read a few recipes for the type of dish you want to make? Even if you are not replicating a given recipe, it should at least give you an idea on possible techniques.
Plus, you might want to [edit] your question a bit. As it stands, it could be seen as “too broad”, you are basically asking about different things: Should you precook the chicken (and how), and how to get juicy chicken breast in a dish.
As a note, when you cook the chicken separately, it doesn't absorb the flavor from the curry, risking it being quite bland.
I'd cut them in small pieces (1 or 2 cm) and quickly sauteed them (1 or 2 minutes on hot temperature) to get some caramelization and toss them in the curry to finish cooking.
Or just toss them in the curry to cook them (one less pan to clean).
Thank you, Max. How long should I cook them in the curry?
Bite-sized, three minutes. Check the largest piece by breaking it in half with a fork. If that one's done, so are the rest. By 5 minutes you have pencil erasers. There's no return from that; any more & you get chalky dry lumps.
My personal approach is to slow cook chicken breast in whole in water, with light seasoning (some salt and minimum spices), then use the broth to cook the sauce and vegetable.
Then shred the chicken and mix the two and keep warm for a while to let the flavors soak.
The reason for this is:
1) The curry flavor doesn't penetrate the chicken much at all, so for the chicken to carry flavors it has to be shredded and fully soaked with the sauce. Cooking chicken in the sauce doesn't help with flavor much based on my experience. A thick sauce and large surface area of the chicken to absorb it is a much more effective flavor delivery mechanism.
2) There is a conflicting requirement for temperature for cooking chicken and the sauce. The chicken would need a lower temperature much below boiling temperature, while the onion, tomato, and other vegetable need much higher temperature to "melt" into the body of the sauce.
3) The choice of simmering chicken in water is more due to energy efficiency and convenience (with an electric slow cooker). Also when you keep the meat a whole piece you don't lose much juice at all, compared with other "dry" cooking method. Also since the broth goes into the final product anyway, you are not wasting anything.
4) Shredded chicken has a better texture than cut chicken.
One catch is, since all the broth goes into the product, then so does all the salt and water. You need to measure those carefully up front.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.472763
| 2017-12-05T05:30:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86131",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Stephie",
"Tetsujin",
"The Wanderer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63478"
],
"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
}
|
82471
|
How do I adjust the temp to bake country ribs so they take twice as long?
I want to cook my pork country ribs for about 4 hours, while we're at church. They're covered, and have a sauce on them. The original recipe says 1.5-2 hours at 350°. What temp would be the best for that cooking time?
I would cook at 200 then raise to 350 when you get back and test every 10 minutes. That is what we did with potatoes for a golf tournament I helped in the kitchen.
I don't consider this a complete answer, but I've been told enough times to stop putting potential answers in comments ... so ...
Temperature / time curves are so strange for meats that I find it easiest to look at a whole bunch of recipes, and find the one(s) that match the time I'm looking for, and then average the temperatures from those.
To expand that comment into a real answer, for this particular case, allrecipes.com gives 41 recipes when searching for 'pork country ribs'. I then weeded out those without temperatures (stovetop, grill, slow cooker), or that weren't actually country rib recipes, leaving me with:
250°F : 2 hrs, drain fat & liquid, coat w/ sauce, another 1hr
300°F : flour & brown on all sides, bake ribs in sauce for 1.5hrs, turn over, another 1.5hrs. (problem: calls for basting 'several times', which slows things down)
325°F : simmering for 10 minutes, bake for 1.5hrs
325°F : 1 to 1.5 hrs (until 160°F/70°C)
350°F : 1 hr, add sauce, another 1hr
350°F : grill for 12 minutes, bake for 1hr, add sauce, bake another 1.5 hrs.
350°F : 2 hrs
400°F : 1 hr
Slow cooker, just for comparison:
low :
6hrs ('asian style', so I assume wouldn't be 'fall off the bone')
7 to 9hrs
'about 8 hours' (until tender)
4hrs, add sauce, another 4 hrs
9hrs, straight from the fridge
8 to 10 hrs 'til falling apart (x2)
3 hrs (major outlier)
high, then low:
1hr high, 8-9 hrs low.
...
So um ... wow, that wasn't useful. I likely should've made sure if they were bone-in vs. boneless. And it's possible those baked w/out sauce would have less insulation and cook faster.
Looking at more recipes isn't making it any clearer, but I'd have to say 225 to 250°F to get it take 4 hrs -- warm enough to dissolve the collagen, but low enough to make it take a while to overcook.
350 F is too high a temp for ribs---- covered or not. I like the meat to be fallin' of the bone. So, merely reduce the temp to, say, 250 F and bake longer. This will take longer so you will need to experiment a bit to get the right baking time. This should yield a moister meat also.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.473022
| 2017-06-18T13:33:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82471",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
82793
|
vacuum sealed kielbasa in a hot car for 18 hours - is it still good?
I bought vacuum sealed kielbasa yesterday about 6:30 pm. It must have fallen out of the bag in my very hot car and I didn't notice until about 11:45 the next day...Is it still good?
i think we need a new stack for " i left X in my car, will i die if i eat it "
Sounds like you're going to need some new kielbasa.
Kielbasa isn't fermented, and needs to be refrigerated to stay good. Vacuum sealing reduces the oxygen in the package, slowing down oxidation and inhibiting the growth of some types of bacteria when combined with refrigeration, but that kielbasa won't stand a chance in a hot car.
Of course not -- throw it out.
Time to throw it out.
Even a salted, preserved, and sealed sausage will not survive. The bacteria will begin to multiply rapidly after 30 minutes of sitting out of the fridge.
Perishable food sitting out for longer than 30 minutes is a risk to eat, even when it was frozen. Some food might last 1 hour.
I completed a food safety course with exemplary scores I might add.
seriously, 30 minutes? Some people live more than 30 minutes from the store. While I wouldn't eat the kielbasa of the question, when you give advice that all of us have routinely ignored, you increase the chances that someone will do something dangerous.
Ideally, if you're driving that far in hot weather, you pack things that are heat sensitive into a cooler.
Yeah straight from food safety course. If it is kept hot in a warmer, that is a different story. After being cooked of course. Keep cold food cold and hot food hot.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.473539
| 2017-07-04T19:13:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82793",
"authors": [
"Alaska Man",
"Batman",
"Craig",
"Kate Gregory",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54906"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
84566
|
Canned Stewed Tomatoes without lemon juice
I'm making stewed tomatoes & forgot to put the lemon juice in before sealing the jars. Will they still be ok or should i start over?
Unfortunately you should start over. The lemon juice (or citric acid) is necessary to get them acidic enough to prevent botulism growth, since tomatoes aren't quite acidic enough on their own.
That means completely starting over, in particular clean and re-sterilize the jars.
You can reuse the lids, though. It does mean slightly increased risk of them not sealing quite properly, but it's still pretty unlikely, and you can just test the seals to catch it and keep whatever doesn't seal in the fridge or freezer.
Thanks for the reply. Can i reuse the jars & lids or do i need to get new lids? I just finished making them so they're still hot.
or can i just open the jars & add the lemon juice now?
@Sandy it'd be better to re-sterilize the jars, unless you're going to be keeping them in the fridge.
Depends on cultivar of the tomato, and how ripe they are: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1979.tb03433.x/abstract?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+unavailable+on+Saturday+7th+Oct+from+03.00+EDT+%2F+08%3A00+BST+%2F+12%3A30+IST+%2F+15.00+SGT+to+08.00+EDT+%2F+13.00+BST+%2F+17%3A30+IST+%2F+20.00+SGT+and+Sunday+8th+Oct+from+03.00+EDT+%2F+08%3A00+BST+%2F+12%3A30+IST+%2F+15.00+SGT+to+06.00+EDT+%2F+11.00+BST+%2F+15%3A30+IST+%2F+18.00+SGT+for+essential+maintenance.+Apologies+for+the+inconvenience+caused+. Best way to tell whether you need add acid is with a pH meter.
i have been canning tomatoes in many different ways for almost 50 years. I have never used lemon juice or citric acid. If your jars are clean and you follow all instructions correctly, adding lemon juice is not a problem.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.473708
| 2017-09-23T14:54:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84566",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Sandy",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61445",
"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
}
|
37366
|
Why stuff a roast chicken with lemon, onion, and thyme?
I just made a classic roast chicken and the recipe called for stuffing a lemon, thyme, and onion inside the cavity of the chicken. Why even bother stuffing the cavity with anything? What does it accomplish?
Lemon, herbs, onions, and garlic too are all aromatics that infuse into the chicken as it cooks giving it a lovely flavor. It doesn't absorb the flavors enough to call it a lemon chicken, but gives the chicken some flavor depth and acts as an enhancement. Stuffing the chicken helps these flavors to infuse better into the meat than spreading them around. Salt and pepper,too, should go in the cavity.
Putting ingredients inside as well as on the surface helps spread the flavors throughout the meat. They're also very moist so it helps the bird stay juicier. Plus, it adds to the aroma which, believe it or not, affects the flavor.
All in all, it's an easy way to make your chicken more delicious!
Sunday last I made a roast chicken. Seasoned the cavity with salt and pepper, cut lemon halves, a head of garlic cut in half, huge bunch of rosemary. Also brushed melted butter on the outside and put salt and pepper again. It was amazing! The meat was so juicy and tender and I (and my guest) could really taste the garlic, lemon and rosemary in the meat as well -- which I am perplexed at how the herbs in the cavity could season the meat. Well, don't care -- it was delicious!
Welcome to SA! It's unclear how your comment answers the question. Note that SA is a question&answer site, not a discussion site. Please edit it to address the question asked.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.473867
| 2013-10-06T14:55:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37366",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Imdad",
"Monica Kilgore",
"Morten Haraldsen",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87859",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87861",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87862"
],
"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
}
|
62587
|
If I leave brie in my fridge for two weeks, will it still taste as good?
Can you refrigerate Brie cheese for about two weeks unopened and expect it to still be as good? I have a round of it and it does not smell or anything. I kept it at a certain temp.
What is "at a certain temp"? And how does the title relate to the question at all?
The only warning I saw on cheese in France was on a refrigerated piece that advised that the cheese should be allowed to warm up before being consumed.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.474047
| 2015-10-17T02:34:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62587",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Judy Andersen",
"Kevin Schroeder",
"Kisha Morris",
"Milton Still",
"Sherri Kneeland",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148798",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148799",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148800",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148802",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148811",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37981",
"john ayres",
"thrig"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
83671
|
Does a knife sharpener wear out?
A simple sharpener, will it grind as well as it ground years ago?
This is a honing steel, even if it has a roughened surface that will, as mentioned in a comment, have a bit of a filing effect.
However, the main use of a honing steel is to realign the cutting edge to true. This will make a knife having a bent/misaligned but still sharp edge act sharp again. It is not a good tool to sharpen an actually blunt (as opposed to misaligned/bent) edge - knives maintained with a honing steel still will need occasional sharpening with abrasives. Some honing steels exist that are polished smooth, and they will work even better than the roughened type on certain knives if used correctly.
If the honing steel actually has taken damage that didn't smoothen the surface but put visible pits, nicks, chips or similar irregularities in it, do not use it or avoid getting the damaged spots near the edge - otherwise, you could damage the edge or injure yourself if the edge unexpectedly snags into a nick.
Forcibly using the filing action to create a burr is not advised, as a burr will quickly collapse and leave the knife blunt. Instructions for sharpening on proper abrasives (bench stones, sandpaper, wet grinders) mention creating a burr, for a different purpose (verifying that all irregularly damaged metal is gone from the flanks of the edge bevel) - but also include removing that burr in a controlled manner before putting the knife back into service.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.474139
| 2017-08-12T22:38:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83671",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25092
|
What are the preferred uses for different sharpness of cheddar cheese?
As I eat nachos and cheese with some medium cheddar (dipping the nachos into melted cheese,) I notice the cheese is congealing differently than sharp cheese does and seems to be more elastic, not to mention the flavor difference.
What tasks are the different sharpnesses of cheddar cheese best suited to? Examples: dipping, eating with wine, quesadillas, etc. Bonus if you provide scientific explanations.
Milder cheddars are for melting. They get used in things such as grilled cheese sandwiches, grating into chili, nachos, or in quesadillas. In these uses, they don't need the full-bodied flavor of a sharp cheddar, but they do need to melt down into soft, gooey, creamy deliciousness.
Sharper cheddars are for flavor. I commonly see them in sandwiches, macaroni and cheese, topping salads, and as part of cheese boards.
The reason it works like this is that "sharper" cheddars get their bite from additional aging, which develops a richer flavor but makes the cheese drier and increases the melting point.
That said, there are no hard and fast rules for how to use mild vs. sharp cheddar. In my house we always use extra sharp cheddar because even everyday cheese should be a gustatory delight. It's a little trickier to make into a quesadilla or melt on a cheeseburger, but the extra tang is worth it!
Perfect. "Mild for melting." The "drying out" explanation makes a lot of sense.
@emragins: If it's okay with you, I'm rewriting the answer a bit to use that phrase. It is more concise than how I originally wrote it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.474292
| 2012-07-18T02:41:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25092",
"authors": [
"Andrew Dale",
"BobMcGee",
"Dominic Duncombe dduncombe",
"Nirvedh Meshram",
"ann",
"emragins",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57332",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57333",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57336",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67473",
"pingdal",
"user563113"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45077
|
when does a boiled egg become a poached egg?
This is a very serious question.
a poached egg is an egg without its shell in boiling water.
a boiled egg is an egg in its shell in boiling water.
So, if an egg is being boiled but then cracks out of its shell before it has finished cooking, does it become a poached egg? What is the tipping point?
Are you actually asking about an egg cracking so badly during boiling that it entirely escapes the shell? Or just the usual cracking with a bit of white leaking out and cooking? As the help says, "You should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face."
You've answered your own question already. Eggs are boiled in-shell and poached without their shell. The major difference is whether the whites can spread out in the water.
It's not uncommon for eggs to crack slightly during boiling and for a small amount of albumin to leak out; this is generally discarded. I've never seen an egg explode out of its shell in the middle of being boiled, and if that did happen, I would discard the result without worrying about what to call it.
So you'd throw away a poached egg?
@user2664911 Poached eggs are removed from their shells before they ever hit the water. What I'm saying is that if I started boiling an egg in its shell, and that egg pops completely out of its shell, yes, I would discard it. That would be very strange behavior and possible evidence of contamination.
Poaching is less about the shell and more about the temperature.
Most boiled eggs- especially hard boiled- use boiling water- that is water at 212F or 100C at sea level. This is a vigorous boil.
Poaching, on the other hand, should stay at a low simmer. Somewhere around 160-180F. This is high enough to kill pathogens and denature proteins but because it is a lower temp, proteins cook more gently, will be more tender, and squeeze out less liquid.
Unfortunately, language is not so concise.
To make things confusing, soft-boiled egg recipes call for lower temperatures. Sometimes they are brought to a boil and then removed from the heat to allow to cook more gently. It would be accurate to say that this egg was poached. (Even though it would probably be referred to as a "boiled" egg)
As you have noticed, there can be overlap in the meanings of these words. You could say that you poached an egg in its shell if you were careful with your temps and wanted a tender egg (and you wanted to sound fancy). You would say you boiled your shell-less egg when you drizzle it into egg drop soup.
Egg that leaks out of the shell of a boiled egg is not called either because it is not part of the intended preparation.
poach (v.2) Look up poach at Dictionary.com
"cook in liquid," early 15c., from Old French poché, past participle of pochier (12c.), literally "put into a pocket" (as the white of an egg forms a pocket for the yolk), from poche "bag, pocket," from Frankish *pokka "bag," from Proto-Germanic *puk- (see poke (n.)). Related: Poached; poaching.
sooo, since this is about semantics, if you dont pocket your egg yolk in egg white while preparing them, and not in the shell, you are not poaching your eggs. Leaking boiled eggs are not poached eggs. Neither are peeled soft-boiled eggs.
I'm going to assume that this question came to be due to an unfortunate egg-boiling accident. To avoid such an accident, grab a pin or a syringe sharp, and pierce the wider end of the egg before putting it into the pot to boil. That will give steam a place to escape and prevent gruesome little explosions.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.474468
| 2014-06-23T11:26:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45077",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Franklin Davis",
"Kinecret",
"Robert Klotz",
"Shalryn",
"Spammer",
"Spammy Spam SPAM",
"frank M",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107269",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107270",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107308",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156506",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25560",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43782",
"logophobe",
"mjfneto",
"user2664911"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
67736
|
Combining dishes that need oven temps of 450, 425, 400, and 350
I have three dishes that need to be baked but all have different temps.
My oven is a standard, 80's range with oven and broiler - nothing special.
I am cooking
a Leg of Lamb of 5 lbs at 450, which gets reduced after 20mins to 400 degrees for an hour.
Hasselback Potatoes at 425 degrees for about 45 mins
a green bean casserole at 350 for 30 mins.
How do I do this, practically for this Easter dinner? I've got other things that I'm serving, but those are all stove-top dishes or cold dishes.
If you're going to cook all three at the same time, something is going to be hotter than it should be or colder than it should be. If you're not making a soufflé, or something very small like cookies, you have a little flexibility and variation in temperatures.
if something is in a hotter oven than called for, it will cook more quickly and perhaps brown more than you wanted as well,
if something is in a cooler oven than called for, it will cook more slowly and perhaps brown less than you wanted as well.
You can adjust for the speed issues by having it in the oven for a longer or shorter time than called for. You can fix the browning by covering it with foil, or giving it some time under the broiler at the end - the latter being more reliable than the former.
I don't know about your potatoes but I'll assume they need to brown. Here is how I would run it, for a 6pm dinner:
4:00 preheat the oven to 450
4:10 put the lamb in
4:30 turn the oven down to 400
5:00 put the potatoes in. They're going to get 15 minutes extra time to make up for the cooler temps
5:30 take the lamb out for a 30 minute rest (sure, your recipe probably says 15, but the extra time won't hurt.) Turn the oven down to 350 and put the beans in.
this final half hour is when you make the gravy and whatever other side dishes are involved, set the table, etc
5:55 check the beans. You can probably take them out and let them sit for 5 minutes. Check the potatoes. If you want them browned, now's a good time to put the broiler on above them.
6 pm serve
By the way, I wrote this timeline from the bottom up and you can do the same next time you're trying to work out timings.
The green beans casserole could be done in advance (in the morning) and just re-heated before diner.
Sure, there are lots of options. But since the meat needs to rest anyway, I chose this schedule. The potatoes could also be precooked and warmed at the end.
that is why I +1 your answer. Good writing, especially writing the timelime from the bottom up.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.474873
| 2016-03-25T05:25:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67736",
"authors": [
"Doris Sciberras",
"Erik Walker",
"Jamie Hunter",
"Kate Gregory",
"Max",
"cassandra bagby",
"cathy findlow",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162633",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162634",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162656",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162657",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"עמי לובינסקי"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
51494
|
Milk for Coffee - Shake and Hit
Every time I get my cappuccino in the morning, the guy that makes it takes the cup of milk, shakes it, then hits on the table a few times, then does the same thing for a couple of times, only after that pours into the cup.
Why does he do that? Why shake, then hit a few times, then shake again?
I'm a bit of a coffee nut, having bought my own espresso machine & grinder and have been pulling my own shots and learning how to create different coffee drinks for some years now. I am by no means an expert, however:
What you're seeing when the barista is swirling/tapping the milk jug is called "polishing". It's the step after they've steamed it and does two things
1) The swirling "polishes" the milk/foam to give it a nice "shine" (best described as looking like paint).
2) The tapping removes any larger bubbles - your aim for steamed milk for coffee drinks is generally to get a "micro foam" which as it sounds, has micro bubbles.
Bit of extra info:
To control how much foam you get is right at the start, when you initially start the steaming - you have the steam wand just under the surface of the milk so it introduces as much air as you need. Similar idea to whipping cream really. After introducing the air, you submerge the steam wand and use the steam to "spin" the milk - this mixes the foam with the milk to increase it's volume (and also starts the "polishing" process).
To control where the foam goes, you adjust how quickly you pour. Just dumping it all in the cup will churn the milk and foam together. Pouring with a spout in a more controlled fashion will pour the milk in first, then the foam after (same idea as helium balloons rising, the foam is lighter than the milk)
Hope this helps :)
You are talking about the barista handling the milk after steaming it, right?My guess (from what I've seen in the milk jug @home):
shake (rather: swirl, otherwise he'd just spill the milk) to loosen stuck-on foam on the top walls of the jug.
hit to separate foam and milk (-> makes it easier for him to judge the milk-foam-ratio later)
swirl again to loosen the foam from the jug again.
Then pour...
basically it is done to separate the foam from the milk. Simple and makes complete sense :). thank you
This is an old method for making cappuccino or latte without using a machine or frothing tool. To get bubbles in the milk, you have to shake, and tap(hit).
This method is now used for special drinks which can be either alcoholic or non-alcoholic
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.475101
| 2014-12-11T07:38:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/51494",
"authors": [
"Carol Canada",
"Eugene",
"Jamie",
"Jason Shrubb",
"Jill Adams",
"Kevin Mcbride",
"Kristin Kowalski",
"Robert Brown",
"Ryan Trone",
"Syndy Kevitz",
"chris gayle",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/121859",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/121860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/121861",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/121863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/121871",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/121887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/121888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/121915",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/121917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/121918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30857",
"paddock2porch",
"wingnewt"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44015
|
I want to substitute liquid oil with a dry product
I would like to know if there is a dry food product available that is a good substitute for vegetable oil or butter.
I want to package dry mixes that I can take camping with me where hopefully all I would need is to add water to cook it.
The issue is melting and needing liquid containers, I guess? If you're hoping to save weight, a dry fat may not really help that much, since you have to add something (e.g. maltodextrin) to turn it into a powder.
Also, you said you're looking for a "just add water" solution - I guess that means you're not trying to fry/saute, and the oil is just for flavor/richness/calories?
Yes, that is the main idea if feasible. For instance, what I am thinking of is a brownie mix that I make. I would love to take it on the trail and am just looking for the easiest way to mix it.
Baking on the trail sounds like a very hard target, especially something as fussy as a brownie. I expected you to mean something like powdered soup base.
Folding sheet metal reflector ovens actually work quite well for baking; a bit extra to be carrying for solo backpacking but not an unreasonable luxury for a larger group.
Bisquick is a dry product that contains partially hydrogenated soybean and/or cottonseed oil and leavening. You can get recipe ideas from their website. With the Bisquick, some powdered eggs and powdered milk, you could create all kinds of fun mixes for camping.
Jiffy baking mix is also great for camping. In either case I'd take them out of the box, cut the recipes out of the box, and put both in a tightly sealed zip lock bag for protection.
@GdD Yep, same concept. It won't be Michelin star quality food, but everything tastes good while camping! :)
I just take a little vegetable oil in a small Nalgene bottle that seals tight. For a week with 9 people I wouldn't even use up 200ml, and I presume you're doing a shorter trip with less people, so the weight is not an issue. You can then add it to what you're cooking, use it to fry things, etc. (I also take cornmeal to fry pizza or English muffins.) Using regular oil and regular recipes makes a lot more sense than trying to use something unusual.
You can consider using lard, shortening, or ghee. They are not dry, but they are more easy to store and carry and melt less easily than butter.
In case fat content is a concern, here is a quick list:
Vegetable oils have about 15 gms of saturated fat per 100gms of oil.
Vegetable shortening has about 20 gms of saturated fat per 100gms of shortening.
Lard has about 40 gms of saturated fat per 100gms of lard.
Butter has about 50 gms of saturated fat per 100gms of butter.
Ghee has about 60 gms of saturated fat per 100gms of ghee.
Shortening, lard, and ghee all respond differently to heat, so it helps if you're familiar with how they respond when you're using them to cook. Ghee also has a distinct aroma, so if you or those who would eat the food are not familiar with ghee, you should try it out first before deciding on it.
In addition to this, I am trying to work through your specific use-case. You can still actually use oil or butter. The advantage is that fats don't spoil easily. I'm not sure what or how you intend to cook, but you can consider the following techniques:
If you have chunks of food, like chopped vegetables, pieces of chicken, etc. that you are sure to cook, you can just coat the food in butter, salt, and seasoning, which you can then wrap in foil and store in a container. It will be easy enough to carry without spillage. When you need to cook it, just toss them into the cooking vessel, and cook till they slightly sear. Then, you can add water and let it simmer till done.
If you have things like ground beef or similar food, again you can put butter, salt, and seasoning in the mixture, and make them into small dollops (like meatballs), and you're good to go.
If you can provide more details about what kind of dry foods you are trying to pack, then I am glad to suggest other (possibly more suitable) solutions.
I am looking at dry mixes, more as a dessert type thing mainly. Like brownies. I love the sound of your other food things. I'll have to try that.
Not adding another answer, but my suggestion is that if it's a short trip, like a day or two-day trip, just bake the goods before packing them, instead of looking to bake them at the camp. Brownies are really soggy and nice when in addition to the oil, you add some butter in the mix. Bake them and keep them in well-sealed containers; they will last.
there is a powdered cocoa butter product called mycryo. it's intended for frying, but it might work for your intended purposes. http://www.cacao-barry.com/usen/2516
This looks like it might work. What I am looking for is a oil/fat that I can put in the dry mixes instead of using vegetable oil. This looks like it miiiigght work, but I would have to try it first. But, I noticed that this link sends me to a company that only sells to distributors to sell to professionals. I am not a cook or a professional, so how would I be able to purchase a small amount to try?
@Tammy: You're most likely to find this at a store that sells either the Cacao Barry chocolates or another decent-quality chocolate. They describe it as an all-purpose fat, but I've more frequently seen it used (and used it myself) as a chocolate-tempering aid. You won't be able to get a "small" amount, but you can get one container instead of 8, and it should only cost you $15 or so.
There is a thing called powdered shortening or you can get powdered butter. They are just add water products that you can put in a recipe like that and it will work fine.
You could make your own powder oil by adding some maltodextrin to the oil you want to powderize. About 4 gram of maltodextrin to 10 grams of oil.
I agree with just making the brownies ahead of time and putting them in zip lock bags.
If you really want something you can make during camping, you could try the 3-2-1 cake recipe. Take a box of angel food cake and mix it with a box of another cake mix (chocolate, vanilla, spice, lemon, etc.). Then take 3 TBSP of the mixture, mix with 2 TBSP liquid (can be anything), and microwave for 1 minute. I'm sure you can adjust it to cook over a fire somehow. I've made this using chocolate cake. To me it still tastes like angel food cake and not very chocolatey. Maybe using any other flavor would be good. You could try it with a brownie mixture. I might work. It will won't give you the brownie texture (it is airy like angel food cake), but it might impart some brownie qualities.
I don't see how this is an answer. The question is about trail food, and you suggest microwaving.
I wasn't suggesting microwaving, I was giving the directions for conventional methods. If you read the next sentence, I said it could probably be adjusted to cook over a fire. People make cakes when camping all the time by cooking over a fire on a BBQ grill. The OP keeps saying she's looking for a dessert item that can be made, preferably brownies. I made my suggestion because the angel food part of the mix provides any oil and eggs you might need for a typical cake. I'm sorry it's not a good enough answer, but isn't which answer the OP thinks is most relevant the OP's decision?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.475376
| 2014-05-09T20:15:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44015",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Andy",
"Brooke",
"Cascabel",
"Chris Stratton",
"Chrissys Freebies",
"Chuck",
"Deb",
"Dhruva Ghosh",
"GdD",
"John Hicks",
"Jolenealaska",
"Shadow",
"Spammer",
"Sursula",
"Tammy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103323",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103325",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103326",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103331",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24851",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24868",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26822",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho",
"simplikios"
],
"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
}
|
40605
|
How to predict what the final result of a recipe will weigh?
I have a recipe for a mascarpone substitute. How much does that recipe make? I need a pound's worth, so I don't know if that will be a enough or is too much.
Here is the recipe:
1 16 oz block of cream cheese,
1/2 cup sour cream,
1/4 cup heavy whipping cream,
Blend until smooth
Your end result if you follow that recipe would weigh approximately 22 ounces, or 1 pound 6 ounces, or 1.375 pounds. (There are 16 ounces in a pound. Fluid ounce and ounce as a unit of weight are not exactly the same thing, but pretty darn close considering the ingredients you are working with; there are 8 fluid ounces in an American "cup", a "fluid ounce" of water weighs one ounce)
In the future if you have questions like this with other ingredients (particularly how much does a volumetric measurement [1 cup, or 1 Tablespoon] of an ingredient weigh), you might find this chart helpful: Master Weight Chart
Maybe this will help too: To make 1 pound of your recipe you would need 330g of Cream Cheese, 82g of Sour Cream and 41g of Whipping Cream.
+1 for figuring out what was being asked (and for providing a good answer).
It's worth noting that 82ml is almost exactly 1/3 of a metric cup, and 41ml is almost exactly 1/6 of a metric cup. If that's any help.
In the US, a fluid ounce of water doesn't weigh an ounce. The US uses the Queen Anne fluid ounce, which is the volume of an ounce of wine, not water -- and wine is less dense than water. So a US fluid ounce of water weighs 1.04 ounces. In the UK, a fluid ounce of water does weigh an ounce.
@MikeScott, Ok, whatever. An milliliter of heavy whipping cream doesn't weigh exactly a gram either. She's working with dairy products, not anthrax.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.475934
| 2013-12-27T03:07:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40605",
"authors": [
"Adam Easterling",
"Carey Gregory",
"Chandra Kiran Pasumarti",
"Dawood ibn Kareem",
"Grillsview",
"Jolenealaska",
"Lorena Garcia",
"Mike Scott",
"Philip",
"T. Collins",
"alfred",
"cr3",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94484",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94497",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94506",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9607",
"joachim",
"sbotopcom7 spam",
"www1xbit7 spam"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44551
|
Canned unopened and unrefrigerated juice lasts longer in the pantry than the freezer?
Apple juice unrefrigerated, canned, and unopened lasts 1-1.5 years in the pantry but only .75-1 year in the freezer according to stilltasty.com.
Blackberry juice lasts as long as apple juice does in pantry and freezer if it is unrefrigerated, canned, and unopened. So does cranberry juice, grape juice, grapefruit juice, lemon juice that is not from concentrate, lime juice not from concentrate, orange juice, pineapple juice, pomegranate juice, prune juice, tangerine juice, and carrot juice doesn't even last in the freezer according to stilltasty.com
Why would canned, unrefrigerated, unopened juice last longer in the pantry than the freezer? That seems counterintuitive because most things last the longest in the freezer.
stilltasty.com is the site I am getting it from.
Still Tasty is making the assumption that you are freezing the juice AFTER opening it, not freezing the unopened cans. The heading of the info says "Sold in Unopened Cans", as it goes on in the text about freezing, it says, "Freeze in airtight glass or plastic container and leave at least 1/2 inch of headspace at the top, as juice will expand when frozen."
It makes no sense to freeze the unopened cans.
Note it also says that the limit on how long it will last in the freezer refers to quality only, if kept frozen, it will remain safe indefinitely.
yes it does but they are lying there about the limit. In the freezer if left there for months and months it can develop freezerburn which as you know is almost like cooking food in the freezer. Thus if kept frozen than there is no infinite shelf life. All shelf life has a limit, even aged cheddar has its limits.
But what they're saying is that it won't make you sick. They're not suggesting that it will be good forever. As a matter of fact, eventually it won't even be liquid any more once defrosted. But it will still be safe. Freezer burn isn't toxic, it just doesn't look or taste good.
when I see "This will last indefinitely" it makes me think that they are really saying that it will last for infinite time and thus lying about how long something lasts.
No @caters, they're not lying. They're saying that as long as the product stays frozen, it won't hurt you. They include the caveat concerning quality and recommend that you use use frozen juice within a year.
but nothing lasts for ∞ time. Especially when it is a finite amount of time before we get engulfed by the sun.
and if indefinitely is a synonym of infinite because of how both mean forever when talking about time than when they say "this will last indefinitely" it is the same as if they said "This will last infinitely long"
@caters, the line says that it will be safe as long is it stays frozen. Obviously, if the juice is being engulfed by the sun, it's no longer frozen.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.476135
| 2014-05-30T15:33:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44551",
"authors": [
"Caters",
"Jolenealaska",
"Raio Dental",
"Spammer",
"Steven Leber",
"ancientfuture",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104748",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104750",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104757",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104758",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24456",
"vega197962"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44926
|
Triple batch multipliers
I read on Wikihow that when you double batch that you should multiply seasonings times 1.5, then adjust to taste. Similarly for alcohol, multiply by 1.25.
I am writing a story in which one character is making a triple batch of baked macaroni and cheese. What would the multipliers for seasonings? What if my character makes a recipe involving alcohol?
no but what if I want to triple batch a recipe that does have alcohol in it?
Where did you come up with these multipliers? I've never heard these specific values and I don't think that's precisely true (see: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9458/is-there-any-truth-to-the-idea-that-you-shouldnt-multiply-seasonings-when-multi) Also, I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "9x9 cube" in this context.
Wikihow says for seasonings multiply original by 1.5 for a double batch and for the alcohol in a double batch multiply by 1.25. By 9x9 cube I mean a Rubiks cube in my story which has 9 layers.
If you're just writing a story, who cares? You might say he used 4 tsp of something and really it would be better if it was 3, or 5, or even 7. So? It's not going to affect the story. Heck, don't even say how he adjusts the seasonings, just say he made a triple batch and was careful to adjust the salt and pepper appropriately, then move on. If you actually want to make a mac and cheese, then it matters.
@caters A direct link would be best so we can evaluate the quality of the source. I'm pretty dubious about WikiHow as a definitive reference. Scaling recipes does take some care but I don't think it can be reduced to these exact ratios.
As @KateGregory points out, the multipliers are to be adjusted to taste anyway. Is someone going to suspect that your fictional character's fictional pepper is actually pretty old, so they should have added extra to compensate?
If the way the character doubles the multipliers matters for your story, you'd need to tell us more about his character. Is he the cook who will believe everything on WikiHow? Is he a smug know-it-all, Nero Wolfe style? And so on. In general, I would advise against emphasizing character traits through behavior you cannot differentiate well yourself. You can visit us in cooking chat if this is important for your story, but the discussion of what would a certain cook do (as opposed to what we think is the correct solution, which is answered in the duplicate) is not on topic.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.476377
| 2014-06-16T16:35:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44926",
"authors": [
"Caters",
"Donna Sisk",
"James Kyle",
"Kate Gregory",
"Sandra Knapp",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106810",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106811",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106813",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24456",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"logophobe",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
47146
|
Freezer warmed to -6C. Safe to eat the food?
My freezer recently warmed to -6 degrees Centigrade during a long power outage from its usual -18C. It's now on its super freeze cycle and cooling back down again. Is the food inside still safe to eat? -6 is obviously less than zero, the freezing point of water, but I've heard that food in a freezer can go bad even below 0. Is this true?
how long was it at that temperature?
@KateGregory: Not for very long. It's kept inside our utility room which is at about +15C therefore it would have kept on warming had the power not come back on then [i.e. -6C was not close to ambient temperature outside of the freezer]. I would therefore hazard a guess at under half an hour at that temperature. Thanks for the edit and help by the way :)
-6C is still freezing, you should be good.
"I've heard that food in a freezer can go bad even below 0" Yes, bacteria are still multiplying, just slower. At -18, it's deemed safe indefinitely (source: EU and USA government websites) with a tolerance of 3°C (source: EU legislation). Above that, it will spoil, just much much slower than at room temperature. According to the star rating system, -6°C keeps "three or four days" and -12°C "fifteen to twenty days". Why -18°C is said to be three months is beyond me though, so these probably err on the side of caution.
Note that these are cumulative times. If your food spent 3 days at -6°C (where 4 days at -6°C is considered safe), then storing it at -12 will only be good for another ¼ of those "fifteen to twenty days" i.e. up to 5 more days (if those values are to be taken literally, which I doubt; it's about the concept). As an example, let's say 20 bacteria is the allowance and at -6°C they double every day (2× per day) whereas at -12 they multiply by 1.25× per day, then you can count out at which point 1 bacterium turns into 20.
In your question, does "go bad" mean food quality or food safety?
As for safety, you were nowhere near the "danger zone" either temperature-wise or time-wise.
Initially safe, properly stored, frozen food that warms to -6C (or 22 F) for 30 minutes will not render it unsafe to eat.
In terms of food quality, freezers (most of which these days are self-defrosting), go through temperature cycles regularly. The problem with this is not food safety, but the accumulation of ice crystals in foods, which degrades quality. Freezer burn is the extreme example. Of course, attention to packaging (vacuum sealing, for example) helps.
I was talking very much about food safety. In this house we live by "Will it kill me?" rather than best-before dates :) I'm glad to know that it should still be good. Thank you all very much.
"freezers (most of which these days are self-defrosting), go through temperature cycles regularly" Just to note: if items in your freezer ever reach -10°C or higher under normal conditions (not when you just filled the freezer with lots of new stuff or opened the door for a long time, for example), this is definitely not a normal defrost cycle. It should not heat up the air by more than 1-2°C, if that, due to the air circulation fan turning off while the evaporator coils are being heated. (Source: mechanic that came over and confirmed our freezer is broken within warranty.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.476607
| 2014-09-15T14:03:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47146",
"authors": [
"Brittany",
"Burk Brancheau",
"Chantel Naputi",
"GdD",
"James Detzel",
"Kate Gregory",
"Luc",
"Melissa Daniels",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113762",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113764",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113769",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69995",
"niemiro"
],
"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
}
|
43538
|
Lemon dill sauce broke
When making a lemon dill sauce will limited ingredients due to Lenten restrictions, we found the sauce broke after simmering. The sauce was vegetable stock with lemon juice then thickened with a roux of margarine and flour. All was well for 10 minutes at a low simmer when suddenly it broke. Did the lemon break the gluten? Did the simmering cause the breakage? Was the margarine the cause?
I'm curious, what does it mean to say that a sauce "broke"?
There is no way to be certain, but I would blame the margarine.
Margarine is not pure fat like an oil, nor a simple fat-water emulsion like butter. It is a rather unstable emulsion, and it uses all kinds of industrial tricks to achieve a smooth, soft, spreadable consistency. It is not just emulsified, it generally contains all kinds of gums too. This is especially pronounced in reduced-fat margarine products.
You shouldn't heat margarine, as you never know how it will behave under heat. It is a bit less of a problem in baking, if you are willing to accept large differences in texture; but as you noticed, it can be very problematic in foods where the correct texture has low tolerance.
If you want to reduce your butter consumption but still make roux-based sauces, use any liquid oil. You can use a cheap vegetable oil for strongly flavored sauces, or an oil with its own taste for milder sauces which can profit from more flavor.
The ratio of fat to starch in a roux is not very tolerant to fat reduction. You should always use at least 1:1 fat to flour. A little deviation (such as using 1:1 butter to flour, which makes it 0.83 fat to 1 part flour) will still work, although it is recommended to up the fat a bit when using butter. But you cannot reduce the fat in a roux-based sauce by choosing a fat-reduced product (assuming you could find a gum-free one) instead of fat and keeping the overall ratio the same. So, if you are looking to reduce your total fat consumption during Lenten and the use of 1:1 oil to flour ratio is not acceptable to you, you will have to do it by some other means.
Rumtscho, actually in the US at least, margarine is a fat-water emulsion, just like butter. The fat phase is (partially) hydrogenated vegetable oil, and the water is added. The water percentage approximates that of butter. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=166.110 Low fat margerine products are more likely to have more water.
The following are the ingredients in Land O Lakes margerine (a typical national brand here, ironically, a consortium of dairy producers): Ingredients: SOYBEAN OIL, PALM OIL, WATER, BUTTERMILK, CONTAINS LESS THAN 2% OF SALT, SOY LECITHIN, POTASSIUM SORBATE (PRESERVATIVE), MONOGLYCERIDES (EMULSIFIER), LACTIC ACID, NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL FLAVOR, VITAMIN A PALMITATE, BETA CAROTENE (COLOR).
@SAJ14SAJ your comments show exactly what I am trying to say. Emulsifiers are allowed in margarine per FDA regulation, and the ingredients list you posted contains two different ones. Other brands use gums instead of lecithin, and they behave funny when heated.
Well, I never, ever buy margarine :-) But some people have dietary or religious reasons where they have to....
@SAJ14SAJ I think these people are allowed to buy vegetable oil too. If they aren't, they may have to give up on making roux-based sauces (or live with a very high risk of splitting).
@SAJ14SAJ I just re-read my answer and noticed that I had written literally that margarine is not an emulsion; now I know why you protested. Changed that to say that it is not a simple emulsion, and that it is rather unstable and therefore chock full of stabilizers.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.477010
| 2014-04-16T04:40:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43538",
"authors": [
"Cookin Up A Storm",
"PThorpe",
"Ryan McNeely",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"badfd",
"davegravy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102031",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102032",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102033",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102038",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102039",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102048",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho",
"starsplusplus"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37543
|
What can I do with badly cooked honeycomb?
I've made a batch of honeycomb but I didn't quite get the temperature of the sugar right. Now it seems to have the consistency of toffee.
What can I do with this honeycomb? It would seem a bit of a waste to just through it away...
I am not sure that everybody will recognize what "honeycomb" is, I had to look it up. And even without that, it would be better to post the recipe you followed just to know what you have now.
It might be possible to dissolve the candy, and then boil it down again, foaming it with fresh baking soda when it hits the proper stage. The thing is, the candy has already got the full level of baking soda reactants (either sodium carbonate or sodium oxide) from from the first cooking, which may contribute to some off flavors.
Instead, if it is enjoyable as is, I would suggest just eating it as a toffee like candy.
Otherwise, chalk it up to experience and watch the temperature more closely next time.
Do the hokey pokey. Smack it into small pieces and mix with plain soft icecream, re-freeze, and the kids will love it
I have a batch of gooey toffee now too. So im just either enjoying it as is or adding bit or chunks of it to my coffee or ice cream.
What I do with the failed honeycomb is smash it into small bits or even grind it up into very tiny almost to powder. Then I melt the chocolate and pour it over the bits and stir it well. You can pour it into moldes or make it into any shape you want. Big pieces, small bite size pieces, whatever you want it's still tasty I call it MY HONEYCOMB CRUNCH
Welcome! Your answer is a nice idea if the sugar is brittle, but the asker reports that theirs is like toffee, which would make smashing or grinding difficult or impossible. Can you [edit] your post and clarify?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.477309
| 2013-10-13T09:55:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37543",
"authors": [
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
27811
|
Why do my Eisenhower Cookies turn out flat?
This was my mother's recipe that my sisters and I have made several years. They use to work now they go flat. We are going nuts trying to figure out why. Any suggestion would be welcomed.
Eisenhower Cookies (really a ginger spice cookie)
2 cubes of margarine
1 cup and 3 tbsp sugar
1 well beaten egg
2 cups of flour (after sifting)
1 tsp cinammon
1 tsp ginger
2 tsp of baking soda
2 small pinch of salt
4 tbsp of yellow label molasses
Make into balls, roll in sugar, bake at 350 for about 10 minutes, depending on oven.
I changed the title a bit for clarification. What do you mean with flat?
@Brooke- some suggestions: check your oven's temperature with a thermometer, don't put dough on a hot cookie sheet, try non-insulated cookie sheets - they heat up faster so the cookie sets before it runs too much.
What kind of margarine are you using? If you've changed to tub/spread margarines then that could be the culprit as they have more water content than stick margarine.
Have you tried using fresh baking soda? I really don't see anything else that could be off here, especially if the recipe has worked well in the past.
yes.I have, i have tried using butter too but never shortening...Ok this is a crazy thought but would a hand mixer change the consitancy compare to a kitchen aid mixer. I now use a kitchen aid mixer...does it over beat the butter and sugar?
You get leavening problems from underbeating, not overbeating, so this shouldn't be the problem. Unless the mechanical action heats the butter to a stage where it is too soft and flows too early in the oven. Do you chill the cookies before baking?
yes.. I swear this problem has baffled us...It was our christmas cookie recipe that we all loved but nevermore....( i just watched the movie The Raven)..My sister and I just cannot figured it out. Would lowering the oven temperature help?
@brookegritch, as rumtscho indicates, maybe the butter gets too warm. You could leave the dough in the fridge for 20 minutes after beating.
Over time ingredients change, equipment changes, etc. Your flour could get too moist, your molasses could have more water content, etc. Some suggestions:
Use fresh dry ingredients
Put your dough in the fridge to cool before you bake
Give it a stiffer consistency by adding a tablespoon or two more flour. A little bit more isn't going to change the flavor noticeably
Raise the oven temperature a bit, lowering it will just make them run more before they set
I found a Martha Stewart chewy spice molassas cookie recipe that was so similar that I tried it out today. Pay dirt...it worked. The only ingredient that I change was I used ground ginger instead of the nutmeg. Tasted just like the ones mother used to make. YEA
well a year later I tried your tip on adding two extra tablespoons of flour and I am sure glad I did. It worked perfectly...now I finally have my mothers recipe to perfection. THANK YOU
Glad to hear it. I'm going to try the recipe.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.477493
| 2012-10-14T21:59:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27811",
"authors": [
"Alice Waltmire",
"BaffledCook",
"Brian",
"Brooke Gritch",
"GdD",
"Jeff",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Suse",
"Tomas Reyes",
"brooke gritch",
"djmadscribbler",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13927",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63858",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63859",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63864",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63865",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9799",
"rumtscho",
"user63864",
"xuv"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
123608
|
Will a lye solution damage enameled cookware?
Got some very thick baked on oil inside of a Lodge dutch oven with an enamel lining. Avocado oil, baked on in a 500F oven while making bread. Can I save some time by just filling it up with warm water (~175F) and soaking for a while with a lye solution before I scrub off the oil? Will this damage the surface? The surface is not pristine, it's an old DO and saw a lot of use before I got it.
A lot of advice says use baking soda, which is pH 8.5. Lye is 13 but I know it will get rid of those polymerized fats.
I'm aware of all the danger of lye, I've used it to strip cast iron pans with no issue.
edit to clarify: thinking 1 tsp of lye powder to 3 qts of water. The real question is will any concentration of lye destroy enamel?
What concentration of lye? A weak lye solution will be the same PH as a strong baking soda solution.
@GdD Makings such a weak solution of lye is both impractical and unnecessary. I worked the numbers out - to match a baking soda solution (pH 8.3), you need a 2 micromolar lye solution. That's 1.6 grams of sodium hydroxyde to 10 000 liters of water. It is doable with a household precision scale and without using up a year's worth of water supply (you'll have to do a multistep dilution), but it is tedious, has all the hazards of working with lye, and none of the advantages. Pretty much all uses of lye solutions I've seen in the household are in the range of tenths of percent to a few percent.
I was thinking 1 tsp lye to 3qt water. I guess the real question is will any concentration of an alkaline solution destroy enamel?
whoa @rumtscho kitchen chemist in the house :)
@jcollum I love the compliment, but I have to admit that everything beyond the gut instinct of "the difference between pH 8 and pH 13 is huge" was Google-fu. Turns out that Sigma Aldrich has a handy concentration calculator: https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/DE/de/support/calculators-and-apps/molarity-calculator.
It's unlikely to destroy the enamel, but it might damage it -- particularly creating a matte surface that would then make it into "superstick" cookware.
That surface is already pretty rough but it looks like it's not worth attempting based on the answer from @rumtscho below
I will say that the recipe for nixtamalized corn I've seen says to use an enameled pot since it's non-reactive. I would imagine that means it's safe to use lye in an enameled pot.
There are two reasons why I would not do it.
"Enamel" is not a single substance, but a class of substances. They can have different chemical properties, including corrosion resistance. And the enamels used in cookware are calculated to be resistant to what is usually encounterable in a kitchen. This is certainly not lye at pH 13 or above.
The Internet supports this intuition: for example, this site lists the corrosion resistance of enamels for different use cases, and while they don't have pots, pretty much all household items they list are formulated for the pH range of 2 to 10.
A second reason is that you don't only have to worry about the enamel as a substance. You have an enamel-lined pot, and these are very prone to chipping, and sometimes crazing. I would worry about lye "finding" these discontinuities in the enamel layer and attacking them. The iron of the Dutch oven itself shouldn't have any problem with it, but the problem would be the bond between the enamel and the iron. This bond is always weaker than either of the two materials, and anything that attacks there has a chance of destroying it and letting the lining layer peel off.
I will admit that I don't know whether the bond between iron and enamel can withstand lye, but seeing that it is one of the most corrosive substances a person will ever encounter, I wouldn't try it out on a pot I value.
The chart doesn't cover cookware, but some of the listed items are fairly similar. What's called "porcelain enamel" is actually a ceramic substance that is baked onto the iron or steel under high heat, so it should have a high degree of resistance to alkalis; but as the chart says, "high degree" isn't necessarily "pH 13".
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.477779
| 2023-03-13T04:36:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123608",
"authors": [
"Esther",
"FuzzyChef",
"GdD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388",
"jcollum",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29557
|
how can I strip the surface from an iron alloy pan without harming the metal?
Got a Debuyer Mineral Element Pan for Christmas. It has a thin coating of bees wax. I thought it would be nifty to preseason the pan with flax oil and get an awesome surface on it before I started using it. Mostly based on what I've read about iodine values of oils and conditioning of cast-iron cooking pans.
I managed to get a great looking seasoned surface on it but now that surface is flaking off. I suspect it's due to the beeswax being under the surface and the polymerized flax oil not adhering to the metal.
I'd like to strip off the beeswax and polymerized flax oil and start fresh. How can I strip it off without harming the metal? I'm assuming oven cleaner, but want to make sure that won't ruin my pan.
How did you season the pan? Did the pan not come with any instructions? Normally you simply heat some oil in the pan and leave it for 5 mins or so and pour it away, that removes the beeswax coating as well.
@spiceyokooko read this and you'll understand what I was after: http://sherylcanter.com/wordpress/2010/01/a-science-based-technique-for-seasoning-cast-iron/
I know exactly what you're trying to do. Now re-read the last sentence of your question. Now re-read it again. Now read what advice I've given you. What part of detergent will harm your pan do you not appear to understand? At no point should you ever use soap or detergent on mineral iron pans. At the end of the day it's your pan, you decide what you want to do with it.
@spiceyokooko you're being borderline rude. The article I linked deliberately recommends using oven cleaner on cast iron pans to strip off the polymerized fats. Is there some reason that wouldn't work on an iron alloy pan?
Re-read the advice I've given you. Go to the DeBuyer site and read the advice they give on looking after their pans. If you then want to go against that advice based on something you've read by someone posting on the web that is entirely your prerogative.
@spiceyokooko your answer to my question about iron alloy pans is apparently "I've already answered that." Not helpful.
Re-read the first comment I gave you to your question. Re-heat the pan with a layer of oil (about 5 mm deep) for 5 mins and pour it away, wipe the pan with a wet cloth containing only plain water. That should remove the beeswax coating and existing seasoned coating. That's the way you should have prepped your pan to begin with according to DeBuyers instructions.
@spiceyokooko yeah I read the instructions. I think you don't understand what I'm trying to do here. No worries, I got the answer I needed.
There is a video at the manufacturer's web site.
My French is strictly limited, but it is pretty self explanatory even if you cannot read the captions. Just be prepared for some really cheesy music.
It appears you were supposed to wash off the beeswax (which is probably just to keep it from rusting during shipping and storage) and then season it much like any cast iron pan (although this is a die-pressed iron pan, and should be smoother).
The following advise is specifically in response to the original question asking how to remove the seasoning so that it can be re-seasoned as the OP desires. The general advise against using detergent or soap on a cast iron or pressed iron pan is to protect the seasoning on the pan, not the metal itself:
Now that you have a wierd amalgamated coating, I would wash it with something strong--like dishwasher detergent or Barkeeper's Friend--then when you are back down to the metal, season it as desired.
You should not use detergent of any kind on mineral steel pans, particularly not dishwasher detergent.
This is a special circumstance--we are actively trying to de-season it, so it can be seasoned correctly. Otherwise, yes, you would not normally use soap or detergent.
No it isn't. I've already told the OP what he should have done and what he should do. The heating of the oil will remove the underlying beeswax coating. There is no reason to use detergent on that pan and he'll go a long way to ruining it if he does.
And I disagree. But you may have the last word.
The user manual which I have a copy of specifically states not to use detergent of any kind on the pan. Your advice is poor and wrong.
@spiceyokooko you're being kind of a jerk here.
Is that the manual, which under 'warnings', says "Not for the other use" ? :-)
"It appears you were supposed to wash off the beeswax" -- actually, no you're supposed to scrub it with salt to remove the 'excess' beeswax, not get rid of it completely. That's what my manual says -- which differs slightly from the one on the website.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.478118
| 2012-12-29T19:23:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29557",
"authors": [
"CCW",
"Cory Schillaci",
"Gary",
"RIBIT",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68740",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68741",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68744",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68745",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68750",
"jcollum",
"jennyooh1",
"spiceyokooko",
"tuantun18"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
1192
|
what's a good technique for freezing blueberries?
I'm taking a trip to the berry patch today. I'd like to get say 3 pounds of blueberries and freeze them. The problem is that when you defrost them, they're all busted up and mushy. So I wonder if I could put them in the oven at 150 for an hour or so and dry them out a bit before I freeze them.
Would that pull some of the water out and result in less exploded berries when the water in them freezes? What's the best way to freeze a blueberry?
Edit: years later, bought a food dehydrator. Gotta say, a dehydrated blueberry is much tastier than a previously frozen blueberry. Easier to store (use desiccant packs) and you can mix them in with trail mix too. Maybe not great for baking but heck maybe you can re-hydrate them overnight with some water.
Lay them out on a paper towel overnight so that the skins dry completely. This gives the benefit of keeping the frozen blueberries from sticking together without needing lots of freezer space to do a quick freeze individually on a sheet pan. Then bag in a freezer bag and freeze.
Note that whenever you freeze fruit, the liquid will burst the cell walls as it thaws, causing the resulting berry to be mushier. In my experience, frozen blueberries aren't good for eating alone. To bake with blueberries, thaw them by placing them in a mesh sieve or collander and running water over them until the water is clear off the bottom (no pigmentation from the skins, which may color your baked goods) and the berries are thawed. Dry the skins before using in baking.
Using these techniques I have not once had any of the 30 pounds of blueberries I froze this summer burst in the freezer and have successfully made many blueberry baked goods from the results.
I think this is the answer because it mentions that "frozen blueberries aren't good for eating alone". Also the dry ice method is a big waste of time. Maybe liquid N would be worthwhile...
As fast as possible, as it minimizes ice crystal growth (which breaks the cell walls, and causes the mush problem).
As most of us don't have access to liquid nitrogen, I'd probably try cooling them down in the fridge first, then freeze them with dry ice, crushed. See the transcript from Good Eats : Strawberry Sky, where Alton Brown used dry ice on Strawberries.
I've used this method for many fruits, including blueberries. It works very well.
Very interested to try this, thanks for the suggestion. Now to source some cheap dry ice, and convince the wife that it's safe to keep around the house...
@stephennmcdonald : I can get blocks at the local Safeway (grocery store chain). Just make sure to bring some gloves and a container so it doesn't sublimate on the way home. And you can't really store it long term, unless you have some really good insulation; but you won't have that, and you'll need to vent the container so it doesn't explode as the pressure increases as the dry ice coverts to gas.
I tried this dry ice method. Considering the work involved the results were underwhelming.
We have a friend who runs a fruit stand, so we get a lot of blueberries every year. I've never thought of trying to keep them from getting mushy, I just take it for granted that the frozen ones are better used for making blueberry pie or crisp, sauce, or jam.
That said, I think the bigger berries don't seem to burst as much. I wash all my berries to get rid of all the stems or squished ones, then dry them and spread them out into a single layer on cookie sheets to freeze. I know that when I've pulled out some of the bigger berries from the freezer, they seem to be intact. Maybe the skin is a bit more resilient when they've ripened that much?
Remove any leaves, stems, or blemished berries.
Do not wash the berries, as that will result in a tougher-skinned berry.
Pack the berries into freezer-safe containers (or bags), leaving headspace. Seal and freeze.
Wash before using.
If want to freeze crushed or pureed blueberries, wash the berries first.
Then, crush/puree your berries.
Mix about 1 cup of sugar into each quart of berries.
Stir until sugar is dissolved.
Pack into containers, leaving headspace; seal and freeze.
If you're looking for a safe way to freeze just about anything, check out the National Center for Home Food Preservation.
I wash, puree and then pour the puree in ice cube trays... same for strawberries, etc. I use the ice cubes for a number of things, drop one in green tea, melt for pancakes, etc. A nutritious drink is mixed berry cubes melted, water and heaping tablespoon of chia seeds.
If you want whole blueberries, just freeze them in a bag and need to use, rinse under warm water and they are as good as the day they were picked. I have a number of blueberry bushes and freeze and use all winter.
When freezing any fruit, the quicker the better. The quicker you freeze the fruit the smaller the ice crystals are that form. The smaller the ice crystals, the less mushy the fruit will be when defrosted. The quickest method I have found is using Liquid Nitrogen. The results are always great. I remember seeing an example of doing it on FoodTV. I will see if I can located it for you.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.478483
| 2010-07-16T20:17:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1192",
"authors": [
"Jax",
"Joe",
"John",
"Mag Roader",
"Raleigh Buckner",
"Rowan",
"Scott",
"VoY",
"dotnetengineer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/250",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80963",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9218",
"jcollum",
"mat",
"stephennmcdonald"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
1384
|
Does food get spoilt if it catches moisture?
Sometimes, if you leave something like chips out in the open, it catches moisture from the air and is not as crisp after that.
Is the food good to consume even after that?
There's different things here -- loss of texture/freshness (ie, stale), and unsafe to eat (spoiled)
There's lots of things out there that aren't unsafe to eat, but you might not want to -- eg, the brownies that have become so hard that you might be worried about chipping a tooth.
Some things can be saved after they've had issues -- it's possible to reheat corn chips or deep fryer to crisp them back up. Limp carrots will come back if wrapped in a damp towel and left in your crisper for a day or two. Limp lettuce might revive in an icewater bath. Day-old bread (slightly stale, not rock hard) can be put in a dampened paper bag and put in the oven on low heat to revive.
... but all of these assume loss of freshness, not rotted / covered in mold / etc. If it smells funny, there are bugs crawling all over it, it's now fuzzy, or it's taken on new interesting colors ... it's time for the compost or trash.
Sometimes, slightly less than fresh item are great in other things -- vegetables past their prime can go into making stocks; stale bread for croutons, french toast or bread puddings.
Chips become soft after leaving out, but that doesn't necessarily mean they've gone bad. If you leave them out long enough they will, or they might get contaminated with things, but things which have just gone soft are probably fine - although whether you'd want to eat them or not is a different matter, because I've done it and they're not very pleasant.
However, if in doubt about the safety of any food, don't eat it. Food poisoning is not nice.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.479018
| 2010-07-17T10:04:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1384",
"authors": [
"Asha",
"James",
"John Saunders",
"Nic",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2508",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2510",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2523"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
1698
|
What brand of roasting dish would you recommend?
Over the last few years I've gone through at least 3 roasting trays that have some kind of coating that has worn off - mostly ones bought in supermarkets.
I'd like to get something that will last, having discovered that decent cast-iron pans and casseroles are worth the investment.
What will it be used for? Mostly chicken - sometimes dry, sometimes in stock and wine - but reasonably often for duck and beef, so preferably something that has a rack.
I'm based in the UK, so preferably not a US-only brand - although many US brands are imported.
(More importantly - any seriously bad experiences with stuff not living up to it's reputation?)
If the coating is the issue, have you considered a non-coated pan?
Consider the castiron stuff from Le Creuset; my father-in-law has one that's at least 50 years old and it's still going strong. Lifetime warranty, too.
http://www.lecreuset.co.uk/Product-Range-uk/Cast-Iron-Cookware/Oven-Dishes/
They have roasting racks to fit as well.
Thanks. I'm going to sound stupid and say that I didn't know they did roasting dishes (we've got several Crueset casseroles and pans and that's exactly the kind of investment I was thinking of). The roasters are just not v.obvious on Harts of Stur, but I've found them now.
I don't know if these brands are available in the UK, but I have a review from Cook's Country a few years back that recommended the stainless roasting pans from Calphalon, Cuisinart, and KitchenAid.
Thanks - I can see stockists of all three brands, but it looks like the selection is restricted for Calphalon and KitchenAid (more of an appliance company over here).
This weekend I discovered a Römertopf in my kitchen :) (I think it was a wedding present!)
I know almost nothing about it, apparently it could be a good alternative for roasting meat without it drying out.
Here's a photo:
We have a couple of high-quality ceramic roasting pans that we like. They're not like a true roaster with lid and all that, but a much nicer alternative to the standard thin metal 9" x 13" pan. They work just as well for cooking, clean more easily and can go directly to the table because they look nice.
The one downside, of course, is that they're breakable. They won't likely break in normal use, but I wouldn't want to drop them.
I think one is LeCreuset ceramic and one if Emile Henry.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.479197
| 2010-07-18T09:21:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1698",
"authors": [
"JulesLt",
"Kieran",
"Sam Meldrum",
"blueyed",
"ceejayoz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22854",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3074",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3109",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3110",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/597",
"mico",
"user3110"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20787
|
Is there a close substitution for shallots?
I can't really find shallots and i'm short on time.
Are there any close substitutions for shallots?
Depends on what you're doing with them. Shallots have very fine layers (allowing them to blend into sauces and dressings), and have a flavor between garlic and onions.
If you're mincing them fine and sauteeing them or whisking them in as the foundation for a sauce, I'd suggest substituting pearl (boiling) onions or the white parts of green onions and maybe half a clove of minced garlic.
If you're slicing and frying them, regular onions should do, although I'd look for smaller ones and slice thin. Red onions have a flavor more like shallots than yellow or white ones, but may add an undesireable color to the dish.
If you're chopping them, or cooking them peeled and whole for Southeast Asian cuisine, again pearl onions are probably the way to go.
in a pinch, i always just use the same amount in regular onion. the flavor won't be quite the same, but they are at least close.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.479424
| 2012-01-26T04:02:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20787",
"authors": [
"Gemini528",
"Gord Wait",
"Jennifer Watson",
"Jonathan Eustace",
"chris319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45735",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45736",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45737",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45741",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45749",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45754",
"lonstar"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.