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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
12774
|
Is it possible to make vegan Yorkshire Puddings?
What could be used as a replacer for the egg in Yorkshire puddings, having tried before nothing quite seems to work properly :(
Have you tried all of the options listed in the answers here and here? Yorkshire puddings are a bit trickier than things like brownies, but that might give you direction. A google search indicates that commercial egg replacer might work.
Chris, can you please provide detail on what you have already tried? That will help us give you a good answer.
Yorkshires are one of the difficult to reproduce vegan items, it's very difficult to substitute, you would need to use a cake-type egg substitute (like soya flour) and an egg-white replacer (like Ener-G) and getting it to rise properly would still be a nightmare. I just gave up on the idea years ago.
In a pop over-type batter, the eggs provide a few functions:
Egg whites: protein for structure. Since the popover/yorkshire pudding is leavened by the protein matrix generated by the ingredients setting and capturing the steam that the wet batter is pushing out, you're going to need something to replace the protein here. The gluten from the wheat flour isn't going to fully provide the structural integrity you need.
Egg whites: Water. Egg whites are about 92% water by weight. This helps make your dough liquid enough to produce the steam needed for the leavening.
Egg yolks: fats for weakening the dough. The fats in the yolks help keep the dough springy and soft as well as provides a nice richness to the flavor.
Egg yolks: emulsifiers. The lecithin in the yolk helps to bind the water phase of the batter with the fat phase of the batter so that they don't separate.
So, my suggestion would be to up the liquid in the recipe by a few tablespoons, add a little bit more fat, some powdered lecithin (or other emulsifying agents -- you can get vegan lecithin made from mustard), and some soy protein powder.
You might have to play with the combination of these ingredients, but by replicating and replacing the items the egg provides, you'll be much better suited to creating the popover.
Although, you're not making yorkshire pudding FYI -- you're making a popover. Yorkshire pudding is a popover created by using the rendered fat from a roast. A popover is the same type of bread, but made without using animal fat.
Are you from the US, by any chance? In the UK we call it a Yorkshire pudding whether it's made using the fat from the roast or not (and it usually isn't). In fact, even for America, Wikipedia suggests that it is the opposite of what you describe: "Settlers [...] Americanized the pudding from Yorkshire by cooking the batter in custard cups lubricated with drippings from the roasting beef (or sometimes pork); another modification was the use of garlic, and, frequently, herbs. The result is called...
... Portland popover pudding: individual balloons of crusty meat-flavored pastry."
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.479872
| 2011-03-04T14:51:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12774",
"authors": [
"AngryElPresidente",
"George",
"Orbling",
"Steven T. Snyder",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26404",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26460",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"justkt",
"piscean_1993",
"starsplusplus",
"yossarian"
],
"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
}
|
69391
|
Discolouration of Sushi Rice
In our sushi rolls with plain cucumber - the sushi rice seems to get a black discolouration around the cucumber after a few hours stored in the fridge. Any ideas as to why and how to prevent it?
well, for starters, sushi should be eaten fresh, but if needs must:
1) the cucumber has some alkaloids that we usually take out when preparing (my mom call it the "evil" of the cucumber). I cut the "tops" of the cucumber and use a circular motion to friction the sliced tops on the main cucumber "body" and let capillary action do the rest;
2) also for freshness and crunchiness, after you slice the cucumber, sprinkle it with some salt and let osmosis work for ~15 minutes. Squeeze the water out and roll your sushi. If you do this, the sushi rice (which is seasoned) won't draw out the water in the cucumber and take with it the coloring
I've never had this discoloration problem, and this are the 2 main things that I know that both me and my mom do that are not exactly common when preparing sushi.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.480142
| 2016-05-31T23:54:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/69391",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
76311
|
Almond essence substitute
Can you substitute Almond liqueur or use ground almonds, instead of using Almond essence in a Christmas Cake recipe? I can't find Almond Essence in Spain.
If you can find almond extract, that would probably be the best substitute. It is generally stronger than almond essence, so you may want to decrease the amount you use. You could use almond liqueur, but it will likely be less strong, so you may want to use a bit more. Ground almonds will change the characteristics of your batter and final cake, so you would need to adapt the recipe to compensate.
If you give enough almond liqueur to your guests, they won't notice what the cake tastes like.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.480257
| 2016-12-10T09:43:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76311",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"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
}
|
13225
|
What are some savory banana applications?
I have a lot of bananas, but I don't particularly like bananas. I would like to try using them, but I want to use them in a more savory application. I'm not looking to make a dessert or bread with them. How can I use a banana in a savory application and/or what kind of flavors would pair well with banana that I can use to get an idea for a savory banana dish?
In other words, I am looking for a banana application that is not a dessert.
This might be off topic? Other than it is an unusual request (for non banana growing counties)
I remember I saw someone add an entire banana in a curry or stew.. I won't recommend it as I haven't tried it before.. But I can imagine it would give a nice sweetness to your curry..
Hi GeneratorHalf. Please note our culinary uses guidelines and note that bananas have already been rejected as not particularly rare or notable ("savory" does not really narrow it down). This really is fundamentally a recipe (or recipe name) request that could easily be answered by a recipe search and therefore off-topic.
Fresh fried Indian style banana chips are incredible with just salt.
http://cuisineindia.wordpress.com/2008/06/09/banana-chips/
However, I have had some from Kerela that were spiced with pepper as well, they were quite tasty. It could be a lot of fun to play with Indian and Thai spices.
I could see these in the role of a garnish, or as an alternative to potato chips or fries.
Thai style fish curry with banana, very stinky, very nice
Use 1/2 banana per serve of firm fish. The fish is lightly fried then added to the soup like sauce and simmered. The banana is added near the end of cooking so it does not go too mushy
Includes things like: carrot (thin slices), chill (fresh), cilantro (fresh with roots and all), coconut milk, fish sauce, garlic, lemon grass (fresh), lime juice (fresh), peanut oil, spring onion
In my experience, bananas go well with peanuts, and particularly peanut butter.
I also think that they go well with a salty and umami combination. This is probably because the salts go well to balance the potassium in the banana.
These two thoughts lead me to a Thai style satay, with peanut butter (unsweetened) and either soy or fish sauce. It'll need some spices as well, and I'm sure there are recipes out there. You could make a noodle dish with bananas, bell peppers, bean sprouts and tofu/chicken. All that in a peanut butter satay sauce.
Does a peanut butter and banana sandwich count as savory?
I don't fry or grill it like many of the recipes out there ... I just coat the bread with peanut butter, then cut slices of banana, top the peanut butter with the banana slices, close it up and eat it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.480349
| 2011-03-17T04:57:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13225",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Guillermo Gutiérrez",
"Ian Palmerstom",
"Jasper",
"Patches",
"Simone Meurant",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27429",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27430",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27431",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27433",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27437",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4283",
"jgr208",
"jhongs",
"notthetup",
"user2617804"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
36045
|
Egg replacement for fried chicken
I often make fried chicken fingers the traditional way with an egg and milk covered cutlet dredged in seasoned flour, however my girlfriend is now on not only a gluten-free diet, but also a hypo-allergenic one which excludes eggs and dairy as well.
My questions is, what are some ideas for an egg-less batter for fried chicken?
For the dry mix, I'm mostly using rice flour as a GF alternative to standard all purpose flour, which is okay.
My concern is with the wet mix, some things I have already tried for the wet potion of the mix:
3 parts cornstarch to 1 part water to replace the same quantity of eggs: This resulted in a good flavor, but lacked the flaky texture I was going for, the batter was very crunchy but smooth on the outside.
A mixture of prepared mustard and water thickened up a bit with some of the dry mix: This resulted in the perfect flaky texture that I wanted, but I dislike the taste of the mustard in the batter.
A mixture of apple sauce and water, thickened up with some of the dry mix: This resulted in a flavor that was better then the mustard, and a texture that was better then just the cornstarch, but I feel as though the apple flavor makes this option better suited to something like a pork schnitzel than a chicken cutlet.
I do have gluten free bread crumbs as a last resort to help get the texture I want, but I usually prefer to have a bread crumb free batter in my chicken fingers.
What might be a good egg alternative or a good wet mix substitute that will allow for a flaky texture with either a neutral flavor, or one that lends itself well to chicken.
What do you mean by "flaky" breading? Flaky is something I associate with pie dough or biscuits, not fried foods.
Hmm, sorry. By "flaky" I mean the external surface of the batter isn't smooth as seen in most beer batters, etc. But rather very rough and crunchy which I usually get with a thick coating of flour and egg.
By 'flaky', are we talking about the property Kenji was trying to accomplish with this breading recipe: http://www.seriouseats.com/2012/07/the-food-lab-how-to-make-a-chick-fil-a-sandwich-at-home.html
You may wish to look at this article for inspiration. The breading is based on wheat flour (but you seem to have expertise on making those changes), but the buttermilk is not essential. You could use, for example, soy milk. http://www.seriouseats.com/2012/07/the-food-lab-how-to-make-a-chick-fil-a-sandwich-at-home.html?ref=search The method may apply.
Okay, that is odd. But I don't think he used egg.... let me read it again.
@Yamikuronue Yes, That is the property I'm talking about. That article was very inspiring.
It is not necessary to have any egg to make a breading.
You should instead take a step back: rather than trying to create a substitution for egg in a breading which relies on their unique properties, instead use one of the many breading methods which does not.
Among them are:
Simply dredging in an acceptable starchy flour (such as corn meal)
Using a (gluten free) tempura type batter
Using a (gluten free) beer batter without egg
All of them can be enhanced with spices or seasonings that you prefer such as chili powder, garlic powder, and so on. The latter two can even accommodate wet prepared condiments (in reasonable quantities) like prepared mustard or soy sauce.
While the result will not be identical to the classic triple-layered French breading, it can be very good in its own right.
I see a couple Tempura batter recipes that may fit the bill perfectly. I think you're right that I was restricting myself to replacing eggs instead of finding an alternative. Such a prime example of the law of the hammer. Thanks.
Buttermilk is also a good breading liquid.
@ElendilTheTall Absolutely, but OP specified dairy-free...
So he did. I'll get my coat...
Managed to make crispy spicy seitan strips with the 'rough' texture I think is being described: boiled seitan in chicken-flavour stock; dipped strips in a mixture of aquafaba + oat milk; coated in a mix of corn flour + wheat bran instead of breadcrumbs (with spices); dabbed into chilli oil before frying at high heat.
Bran would not be GF as poster requires.
Also you can just substitute out a fat instead of the egg wash, dredge the food in flour, then dip in whatever oil you may prefer (corn, olive, coconut, etc.) coating completely, but be sure to press firmly into the breading (Outer coating). Just to make sure it sticks well; I use this while baking a fried food rather than frying it in oil, just to make sure the breading doesn't fall off while frying.
Acarajé type mix is a good option.
Replaces egg and gluten.
Soaked dry black eyed peas (or another legume like split red lentil) ground with onion, nicely seasoned, with a bit of baking powder, clings well and can handle longer frying times.
Egg "Wash" is being used as a binder for fry breading.
Basically, the starch (glue) of the egg white allows breading to stick to the food to be fried.
You need something sticky, yet tasty, to replace that egg starch.
Honey, Maple Syrup, Reduced
Fruit Juices, Nut Butters,
Reduced Sodas, Roux-Based sauces
such as Mayo, Ketchup, BBQ Sauce,
A1 Sauce, etc. will probably
work as a binder.
You can also better insure that
the breading does NOT come off
during frying by FREEZING the
breaded food BEFORE frying. Works
for deep fried candy bars...
I'd also switch from dredging to
breading using a shake down method to avoid contamination
of breadcrumbs.
You're roughly right about the egg acting as a "glue", but eggs contain no starch. "Sticky" is not really what you're looking for -- note that eggs aren't sticky -- and most of your suggested replacements aren't really workable. For instance, mayonnaise is basically just oil with a bit of water (and eggs, so another problem there); would you oil foods to get them to stick more?
Additionally, your suggestion to freeze the chicken before frying is a really bad one. It would make it utterly impossible to fully cook the chicken without overcooking or burning the outside. I think you've misunderstood why they do that: the point is to keep the candy bar (which will melt at high temperatures) solid long enough, not to improve adhesion.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.480613
| 2013-08-15T14:06:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36045",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"Gill Walters",
"Pat Sommer",
"Paul Pieterse",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Salem",
"Sian Cochlin",
"Sneftel",
"Yamikuronue",
"Yeet",
"dangelsaurus",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161043",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161079",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19683",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84530",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84584",
"jesse_galley",
"johnDanger",
"josina Washington"
],
"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
}
|
13471
|
Coriander substitute?
I have a recipe where one of spices I need to use is coriander. What other spice can I use to substitute coriander and don't change taste very much?
In the recipe coriander is used to season meat before cooking.
'Coriander' can refer to the seed (US) or to the leaves (UK) ... as you said 'spices', I assume it's the seed, but there might be translation assues, and you might be doing a chimichurri-like marinade, where you'd be using the leaf. Could you clarify which one the recipe calls for? (or even give the recipe ... it might help people to recommend a substitution)
I meant seeds. In the recipe it was used to rub the meat before cooking along with the cumin, garlic and all spice.
The coriander seed has a fresh lemony flavor. I really dig it. It isn't very similar to the coriander herb, cilantro, but it has a similar freshness.
The problem is how you are cooking the meat. Coriander is dry and can be toasted; other substitutions such as herbs might burn.
These suggestion won't taste just like coriander but they are filed in similar categories in my mind. They would create the same mood.
If you need dry or toasted spice- such as for a rub you might try lemon-pepper or a little toasted fennel for the sweet freshness.
If this is a marinade and you aren't worried about burning the spices you could try lemon zest with a little cilantro.
Sobachatina offers very good advice. I would add dry roasted, ground caraway seeds combined with cumin and some lemon zest. Your recipe already calls for cumin.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.481128
| 2011-03-26T18:12:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13471",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5397",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"pawelbrodzinski"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
13611
|
Spice rack/cupboard for kitchen with lots of spices?
My wife and I really enjoy cooking, so we have tons of spices. I understand it's best to keep them in the dark, so we thought we might like a spice cupboard.
Probably 50 or so spices; they don't need to stay in their own container necessarily, though that would be easier.
Anyone have good recommendations?
Use modular spice containers that can stack on top of each other without falling. I find that round containers about an inch tall and two inches across are great, and easily available where I live. With this size, it's much easier to use a measuring spoon, other spoon, refill package. The containers I have aren't air-tight (too cheap, I get 50 for about $3), but I have enough turnover so that it doesn't really matter. You can always buy tupperware or other high quality containers that'll give longer shelf life.
Stack them in the cupboard in "families". The spices that get used together should be in the same stack. In my case, coriander seed, ginger, galangal, cloves and turmeric go in the same stack. I also have a stack for things that get used very often, like salt, pepper, cumin, chilli flakes etc.
The spices you use more often will migrate to the top of the stack quite quickly, so it gets more convenient as you go along.
The more physical aspects are quite simple too: Little light, no sunlight; no direct heat (i.e. not above the stove); not in the path of too much moisture (not above the stove or in the escape path of the steam); Keep some dessicant in the same cupboard, to soak up any moisture. I just store my various jars of rice in the same cupboard.
What does the term 'families' refer to in this case?
@z-boss: the families are the sets of spices that you use together often. Which spices are a family really depends on what you cook. For instance, for Italian cooking, I would put oregan basil and thyme in one family, and store them in one stack.
I use two two-tier turn-tables (aka. 'lazy-suzan') one for herbs, one for spices, for the most part, but it's partly sorted by size), and keep them in a closed cabinet.
The only issue is that most of the modern turn-tables I've seen for sale waste a lot of vertical space. (almost two inches / 5cm for two shelves) I have an older one that's two shelves and can fit most common sized containers on both shelves (within my cabinet) as it only uses maybe 1/2 in (1.5cm) total.
...
I've also seen strategies of labeling the tops of jars, and setting them in a drawer (or racks that hold them at an angle so the label is visible), but I don't have enough drawers in my kitchen to make it a good alternative. (I do have a drawer where I keep bags of bulk spices for re-filling jars, but it's not in as convenient of a place for cooking with)
My wife bought small glass containers from amazon. I think they come in packs of 10 or 12 can't recall. I used labels for filing cabinets and printed the text on them for her. I also used colors for families such as red colored labels for spices etc. From home depot I bought "step stands". They are in step formation so you can see what is behind each level of step and read the labels.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.481267
| 2011-03-30T20:12:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13611",
"authors": [
"Carmi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/611",
"z-boss"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11864
|
How long does unrefrigerated shredded cheese last?
I left an unopened package of shredded mozarella cheese out unrefrigerated last night after going grocery shopping, and found it today, 16 hours later. Should I toss it?
Well, it depends on what kind of cheese. Some types of cheese can go without refrigeration almost infinitely, while other types of cheese spoil much quicker. Most cheeses will be fine after just sixteen hours out of the fridge, but just to be sure: please define your cheese! :)
(Also, it depends on the temperature at your house. Some cheeses might get a little sweaty if kept above about 70°F for too long)
I wonder how people had cheese before frdges
Personally, I'd toss it - a solid block, sure, but shredded has a lot more surface area. If it is sealed, it probably ain't gonna kill you, but why mess around?
Personally, I'd smell it. Cheese tends to smell bad first.
@mbg - we'd all have had cellars :)
No, it's fine.
It wasn't opened or anything? Then nothing is wrong with it.
If you already opened it, smell it.
It is fine... Just trust the internet! :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.481638
| 2011-02-06T20:02:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11864",
"authors": [
"Bruce",
"Holven12",
"Martin Beckett",
"Michael Natkin",
"PongGod",
"William Bettridge-Radford",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24420",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24422",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24424",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24472",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24605",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4742",
"ilonavg",
"rafamvc",
"unknownprotocol",
"user2215",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
52270
|
Should good prosciutto be refrigerated?
I recently bought a whole bunch of really good, freshly-cut prosciutto in Italy, and I plan to eat it in about a week or two. However, I'm reluctant to stick it in the fridge until that time. In my experience, when I put deli meats or cheese in the fridge, they start to lose their flavor and texture pretty quickly, even if carefully wrapped in butcher paper. Also, in the past, I've carried around a vacuuum-sealed packet of freshly cut jamon iberico for about two weeks without refrigeration, and it did not suffer at all for it. (My current prosciutto bundle is vacuum-sealed as well.) This makes sense to me because it's a cured meat after all, but maybe it was a fluke and I'm totally off.
Is it OK to play it safe and avoid the refrigerator? Or should I stick it in the fridge ASAP? (It's already been out for a few days.) It's my utmost priority that the prosciutto feel and taste as close to fresh as possible! If I take it out and it's stiff and flavorless, I'm going to cry.
In addition to the prosciutto, I also have some mortadella. My understanding is that it's not "cured" like prosciutto is. Should it be treated differently?
Mortadella does need to be refrigerated.
As for the proscuitto ... if it's real cured ham (and not the fake 'cured' stuff you get in the US) and was trimmed with a clean knife and wasn't otherwise contaminated when being cut, and it's not the middle of the summer where you are, it's likely fine being stored in a cool area of your kitchen.
Mind you, the US FDA would't agree, and you would get cited for health code violations if you were a restaurant. You may also want to be more cautious if you're going to be serving the meat to people with compromised or otherwise weak immune systems (eg, small children or the infirm).
A couple of years back, Food Network had a special where their chefs had to host a banquet with only discarded/unsellable food. A butcher gave Anne Burrell the fattier remaining portion of a proscuitto ... but she didn't keep it below 140°F, so the health inspector wouldn't let her use it. She made a comment that she'd take it home and use it. I think she also commented on the absurdity of having to keep chilled something that sat at room temp for months.
@Jolenealaska : yes, yes I did.
Nah, it's just me pigging out. :)
My usual hiking partners and I have used prosciutto on several camping trips lasting between 5 and 14 days all mid summer. We have never had a problem with cured meats not being refrigerated. They taste great and have never given any of us any stomach issues. Salted pork has been around for a lot longer than refrigeration has. However as with anything read with caution and take advise at your own risk.
Just want to report that I've since opened all my meats and put them in the refrigerator. They are stored as follows: stuck to butcher paper and plastic as packaged by the deli, then placed inside their original plastic sleeves, then all together wrapped loosely in butcher paper, and then finally placed inside a large zip-lock bag and compressed to let as much of the air out as possible. It's been about four days, and I am happy to report that once brought to room temperature, the quality and texture still appear to be as good as fresh.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.481770
| 2015-01-04T17:23:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/52270",
"authors": [
"Archagon",
"Darrin Green",
"Ember pr",
"Joe",
"Julie Parker",
"Mike Moss",
"Sean Davis",
"Teresa Totton",
"Zoe Bond",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124064",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125678",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133758",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/822",
"lorriperryhotmailcom"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
56324
|
Loose-leaf tea: specifics of re-steeping multiple times?
I'm an avid tea drinker who drinks several cups of loose-leaf tea every day. My usual steeping technique is to fill a teapot with about 3 cups of boiling water, wait for it to cool to the correct temperature depending on the tea, and then steep about 3 tsp of tea in a very large infuser for 1-3 minutes. The first cup usually turns out great. However, despite the fact that many tea drinkers talk about how they can re-steep their teas 2-5 times with great results, I have not had any success in this regard. No matter how I adjust the time, amount of water, or temperature, the second steeping inevitably comes out fairly bland in comparison to the first.
Does re-steeping require a different technique to begin with? I've read some casual accounts of tea drinkers starting out with something like 2x the tea leaves and 1/2x the time that you would normally use, and then gradually increasing the brew temperature and time with each steeping. However, I have not been able to find any explanation of the specific differences between "normal" steeping and steeping for multiple infusions, if they even exist.
Which teas are more susceptible to multiple infusions? I've heard that pu-erh is the best, but I've also heard people talk about green tea in this regard.
Am I "wasting" tea by brewing it in one go and then throwing out the leaves after one batch? Instead of 3 tsp for 3 cups, should I instead be using 1-2 tsp for 1 cup (depending on the answer to Q1) and infusing 3-5 times?
It's all a matter of taste. If you're using a good-quality green tea and the second infusion is bland you're either steeping too hot or too long. Green tea should not be bitter and the flavor should definitely not decrease on a second infusion by much, but the character of the flavor can change a lot.
Oops, you're right, my math is off. What I mean is, if I'm brewing 3 cups with 3 tsp of tea, should I instead use 1 tsp * 2 (as per question 1) and infuse 1 cup 3-5 times (possibly decreasing the amount of water each time)?
@jbarker2160 I always follow the vendor's brewing suggestion to the letter. If it says 2 minutes at 170, I wait until the water gets to exactly 170 and then brew for exactly 2 minutes. After the first brewing, it always tastes either watery (if I vary by at most few degrees and seconds, staying close to the original numbers) or bitter (if I go all the way to 190 and 3 minutes for example), with no sweet spot in between. It's as if all the good flavors are "spent" during that first brewing. I'm not sure how I could be doing it "wrong".
@Archagon, good tea never comes with instructions.
That's a weird assessment to make. Practically every great tea shop or website I've visited has had in-house suggestions for brewing times and temperatures. I mean, why wouldn't they? They're the experts!
As you've noted in your description of your experiments, there are many variables (e.g., amount of tea, type of tea, steeping times for each infusion, etc.). Fundamentally, the type (green/oolong/pu-erh/etc., quality, nature) of tea is a huge factor, and personal preference is a factor but not the only factor (what you describe as "bland" or weak might not be to someone else). I think there are some objective generalizations, though.
The tea you start with matters. A specialty tea dealer will often annotate a given offering with brewing recommendations (e.g., commonly temperature, time, quantity of leaves per cup, as you note); some dealers will also suggest that the tea can be enjoyed through 2-3 or multiple infusions. Such a tea is a great place to start for your own experiments. I find that some teas (e.g., darjeeling, broken orange pekoe) simply infuse too quickly and to fully in the first infusion that they are totally spent. Further infusions are weak and bitter.
Some teas that I find work well for multiple infusions:
good quality green-oolongs (multiple infusions; tung ting or formosa)
green-white blends like white peony (2 infusions)
lightly roasted/toasted green teas, like long jing (dragon well) or gunpowder green (aside: this is probably a good place to start as it can be inexpensive and enjoyable)
higher quality pu-erh teas.
Techniques. This varies per the type of tea; but in general, I personally do the following when I intend to infuse loose tea multiple times:
Infuse slightly more tea (perhaps 50% (1.5 times) more; certainly not 2-3 times);
Infuse for a shorter period of time (perhaps 1/2 to 2/3 as long) on the first infusion;
Infuse for progressively longer amounts of time for subsequent infusions.
If anything, slightly lower temperature on subsequent infusions.
That tends to make the resulting brew (to my taste) slightly more uniform in result, though there is significant difference in flavour.
Other things to keep in mind: if you're using tea with caffeine, most will come out in the first infusion; if you're using 2-3x the tea, this is significant! As you also note, the character of the brew can be very different through the several infusions. This can be part of the enjoyment, as each infusion will extract different ratios of "stuff" into the resulting brew. For lower-quality gunpowder green teas, for instance, I actually prefer the second brew over the first.
Instead of multiple infusions, you might also simply
consider brewing a larger pot all at once into a thermal carafe, then enjoying it a cup at a time.
consider brewing just a cup at a time, which will have a better result for certain teas (a pathological example: bags)
I would not recommend some things that you said: most specifically, I don't think you'll get benefit from infusing at a higher temperature for subsequent brews; this is likely to give you bitter or off-tastes; you're "burning" the tea and extracting stuff you don't want.
Thank you for the thorough rundown! It looks like I was mistaken in regards to raising the temperature; that's good, because it means I can just keep the hot water in my vacuum flask instead of having to boil and cool an entirely new batch of water for each infusion. When brewing for multiple infusions, do you generally use less water per "cup"? (My own teacup is approximately equivalent to a standard cup in volume, and I expect that it's probably too much.) Also, how much longer is each successive infusion? A few seconds? 10? 30?
Everyone steeps there tea their own way. If your way of steeping works for you, you don't have to worry to much about it. Experimenting with different ways of steeping is fun though, and if you see it as an adventure of discovering more about tea, then I can highly recommend the more traditional way of steeping multiple infusions.
What teas are most suitable for multiple infusions?
All teas in fact suitable for steeping many infusions. The only tweak you have to make is to use more leaves and less water per infusion. In other words a higher 'leaf-to-water' ratio.
However, this makes the most sense for pu erh and oolong tea. These tea types of more 'layered flavours' and it's truly fun to taste how the tea flavour evolves with every steep. If you would brew these teas in a large teapot, you wouldn't discover this layered flavour profile.
Teaware
Since you need less water per steep and want good isolation, you'll need to get a smaller teapot or gaiwan. Porcelain and clay ones isolate heat the best.
At last, the traditional way of steeping is in fact called the gongfu method. If you're interested you can also read the full details here on my site: https://www.teasenz.com/chinese-tea/gongfu-tea-ceremony.html
Lisa, just a reminder, we'd prefer that you explicitly disclose affiliation when you link to your site. It's totally fine to do if it's part of providing full context for an answer (like here), and I know the URL and your username match so it's kind of obvious, but we just like to make sure things are clear. Thanks for the thorough answer!
@Jefromi sorry for that. Could you explain more clearly how I need to disclose it? Because in my answer I say 'my site'. I fully intend to stick to the rules!
No worries, sorry I was unclear! If you look at your answer's revision history (click where it says "edited yesterday" currently), I actually added the "on my site" when I commented. That's plenty disclosure, I just wanted to remind you to add a little note like that in the future.
Ok, got it! I'll do that in the future.
I do this an awful lot, I drink a lot of tea, and since I started getting better quality loose-leaf instead of teabags - I wanted to get the most out of my tea. My daily mug is a three-cup one, so I'm used to brewing that amount as well. I can usually get three mugs brewed tea, and two more boiled - though some brands will give three to five steeps boiling, for 8-10 steeps for one basket of leaves.
For the first brew, I follow the directions exactly - if you're using an amount measured for your water, there's no reason to change. I have a few times used more, with the intention of steeping less time and more often - not really a good idea, it tuned quite bitter and overly strong even when steeped for a very short amount of time (seconds, for the second steep). I have also used less, which sometimes works alright (especially for very strong teas) - but I do tend serve mine sweet and also to be fairly tolerant of variations in tea, from milk tea to barely colored water, so your preferences may vary. But one teaspoon per cup, and the recommended brewing temps, should be a good amount to start with - as long as you recall you can monkey with either to suit your own preferences.
On each subsequent brew, you will want to steep the leaves somewhat longer. Since I usually am brewing at my elbow, start with the time I took for the first brew - and start checking for color, then for scent, until it's reached a desirable level of flavor. This can take varying amounts of time depending on your tea, so I don't time it (not like, two extra minutes or something - though it you brew consistently you can probably figure out your preferred times), but I always judge by color and taste. It may not taste the same, you understand, as your first cup - but it can be an acceptable cup of tea on its own.
I think cultural customs that rely on multiple brewings tend to steep very lightly and shortly, and use a lot of tea relevant to the water - and the tea certainly changes in flavor over several brewings, as the different compounds dissolve out of the tea, which to them is a positive attribute. For those that like a full flavored cup, or a consistent one, there will be fewer but stronger brewings of tea, and less tea per water at temperatures and times designed to get the most out of the tea so it is more easily controlled (this is where your "expert instructions" come from, calculated to brew the most out once not maximize rebrewing) - different culture, different expectations. I also don't think black teas hold up very well to this kind of overloading and understeeping, they dissolve flavor quickly and tend to become bitter for me - but teas with more delicate flavor to being with, greens or puer-eh or even some herbals, will probably hold up better.
For myself, once I've reached the point, usually on the third or fourth steep, where the tea hasn't reached the point I'm pulling the leaves before it cools to drinking temperature (three cups of boiling water in a thick mug cools slowly, okay), I set the tea leaves aside, and brew once or twice on the stove top - an extended boiling water infusion, five or ten minutes each. It doesn't get bitter, not the way fresh leaves do, since the prolonged steeping has already drawn out much of the flavor compounds, it tastes - like a teabag, kinda weak and generic, usually. Honestly, the last steep is sometimes little more than colored water (depending on the tea). But others have noted bad experiences with boiling infusion tea (depending on expectations), so again your preferences may vary.
As for teas that are good for multiple infusions - green teas are often touted as very good, especially ones like gunpowder where the tea is tightly folded and packed - so it's still unfurling during subsequent steeps. Puer-eh teas are excellent, especially in brick form - the tea takes time to hydrate, but it also brews strongly and so lasts several steepings easily (and it tends to steep sweet, that is, not get bitter easily unless you get the raw stuff). Maybe watch your brewing to taste, the directions are sometimes quicker and cooler than makes a comfortable tea for me (45 seconds of brewing does not make a strong tea to my taste unless vast amounts of tea are used, like a third of a cup). There's some blend of black tea that brews like ten times per serving - I don't actually know what it is because I found it in a set of sample blends, so they're advertising the blend mix, not the individual tea leaf. Herbal teas - yes, steeping like tea will give several good infusions since the flavor extracts slowly - some will even make several boiling infusions (and again, they don't get bitter even if steeped long or hot).
Keep in mind that what you consider a good cup of tea might not match other's expectations. I usually find Japanese and Chinese style teas 'delicate' and not flavorful enough (brewed at precise low temps and quick times), and brew at higher temps and for longer - while obviously their method is a lot easier to get multiple brewings out of, since they're getting less flavor extracted per serving, and I'm burning through two or three of their 'brewings' per brew of my style. On the other hand, south Asian teas (India, Thai, Middle East) tend to make strong bitter infusions by boiling the tea, and mellowing the flavor with sugar and milk and optionally, spices. These will not rebrew at all, since the extended boil is intended to extract everything, everything that could be in your tea leaf and waste nothing.
My five infusions per serving is based on a medium weakish tea, flavorful but not boiled strong - and it definitely progresses in flavor over the series of brewing, becoming... more generic in taste? like I said, the first is a good quality loose leaf, the last is a generic teabag... I end up with five instead of three because I brew a bit lightly and I will still drink the later, weaker brews. Someone who brews more strongly or doesn't like the weaker flavors will get three brews. Someone who does both - might struggle to get two brews from the leaves.
Are you wasting tea by your method... again, it depends on your brew method. If you're brewing to instructions, then no it isn't wasted...it is just spent. If you're doing a boiling infusion style tea (where you want strong, bitter flavors), you can definitely use less tea and higher temps (boil it), or longer times (oversteep it) for very nearly the same effect. Once your tea leaves have reached a point where you aren't getting a good cup out of them, you aren't wasting them by discarding. There might still be a bit of 'flavor' in your leaves, but it might be more trouble than it's worth to you to extract.
If you're really determined to get the last of the tea flavor out of your leaves, and your sequential brews are too weak for your tastes, you can try adding more tea. A teaspoon, or even a half, of fresh tea added to your second brew of leaves might make a cup that is comparable to your first cup - and at four teaspoons for six cups of water, you're still coming out ahead. Or, if you drink the same (or even similar) teas a lot, you might be able to brew your tea leaves in a larger batch on each go - maybe two batches of twice-steeped tea will make a single batch of thrice-steeped tea (6 tsp per 15 cups if you get two brews before combining).
I don't have specifics but from my experience something like a green tea (I like genmaicha although I may have spelled it wrong) I used to just dump about a spoonful into my mug, and fill with hot water (at whatever temp it came out of the instant-hot-water-tap). I'd filter the tea with my lips as I was drinking it and then just refill with hot water a number of times. It could be that the cheap-o tea I had was particularly suited for this, or perhaps just that I didn't notice any bitter flavour but I found it enjoyable.
A black tea that I picked up recently though and have started using for multiple steepings I have found gets bitter quickly and I have to be really careful of the brew-time. A bitter first brew usually means less flavour on the second brew. Also, in terms of temperature... I now boil my water, fill my (empty/cool) mug to allow the coolness of the mug to temper the heat of the water and then sometimes forget about it for 5-20 min before brewing my tea.
To be fair - while I like tea a lot, I don't think I have a particularly refined taste for it although I'm working on it.
Thanks to the original poster and everyone who responded. This is a very interesting thread. I wanted to briefly share my experience.
I primarily use a small (6oz?) pot for oolong (sometimes pu erh) and frequently do four or more steeps. The delicate way the tea changes is delightful. I will start with 2-2.5 minute and maybe up to 3 minutes at the end.
I read on one site the idea of a very brief (30 second) initial steep for aroma only. I had a tea that I thought was a bit too sharp and tried this with success. The aroma of the initial "rinsing" steep was lovely and washed the edge off the tannins.
Finally, my family story. My grandmother in upstate New York always had a tea pot on the stove. This was a full size pot, from the Jewel Tea company, and I suppose the tea was probably Jewel - I know it was a green tea. She would start with a slightly weak brew. If she didn't finish it, it would sit on the stove, and she would reheat it on very low heat.. But when the pot was done she would add more leaves and hot water and repeat. After this pot was done, again more leaves and more hot water. Never adding water unless also leaves. This would go on potentially for several days, until finally the pot was full of only leaves, at which point she would finally throw it out and start the whole process over. We have a large family and there was always someone going to visit my grandmother. When you went to visit, you had no idea where in the cycle of tea brewing she might be. It was always different, but always good.
I use a thermal teapot with a Finum infuser basket. Required amount of tea in the basket, steep to required strength, remove basket. All subsequent cups will be to the same strength
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.482093
| 2015-04-03T15:30:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56324",
"authors": [
"Archagon",
"Cascabel",
"Herbert Anderson",
"Julia Osbeck",
"Kevin Bristow",
"Lisa at Teasenz.com",
"Mr. Mascaro",
"Rinos Rahmathllah",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133894",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133895",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133908",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140737",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/822",
"jennifer Thomas"
],
"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
}
|
18259
|
Why are my sauces splitting?
Recently all my attempts at sauces are splitting and I'm not sure what's going wrong.
Tonight I tried a balsamic vinegar reduction / chicken stock / pan juices recipe to go with my lamb chops, but once again the dreaded split occurred.
My wife is patient and forgiving, but I feel like I must be missing something fundamental to get this wrong so often.
Two questions.
What could I be doing wrong to cause these sauces to split?
What can I do to recover when it happens again?
UPDATE:
The Pan juices contained a tbsp or two of olive oil, and some of the fresh herb rub I'd coated the lamb chops in (thyme, rosemary, and mint). I did not drain the pan before starting the sauce. It has crossed my mind that perhaps there was too much oil / fats in the pan at that point?
For completeness, I should point out that I also sauteed some chopped shallots in the pan juices immediately before adding the vinegar.
What was in the sauce exactly? Did the "pan juices" contain fat? Did you add flour/starch/an emulsifier?
No starches added to the pan juices. I really want more of a sauce than a gravy.
There is no way to avoid adding something as the fats and oils will always separate. So long as you don't put too much you will still have a sauce compared to a gravy.
Gerbil gave the basic reasons as to why this might be happening, but as for the 'how to recover' .... you have a few options:
Wait for it to finish separating, and take the oil off, then serve without oil.
If you still want some fat for mouthfeel, after separating, you can add some butter back into the warm (but not too hot) sauce, and stir 'til melted and combined.
If going for a more gravy-like consistency, after separating, put the oil back into the pan, make a roux and follow the basic procedure for a béchamel, but use the juices in place of the milk.
After separating, take some of the non-oil part, add an emulsifier (eg, mustard), then slowly whisk back in some fat, add some of the juices, then slowly add the rest of the fat 'til it's the consistency you want.
Put it into a blender an mix (although, open the vent hole, then put a towel over the lid, and hold it down with one hand when you turn it on ... blending hot things can be a mess) or use a stick blender.
In the future, I would separate out the juice & fats before reducing. You never know quite how much fat will render out of a piece of meat, and I feel I can reduce the juices faster when there isn't fat in there, but I've never actually timed it. Or, you can go the roux / gravy route if you're in a hurry.
There are four main reasons that a sauce splits; the fat was added too quickly, the sauce got too hot, the sauce was refrigerated and seperated, or the sauce was left standing warm too long. The fat should be added one teaspoon at a time and blended well, or the emulsifying agent gets overwhelmed.
This sounds like advice for sauces of the mayonnaise family, but his example is a gravy.
The sauce got too hot is a distinct possibility.. Because I was doing a balsamic vinegar reduction I was definitely torching things to speed the reduction along. Thank you for your suggestion.
rumtscho the heat part of it is relevant to gravy; I just gave him all the options
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.483378
| 2011-10-08T08:21:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18259",
"authors": [
"Franklin",
"Gerbil",
"Jeff",
"Luqmaan",
"Micah Young",
"Scott Ferguson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39451",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39713",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/847",
"jagc",
"riotburn",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
2751
|
Using charcoal in kettle grill
I learned that in kettle grill the coal should be placed on one side of the grill and meat on the other side.
What is the advantage of this method against grilling on direct fire?
Adding a water pan is recommended. Does it really make a difference?
When should I cover the grill and why?
Piling the charcoal on one side gives you more control over your cooking -- because the grill isn't evenly hot, you can move the food around if its cooking too fast. In some cases, you specifically want the lower heat of indirect cooking, such as when dealing with roasts and other large cuts of meat.
The pan of water is often used when dealing with indirect cooking to reduce flare ups -- as the fat renders off, it lands in the water rather than the hot coals starting a grease fire and suddenly heating the item being grilled. As @deroberts points out, it also keeps the air moist, preventing the meat from drying out during the longer cooking period.
You always cover the grill to retain heat for indirect cooking; you're effectively creating an oven, so the item cooks evenly. Not covering the grill will mean your food won't cook evenly, if at al.
For thicker items (more than 2 inch / 5 cm thick), even if using direct cooking, you may wish to close the lid, rather than just cooking from the radiant heat of the coals. You will need to be careful, however, as it means you'll have to watch for smoke, as the fat renders off and falls into the coals. You should be prepared to open the lid to move the food should this happen, or keep a spray bottle of water to take down the flames.
Well, the answer in each case is really "it depends."
Indirect grilling is a way to reduce the radiant heat from the coals reaching your food, slowing cooking. It's useful for cooking thick, dense foods where the radiant heat might overcook the outside before the inside is cooked through. This isn't desirable for thin foods, where you want to brown the outside of the food while the inside cooks-through.
I'm not sure what the water might be for. I suspect that, because of water's very high specific heat, some folks might believe that it helps evenly heat the air in the grill. Only problem with that is that is your grill has an outlet, either in the form of a vent in the cover or a chimney on larger models. Water vapor is just going to escape. What does stay in the grill is just going to condense on the inner surface of the grill and run down the sides and drop onto your food. Old soot isn't a flavor I want imparted to my ribeye.
Covering the grill keeps hot air near your food, helping to cook the food by convection. Again, this is for helping to cook through foods that might be burned if cooked only by radiant heat.
The water is to increase the moisture level inside the grill. It is unlikely to condense on grill surfaces, as those surfaces are generally hotter than boiling.
Keeping the moisture up can be very important for longer cooking times (e.g., smoking). Also, the water pan catches drippings, keeping your grill cleaner.
Water is also likely to promote rust formation in the grill. Also notable is that charcoal ash is highly acidic and getting it wet will help it react with grill surfaces.
Water for smoking is a good thought, I didn't consider that. It would normally be delivered with water-soaked wood chips though, would it not?
Indirect cooking is used for longer cooks, like spare ribs or pork shoulder (i.e. true barbecue).
The water pan is used as a heat sink. You can get away without it, although you may find your cooking area is prone to larger temperature swings. Some people (myself include) like to use fire bricks for temperature maintenance.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.483680
| 2010-07-22T11:59:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2751",
"authors": [
"Heather Walker",
"John Nelson",
"Mike Yockey",
"Ziv",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4880",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4886",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/990",
"something new"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19991
|
What makes coffee grinds sink in a french press?
We use a press pot to make coffee at home, and usually after a 3 minute steep, the grounds are floating at the top, but with this one bag of beans we got, they're all sunk to the bottom.
The coffee basically tastes normal. Maybe a little thin, but that could easily be the roast.
Why would most coffee grounds float, but these sink? Is there something wrong with these beans?
We use a burr grinder and hadn't changed the grind setting. Same water, etc. Only change is the beans. "Medium-Dark" roasted Ethiopian Yirgacheffe from a local roaster, roasted about 2 weeks before brewing...
That is unusual ... usually grounds sinking is because they're really, really old. But you'd taste that ... they'd be nasty and bitter.
@FuzzyChef: Bag says they were roasted 12.09.11, so was about 2 weeks from roasting to first pot of coffee, which I don't think counts as "really, really old".
Coffee beans contain gases, which causes coffee to float.
Fresh coffee contains more gases compared to an older (aged) coffee.
coffee tastes best between 4 - 14 days off roast, varies depending on roast profiles
Specialty coffee shops usually have a roast date on their retail bags
On a coarse grind setting each particle hold more gases compared to a fine grind setting which hold less gases.
Hot water causes a faster release of gases compared to cold water which causes a slower release of gasses
Darker roasts hold less gases compared to a lighter roast.
A lot of agitation increases the rate in which gasses release compared to no agitation.
All these can be easily tested, and affect how long the coffee stays afloat.
Gasses in the coffee particles must first be displaced in order for the water to enter each particle and extract a delicious cup.
All in all, it doesn't matter why, as long as the coffee tastes good.
Late reply but thought I'd clarify.
The gasses of which you speak directly impact the BUOYANCY and do NOTHING to affect the flavor of the coffee... This adds nothing new to the conversation after 5 years.
@CosCallis The question was about buoyancy, not flavor - sinking is a lack of buoyancy, and this answer explains what would provide buoyancy. The answer even says "doesn't matter why, as long as it tastes good" so it doesn't seem to be trying to be about flavor. As for "adds nothing new"... was everything in this answer really in the existing answers? I'm certainly not seeing it all.
@CosCallis None of the other answers even attempt to answer the question.
The question should really read "What makes coffee sink?" It does not matter if it is in the form of grinds or beans (though it is easier with grinds) nor does the receptacle. The issue is buoyancy.
buoy·an·cy (boin-s, byn-)
n.
1.
a. The tendency or capacity to remain afloat in a liquid or rise in air or gas.
b. The upward force that a fluid exerts on an object less dense than itself.
As the coffee is soaked in the hot water chemicals are extracted from the grind, mostly oils, that have an impact the buoyancy of the coffee. Once, the desirable chemicals are extracted to the surrounding water (again, moistly an oil) the buoyancy of the coffee is altered and the residue sinks to the bottom.
During my time in the U.S. Army field coffee was made quickly by getting a 15 gallon stock pot boiling and just pouring a five pound can of coffee in. Allow to boil for 5 minutes, reduce the heat and hit the side the stock pot with a ladle. Immediately all (ok, most...) of the coffee would sink to the bottom and fresh (if not altogether worthy of Starbucks) coffee could be ladled out. Why whack the pot? This would disrupt boiling of the water and allow the coffee to sink quickly.
Why are your grinds sinking? Well, the best guess is that they came deficient in the compounds that make the coffee normally buoyant. If the brand/roast is not up to your satisfaction you should be able to return it for fresh. If this a brand to which you are accustomed, but this batch isn't 'normal' then it is probably an anomaly, as you said the coffee tastes normal, so I wouldn't not worry to much about it.
You made 5 POUNDS of coffee???? for how many people?
It wasn't me doing the making, but rather the cooks assigned to my company in the field. That would make coffee for more than 100 soldiers (15 gallon pot, less some water for working room at the top and the sludge at the bottom, call it 10 gallons) x 16 cups per gallon. About a 1 1/2 cups per cold tired G.I.. If you had a hot cocoa pack from your MRE we might mix that in. This is NOT would I would call GOOD coffee, but strong, hot, fast coffee.
@Midhat - Having tasted US Army coffee, it would be more accurate to say they ruined 5 pounds of coffee :)
@Chad, wasted, no. Army Coffee is not "to be enjoyed on the veranda with breakfast", it is "to warm and energize troops fast and effectively."
@CosCallis - I understand but they could do that with generic beans... But those are actually high quality beans. Not that our troops dont deserve them just that the beans dont deserve to be treated that way :p
+1 for sciencem but: "if not altogether worthy of Starbucks" Uh...wow.
This doesn't answer the question at all, it only rephrases the question in different terms and adds an irrelevant story.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.484107
| 2011-12-27T00:18:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19991",
"authors": [
"AncientSwordRage",
"Cascabel",
"Chad",
"Cos Callis",
"FuzzyChef",
"Jon Tanner",
"Midhat",
"XavierYCXu",
"Yak Attack",
"freiheit",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1890",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43645",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43647",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43653",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8433",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9223",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/965",
"lal singh",
"thanby",
"xralf"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
65241
|
Weird problem with curry sauce
For a family get-together, I bought 20 large containers of curry sauce from my favourite Indian restaurant - 15 Dansak and 5 Korma. I collected the sauces on Thursday evening. The containers were all hot to the touch. Then I un-wrapped and diced the appropriate amount of chicken thigh fillets. These were bought the day before, well in date and stored in the fridge. I browned off the chicken in batches with a little ghee and garlic. Then I put all the chicken in a big pan and boiled in water for around 25 minutes. Then I tipped all the sauces into two separate pans - one Dansak and one korma. The sauces were still quite warm. I then added the cooked chicken to the sauces, put the lids on and stored them in a very cold greenhouse overnight.
The following evening I took them to the party venue and warmed them up, simmering for a while, to be ready for the guests. Around 3 hours later almost all the Korma had gone, along with some of the Dansak. At this point I decided to try some of the Dansak. Putting it in a bowl with some rice I noticed a very slight sour smell. I took a couple of mouthfuls and then I had a good sniff of what was left in the pan. Again it smelled a tiny bit funny so... To be on the safe side I removed the pan from the buffet and put it in the kitchen. Half an hour later I asked my friend to come to the kitchen to have a smell and tell me what he thought. Now it smelled pretty bad. It wasn't on any heat but was sort of fermenting by itself, with little light coloured bubbles. It smelled pretty bad (sour) so I put the pan outside. I was now quite worried that I might have poisoned some people. I went back and had a smell of what was left in the pot of Korma. This smelled just fine.
A couple of hours later I went outside to dispose of the contents of the Dansak pot. Now smell was absolutely disgusting. Holding our noses, my friend and I tipped it into a double plastic bag and we could see that it was actually separating and was really horrible.
This was a couple of days ago. To my relief no-one has become sick. I can still 'taste' the horrible smell.
I have done this exact same thing several times before, with no problems at all. I just wonder if anyone might know what could have caused this to happen this time. It's really bugging me.
How very cold was that greenhouse? Normally, +4°C seems to be the accepted temperature for keeping cold things cold in US literature, while for some reason Europeans tend to advise +7°C for a fridge ... and greenhouses tend to be designed to keep heat in :)
Thanks, Greenhouse is cold. We store wine & beer in the winter and it gets chilled just as much as the fridge - probably more chilled.
I think the times you did it with no troubles you used smaller portions, right? These big portions simply do not cool down quickly enough, and the temperature stays too long in the danger zone, say between thirty and sixty celsius. Bacteria grow very quickly around these temps, and so they spoiled your curries. Their waste is lactic acid or alcohol and carbondioxide, and that were the bubbles and the smell. You solve it by cooling down rapidly, so in smaller portions. The other option is that it stayed too long in the danger zone on the buffet, it was the last to go. Probably both... buffets are dangerous in the best of circumstances...in that case you also have to serve smaller portions on the buffet next time.
That's my suspicion, too. As such, see http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/16540/67 for how to cool large pots of liquids down quickly.
the suggestion to cool large portions down with frozen bottles of water is a really good one!
Thanks, I think this must be correct. This is certainly the biggest batch I ever put together. Before that it was maybe 20% of the total amount - and it was eaten the same evening.
@MarcLuxen I'd argue that your lower end for the danger zone is too high, I've always learned it as 40-140 F, which would be 4.5-60 C
That is a matter of choices. The colder the better. I think that bacteria grow exponentially at temperatures around body temperature, and that is where you need to be extra careful. That is also the temp we like to eat things..
When leaving curry to cool, you must allow it to cool to room temperature naturally first. Before storing in a cold greenhouse or fridge. Another thing to note is that if you reheat the sauce, you shouldnt put an airtight lid on it right away, you must allow for some of the steam to escape. Otherwise you will have condensation on the inside. It is the condensation water that falls back into the sauce which spoils it. I have worked in an indian catering firm based in the UK, we have cooked curry for up to 400 people in 1 pot. The quantity has nothing to do with it. Its about proper storage and cooling time.
Welcome to the site. You are offering advice that is contrary to the advice given by the UK food standards authority, which recommends chilling rapidly. Condensation does not generally spoil food, though it may require some mixing to re-incorporate.
Agreed, this is really bad advice.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.484588
| 2016-01-10T11:50:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65241",
"authors": [
"D'Arcy Dixon",
"Ernest Friedman-Hill",
"James McAndrew",
"Joe",
"John Richard",
"Marc Luxen",
"Marian Herb",
"Robert Macintosh",
"Terry Evans",
"alyssa curtis",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10037",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155954",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155955",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155956",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155957",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76800",
"panatale1",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
84773
|
How do I safely caramelize honey without fully burning it?
Background:
I am going to make a bochetomel, which is a type of mead that utilizes partly caramelized honey to impart a smokey/slightly burnt taste to the finished product.
The honey I have bought for this was expensive local produce, and I would like to avoid ruining it!
Question(s):
What is the best way to go about caramelizing honey? If I were to make an uninformed attempt, I'd just whack it in a saucepan and gradually heat it...
Is there a better method? Is it worth adding a little water to help stop it burning?
Finally, how will I know when the honey is caramelized? I have heard rumors of a 'soft ball stage' of caramelization that is ideal for brewing... does anyone have any experience with this that can confirm this exists?
I fully agree with Jefromi's answer but that said I can't help but critique the statement in the question it self that the "soft ball stage" is best for brewing. Yeast will be happy as long as there is sugar, anything but incinerating the sugar into carbon will leave the yeast in a happy state... I'm probably being overly picky but just to be clear the particular candy-stage probably has to do with taste preference rather than than the actually ability to brew, and while the initial author of the recipe probably thought the soft ball stage was ideal, individual preference will certainly vary
One thing I shall add from personal experience making italian meringue with honey: use a big pot. Honey will foam a LOT once it starts boiling, and while using lower heat/constant supervision are both important, I would still recommend using a pot with nice tall sides...
Just a hint - consider first learning how to do it on similar, but cheaper honey. Caramelized honey is pretty nice addition to winter tea or Christmas cakes :)
@Quaternion Apologies for not being too clear in my question! I was asking whether anyone could clarify whether the stage existed, rather than whether it was the 'best' stage to use to brew with, and as per the two current answers it does :)
@Korthalion I thought as much but just wanted to make sure you didn't take the recipe as gospel. I've made mead quite a few times but have never tried to caramelise the sugar but being a bit obsessive about wanting to know the effects of things (like finding the statistically ideal sugar to acid ratio in cider; which as studies show the average ratio for what is ideal differs between Europe and North America as well as by sex) anyways I would take very small batches and using a candy thermometer record the values pushing the limit... the trouble is that
in brewing, it is hard to determine the taste of the final product from the initial. Caramel, Smoke, and Charcol are pretty invariant flavours but still even if you near char the honey you might end up with a great hit. Also you can caramelise the honey to different levels in the same batch. And a blow torch can be a quick short cut to smoke and char, as in creme brulee (although I would reducing to sugar first, like maple sugar). Also because mead has a much larger ageing window than beer (similar to wine) going with a range of 4L vs a typical 22L will let you hone results faster...
@Quaternion Thanks for the advice :) I'm going to set two 1 gallon batches off using the same honey, but only one will be caramelized. That will hopefully allow me to judge the effect the caramelization has had on the finished product.
A candy thermometer is pretty much always the answer when it comes to candymaking, which includes caramelizing sugar.
Assuming the soft ball stage is indeed the best for brewing, all you have to do is keep track of the temperature: the soft ball stage is at 112-116C/234-241F.
While you can certainly buy specialized candy thermometers (they often have clips to attach to the pot), all you really need is a thermometer that's accurate in that range and can be easily dipped into your pot. (That is, don't use some old glass thermometer not meant for candy, but a kitchen thermometer with a metal probe is fine, whether or not it was sold as a candy thermometer.) Make sure that you have it in the liquid, not touching the bottom of the pot.
Note that this is well short of burning; there are several other stages hotter than that. So just don't use excessive heat, and keep an eye on it, and you won't have any disasters. This is also likely why people are a bit suspicious that this is the right stage to aim for: table sugar doesn't start browning until you're past all the candymaking stages, up to ~170C/338F. However, table sugar is pure sucrose, while honey has a lot of imperfections and is monosaccharide fructose and glucose, so it likely caramelizes much faster, so this may well be a good stage/temperature range.
There's also a way to test without a thermometer, but it's more difficult to get right on the first try. The stage is named the soft ball stage because if you take a bit of the syrup at that stage and drop it into cool water to quickly cool it, you'll end up with a soft, smooth ball/lump.
Adding water doesn't really help here. The temperatures are well above boiling, so the water is really just there to help get things going initially; the water helps ensure that there's something in contact with the whole bottom of the pot (no hot spots to form), and lets things flow around a bit, so you get to melted sugar with less fuss. Since you're starting with honey, you're already fine. Even if it starts out thick, it'll rapidly get thinner as it heats. All that will happen if you add water is that it'll take longer for all the water to cook off so that the temperature can rise to where you want.
Finally, this isn't what you asked, but if your goal is flavor, you can also simply heat slowly until it starts to brown/darken a bit and smell good, and then immediately remove the pot from the heat. The "slowly" is really important, because once the water is gone, the temperature will rise rapidly. You can still use a thermometer to help out with this plan, by watching for the temperature to pass 100C and start to increase more quickly; at that point you want to make sure the heat is very low and you're ready to move the pot.
Thanks for this answer Jefromi! Very informative and answered all facets of my query.
My thermometer I ordered online arrived yesterday so I'm clear to give this an attempt soon! I have made bonfire toffee before, so now you've mentioned it I think I understand what the soft-ball stage is :)
Bear in mind the answer above is for caramelised sugar however, not honey. If you are looking for a smokey flavour i would smoke an open jar of honey, but both answers are for sugar, not honey, so beware, as your honey may wel lend up ruined in both use cases.
@GMasucci Honey is sugar and water. This will work. Yes, you will lose some of the delicate, aromatic flavors, but the OP's stated goal is to get the honey to the soft ball stage, and this is how you do that.
Honey is most definitely not sugar and water, different physical and chemical properties altogether, different burn points sugar melts at 186 degrees C, honey is between 40 and 50 degrees C if crystallised or melted at room temperature otherwise. And about a million other reasons why they cant be treated the same, foremost of which is the loss of flavour which is the main criteria in the OPs question.As presented in your answer this is how you burn honey.
@GMasucci The melting temperature you try to make is not meaningful: you're comparing the melting point of pure, solid sugar with a "melting" point of honey, a saturated or super-saturated solution of sugar in water, which is already a liquid. If you want a vaguely fair comparison, dissolve the table sugar in water first. I invite you to write a different answer if you like.
It bears stressing to check that the thermometer is compatible (if not a specialized candy thermometer). While less common now, mercury thermometers designed for taking body or ambient temperature will ususally not have a scale that runs into candy temperatures and will explode if you get them that hot. Naturally you want to avoid this, especially with mercury thermometers. Candy thermometers also usually have a double-wall design that encloses the inner thermometer in case it does explode (to make it safer). It's really best to use the right tool, tbh.
@J... I did say it needs to be able to measure in that range. I'm not sure if I've seen kitchen thermometers that cover that range that wouldn't be safe. They're generally metal probes.
@Jefromi You did, it's just that given the explosion hazard of using a glass, non-kitchen thermometer for candy work I felt it was worth at least noting that hazard. Sometimes people read "any old thermometer will do" and get themselves into trouble. This is just one of those times where it's worthwhile to take a bit of extra care.
In the event that you aren't keen on buying/using a candy thermometer, I thought I'd add some additional information.
The 'soft ball' stage in candy-making is the stage where the sugar has thoroughly melted - meaning it's no longer granulated. The non-thermometer testing method is to drop a small amount of the mixture into cool water, and see if it forms a soft ball.
When making a generic caramel, you're mixing butter and sugar, and heating until the sugar melts. If you add this mixture to water prematurely, it separates into sugar crystals and oil. If the sugar is melted, the mixture hardens without separating - the liquid sugar reforms to a uniform, connected, solid.
But this doesn't seem like what you actually want...
You want to impart a small amount of 'smokiness' to the flavor. Merely getting to the soft ball stage will, yes, melt your sugar crystals and change the consistency of your honey, but you'll need to go further to actually change the flavor.
As Jefromi said, the key to not ruining your honey will be to add heat slowly and evenly. Use a low-heat setting and continuously sample the mixture. Once actual caramelized sugars start to form (a portion of the sugar burns), you should notice it in the smell and taste. You have to keep the ratio of burned : unburned sugars reasonable. And your brew might benefit from a more pungent caramel than you'd want to eat plain, but that's a decision you'll have to make for yourself.
Good luck, and happy brewing.
Thanks for this answer, good advice concerning sampling and smokiness levels :)
It's not necessarily true that there'd be no flavor change at the soft ball stage. Remember, honey isn't just sugars, and the soft ball temperature is plenty high enough for Maillard browning to occur. It's possible that this style calls for those flavors, rather than those of "pure" caramelization.
@Sneftel My experience with caramel is limited to fudge making, and this is the first I've heard of the Maillard reaction. A cursory search showed that the Maillard reaction occurs between 140 to 165°C, while the soft-ball stage seems to occur at 118°C... I'd like to improve my knowledge on the subject, so please let me know if there's something I'm missing.
"When making a generic caramel, you're mixing butter and sugar" - really? Most recipes I've read called for sugar and sometimes small additions of citric acid etc, but never fat. Caramel sauce, or sometimes caramel candy on the other hand, calls for fat
@Mołot As I replied to Sneftel above, my caramel experience is only as it relates to candy (specifically fudge) - so I do think of 'generic caramel' as the product I get when I heat butter and sugar. You're welcome to suggest an edit to the answer if you feel you can better clarify.
In case you are still looking for caramelised honey guides, and not caramelised sugar guides, I have found the following:
lemony caramelised honey
plain caramelised honey
another plain caramelised honey recipe
And to add the smoky flavour, first make smoky honey:
recipe here
Personally for smoking I would do it in the oven with wood-chips/herbs of the appropriate flavour. The simplest instructions for home smoking without a custom smoker I have found are here though there are many YouTube videos showing how to add smoked flavour using a normal oven and a baking tray.
I have added this link as an example on how to do the smoking, all you would do is swap the meat with honey in an ovenproof container.
Solid sugar melts at 186 degrees C, sugar and water at about 132 degrees C, honey is between 40 and 50 degrees C if crystallised, or if non crystallised then it is melted at room temperature.
So be very careful as to how hot you go or your expensive honey will end up being expensive char.
For the smoking I would sduggest a slight modification to the norm for honey: use an ovenproof container the rest as per the meat, only put the oven on to about 50 degrees C though, and set fire to the wood-chips yourself, letting them smoulder (a chefs torch works for this) I have used similar techniques when making uncooked ham (for cooked, just use the way that is shown in the video). I am not sure what temperatures you heat the honey to before use in mead-making however, if they are higher you could use them instead of the 50 degrees C limit above.
The main point to note though is that its a two stage procedure to get smoky and caramelised.
You mention you are making a bochetomel, so have included the simplest guide I could find on that too, as it has another way to caramelise the honey.
( I am thinking of using that in conjunction with this to make an eldeberry bochetomel for my wife).
Those guides are good advice. Note, though, that they are almost certainly going past the soft ball stage, to temperatures hotter than mentioned in my answer. Honey does have more imperfections, which speeds up caramelization, but "golden brown", "darker", and "nutty aroma" are all signs you're well past the soft ball stage and the rest of the candymaking stages, on into caramelization. So, if you're concerned about losing delicate aromatics, those are actually worse than aiming for soft ball stage.
Agreed will edit to suit:)
I should also say that the mention of melting point still doesn't seem to be relevant. Caramelization is a set of chemical reactions, it's not a phase transition, and the same is true of burning. The melting point doesn't tell you the temperature it'll caramelize or burn at.
You also don't have to get sugar+water to 132C to get it to "melt". When you make candy, you start out with sugar+water (and possibly other things), and heat til it's all dissolved (just liquid), and then heat to the desired temperature. The lowest candymaking stage, thread, is at 110C. And that stage makes syrup, i.e. something that's liquid at room temperature, so the melting point is actually pretty similar to honey. Fortunately your answer doesn't appear to depend on this - I think you could just remove that paragraph.
My original comment was based on reading, this is based on doing.
I tried the slow cooker (crock pot) method and am happy with the results. I added 3 pounds of honey, making sure that it took up less than a 1/3 of the crock pot, and kept the crock pot on low. I did stir and scrape the sides, but I'm not convinced that was really necessary.
I used the take a little bit out, drop it on a paper plate method of determining how far through the process I was (and of course, once the sample cooled, tasting it). The color didn't really change until about 4 hours. At 4.5 hours, the flavor was sufficiently like caramel that I decide to stop versus continuing to the "toasted marshmallow" stage.
On the low setting, the heat was low enough that I never got more than an 1/8th of an inch of foam on the top. I had placed the entire crock pot into a plastic box just in case. Thankfully, that wasn't needed (this time).
After unplugging it, I waited for the temperature to drop below the boiling point of water (candy themometer is handy here), and then stirred in a half gallon of water. I then ladled the caramelized honey water into the 2 one-gallon fermenters.
I was pleasantly surprised at the ease of clean-up. I was expecting a nightmare, but it was exceptionally painless. After moving the honey to the fermenters, I just had to rinse the crock pot ceramic and use a damp sponge. Easiest crock pot cleanup I've ever had.
I ended up using about 3 pounds of caramelized honey, just under 4 pounds of raw honey, split between two one-gallon fermenters. The specific gravity ended up being 1136 and 1132. The two fermenters are bubbling away as I type.
It's too early in the brew cycle for regrets, but I have since read that the caramel flavor will probably be removed during the fermentation process. I started wondering if I should have caramelized all of the honey, but read where someone had, and they wished they had gone 50/50.
I wonder if next time I should plan on having the bochet go dry and then back sweeten with caramelized honey (cheating?).
I'm late to the party, but have been searching for similar content (obviously). One of the suggestions that I read was to use a slow cooker (crock pot) on low setting. It will start to caramelize after about 4 hours and you can continue, depending on how much caramelization you want, probably stopping before 6 hours.
Things to keep in mind include:
because of foaming, have the initial honey take up less than 1/3 of the total volume
stir, less frequently at first, more as you get to the 3+ hour mark
while stirring, be sure to scrape any honey off the sides
Personally, while making a bochetomel, I would go with half caramelized and half raw honey. I would use inexpensive honey for the caremalization since the heating will destroy the subtleties, but then use the more expensive local honey for raw.
Curious as to what you did and how it turned out.
I used a pressure cooker and three large jars. It was a ton easier than standing over a pot stirring for hours. I think I got the info on it from the homebrew forums, check there or google it, there are a few how tos out there, but it's pretty straight forward if you've used a pressure cooker for canning before...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.485091
| 2017-10-02T16:04:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84773",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Coty Johnathan Saxman",
"GMasucci",
"J...",
"Korthalion",
"Mołot",
"Quaternion",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61811",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61961",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61962",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61974",
"kitukwfyer"
],
"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
}
|
16582
|
Proper way to prepare shrimp?
Yesterday I tried to prepare shrimp for the first time. Basically the idea was to prepare shrimp and pasta. I bought frozen shrimp and followed the recipe. It was something like this:
Heat olive oil and fry garlic.
Add frozen shrimps and fry them until they become soft.
Add cooking cream + Parmesan or Parmesan cream.
...
The problem was that I fried the shrimp for 30 minutes and they never got soft enough. They were pretty hard. Obviously something went wrong.
What is the best way to prepare shrimps?
You should use fresh, unfrozen shrimp if you have access to them. They are MUCH better than the cheaper frozen options and you'll notice the difference immediately. @ESultanik's advice on cooking is very solid.
@jkraybill is correct, however, if you don't live in a place that has access to fresh (preferably live) seafood then it may be better to actually buy frozen shrimp. That's because almost all frozen shrimp is frozen immediately after it is caught, sometimes actually on the boat (or at the farm, if they are farmed). Some markets that sell "fresh" shrimp are actually just selling frozen shrimp that they thawed. Sometimes those shrimp can even have been re-frozen a number of times, and there's no way to know. If you are buying bagged frozen shrimp, chances are it was only frozen once.
@ESultanik - absolutely. Good seafooders / butchers should be able to answer you honestly, but they don't always know for sure.
Shrimp are extremely lean and have very little connective tissue, which means that the longer they cook the harder they get. Fresh shrimp, for example, only need to be fried for about one minute per side (depending on their size). This makes cooking frozen shrimp very difficult: By the time the outside has thawed and is perfectly cooked, the inside will still likely be frozen. If you cook them long enough for the inside to thaw and cook (e.g., 30 minutes), the outside will likely be extremely hard.
I would recommend thawing the shrimp before cooking, for example, by leaving them in the refrigerator overnight. Another quick way to thaw them is to place them in a bowl and run a stream of cold water over them in your sink. Next, thoroughly dry the shrimp, which will help prevent splatter and promote the Maillard reaction. Only cook the shrimp until they turn slightly pink and begin to curl on one side, then flip. Depending on the size, this should be no more than, say, two minutes per side. Then proceed with the remainder of the recipe. Also take into account if the recipe calls for simmering the shrimp in the cream sauce; if so, then this will continue to cook the shrimp and you will not need to fry them as long.
Thanks a lot for this answer. I will give it a shot again in a day or two and will let you know how it turned out.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.486896
| 2011-08-02T12:10:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16582",
"authors": [
"ESultanik",
"Huske",
"Luke",
"Rebecca",
"SeanOCVN",
"Tammy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35363",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35387",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6915",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6938",
"jkraybill",
"queenslug"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22892
|
What should I do if power goes out while I am baking cake/cookies?
If I am baking cake or cookies in the oven and I lose power, what should I do?
Does it make to sense to leave the cake/cookies in the oven until the power comes back on, or should I take them out?
When/why would I need to leave them in the oven vs. take them out?
For cookies, if you are stuck in the middle (too far along to just pull and start over and not far enough along to coast to a finish) take them out, let them cool, break them all up and make a batch of Ice Cream with the bits. It doesn't get you to cookies, but it does get you to tasty ;)
Install a gas oven.
Cookie dough is just as nice as baked cookies--just eat it! :)
@Chloe - you'd have to install an old gas oven, or find the rare bird that is new but old-style - specifically, one with an oven pilot light. Most modern gas ovens have an electric igniter and simply do not work without power (you can't even light them with a match.)
Removing things from the oven halfway through is not very friendly to baked goods. In general, they'll collapse as they cool off since the structure isn't cooked and set, and the leavening (baking soda/powder in these cases) will be spent, so there's no way to get what you originally wanted. It might be something like what'd happen if you forgot the leavening in the first place.
In general: if there's only 5-15 minutes left, just leave it in, and the heat retained by the oven will take care of things. If it's barely started - just beginning to get warm, not bubbling/rising much - probably best to take it out and wait to bake later, especially if it's something that can survive waiting at room temperature. Anything else, leave it in and hope the power comes back; it's going to be ruined if you take it out and ruined if the power doesn't come back on so you might as well go for it.
So for example, cookies could probably survive this by leaving them in. They don't have very long baking times - somewhere in the 5-15 minute range. Your oven won't cool off all that much in that time without power. So if you leave them in for a little bit longer than the original baking time, they'll probably be fine. If your oven has a window, look in with a flashlight to check on them - you don't want to open it to check them.
A cake is iffier. If it's 15 minutes into a 45 minute baking time, you may just be out of luck. I think I'd still leave it in, hoping that the power comes back within 5-10 minutes, in which case it'd probably make it. As I mentioned earlier, if you lose power early and for long enough, the cake will have spent its leavening and collapsed. You could finish baking it, but it'll still be collapsed - it probably won't have a terribly palatable texture (definitely dense, maybe chewy).
The only time this has actually happened to me was with some cornbread muffins, around 2/3 of the way through their baking time, and the oven didn't have a window. I wildly guessed how much extra time to add, pulled them out then, and they were great. So there is hope!
Leaving cookies in will work okay. I had a friend who was baking cookies with a ladyfriend, and got distracted by other activities. However they had the foresight to turn the oven off. Both of them swear the cookies tasted better than normal, and having tried one I'm inclined to agree.
"A cake is iffier. If it's 15 minutes into a 45 minute baking time, you may just be out of luck." Thanks for the answer. What will happen to cake if the electricity comes after an hour?
@AnishaKaul: If you lose power early on when baking a cake, and it stays out for at least say 15-30 minutes, it's going to collapse since it's not fully cooked and doesn't have the strength and structure to hold up. You won't be able to salvage it later; you can cook it the rest of the way, but it'll still be collapsed - the leavening is spent.
No I meant, what would happen to it if I leave the cake "inside" the oven and electricity doesn't come in one hour.
That's what I'm saying: the oven won't stay hot without power, and the cake will collapse.
Ah great! :( :( And will it make any sense it I reheat the oven after an hour and put the same cake back again? I don't care about the "texture" actually. Will the cake be "edible" if I recook it after an hour? And if you don't write @Anisha, I won't get a notification.
@AnishaKaul Like I said, you can cook it the rest of the way, but it will still be collapsed, since the leavening is spent. I know you say you don't care about the texture, but that's a little hard to believe - a deflated cake can be pretty unpalatable.
Jefromi, thanks for following up but I feel there is a communication gap going on. Not a native English speaker am I. By "texture" I thought you meant the "surface cracks and looks". By "collapse" I thought you meant that the cake won't look fluffy. It'll look flattened. Did you mean something else?
@AnishaKaul: Texture means the internal structure. Cakes normally have at least some air in them; there's the whole range from dense things like pound cakes to very light things like angel food cake. When I say collapse, I do mean it won't be light and fluffy, and it will be flattened - and that means the texture inside won't be what you wanted. How bad it'd be of course depends on how much too soon it stopped baking, but it could end up being pretty dense and chewy.
"but it could end up being pretty dense and chewy. " Now I understand why you were surprised when I said I don't care about the texture. :) Thanks for helping. Also it'll help if you would add the our "last two" talks in your answer.
My main considerations would be:
How long does the power regularly go out for? I live in an area where power outages are typically quite short, but once in a while they're hours or days long; as the power typically comes back on within 5-10 minutes, I'd leave everything in the oven.
How much time is remaining? If it's just a few minutes, leave it in, and check on it a few minutes after you think it would be take, as when you open the door, you're going to let the remaining heat out.
Do you have some alternate way to cook it if you take it out now? For example, if it's cake and you have a grill or firepit and the right tools, you might try one of the camping suggestions. But I'd leave it in the oven to continue baking while you prepared the alternate cooking source, so it's not coooling off (as much) before you transfer it.
I had to say something about power outages in my area ... today's was ~3 minutes. (and they haven't been as frequent since Pepco did a major tree-trimming campaign last year)
Any chance the item being baked could be transferred to a utensil used for steaming? There are some recipes which allow cakes and bread to be made by steaming it in a pressure cooker. I once made bread like that, using a pressure cooker. Turned out to be the softest and tastiest bread I've ever eaten.
I just had put a dish in the oven when the power went out. Now the dish is warm, but I don't think the cooking had started. So it's better to take it out immediately and put it in the fridge to stop cooking, then when the power's back on, bake it again.
but the gluten formation will being, and the resultant cake will be hard?
And the fridge will also have lost power, thus getting warmer....
Yes, probably not a good idea to open the fridge when power is out. Leaving the door closed will let it hold the temperature better and maybe throughout the outage.
Follow your nose to determine how long to finish baking an item where the power failed. Baking is often finished by the familiar aroma caused by the "Dry Heat" that happens as the moisture evaporates leaving behind carbohydrates that begin to caramelize, or experience polymer thermal break down. Some times the fillings and crust do not always finish at the same time though; which leaves a delicious mess to enjoy at home rather than at a social event.
Actually, from personal experience, by the time you can smell a baked good (particularly cookies), it's overbaked.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.487201
| 2012-04-09T13:15:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22892",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"BobMcGee",
"Brad McDonald",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Chloe",
"Corey",
"Cos Callis",
"Ecnerwal",
"Giancarlo",
"Jeremiah Pallindrone",
"Joe",
"KRISTA LEWIS",
"Marcelle Brits",
"Nav",
"No'am Newman",
"Sheryl",
"Xieg",
"bizbaz",
"bunyaCloven",
"citizen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51683",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51692",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51693",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51711",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51716",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58233",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62087",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8315",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9679",
"jontyc",
"user62087"
],
"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
}
|
2532
|
Does active dry yeast really expire?
I was cleaning out my spice cabinet and deep in the back I found two packages (e.g., six envelopes) of active dry Red Star yeast that expired in March 2009, 15 months ago as of writing this question.
With the thought that dry yeast is basically freeze-dried and should have a decent shelf life, I proofed one envelope in warm water with some sugar to see if it really "expires". It foamed right up, so it seems like the answer is, at least for one year after the marked date, no.
Although in this case, does "expired" really mean "less effective" or "will taste funny"?
If you bake a lot (yeast baking), look around for Fleischman's Instant Yeast in 1 pound foil bags. Yes, 1 pound. Lasts forever and it's a lot easier to use than "active dry" yeast - it goes in like a dry ingredient, and there's no proofing. A pound makes a lot of bread and it should cost less than $5.
@Pointy: Fleischman's Instant Yeast is active dry yeast. Red Star works fine too, and is available in 1lb foil bags at Costco.
No, it is not active dry yeast. It's instant yeast. There is definitely a difference. The Red Star yeast is also instant yeast. The names are confusing; check McGee or something.
Here's a link: http://www.thefreshloaf.com/node/2815/active-yeast-vs-instant-yeast
And according to McGee, the difference is that "instant" yeast is dried a lot more quickly than "active dry" yeast, and the little particles are of a shape that absorbs water much more readily. Thus, it needs no proofing and can be added as a dry ingredient (which I've been doing for years with consistently good results).
I've used yeast that was even older than yours and although the taste of the resulting bread was fine, and it foamed up properly when tested, I found I had to use about 50% more of it to get the same density of the bread. In the end, I threw it out because it was too much trouble to experiment with it every time.
To note, yeast does expire; sort of. Cell viability goes down fairly quickly based on the age of the yeast from date of packaging:
1 month – 80% viable
2 months – 64% viable
3 months – 51% viable
4 months – 41% viable
5 months – 33% viable
6 months – 26% viable
(This should be an answer instead of a comment, but I got no rep) It really does expire, in the sense that it will be rendered totally useless, probably meaning that all yeast cells slowly died over time with humidity changes. Since I understand the difference between "best before" (loses qualities but should be harmless) and expiration date (could be harmful), I tried a best before 2006 yeast I had laying around (that's 13 years old), and sadly it didn't do a thing to the dough. I have to say the packet was cut open probably since before 2006, but whatever...
@Matthew: can you post a source for such figures? I tried myself to find some model to describe that.
Bottom line - 13 year old yeast works, here is the whole story - I am about to use some Fleischman's active-dry yeast that expired in 1999 (pre-millennium). I am feeling lucky because today is Christmas eve day (2012). I am using it in a bread machine (normal 4 hour bake mode) I will write back in 4 hours to tell you the results. Per my wife's advice, I tested it by putting a pinch in a small amount of warm sugar water. It was for sure doing something after about 5 to 10 minutes, not what you would call a foam, but it was generating a lot of opaque small masses and smelled yeasty. I also put in 50% more yeast (in the machine's special yeast receptacle) as recommended by this answer. To make it interesting, I am also using some equally old dry milk. The "better for bread" flour is probably only 4 years old. The butter is less than a week old, the salt was bought about 6 months ago, and the water is 13.75 +/- 0.11 billion years old (per Wikipedia). The bread machine is approximately 15 years old. I am 54 years old. Wish me luck....OK, I'm back and I'm happy to report that I got a yummy 3/4 size loaf (served with real butter) enough for the family along with some soup I made from last Thanksgiving's Turkey stock.
I realize that the original post was a "non answer", but in my first post I did promise to revise it in 4 hours with the final answer which I did (13 yr old yeast works). Mostly I am amazed and appreciative that someone already read my post (this was my first post) - Happy Holidays
Expired yeast will taste less, and rise less or not at all.
I believe the expiration date is a conservative estimate for yeast stored sealed at room temperature to still rise reliably. If the storage environment is better and you're willing to test before every batch, and use more yeast if necessary, I don't see why you couldn't continue to use it.
I've sucessfully used dry active yeast that is over five years old, keep it in the frige. When it's really old, I put a skosh of sugar in the proofing cup, to give the old fellers a bit of a leg up, and just wait till it's really foaming, then use it like usual, don't increase the quantities. It's the same bugs, and it tastes the same.
Yeast expires because it's a micro-organism (a fungus, in fact) that eventually dies. Your foaming yeast is still alive and should be fine to use; the expiry date is a decent estimate of how long the yeast will last, but various conditions (where and how yeast is stored among others) affect how long it will live.
I just used a package of yeast that expired in 2007 for a belgian waffle recipe. It's been sitting in the kitchen, unrefrigerated. No movement—the bugs are dead!
Update—I hated to see the waffles go to waste, so I bought some more yeast. To whet the appetite of the yeast bugs, I gave them some sugar to feast on in addition to their milk meal. The Fleischmann's RapidRise yeast puffed right up, so much so that it even got pasty. 1⅓ hours later it had doubled in size. Guess we'll have waffles for dinner now!
Old Active Dry Yeast:
Better with age: Prehistoric yeast key to Fossil Fuels Beer:
The yeast was actually trapped in the gooey tree resin during the Eocene epoch, 20 million years after the last dinosaur perished. High temperatures and warm oceans created a balmy environment throughout the Earth, with palm trees growing in what’s now Alaska. And, fortuitously, the yeast is an ancient relative of today’s Saccharomyces, or brewer’s yeast.
If yeast can survive 45 million years trapped in Burmese tree sap, a couple decades sealed in a foil envelope should be no sweat.
Tree sap is a totally different environment than foil packets. Things that would have totally degraded in open air can be preserved in amber for centuries.
Foil packet isn't open air. It's sealed and likely anaerobic. Packet is Certainly drier than sticky tree juice starts out being. Lyophilized/anaerobic is a heck of a good way to preserve microorganisms.
Well, trying a packet from 1998 (in the freezer) today - seems to be rising - hope it tastes fine.
Yeast does expire . Yeast will last longer than the date printed on the packet if it is kept in the refrigerator . It will last longer in the freezer (for up to a year or even more).
I've put a handmade loaf in the oven with Yeast that technically expired 2 months after I opened the tin (Allisons active dried yeast - granules)... it foamed up beautifully; 1 level tbsp (measuring spoon) in 150ml warm water (1 part boiling 2 parts room temp).
As for the loaf rising...
The dough rose perfectly...
Once in the oven? Not at all. Not beyond what it had already risen. It's now cooling, and is definitely loaf shaped and a decent size (despite looking slightly flat ontop), but I'm yet to know the density or crumb.
So overall, I would say just spend out on some new yeast, which is what I'll be doing.
I forgot to say that I opened the tin 10 months ago now... time flies!!!
I had a several of packages of old yeast, the freshest best by date 5 years old and some 6 or more years old. It was just stored at room temp and that could be 90°+ in summer because we don't run the air conditioning much in summer.
I followed a yeast freshness test from http://www.redstaryeast.com/lessons-yeast-baking/yeast-shelf-life-storage/yeast-freshness-test to see if my yeast had any life.
I used 1/2 cup very warm water (110-115°F) in a 1 cup measure. I used a thermometer to be sure. I added a 1 tsp. sugar and the dry yeast packet (from 2009) and stirred together. The mixture should begin to foam after 3-4 minutes and after 10 minutes it should double to the 1 cup mark. My yeast mixture came to about 3/4 cup after 10 minutes. I didn't think this was good enough, so I proofed another batch with older yeast (from 2008) to see if it was any good. It had about the same result, so I threw in another packet of yeast, hoping yeast of the same date/storage conditions would work in my recipe if it had double strength.
You must use your proofed yeast immediately, so I made a batch of sweet roll dough. The dough took way longer to raise before punching down, and much longer to double after making rolls, about 7 hours before I baked them. I should have put them in a warmer spot, I just covered them and left them at normal room temp (about 72°F). I tucked them next to a pot of beef stew I was cooking on the stove for about an hour to help it along.
Summary: It took a long time, but we finally had cinnamon rolls at 9:30 p.m.! And they were delicious! Maybe it was 'cause we had to wait so dang long for 'em. I won't bother with yeast older than 5 years. I suggest storing your yeast in refrigerator or freezer, I heard that can extend the yeast life that way. Or make cinnamon rolls more often!!!
Last year-I had positive and negative experiences both using expired yeast. Most of the batches didn't rise as well but still worked- the one batch that didn't -the individual packet of yeast was aobut a decade old. Still dissapointing because you go to all that extra effort of letting the dough rise, punching it down and rolling out to baste the butter, sprinkle cinnamon and sugar. Then roll it, cut it with dental floss and let it rise a again before baking. What I determined is to go ahead and use it if it's no more than five years expired for the individual packets and in the refrigerator for the jar or can. I'm going to try two batches today. The first batch with a jar of yeast 4 years old that has been sealed but NOT refrigerated "fast rising instant yeast" and one batch with a packet of yeast that is not expired and compare the rise times. Guess a little experiment will be the best way to determine if I'll be able to salvage the product and then bake more if it works to use it up- my lucky neighbors :)
I have a package of active yeast meant for commercial use that "expired" in 2009 (it's now 2014) and it still works as well as I expect it to. I have stored it in the freezer this whole time. I got mine at Smart and Final more than 5 years ago.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.487936
| 2010-07-21T03:01:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2532",
"authors": [
"Andy Smith",
"Bob Higbee",
"Chloe",
"Dan Ahmed",
"David P",
"Dolores Leonard Ebner",
"Donna",
"Harshvardhan",
"Hemant Kumar",
"Kshitij Agarwal",
"Linda Howerton",
"Mariano Kamp",
"Matthew",
"Mia Farland",
"Pointy",
"Ray",
"Spammer",
"Stephen Paulger",
"Taxi Cab Hobart",
"The Hagen",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"Yamikuronue",
"b01",
"derobert",
"ecv",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110368",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110500",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14890",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4515",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68406",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68431",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84395",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96796",
"tekknolagi"
],
"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
}
|
92701
|
Is there a good reason not to add crushed tomatoes to chicken soup?
Is there a good reason not to add crushed tomatoes to chicken soup?
I am new at cooking soup, but I think tomatoes taste good and that's why I want to add them. But I've also had garlic bread just before chocolate and it ruined the chocolate. Is there a similar flavor clash from tomatoes and chicken soup?
The soup's ingredients are:
A whole chicken
Carrots
Onions
Celery
Water
I might add some pepper too.
Chicken parm has tomato but you don't often see tomato paired with chicken. Give it a try if you like.
Tomato is likely to overwhelm chicken broth flavor.
I added the tomatoes and it made the soup taste better. I tasted the soup without the tomatoes first. I think if I was better at making broth I would have wanted to preserve its flavor. As it was tonight, it needed something more and the tomatoes helped
Years ago a friend was showing me how he makes his stew and said "Watch out for the tomatoes, they like to take over!" Too much tomato will give you tomato soup.
My method for chicken soup is to buy a roasted chicken from the grocery and use for a main dish and then sandwiches depending on what you have left. Then drop the carcass (bones, skin, meat pieces) in a pot with your listed ingredients as well as some black peppercorns, bay leaf and fresh or dried thyme. Enough water to cover and simmer an hour give or take. Refrigerate overnight and skim the fat off in the morning. It will be semi-solid and easy to remove. Then pick the meat off the bones discarding skin, bones and fat. I sometimes have added a handful of cherry tomatoes. I think green peppers will change the taste away from chicken as would more tomato.
If you want "more" then I have added orzo pasta or Soba noodles cooked in the broth. Be careful as those will nearly double in volume when cooked.
As other have said, you can absolutely add tomatoes, but then you will be making tomato soup, not chicken soup. (There aren't many soups you can add tomatoes to that won't just become tomato soup.)
My recipe:
Saute two large yellow onions in a bit of oil.
Add 3 units (+) of chopped or crushed garlic. (From a jar OK but not as good.)
Add 3-4 stalks chopped celery. Reduce heat.
Add any other compatible veggies in the fridge. (Optional.)
Add 2 heaping spoons(*) of fresh rosemary and 1 spoon of basil. Stir through.
Add 106-ounce can (!) of crushed tomatoes. Stir through.
Add 1 quart stock, broth, or water. Bring to a boil.
Add 3.5-4 pounds chicken, cut bite size, or equivalent amount fish or tofu.
If chicken or fish is raw, stir until pot boils again.
Simmer for half an hour to an hour.
Serve over rice, steamed whole grains, or cubed toasted bread. Cheese optional.
This is very close to Portuguese-American gazpacho or this one(not Spanish gazpacho which is a cold tomato-cucumber soup).
This would probably also work with beef, meatballs, beef marrow bones, etc - they have a stronger flavor that can stand up to the tomatoes better. (Still trying to recreate my mother's beef tomato soup...)
(*) Decide for yourself if it is teaspoons, tablespoons, or quarter cup. :-)
(+) Decide for yourself if it is cloves or heads.
(!) Standard US large can is 28 oz. This recipe makes a large batch. Leftovers good, freezes well.
Prompted by some conversation in comments, I found a Manhattan Chicken Chowder recipe! (The well-known New England clam chowder is cream-based, Manhattan clam chowder is tomato-based; I'd never heard of chicken chowder, but:)
Manhattan Chicken Chowder Recipe -- chicken broth, root vegetables, canned tomatoes, diced cooked chicken, thyme
I am Portuguese and I have never heard anyone in Portugal utter the word "gazpacho". The only tomato-based soup I ever tasted in Portugal was very dense, very spicy and very hot (unlike gazpacho). Made with water used to boil shellfish plus tons of tomatoes (and paprika, I assume). Not quite a chowder. Isn't a chowder supposed to be cream-based?
@RodrigodeAzevedo Manhattan clam chowder is tomato-based; the far-better-known New England chowder is cream-based. As for Portuguese "gazpacho", it still triggers dissonance, but my Portuguese-American housemate insists it's traditional, and I did find confirmation online...
I am only acquainted with the New England chowder. Thank you for the information. I do not doubt there is a cold tomato-based soup somewhere in Portugal. It's just that it's probably not from the area around my grandparents' villages, so I never heard about it ;-) And the name in Portuguese is almost certainly not gazpacho. If I were to take a guess, I would bet on Alentejo, which borders Andalusia. If I recall correctly, Gazpacho is from Andalusia. I am more familiar with Galician cuisine. Do you know where your Portuguese-American housemate's family is from?
Add the tomato, some mushrooms, bell pepper, garlic and little wine: wala! you've made a "Hunter's Stew", or Cacciatore! Yum! Yes, it should be fine.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.488841
| 2018-10-05T22:01:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92701",
"authors": [
"Rodrigo de Azevedo",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"arp",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16959
|
What is the difference between whole grain mustard and regular yellow mustard?
Is there any taste differences between whole grain mustard and regular yellow mustard?
Is the difference primarily in terms of texture and composition of each mustard?
Also, could each be used interchangeably?
"Regular" yellow mustard is actually colored; it's quite possible to have a plain, vinegary mustard without the yellow color too, even if it's not common in the US.
I think you should clarify where you live and/or what brands you have in mind, because the current answer (that from a US perspective, "Yellow mustard is usually very mild") is very much at odds with my experience of yellow mustard (English mustard, AFAIK the hottest type of mustard).
@Peter excellent point. I was assuming US mustard in my answer. In addition to English mustard, there is also Chinese yellow mustard.
The difference is that whole grain mustard tastes just AWESOME. Most yellow-colored mustard tastes like crap and can only become edible in the context of the umami mess of fast food. Not that I don't give myself in for a hot dog. Just saying. Either way taste both on their own and the whole grain one is clearly more taste and less vinegar.
Yes, there is (generally) a significant taste difference between whole grain mustard and regular yellow mustard. Texture plays a part of it, but it is secondary to the overall difference in flavor.
I say generally because there's a lot of variation in each, and some extremes of one type may approach some extremes of the other type in flavor.
Yellow mustard is usually very mild, and vinegar plays a very strong role in the flavor.
Whole grain mustard is usually stronger than yellow, and the vinegar flavor is much less pronounced, if not altogether absent.
In many situations, one type can usually be substituted for the other, although it is a matter of personal preference, and many people will argue that some uses of mustard are appropriate for one type, but not the other (for example, I would never use yellow mustard as a condiment for cheese and crackers, but I would use a whole grain mustard for some types of cheese).
Whole grain mustard is prepared mustard with visible mustard seeds. Look for coarse-ground mustard or stone-ground mustard if you can't find whole grain.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.489342
| 2011-08-18T16:57:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16959",
"authors": [
"Beofett",
"Camilo Martin",
"Cascabel",
"Dan",
"Elaine",
"Joffrey",
"Peter Taylor",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36327",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7019",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8658"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16923
|
Cooking Cauliflower so it doesn't fall apart?
How do you avoid cauliflower from being so delicate? I cook it and it often falls apart.
I heard there's a way from stopping it from doing this.
P.S. Often we boil it, and cook it with a little of salt and butter; it's just simple and quick.
With broccoli or cauliflower, if you cook it for too long, it'll get mushy and fall apart. Boiling will exacerbate that a bit, so if you're looking for firmer cauliflower, I'd recommend steaming it, and keeping an eye on it. When the fork goes in without a lot of work, it's done.
In my opinion, blanching is even better than steaming.
@rumtscho: I'm prejudiced. I steam. I sautee. I grill. I very seldom blanch.
@Satanicpuppy maybe I'm prejudiced too. I very seldom steam. But with my comment, Chris J. Lee has one more option to choose from, so I thought it was worth mentioning.
Roasted cauliflower is utterly awesome, and doesn't fall apart. Slice a head of cauliflower into small-to-mid-sized florets, toss with about 1T of olive oil, spice to taste (I've had successes with curry powder, powdered ancho peppers, and even cocoa powder), and roast for 30 minutes at 400F.
I do it on the grill sometimes with olive oil and a little balsamic vinegar to finish it off.
I just love roasted cauliflower! It's a great way to deal with organic or home grown cauliflower that is often not snow white like store cauliflower, because it browns anyway. It also gets sweet and crispy. Last night I drizzled 10 year old balsamic over it after taking it out of the oven, which I'd never done before, and it was really good.
I like to cook a whole head cauliflower. Cut the bottom so that it is flat and sets upright in a pot, add enough salted water to steam gently for 15 to 20 minutes. There are tons of things you can do with this. A packet of dry onion soup scattered on the top of the cauliflower at the beginning will be carried into the heart of the cauliflower by the condensing steam. Non-fat butter flavored powder is good too, as is crumbled bacon. Your imagination is the limit.
Preparation is fast and easy. When there were more people at home would make this and cut the whole head into 5 or 6 into wedges after cooking.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.489543
| 2011-08-16T18:21:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16923",
"authors": [
"Caroline",
"JamesENL",
"Kate Gregory",
"NickC",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Steve Murdoch",
"cubometa",
"es_code",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36235",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36250",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36670",
"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
}
|
16720
|
What happens if you freeze a soft serve of ice cream?
If I buy a soft serve of ice cream (a single serving in a cone or tub) and put it in my home freezer, will it retain its shape and texture? What will happen to it?
Soft serve ice cream is soft because:
It's warmer than hard ice cream. According to Wikipedia, it's generally made at about -4 C, rather than -15 C for hard ice cream. It's also served at a higher temperature -- 14 to 25 degrees F, compared to 5 to 7 degrees F for hard ice cream.
It contains more air. The technical term for air introduced during freezing is overrun, and it's calculated based on the percent increase in volume of the ice cream. The more air, the fluffier and softer the mouth-feel.
It usually contains less fat than hard ice cream, which is mitigated by the soft creamy mouth-feel resulting from the warmer temperature.
If you were to freeze soft ice cream, you'd lose the advantage of item 1. In addition, your freezer takes longer to freeze ice cream than an ice cream maker, which may result in ice crystals in the ice cream. Furthermore, once the soft ice cream chills to the freezer temperature (usually around 0F), the lower fat content may decrease the perceived creaminess, because of the information in item 3.
Of course, having said all of that, I haven't tried the experiment, so I'd be interested in hearing first hand stories.
thanks for an informative answer, I won't be attempting a freeze but if I do I'll let you know, if someone else doesn't comment first
+1 Great answer. Many, many moons ago I used to work after school in a popular soft-serve franchise. We sold pints and quarts of the soft-serve for take-out, which was stored in a regular freezer. We would also "hard freeze" the soft-serve to make the ice cream cakes. Ice crystals were never a problem (the advice in Thusagen's answer, and derobert's comment, were applicable and accurate). The result of freezing was firmer product with a texture similar to, but not quite, regular ice cream. The difference is most likely due to the lower fat and extra air, as you mentioned.
There's a possibility that it develops ice crystals on its surface after some time.
Otherwise, it will still retain its texture (don't expect it to get better!), and its shape.
Pressing plastic wrap to its surface will help prevent ice crystals.
It won't have the same texture or taste, it'll lose everything that you love about it. Just don't do it and expect to eat it after.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.489767
| 2011-08-08T09:46:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16720",
"authors": [
"Beofett",
"Egg Head",
"Jose Luis",
"Patricia Spears Blankenship",
"Sue Edwards",
"anongoodnurse",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35676",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35677",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35678",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35796",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36055",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36056",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6727",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7019",
"lofidevops",
"michaelpri",
"reverseapachemaster"
],
"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
}
|
23501
|
Why didn't my brioche rise?
This weekend I attempted to make this recipe for brioche. I did the first step and combined the the milk, yeast, 1 egg and 1 cup of flour which caused very big clumps and then I added the sugar.
I then did the 2nd through the 5th steps but the clumps stayed and the dough was really wet (like pancake batter) so I tried adding more flour until I got something like the right consistency. I then covered the dough and put it in a draft free area that was warm for 2.5 hours but my yeast did not rise and the dough still had clumps in it. I waited longer but nothing so I had to throw it away.
I really wanted to try this recipe again so I would appreciate any insight into what I did wrong.
What was the consistency after you added the flour? Brioche is supposed to be very wet/sticky.
When I added the initial flour it was the consistency of pancake batter but I added some more about 1.5 cups and it was very sticky but more like a biscuit which I think would have been fine if it had risen.
First, try proofing your yeast (mix 110°F water, a little sugar, and a little yeast in a small container; confirm that it foams). It may be that your yeast is (well) past its prime. That's the most likely reason I can think of that your dough didn't rise.
Second reason could be that while mixing, the dough got too hot—heat will kill yeast. Yeast dies somewhere around 130°F, but really you want to keep it much cooler than that. If its getting too hot, consider starting with colder ingredients (e.g., ignore the instruction to warm the milk).
Finally, I'd suggest using recipes that are by weight; flour is much easier to measure by weight. You may be using a different scooping technique than the recipe author.
Also—there is something weird about that recipe. It lists 3½ cups flour in the ingredients, but then only has you add 2½ cups in the steps. I suspect that is a mistake, and explains the batter-like consistency you got.
I will try weighing my flour instead. As for the heat I actually measured the milk to 100 degrees but I will try proofing it next time like usual. I made another bread the same day and that worked beautifully and I used the same yeast. I'm going to try another better rated recipe. Thank you for all the tips =)
@Luz_Ramirez Well, you need to keep an eye on the temperature during mixing/kneading as well. Machine mixing/kneading can generate a substantial amount of heat, and the dough may come out much warmer than it went in.
OK the quantities of the recipe are wrong, the batter for brioche is pretty loose closer to batter than dough or pastry but you do need to manage your yeast. So here are thoughts for attempt 2
Make sure you only use active yeast( you meed to know the yeast is viable ), when you put the yeast into the other ingredients ideally they will all be at room temp to start with, so get the eggs out and let them in their shells come to room temperature couple of hours lets say.
When you combine the ingredients the bowl shouldn't ideally be colder than the ingredients and you need to be sensitive to the time it takes for the yeast, any yeast, to activate and multiply. The whole reaction is complex, temperature, ratios of sugars age and hydration of yeast so realistically if the mix takes 90 minutes rather than 30 minutes to get going so what, if you were cooking to a schedule you would do it differently.
If, after an hour your not seeing signs of the yeast working you have to suspect the yeast or the conditions and frankly more likely the yeast. to test it take 300ml of luke warm water a tea spoon of sugar or honey and a table spoon full of yeast cover with film wrap and put in a warm place for 30 mins, it it is not making best part of an inch or foamy bubbles then all is not well if it isn't making any decernable foam then put your finger in if the liquid is not cold its the yeast.
I agree that the recipe needs to be looked at for proportions here is the mix i use
660 g flour
8 eggs
16 g salt
70 g sugar
17 g dry yeast
70 ml lukewarm water
440 g butter at room temperature
i let it rise for 90 minutes in a cool rather than warm place knock it back and let it rise a second time over night but i do get a dough not a batter.
I agree with the former comments that too warm and the yeast can die.
have another go with a new batch of ingredients,
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.490007
| 2012-05-01T16:44:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23501",
"authors": [
"April",
"Luz_Ramirez",
"Neil Moon",
"SaltnPeppa",
"captnhook",
"derobert",
"djmadscribbler",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10071",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53213",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9799",
"megamind",
"user53209",
"user53210"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22053
|
How long does it take to steam brown rice?
I would like to know how long it takes to steam brown rice.
Generally it's best to ask one specific question at a time - if you could split these up into separate questions you might have more success with an answer.
I have edited out your other two questions, leaving just the main question. As @ElendilTheTall says, please limit each question to, well, one question.
This is an impossible question because it depends on the rice you are using: Some rice cooks in 10' other rice in 20'. That's a huge difference.
Also, some people like the rice to be slightly undercooked and others like it very overcooked.
At any rate, if you are used to boiling one type of rice for some amount of time, try steaming for about 20%-25% longer and see what you get.
You can try the rice by taking a grain and looking at it. If it has a white dot in the middle it's not done. When the white dot disappears, take a bite and see for yourself whether you like it.
What type of brown rice can be cooked in 10 minutes? (it does not mentioned pre-processed rice)
@TFD, you're right. I read the original question wrong.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.490367
| 2012-03-06T16:44:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22053",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"ElendilTheTall",
"TFD",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17361
|
What are the modern or recommended ways of cooking corn on the cob?
Most recommendations for cooking corn on the cob suggest putting it in boiling water for 10 minutes. I find this very undesirable for a number of reasons:
it takes a long time to boil the required water
takes too much of the flavour out
the water is wasted
so much energy is wasted
So, I cut them in half, and place them upright in a tiny amount of water—about 1mm depth—in a covered saucepan for 10 mins, making sure the water at the bottom is gently simmering.
What is the result?
It takes little time to cook in total: 10 minutes for the corn, and 2 minutes for the water.
I can use the water to flavor.
I barely uses energy once the water is boiled and the saucepan is covered.
The corn is juicy and delicious retaining its maximum flavor.
Now, I seriously doubt I'm some sort of culinary genius that has invented a new way of cooking corn, but I've never come across this method, so maybe there are more modern methods.
I think the Modernist way would involve sous vide, foaming, and possibly spherification.
@BobMcGee - Apparently so..http://blog.sousvidesupreme.com/2011/06/sous-vide-corn-on-the-cob/
@rfusca: Ye gods, what hath science wrought? I was totally joking about the extremes mol-gas people will go to make something simple into something complicated... but now I just don't know.
@BobMcGee - Indeed. Frankly I'm surprised nobody has frozen a cob in liquid nitrogen, shattered it, sous vide it, and then made that result into a foam. It seems like such a natural progression.
@Physiks lover - You're basically talking about steamed corn in your description of your method. Try a simple steamer basket and your corn won't even have to sit down in the little water there is.
Oh, y'all aren't even getting started. Check out my friend Scott with his centrifuge: http://seattlefoodgeek.com/2011/06/centrifuged-pea-butter-and-corn-water/
@Michael - I may have to pay my nephew 20 bucks to turn circles in the backyard for a few hours while swinging corn puree after watching that. ;)
@rfusca how can using a steamer basket be an improvement over just putting a tiny bit of water in and steaming that? Steaming using a steaming backet takes longer because the steam is at a lower temperature by the time it reaches the food, more water is needed, it takes longer, and is more fiddly.
@Physiks - because you're still boiling a portion of the corn, which removes vitamin C (among other things). The vitamin C (some studies show about 8-10% of daily recommended value) in corn is one of the few nutritionally good things about corn. It would shock me if a steamer basket added a whole lot of time - but i've never tested the difference. Its just a more standard approach to steaming veggies.
Lately, I've been direct grilling them fully stripped of the husk, with a brush of olive oil first. Its relatively quick, but requires a bit of attention as you'll need to turn the ears. You don't want the heat too high and it can be difficult not to dry the corn out.
It produces a distinct favor but its absolutely wonderful, everybody raves. The slight smokiness and carmelization of the sugar in the corn heightens its favor considerably. It produces a much different result than grilled corn wrapped in foil (which is essentially steaming the corn) or boiled corn. Grilling in the husk is another common way, but its a much different result and not too different from grilling it with foil.
It was brought up in the comments, but the most 'modern' correlation to boiling the corn like you said, would be to sous vide it. It's definitely 'modern', but sous vide is not quick. It does preserve and intensify flavour well though.
We do a similar grilling version in my household, but with softened butter instead of olive oil. It's probably not that modern, as they've done it that way in Mexico for a long time, but it is excellent. You hit on the right answer with sous vide, though.
@justkt - Right, I guess I was throwing out 'alternate' version for the grill, rather than just 'modern'. I was just covering it because the OP had mentioned that most recommended boiling, but that there's plenty of other non-modern, excellent methods for corn on the cob.
+1) I am all in favor of editing "modern" out of the question in favor of "another". Grilling is corn, the way God intended it to be eaten. I have gotten great results out of husk on/husk off techniques, with a marginal preference to husk on after soaking in water. Of course it almost time for the state Fair and Roasted Corn.
We follow Mark Bittman and grill corn as described then serve with chili lime mayonnaise, see http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/dining/28mini.html.
@justkt: I also do it with butter. Yummy!
FYI: cooks illustrated recommended soaking the whole cobs in water for 30 minutes before direct grilling like this. I'm assuming the core of the cob will absorb water and help steam it from the inside.
Other than the BBQ, the best way is to steam the corn
Gently open the the top of the husk, let clean water flow in for a moment, and then hand form it closed again. Do not remove any of the husk, that is your "free" microwave container
Microwave (1Kw) on high for about 6 to 8 minutes for two cobs. Let stand a minute or two before peeling off husk and silk (very easy now it's cooked) and serve
In New Zealand the traditional method is to place the whole cob (husk and all) into a geothermal mineral water pool. This is an exceptional way to cook corn, but not convenient if you don't have a geothermal pool in your back yard :-)
When I want corn quickly, I husk it, get the silks off, and drop it into a microwave-safe casserole dish. Add 1/8" - 1/4" (3-6mm) water, cover the dish tightly with plastic wrap. Microwave for 1-2 minutes per cob.
Even faster (since you don't have any cleanup!) is to use a microwave steaming bag. They're plastic, look sort of like Ziplocs but are thicker. I cut the cobs in half, put them in the bag with a tiny bit of water, and steam away. If you get corn that's somewhat less than sweet, you can add a bit of suger to the water in the bag and it will infuse the corn as it steams.
Or wrap them in wax paper for microwaving -- just rinse before wrapping to get enough water for steaming.
The very most best way is to wrap them in lightly oiled foil and grill or broil them.
They are tender and it concentrates the sugars and flavors instead of diluting them as boiling does.
They can be left in their husks before wrapping which makes them never stick (of course) as well as giving them little bit of an interesting grassy flavor.
If you've never tried it, grill without foil or the husk. It's good.
I've found that, if you have fresh good corn, cooking it for way less time makes it taste a lot better. I've found that after only around 3 minutes (I use the "steam in a bit of water" method) it is best. At first I was nervous, but now 10 minutes feels like tremendous overkill!
Look up elote. It's a mexican variety where the corn is flavored with lime and covered in cotija cheese and red chili powder.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.490513
| 2011-08-31T16:41:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17361",
"authors": [
"Bichoy",
"BobMcGee",
"Cos Callis",
"David Norman",
"EmmyS",
"Frank",
"Martha F.",
"Michael Natkin",
"Patrick M",
"Physiks lover",
"Pork Chop",
"Sheila Wedell",
"Stefan",
"Tremmors",
"duozmo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1307",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37256",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37258",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37276",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37298",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37402",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7256",
"justkt",
"kagerf",
"nico",
"rfusca",
"ychirea1"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16906
|
What types of rice are appropriate to use in a rice cooker?
I have recently acquired a Zojurushi fuzz logic rice cooker.
What I am having difficult to find is the best kind of rice to use with it; I am looking for a good brown and white rice that can go with anything, and then maybe some more specialty types. I tried Uncle Ben's, but modified rices don't work that well.
It seems I have had the best luck with long grain white rice, thus far. I'm wondering if there is a better kind, or perhaps specific brands of rice that are made for rice cookers.
I've had good experiences with sticky rice and wholegrain brown rice, but even lentils and split peas worked!
In my experience, rice quality has a pretty substantial amount of variation, but the cooking device has little to do with it.
While I'm sure that most rice cookers on the market from Japanese firms are optimized and tested for short-grain, japonica rice, I've never had issues cooking basmati or jasmine rice in one, and I've even used them for farro and mixed grains.
I doubt that the rice cooker has much to do with it. I've made rice in heavy cast-iron enamelware on the stove, in a cheap Southeast Asian electric steamer without any fancy "fuzzy logic" electronics, in a fuzzy logic rice cooker, and an mid-range IH rice cooker, which is what we use at home now, and the quality of the rice and its age has a greater impact than the cooking method. I would say that the IH rice cooker produces superior results over our old fuzzy logic cooker, but it's certainly not an order-of-magnitude kind of difference.
Assuming you're located in the US, my benchmark go-to rice brand is "Tamaki Gold", which is from a japonica strain called koshihikari, and I think most of this brand's rice is grown near Sacramento, CA. It's more expensive than the typical Botan or Niko Niko brand calrose rice that's ubiquitious in Japanese supermarkets, but I find the quality far superior, and it's still a good value. My wife tends not to appreciate the Niko Niko or Botan calrose rice very much at all, so we don't eat it at home, but probably 80% of Japanese restaurants in the US are using it or a similar product.
Generally, I'd recommend staying away from the absolute cheapest brands, and choose something that's a couple of notches above. We've used imported rice from Akita or wherever and gotten very nice results, but the differences were far subtler than the price (on the order of $10 vs. $35 for a similar quantity). The sweet spot for quality is near the median price, assuming you're in a shop that offers a wide variety of options.
Edit: Sorry, until your edit, I didn't realize you were working from parboiled or converted rice, I assumed raw rice, as I've never heard of anyone cooking the quick cooking rice products in a rice cooker. (Rice cookers often have their own "quick mode" which shortens cooking time with normal raw rice at the cost of a slightly reduced textural quality). Considering that's what you were starting from, consider using other supermarket brands of rice that meet your target grain size and stickiness/fluffiness, but aren't marketed for speed or convenience.
Yep... Basmati came out perfect from the Zoj cooker I once had.
Agreed, converted rice is not ideal for a rice cooker. Any rice that you can cook by the absorption method will work well. Absorption method simply means that when you are done cooking, the rice will have absorbed all of the water that didn't evaporate. The rice cooker will have a standard ratio of water to rice using markings on the side of the pot. Depending on the rice you are using, you may find you want to adjust it up or down slightly. You can assume it is calibrated to a standard Japanese-style white rice. I use mine routinely for everything from basmati to short-grained brown rice or even forbidden rice (black rice) with good results.
Almost any rice that uses boil/absorb will cook in a rice cooker. The better quality rice you use, the better will be your result. You may have to adjust the cycles on the electronic models; check the owners manual for recommendations. I still use the on/off and on/off/warm models and they are too honest to out-think you, they just chug away until they are done.
When you get a new rice, go with the package recommendation for rice to water ratio and adjust from there.
If you want Japanese-style rice go with rice that is labeled for that. If you want another cuisine go with rice that is intended for that cuisine. Of course you can always substitute if you want.
Jim
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.491085
| 2011-08-15T18:09:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16906",
"authors": [
"11684",
"Amelse Etomer",
"Caroline",
"Jenni Greenfield",
"Juan M",
"Max Nanasy",
"Paulb",
"Simon",
"Universal Electricity",
"barbara williams",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131024",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36193",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36255",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6554"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16941
|
Precise cooking time: how to figure it out
How do you figure out the exact time how long to cook something?
Do you use binary search?
I like the image of someone putting something in the oven, waiting an hour, taking it out and trying it, then throwing it away when it's overdone, and trying half an hour instead.... and so on.
@Jefromi: That's a great way to make sure that your food is almost always over- or under-cooked.
It is very simple.
Note the time you start cooking it, and the flame/power setting/temperature.
Check periodically to see if food is cooked
When food is done: record time and subtract from start time.
If you cook the same dish a few times, you can average it out. A lot of cook times are approximate anyway; you have to check the dish a bit before it should be done to make sure it hasn't cooked faster than expected.
There is also a touch of opinion. Do you want it 'al dente', done or overdone?
Yeah, it's very much a subjective judgement when something is cooked, even at the professional level. The sous chef wants his potatoes roasted until evenly golden brown, where one line cook likes them with just a few golden spots.
Cooking is not an "exact science" in my view. You're not always using the "exactly" same temperature, "exactly" the same amount of oil/water, or cooking a cauliflaur of "exactly" the same size as before.
I think that lots of it comes from experience, sometimes you just "know" that something is ready even though you cooked it 30 seconds less long than the last time you prepared it.
EDIT
Expanding on Jefromis comment, I didn't mean to dispute that, of course, you should have an idea of how long you approximately need to cook something. I usually use recipes off the internet or from one of our hundreds of cookery books as a starting point, whenever we try something new for the first time.
I of course agree - I'm not much for precise timing or measurement. But on the other hand, it sure is nice to know that you need to put each one of those five batches of cookies in the oven for 11 minutes!
@Jefromi Sure is, I didn't mean to dispute that in any way. I'm editing my answer to make that more clear. It's just this perception of "exactness", which I found to be almost nonexistant when it comes to cooking.
@Jefromi I've burned more batches of cookies by waiting exactly 11 minutes. Experience tells me to start watching like a hawk at about 8 minutes. (times not at all accurate and are not intended to be taken as guidance)
@chris: I don't mean to do that without checking. I mean watch the first batch or two, then for the other four, trust the time that you just calibrated.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.491546
| 2011-08-18T01:58:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16941",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"BaffledCook",
"BobMcGee",
"Cascabel",
"Chris Cudmore",
"EB2015",
"Giuseppe Crinò",
"Griot05",
"Roger Li",
"User",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36284",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36300",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36349",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"takrl"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6464
|
Can I replace honey with maple syrup in recipes that require honey?
There are many recipes (or recipe variants) that require honey as ingredient.
Barbecue Spareribs
Honey Lamb Chops
Honey Raisin Choc Drops
Honey Shortbread Biscuits
Chocolate Chip Cookies
Krispie Shortcake
Honey, Lemon and Rosemary Marinade
Pear and Almond Tart
May I generally use maple syrup in recipes that call for honey?
Are there guidelines for when that substitution will work well?
Generally speaking, maple syrup will work fine in any recipe that calls for honey. They may have slightly different viscosities and water content, but that could be true between two honeys as well, so I wouldn't worry about it a lot. The only thing I think you really have to consider is whether the flavor of maple syrup is appealing in the dish you would substitute it in. In most cases, I think it will be fine, especially if the dish would have worked well with a dark, fully flavored honey. You might also like to try sorghum syrup, molasses, or agave nectar as other possible replacements.
If you do use maple syrup, be sure to use 100% pure maple syrup. Any imitation or partial syrup will have a significantly different viscosity and a much, much higher water content and you're not going to get the results you want. The first 3 ingredients in Aunt Jemima Original are: corn syrup, high fructose corn syrup, water, which is going to be pretty far from the taste and consistency of honey.
Otherwise, I think a 1 to 1 substitution will be fine, I've done it before in a few dishes and it worked out well. As Michael said there are other options as well, just be sure to taste them and make sure they have a similar flavor profile as the dish you're trying to make. For example, I believe molasses would sub into chocolate chip cookies great, however maple syrup would probably taste a little strange. But, if I was making honey oatmeal cookies and ran out of honey, I would gladly sub in maple syrup.
The Wikipedia page for molasses says the following about substitutions:
For a given volume of molasses, one of the following may be used (with varying degrees of success): an equal volume of honey, dark corn syrup, or maple syrup, or 3/4 that volume firmly packed brown sugar.
Anyone who calls Aunt Jemima maple syrup should be beaten with a platypus.
@Michael, if you are snorting platypus, you need help.
You just have to grind them finely enough. But I'm a vegetarian, I only snort mock playtpus.
I was wondering what a platypus was, and I discovered it is the animal that we Italians call ornitorinco. For once, the English word doesn't come from Latin. :-)
Real maple syrup does not have a standardized viscosity or water content, either, and personally I don't think it tastes any closer to honey than fake syrup does. It shouldn't be too hard to adjust for the water content.
It will work, but it will add a significant maple flavor. Many vegans I know substitute agave syrup for honey—same consistency and sweetness, very mild flavor.
Vegan's don't eat honey? Checks the Google. So they don't. Wow.
Depends on the vegan, but it's generally safer to assume a vegan doesn't eat honey unless they tell you otherwise. I do know one vegan with a "no honey except on apples for Rosh Hashanah" rule.
100% pure maple syrup is a great substitute for honey. I use it all the time in my vegan baking.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.491802
| 2010-09-01T01:40:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6464",
"authors": [
"In the Booley House",
"Matthew Read",
"Michael Natkin",
"Sam Holder",
"Satanicpuppy",
"avpaderno",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60"
],
"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
}
|
2862
|
How can I get my puff pastry to rise?
When I made chicken pot pie, the filling was fine but the puff pastry on top didn't puff up though it did cook through.
How can I remedy this?
The pastry was the store-bought frozen variety. The temperature was 375 °F and I used and egg wash for the glaze.
How hot was your oven? did you glaze the pastry prior to baking?
Did you preheat the oven?
Yes I did. Also, I use an oven thermometer to be sure the oven temperature is true.
If you've baked your puff pastry in the past at 375 then it's probably not a temperature problem, however I usually bake it between 400-425 degrees (400 convection or 425 in standard oven). Lower temperatures aren't a problem for the baking aspect as it will still cook through. The problem lies in the fact that the heat won't be significant enough to generate the steam needed for expansion.
Egg wash could be a culprit as it should only be used on the top and not allowed to run down the sides where it will seal the edge together and keep it from rising unevenly.
Now that you mention the egg wash, I used a sprig of sage to apply it thinking it would impart just a touch of extra flavor. It was a messier process than using my pastry brush. I think that may have been the problem. Thank you very much.
You're welcome! I'm glad the problem was solved.
Did at any point you crimp the puff pastry? If you press the layers together too hard you will cause the dough not to puff. I don't think temperature was the issue here if you said it cooked all the way through.
No, I didn't. I know not to do that, which is why it is puzzling that I had a problem. This was my first pot pie but not my first time using puff pastry.
Puff pastry puffs because of the steam generated during cooking so if your pastry has dried out you are not going to get a good rise out of it. You can also lose the puff if you defrost and then refreeze as you will create larger ice crystals that will bust up the protein matrix that your pastry needs to maintain its shape.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.492080
| 2010-07-22T19:51:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2862",
"authors": [
"Andrew Moore",
"Dan Puzey",
"Darin Sehnert",
"John Robertson",
"Rowland Shaw",
"Rustoo",
"avpaderno",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32639",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5119",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/771"
],
"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
}
|
2902
|
What is the difference between Greek yogurt and plain yogurt?
One of the ingredients of a recipe is Greek yogurt. May I replace it with plain yogurt? If I do it, what is the difference that I would immediately note?
Greek yogurt has more fat than a "normal" yogurt, about 10%.
Further an original Greek yogurt is made from sheep's milk since there aren't many cows in Greece. This might taste a bit odd for people used to cow's milk though...
When buying Greek yogurt made from cow's milk I recommend you look out for the native brand ΦΑΓΕ.
Most of the Greek-style yogurt one can buy in the US is actually fat-free. (That's part of the attraction: fat-free Greek yogurt tastes like whole milk non-Greek yogurt.)
Greek yogurt is thicker. You can turn not-so-greek yogurt into it by letting it strain. Put cheesecloth into a colander, dump yogurt in, and allow to sit. Not too long, or you'll accidentally achieve paneer instead.
Actually, if you strain yogurt until it's dry, you obtain labneh. Paneer is typically made by heating milk to boiling (or near boiling) and acidifying it artificially to curdle it, while labneh is made through acidification from fermentation. Both of them are then strained and pressed, but the texture and flavors are often somewhat different. (I've never made labneh that got as firm as pressed paneer can, for example.)
Another difference is that Greek yoghurt has much more protein - the kind I purchase has double the protein of regular yoghurt.
If you need Greek yoghurt for the thickness more than for the protein (making, for example, tzatsiki sauce), then you can strain it as bmargulies indicated.
I strain yoghurt in a coffee filter, over a coffee mug. Believe it or not, the damp filter clings to the mug enough that it doesn't just fall into the mug.
The higher protein content per unit of weight might be just because there is far less water per unit of weight :) Btw, the straining method works with soy yoghurts too if they aren't of the artificially stabilized kind...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.492303
| 2010-07-22T23:49:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2902",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Dan Appleyard",
"Fosco",
"GHP",
"Glenjamin",
"Marti",
"Mike",
"Swaff",
"Will Tate",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5193",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5232",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5367",
"mmccoo",
"nocley",
"rackandboneman"
],
"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
}
|
3243
|
Is there a way to keep chilled cookie dough from flattening while cutting it?
Whether using a serrated or straight knife, this seems to be a problem. I end up reshaping them by hand on the cookie sheet so they are round instead of oval.
Is there a way to slice the dough to prevent this flattening?
PS: I should clarify that the chilled dough is in a roll shape.
Two things.
Use a sharper knife. Don't chop, but slice gently. Let the weight of the blade do the cutting.
Use a length of plain dental floss instead of a knife to slice: Wrap the floss around the roll, cross the ends of the floss over each other, and then pull the ends down and out to the sides to slice through the log.
I use string, not floss, but it's the same idea. I make tiny round cookies every Christmas, and that's how I cut them - they're made by slicing a "log" of refrigerated dough very thinly.
I suspect a cheese wire would work, too.
Yes, dental floss is a poor man's cheese wire.
@derobert -- a cheesewire likely won't be the same, as the trick isn't to use it to slice, but to wrap it around the log and pull, so you're applying pressure from all sides at once.
If you roll the log of dough while you're cutting it, it'll remain round.
When slicing, turn the roll about a quarter turn after each slice. Also be sure to handle the dough as little as possible, and perhaps try heating your knife under hot water.
Try freezing the dough instead of just refrigerating it.
Cover your hands with plastic gloves (food safe). Hands are warm and heat the dough quickly making it difficult to keep the desired round shape.
Perhaps not totally what you asked, but a cookie scoop / small ice cream scoop works great to create uniform balls of dough which cook down into nice round cookies.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.492528
| 2010-07-26T02:24:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3243",
"authors": [
"Christina",
"Gareth",
"Jacques",
"Joe",
"JustRightMenus",
"Kristof Van Landschoot",
"Patrick",
"Ray",
"Rupert",
"Yoni Erez",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112014",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33270",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5876",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5880",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5914",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6003",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6075",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7309",
"kia",
"lesderid",
"tom"
],
"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
}
|
3361
|
Cooking pasta in the microwave
I have a microwave "pot" that I use for steaming vegetables. The instructions say it can also be used for cooking pasta, which seems sacrilege to me.
Does anybody know if the result would be a good al dente pasta if cooked in the microwave? I'd hate to waste a batch of my home made pasta just to try it.
Eh. Fresh pasta takes less than 3 minutes to cook in boiling water. Why would you need to microwave this?
arghhh... as an italian, I'm dying a little on this one :P
You know, I'm right there with you on the sacrilege part, but nowadays I microwave pasta all the time. You need to use a non-starchy pasta for this to work. I use plain store-bought Barilla Plus because I love it anyway. For fresh pasta, you could try a small experiment; I've never tried with freshly-made pasta.
It takes less time than boiling on the stove for me because I do this:
Fill up the electric kettle with water and turn it on.
I use a 1/2 gallon Pyrex measuring cup as my "pot", and I put an inch or so of water in that and pop it in the microwave for four minutes to warm it up.
When the water's boiling in the kettle and the oven timer expires, I take out the Pyrex container, add the pasta and a little oil and some salt (optionally a little vinegar), and then pour in the boiling water to cover by an inch or so.
Dumpling-like pasta (rotini or penne) take about 8:30 to cook on high (I've got I think an 1100 watt oven; experiment); spaghetti 5:30, thin spaghetti 4:30.
I know it sounds like a horrible sin, but I started doing it when I needed to cook small portions of pasta for my kids. I tried it myself, and realized that I could tell absolutely no difference from the results I got in my big pasta pot. When I need to boil a lot of pasta (like 2 14oz boxes) I still use the big pot of course, but a pound or less actually cooks up perfectly fine. My pasta cooker is enormous and takes a long time to come up to the boil.
Now once I tried this (not thinking clearly, obviously) with some very starchy, fancy pasta, and it did not work at all. But maybe because it's got so much extra protein, Barilla Plus comes out absolutely fine. (It's good for you too.)
edit — Here's an update: I still do this, but recently one of the seemingly endless succession of microwave ovens I've had recently died, and I'm pretty sure it's because it somewhat frequently overheated while doing this very thing (cooking pasta). Now I don't blame the technique, really, since an oven should probably be designed with the possibility of hot stuff being inside of them for some periods of time, but be warned. (It overheated probably 10 times or so over the course of a couple years before dying, so it was right about at what I find to be typical end-of-life anyway.)
Barilla is indeed a very good brand. Some people in Italy prefer Voiello, but I find it takes a little too long to cook properly.
Ciao @Stefano - I like "plain" blue-box Barilla, but here I refer to the "Barilla Plus", and I don't know if it is sold in Italy. I understand that in Italy you can also buy a "premium" Barilla made with old-style bronze equipment, and I have never seen that in the US.
Oh also - my favorite commercial pasta is Giuseppe Cocco, but that's hard to find here. Also it is a little expensive.
I believe you this works, but it sounds like too much trouble. I always cook 170 g pasta at once, and do it in a 1.5 l pot on stovetop. It gets to boil quickly, and noodle cooking time is comparable with your microwave numbers. The method needs no kettle, is easy to stir, I can prevent a foamover quickly, nothing crunches a peeking noodle end, and I can constantly take out a piece and test for doneness. So I don't see how the microwave could be more convenient.
@rumtscho it just depends on the physics of your kitchen I guess :-)
When my oven died, I also cooked pasta in the microwave, with good success. Shorter shapes are more convenient, but he quality is the same
They actually make two-quart measuring cups?!
@IsaacRabinovitch yes, Pyrex half-gallon "cups" are available.
excellent recipe. nice al dente pasta. Trader Joe's rotini, 8:30 in a 1300 watt oven
They even make one gallon Pyrex "cups"... I have one of each (1G, 2Qt). Very useful for things like steaming broccoli in the microwave. Not very useful for measuring things if you want precision of any sort ;)
All pasta needs to cook is hot water, it doesn't even have to be plentiful hot water at that. Kenji over at serious eats food lab just did an article about it. (link http://www.seriouseats.com/2010/05/how-to-cook-pasta-salt-water-boiling-tips-the-food-lab.html) As your microwave is very good at heating water it shouldn't be a stretch to cook pasta in it. I would say that i would try it a few times with some cheap store bought at first because all microwaves vary in terms of wattage and eveness so the amount of time it will take to get the water correct will vary greatly one to the other.
Also you are going to have make sure that there isn't any noodles uncovered as the microwave will turn them crunchy immediately. You will also have to stir a few times over the course of the cook to make sure that you don't get clumps.
Homemade pasta in particular needs very hot water to start so you will need to bring the water up to temp before adding the pasta.
hot water and salt.
sorry, and salt is very important, thanks for the catch stefano.
No prob. It's because I just saw a TV program where Danes cooked for Italians, and they forgot to put the salt, so it's commonly forgot, unless you see it done by your parents for 20 years.
and a touch of oil helps to cut down foaming
I can't speak for your pot specifically, but I microwave pasta all the time. My reason - I'm just one person and it's simple. I don't have anything fancy - just a plastic Glade (or similar) food storage container. Although I keep meaning to pick up one of the big, glass Pyrex measuring cups to use as my new bowl. That would shorten my cooking time too no doubt.
Either way, here's how I do it: Put in the desired amount, drizzle a tiny bit of oil over the dry pasta, swish it around a little, I use hot tap water, 50% power, 12-14min (depending on the type of pasta), drain, dress, eat.
Why so long? The 50% power. I'm sure that if I wanted to perfect a quicker method I could. But the point is - it's simple. Too many times on higher power it boiled over and I ended up with the sticky pasta-gluey mess in my microwave and down the sides of my container <-- = not simple. Less power + longer time = less likely to over-cook or boil over.
I microwave pasta often. I sometimes cook it on defrost settings for 10 minutes, mostly at regular settings for between 3 and 5 minutes for one cup of macaroni, say. The trick is not to use too much water; you can always check after a couple of minutes and add more liquid if the pasta seems too dry. I use a 2 quart pyrex or ceramic bowl, and cover tightly with plastic wrap.
Why boil ten cups of water if you only need one? Why wrestle a giant pasta pot to the sink to throw away 9 cups of water when all you have to do is swish the pasta around in one cup?
I often cook the other ingredients along with the pasta, I'm going to mix it together on my plate, anyway.
I cook rice in the micky, too, but there is not much time saved.
They make a microwave pasta cooker called Fasta Pasta and it cooks pasta to perfection. I love mine!
If recommending a gadget and naming branded products, it is good form to research commonly available brands and list more than one example.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.493025
| 2010-07-26T22:02:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3361",
"authors": [
"Aatch",
"Abida Naveed",
"Adyson",
"Alice Duff",
"Cath Mainwaring",
"Charlemange",
"Isaac Rabinovitch",
"Joe M",
"Mohsen Bichara",
"Pointy",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sarah Durston",
"Stefano Borini",
"Toybuilder",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15430",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36252",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42848",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5854",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6088",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6090",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6094",
"hunter",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho",
"sarge_smith",
"user6090",
"yoann-h"
],
"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
}
|
3383
|
Should tuna steaks sit out before cooking?
If beef steak needs to sit outside the refrigerator before cooking, should the same thing be done for tuna steaks too?
The same logic applies. The smaller the temperature difference between uncooked and cooked, the easier it will be to get an even amount of cooking all the way through. Especially with a fast method of cooking like broiling.
Given the very high temperature of a frying pan (particularly for beef steak), do 15°C really make that much of a difference?
More like 20°C between fridge temp and room temp, and yes. Meat is not a highly effective thermal conductor. The colder it is inside, the harder it will be to bring it up to 52°C (for tuna) without overcooking the outside.
I think a good reason for 'bringing it up' is to enhance browning. Warmer, drier, browner. (Not a word, but, it fit the triad).
For fish cooked at a more medium temperature, it's just for even doneness.
I think you have slightly more latitude with cold tuna, particularly because my favorite way to grill tuna is ahi style, nice and rare in the center. This requires a very good and properly handled piece of fish, but since the main problem with un-warmed proteins (pre-grilling) is that the center does come up to temperature evenly, it might be ideal if that's what you're going for.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.493610
| 2010-07-27T01:14:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3383",
"authors": [
"David Poblador i Garcia",
"Ellen G.",
"Mikko Tapionlinna",
"Ocaasi",
"Terri",
"Tim Gilbert",
"Tominator",
"brandonjp",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/205",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6136",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6137",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8667",
"tobiw"
],
"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
}
|
3970
|
Storage after slow cooking
I love my slow cooker but cooling food seems to take forever. Usually, I just pop the crock into the oven (no heat) and store until the next morning. So we're talking from 9PM (I eat dinner late) until 8 or 9 AM next day; some goes into the fridge; some into the freezer.
Is this safe or is there a better way without putting it in the fridge right away and subjecting my already cold foods to heat/steam?
I tend to agree that you're probably not going to kill someone, trying to apply restaurant standards to domestic environments is pretty difficult because they are very different in scale but obviously the fundamentals apply.
Putting food in a different container and then in an ice bath is reasonable if you're worried about condensation or heating up your fridge. Darin (see comments below) advises that bathing the food in a metal container is best for cooling the food quickly. This approach OR putting the hot food straight in the fridge is supported by the advice here:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/factsheets/refrigeration_&_food_safety/index.asp
If chilling in an ice bath you want to have your food in a metal container rather than a plastic storage container. Plastic is an insulator and won't assist in cooling the food.
Otherwise just increasing the surface area and minimizing the depth will cool large volumes quickly (i.e. pour a stew into a large cake pan to increase the surface area and cool more quickly).
@Cinque: Yes! I wanted to clarify that storage/cooling question because most people will be storing in a plastic container.
When putting hot food directly into the fridge, aren't you worried about shattering glass shelves? Do you put it on a hot-pad or what?
Well, a food safety expert would tell you that your current plan is a terrible idea. You want to minimize the amount of time food is between 40 F and 140 F, and restaurants have very strict regulations about that. The right way to do it is to put your food in relatively small containers, no more than a quart in size, and put them into the fridge right away. That prevents any possible bacteria growth.
On the other hand, with a slow cooker, your food has been sitting at like 170 or so for many hours, and is likely entirely sterile. The bacteria that live in air are not likely to be harmful to you in any way if you eat them, and they wouldn't grow all that fast on most things that you would have cooked. (This, according to a toxicologist I once knew who would leave baked chicken out on top of the stove overnight!)
The short answer is that if you haven't died yet, you probably won't, but don't tell anyone I told you so! And never do this on anything that hasn't been cooked hot enough to be sterilized!
Personally, I'd just put the food in plastic containers and throw it in the fridge. It's not going to heat up the inside of your fridge enough to hurt anything.
Toxicologist does not have cats!
I use crockpot liners (plastic bags designed for long/high heat exposure) to make clean up easier. It also make storage of leftovers easier too, as I can just lift out the plastic bag and put it in a bowl. I buy mine in bulk from a wholesaler but you can get them at most grocery stores or online.
http://www.reynoldspkg.com/reynoldskitchens/en/product.asp?prod_id=3200
When I do chili in a crock pot, it can be cooled in ~45min by taking the crock out of the metal heating enclosure. Then put a fan blowing over it. Then keep stirring. Labor-intensive, but very effective.
If I weren't so lazy with the stirring, it could be done in half the time.
If you want quicker, transfer to stainless and put in an ice bath. And stir. That'd likely get you to cold within 5 minutes.
One method that hasn't been mentioned yet.
For those of us who keep bottles of water in the fridge or freezer (a good idea if you don't keep a full fridge, and live in an area that regularly looses power), you can take 'em out and drop them in with stews, stocks or the like to help chill them down quickly. (from a slow cooker it'll work ... if it was recently at a boil, you might need to let it cool first, so you don't melt the containers)
You can also use a bag of ice, or even fill a small pot with ice or cold water, and place it into the hot liquid, and cool it from the middle.
This of course won't work with roasts or other large solid items, unfortunately. For that, you can sometimes pull the large hunk of meat out, let that cool in the open, while you cool the liquid separately.
I never put hot food directly in the fridge, because it creates condensation and raises the temp of the fridge (however slightly).
I'd switch containers for sure, then leave it on the counter until it's down in the 100-140 range. Using an icebath is the safest way to do this, but it's frankly not very common outside of restaurants (or even in some of them).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.493881
| 2010-08-02T00:35:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3970",
"authors": [
"Anders Adler",
"Angelica",
"Darin Sehnert",
"J.T. Grimes",
"Jonathan",
"JulesLt",
"MPV",
"Monica Cellio",
"Susy",
"doug",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33011",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33081",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/597",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6541",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7421",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7422",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7423",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7424",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7748",
"matt",
"vt100"
],
"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
}
|
3197
|
How can I keep the cheese from leaking out of my cordon bleu during cooking?
I use flour to coat, including the ends, and I use toothpicks to hold the wider part shut. Even when I try to fold the cutlet envelope style, most of my cheese melts out. I cook them on the stove top with butter.
Is there another technique that would prevent that?
P.S. I use Swiss cheese.
The most common reason for leakage with Cordon Bleu Chicken is that the packets are too thick, which makes it impossible to get a perfect fold; you need to pound the breasts very thin - less than 1/2", maybe a little more than 1/4".
The other "trick" is to make a small cut along the folded edge of the breast after you fold and seal the packets, which essentially makes it almost like a sandwich; the top and bottom parts can move independently and you don't have tension trying to pull the top piece away.
Just don't cut so deep that you cause an immediate leak; if you've pounded the breast to 1/3" thickness, then your cut should be no more than about 1/8".
If you do it this way, you shouldn't even need to use toothpicks; I never do, and I haven't sprung a single leak in my last 20 or so preparations.
Note: By "top" and "bottom" I am referring to the sides with and without the seam, respectively. Generally you'd start cooking them "upside down."
I have heard that it is good to freeze/chill the cheese before inserting it into the chicken. That way, it takes longer to liquify and leak out. The chicken will cook around it (heat moves from outside in), and by the time the chicken is almost done, the cheese is just getting melty and wonderful.
YMMV
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.494328
| 2010-07-25T19:49:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3197",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Asaf",
"Debbie A",
"Industrial",
"Keng",
"Nikolay Vyahhi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5794",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5795",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5796",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5797",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5800",
"the foraging gourmet"
],
"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
}
|
5181
|
Replacement for pumpkin
I have a recipe that requires pumpkin, but I would like not to use it.
Are there other vegetables, or combination of vegetables I could use? I would like to get the same consistency; if then the taste is similar, that is a bonus.
I report the list of ingredients used for the recipe:
Tofu (250 gr)
Onion (1)
Pumpkin (200 gr)
Parsley
Pasta (400 gr)
The pumpkin is cut in cubes, cooked covered with few water for 15 minutes, and then the other ingredients are added. All is cooked for 10 minutes more.
The closest in terms of taste an texture would be another winter squash such as butternut, acorn, hubbard, etc. (As has already been mentioned.)
However, anything with a similar texture would work. If you don't care so much about the taste, you could substitute a tuber such as potato, turnip, rutabaga, carrot, parsnip, celery root, or parsley root.
Sweet potatoes or yams would be closer in taste, but might be mushier than you want.
I'd suggest experimenting with any single or combination of the above and see what flavor you like best.
I have substituted sweet potatoes for pumpkin pretty often and it has worked quite well.
I have eaten sweet potatoes in Long Island that had a taste very close to pumpkin; I have not found sweet potatoes in Italy with the same taste as those one, though.
You might try butternut squash.
Any of the 'winter squash' will work -- acorn, butternut, hubbard, etc.
I have substituted carrots for sweet potatoes in pies. I cover the carrots with just enough water to cover them and boil until they are soft. I then blend them until they are mixed into a paste with the water they were bolied in, reserving 1/2 cup. Since carrots do not have the starch that pumpkin or sweet potatoes have, I combine 1 tablespoon of corn starch to the 1/2 carrot water and follow the rest of the recipe of your choice.
Sweet potatoes or butternut squash sound like the best options, but any hard winter squash or root vegetable would probably work fine.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.494520
| 2010-08-14T13:38:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5181",
"authors": [
"Anna",
"Bill",
"Itamar Marom",
"Joe",
"JustRightMenus",
"KP Sethi",
"Liz",
"avpaderno",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10094",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10095",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84372",
"user84372",
"vanderwal"
],
"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
}
|
3872
|
Why did my basting sauce flop?
The instructions for the basting sauce I tried to make called for heating olive oil, butter, Dijon mustard, vinegar, and pepper and then whisking together until smooth.
I heated the oil, added the butter to melt, and then added the mustard. I skipped the vinegar.
When I added the mustard, it turned into tiny clumps and no amount of whisking would get it incorporated. What did I do wrong?
I don't think it was leaving out the vinegar; could it have been that?
Dry mustard? Or prepared?
Sorry...prepared. The recipe just said Dijon mustard so I assumed it meant prepared.
Interesting recipe. I'm not familiar with marinades that require heating beforehand.
Uff! I used the wrong word, Ocaasi. It is a baste for broiled swordfish. Will edit. Thanks for pointing that out.
The reason that your basting sauce flopped was the recipe was calling for an emulision (basically, a vinegrette) and by leaving out the vinegar you are changing the one of the basic building blocks of the dish. The sauce will require that you add the fats to the mustard as it will clump as experienced if you don't. The mustard in the original recipe is used as an emuslifer and may need to be cut down without the addition of the vinegar. To build a sauce like this, you should start with the vinegar, add the seasonings and any emulisfers (in this case, the mustard) and slowly drizzle the fats into the resulting mixture until all has been incorperated. You will still get a smooth sauce as long as you keep the order even if you leave off an ingredient or two.
i was having a hard time getting the knowledge through my fingertips when I wrote it the first time. However, I don't think that what happened to the sauce had anything to do with curdling. You have to introduce either acid, bacteria, or heat to produce curdling as it is a factor of denaturing the protien strands in the milk/butter. Anyway, As written the answer was crap, hopefully this one is better.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.494730
| 2010-07-31T16:07:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3872",
"authors": [
"Brad",
"Eli",
"GMAN",
"Jon",
"Melanie Palmero",
"Ocaasi",
"Paolo",
"Paul Jenkins",
"RLH",
"Shaharyar",
"avpaderno",
"bmargulies",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7150",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7151",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7154",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7161",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7162",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7227",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8042",
"sarge_smith",
"user647413"
],
"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
}
|
3339
|
What are the uses of tzatziki sauce?
I normally add tzatziki sauce when I eat roast left-overs. I cut the roast in slices (without warming it), and I add some tzatziki sauce.
Are there different uses for tzatziki sauce? (I am sure there are.)
You can use it on its own as a dip with pita bread, use it as a spread on sandwiches, or as an accompaniment to fish and meat as you're already doing.
Would it work on vegetable salads too?
Yes it would, I find that you can use tzatiki any place you would use sour cream as well.
Mix your tzatziki with some chunked up tomatoes, onions, bell peppers,and cucumbers and you'll have a excellent salad!
It's great added to flatbread wraps made with Greek or Turkish style kebabs.
I don't know about the hardcore traditional rules, but for me, I can use it on absolutely everything, and when I am in Greece I do:
In addition to salad with bread
Alone with bread
As a dip with meat and bread
As a spread on bread
Alone, as a side / antipasti for drinks
In Kebab
Together with Mousaka
With fried / baked zucchini
Watered down as a cold summer soup (Bulgarian Style)
With crackers
...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.494949
| 2010-07-26T19:49:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3339",
"authors": [
"Connor Albright",
"Darin Sehnert",
"DearLLove",
"LarsH",
"Matias Nino",
"avpaderno",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6052",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6058",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6068",
"mcw",
"oneself",
"raklos",
"sarge_smith"
],
"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
}
|
3189
|
Parmesan rind: should I use it, or trash it?
I grate my own Parmesan cheese (and others). When I get down to the rind, I usually throw it out. Is there a use for it?
Yes, you can save it and add it to soups such as Minestrone for additional flavor. Once the soup is done, remove and discard the rind. For extended storage, keep it in a bag in the freezer until you have need for it.
I do the same -- you can freeze it if you're not going to be making stock right away
I eat parmesian slices plain and the rind goes down the gullet with it.
yep - came here to mention minestrone soup. also good in french onion. : )
Save it! In addition to minestrone and other soups, it also works well to flavor sauces -my favorite use is in the mushroom mixture for chicken marsala.
Parmesan rind is really good in the Minestrone Soup. Also, try it the next time you are slow cooking your fresh tomato sauce. The rind adds just that certain something to the sauce that grating the cheese does not do.
I tipically eat it as is after have scrubbed\cleaned the paraffin with a knife.
For something original: put it in a microwave for 1 minute; it will inflate becoming crunchy.
No one's said risotto? Fine then, I'll say it.
Risotto :)
Could you expand this answer to explain how to use it in risotto? At the moment your answer is effectively just a single word.
In a restaurant my brother worked in they would cook the rind up in the pasta water for staff food. Then they would server the pasta with the chopped up rind in it. Apparently the pieces of rind were fought over.
If you have a blow-torch and a large enough piece of rind, you can heat the inside and use it as a serving dish for soups, pasta and other things.
In Italy the rind is usually covered in transparent wax. Grate it even outside before using it!
Like everyone else is saying, toss it into anything that you a) simmer in water and b) want to taste good. For me, having a rind left over is always an excuse to make tomato sauce.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.495104
| 2010-07-25T17:37:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3189",
"authors": [
"Billy ONeal",
"Bold Slate spam",
"Evan",
"James Tyler",
"Joe",
"RobinJ",
"Shobha Talewad",
"Sujay Ghosh",
"Taruni",
"Tony R",
"dewdle",
"franko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106891",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33008",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4637",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5780",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5781",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6583",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7644",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9284",
"mankoff",
"richard",
"starsplusplus",
"user106930"
],
"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
}
|
3224
|
Making a sauce with mascarpone cheese
I have some mascarpone cheese left. May I use it to make a sauce?
You can add Mascapone Cheese to a plain italian tomato sauce. The sauce can take on quite a different feel to it from the normal pasta sauce which can make a nice change.
This is a recipe for a quick "tiramisù". It can be used to serve cookies, or fruits.
It requires mascarpone cheese, 2 eggs, and cocoa powder (optional).
Whip the egg white.
Incorporate the mascarpone cheese into the yoke and mix.
Incorporate the egg white, and mix.
Add cocoa powder.
Leave in refrigerator before to use it.
Mascarpone works well for making a sauce. I've found it combines nicely with sweet chilli dipping sauce.
It is also eminently suitable as a filling for a chicken kiev style dish.
Yes, it will melt similarly to cream cheese and can be used in sauces, or to enrich either polenta or risotto.
It should work well as a sauce.
You can also use it to make a sweet sauce, as it has just the right balance of fat and flavour for dessert.
Mix it with peaches or blackberries, along with a reduction of some of their juice.
Will go well on a cheesecake or tart, or as a more refreshing replacement for custard on a crumble.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.495337
| 2010-07-26T00:22:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3224",
"authors": [
"Asinine Monkey",
"Evan Wondrasek",
"Junior Mayhe",
"Phoenix",
"bazza",
"biquillo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5840",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6105",
"nmc"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
3367
|
What can I use polenta leftovers for?
When we make polenta, we use polenta leftovers for lunch, grilling them.
Are there any other uses for polenta leftovers?
My wife makes (made up?) a super-quick tasty dish:
Sautee spinach, mushrooms & garlic (2 cloves if you like it garlicky)
layer polenta on the bottom of a baking dish
Add spinach/mushroom/garlic mix
Add black beans (1 can)
Mix in a little salsa
Cover with cheese
Bake at 350 for 20-25 minutes until the cheese is melted.
You can slice it thin, cut it into pieces, dip into flour and fry it in oil or butter according to your preference. Or use it as a base for something with a sauce like chicken cacciatore. Enjoy!
Frying it in flat chunks is best, be patient and fry in it olive oil until the edges turn dark, then flip it over. Once it's all crunchy then use either a savory (balsamic or wine based) or sweet (maple syrup or fruity yogurt) depending on what kind of polenta it was. Putting more cornmeal on it is a good idea, but not important, it will brown on its own.
slice it, top it with a little tomato sauce or tomato slices, basil and mozzarella, toss into the oven for a few minutes until its warmed and the cheese is melty (or nuke it). Maybe add a slice of pepperoni.
You can keep it in the fridge for few days. The simplest way to reuse it is to grill it and then serve with cheese (like gorgonzola) or crème fraiche.
You can serve them with a good dripping of aged balsamic vinegar. Also, if you have access to Italian soft cheeses, like Squacquerone or Stracchino, they get along really well.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.495479
| 2010-07-26T23:02:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3367",
"authors": [
"Avaclon",
"Christopher",
"JR in WV",
"Jon Purdy",
"MacMac",
"Niraj Choubey",
"buruzaemon",
"dzen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6102",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6104",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6111",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6119",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6173",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6193",
"ibhbuhbuhb"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
3105
|
Does white whole wheat flour need to be refrigerated?
I know that regular whole wheat flour needs to be refrigerated, but does white whole wheat flour also need refrigeration? I hate to use up the space in the refrigerator if I don't have to.
I have 5 lb. (2.3 kg), and it would probably take me a month or so to use it all.
The only difference between regular whole wheat flour and white whole wheat flour is the variety of wheat from which it is ground. Regular whole wheat flour is ground from red wheat while white whole wheat is from a lighter pigmented wheat and thus the lighter color. In both cases the germ is still intact and thus as Jonathan Campbell stated, it will go rancid more quickly than white flour.
Keep it in a cool dark place and use up quickly if you can't refrigerate or freeze it.
When you keep it in the refrigerator or freezer and plan to use it for yeast breads, remember to allow it to warm to room temperature before using for best results with your yeast.
I typically look to the packaging for advice on storage. In this case, the King Arthur brand of white whole wheat flour recommends storing it in the freezer "for freshest taste."
You can certainly store it outside of the fridge if you don't have room but the oil in the germ will turn rancid much quicker. But really, if you're going to use the whole bag in one month, that shouldn't be an issue either way.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.495704
| 2010-07-24T16:34:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3105",
"authors": [
"Stephen Watkins",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5621",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5662",
"vietean",
"willem"
],
"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
}
|
3968
|
Red sweet and sour cabbage...drain or not?
The recipe I want to try as a side to my beef goulash calls for cooking shredded red cabbage in a quart of water, salt, caraway seeds, and brown sugar. Then it says to drain cabbage when cooked and add vinegar and butter.
If I do this, won't I lose the sweetness that forms the basis of the sweet and sour? Would it maintain flavor better to remove the lid and cook down the liquid and then add vinegar and butter?
Red cabbage is usually braised, not boiled. Following the instructions listed in your recipe, you're going to lose the flavor of the caraway as well.
For German-style sweet and sour red cabbage I typically saute some diced onion and apple in sugar and butter until just golden, add the shredded cabbage and then cook a little until the cabbage is glazed. Add some beef stock along with red wine vinegar, bay leaf and salt and then braise lightly covered until cabbage has softened. Sprinkle some flour over the top and add add'l beef stock and red wine to this. At the end, remove from heat and stir in a couple of tablespoons red currant jelly just to mix in and balance the sweet/sour flavors.
That seems really strange to me as well. The typical recipes I have seen and used call for no water at all. Just saute the red cabbage with the other various ingredients and serve. Very tasty. What is the source of your recipe? Some areas / cultures boil and drain everything for reasons that escape me.
My thought is to use all what you mention except the water. It should take 30 to 50 minutes for it to be ready depending on your heat and moisture content of the cabbage.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.495862
| 2010-08-01T23:19:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3968",
"authors": [
"Aaron Dufour",
"David Budiac",
"J Lundberg",
"Richard",
"Y.G.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32761",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7416",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7417",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7427",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7484",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8243",
"please delete me",
"tomato"
],
"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
}
|
6153
|
To which internal temperature should I cook beef for rare/medium/well done?
I am going to cook a beef roast: To which internal temperature should I cook it for rare/medium/well done?
| Rare | 120 °F to 125 °F | 49 °C to 52 °C | center is bright red |
| Medium Rare | 130 °F to 135 °F | 54 °C to 57 °C | center is very pink |
| Medium | 140 °F to 145 °F | 60 °C to 63 °C | center is light pink |
| Medium Well | 150 °F to 155 °F | 66 °C to 68 °C | not pink |
| Well Done | 160 °F and above | 71 °C and above | brown throughout |
grrrrr, I'm having trouble finding the source, but I'd like to point out that the US gov doesn't agree with these numbers at all. Their numbers are much higher. However, I agree with hobodave. The gov is much closer to the numbers on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beef#Internal_temperature
@yoss: yea, the chart tends to differ by about 5 degrees depending on where you read it
@yossarian - every cookbook I've ever read says that the USG is quite overcautious with their measurements.
@justkt, Yes. I agree whole heartedly and use the same temp guidelines as hobodave (well, actually I don't have any use for them past 135F). I was just pointing out that the USG didn't agree.
You forgot 'blue'
Officially I think the government says 140 for rare. However, I agree with the table above if you are planning to "rest" the meat ... meaning, I would pull it out of/off the heat and tent it with tinfoil for 15 minutes to let the juices settle and also let the internal temperature come up a bit more. I find this makes for a HUGE success.
I'm curious why there are 5°F gaps between these ranges?
For some different values see http://healthycanadians.gc.ca/eating-nutrition/safety-salubrite/cook-temperatures-cuisson-eng.php
/
.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! While this may theoretically answer the question, it would be preferable to include the essential parts of the answer here, and provide the link for reference.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.496052
| 2010-08-27T14:19:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6153",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Kurumi Inc.",
"Mae",
"Pix G",
"Sindou Kone",
"TFD",
"beausmith",
"geoffmpm",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100496",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18417",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41460",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"justkt",
"yossarian"
],
"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
}
|
2961
|
Can heavy cream be frozen?
Sometimes, I want to try a recipe that calls for a small amount of heavy cream. Can the remainder be frozen and then used to make whipped cream? If so, how long will it keep in the freezer?
Voting the question up because I think that this is not a good idea - I want to see if somebody offers an explanation to prove me wrong. It seems to me that the freezing/thawing process would mess up the emulsion, but I'm no chemist. Also: cream keeps for a really long time anyway. Why do you feel the need to freeze it? How much do you need to buy?
One can try the experiment. It will not whip the same.
I once froze Mascarpone. It turned yellow but after thawing it was white again and it tasted good in a sauce.
I frequently (more frequently when I lived in a house where there was a big chest freezer that usually had free space in the back of the kitchen) dollop any extra whipped cream (note, already whipped/sugared/vanilla-ed) onto waxed paper on a baking sheet and freeze it, then move the frozen dollops into a freezer bag. Most get eaten as a frozen treat, but they can be thawed, and while not quite the same as fresh, they are a lot less work if you just need a dab.
Heavy cream can be frozen but only if intended to be used in its liquid form (soups, sauces, etc.) It will not whip properly once frozen.
I agree with Pointy that there's really no point in freezing it because it's usually dated about 2 months out from the time I'm purchasing it. Additionally, if kept cold and not left out on the counter unnecessarily (as with most dairy products) it will keep well beyond the date on the carton.
I'm not a milk drinker but use it baking/cooking. If I have a recipe that requires milk I use a 50:50 ratio of heavy cream and water and haven't had any issues yet. If I was using milk it would be whole milk so it's kind of like making your own version.
Great to know the milk substitution! I've wondered before if that would be a successful sub.
Pure fresh cream has a refrigerator life of less than a week! You must have preservatives in that cream?
The refrigerator-lifespan of dairy products is reduced dramatically once they're opened and exposed to whatever bugs you have in your kitchen. As someone who makes kimchi and keeps it in the main fridge, I get the smallest containers possible because they will almost certainly sour in 4 days or less once opened.
Note that the best-by date is for an UNOPENED package. Once you open it, that date goes right out the window, and you need to use up the cream in about a week, max. So freezing is definitely not pointless.
You can freeze it once whipped. It's delicious. No special instructions needed, just make it how you like it, and freeze it. You can either freeze spoonfuls for putting in drinks or the whole thing. Once it's thawed it's the same as fresh, frozen is harder at least all my attempts were but my mom insists that a few decades ago it was commonly sold like that and soft while frozen.
Oh and it takes a long time to go bad.
Your mother might've been thinking of non-dairy frozen whipped topping, e.g. Cool Whip. Though even that isn't precisely soft until it's thawed.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.496399
| 2010-07-23T03:26:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2961",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"JustRightMenus",
"Malika",
"Mark Bessey",
"Marti",
"Olli",
"Pointy",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1377",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5309",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5311",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7320",
"kitukwfyer",
"nalply",
"nerdpod",
"papin"
],
"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
}
|
3935
|
How to store brown sugar without it becoming hard?
I put a clothes pin on my opened bags of brown sugar and keep them in a dark pantry at room temperature. Since I don't use it very often, it becomes hardened. My work-around is to use a grater to grate it but it would be useful to avoid the problem in the first place.
How should I store it to prevent hardening? Do I put it in the freezer? If so, does it need to come to room temperature before using it?
got the same problem just today.
I was going to vote to close as a duplicate of http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8902/ but then realized that doesn't talk about prevention. Thought I would post it here as a comment so you could reference those suggestions for un-bricking.
Thanks hobodave! I knew I had seen a similar question before but could only find the one I posted as a comment.
@stephen: Yea I usually scan the top 10 or so in the Related section if I think it's a duplicate.
@hobodave: Gah, I always forget that's over there. Stupid sidebar blindness. Good idea!
I believe that for all practical purposes this is identical to the question about brown sugar; technically they are different types of sugar but the answers would be exactly the same. Please comment/reply if you believe there to be a significant difference between this question and the dupe.
@aarornut To me, brown sugar is Demerara sugar (which stores no problem in a normal sugar jar), but it appears that after reading that other question that this is one of those cases where differnt countries call different things by the same name.
Storing brown sugar in a tightly sealed container (such as tupperware, rubbermaid, etc.) is the best method.
Once it dries out however it can be re-moisturized by placing a piece of apple or bread with it inside a tightly sealed container. After a day or two the brown sugar will soften and the bread will dry up or the apple will shrivel.
This is due to the hygroscopic nature(ability to absorb moisture from the surrounding atmosphere)of brown sugar.
You'll see "brown sugar keepers" in gourmet and cookware shops that are round decorative unglazed ceramic or terra cotta disks. The concept is to soak them in water for an hour or two and then dry and place in the brown sugar. Save your money and use a piece of bread or apple when the brown sugar is drying up.
You can also soften it for immediate use by microwaving for a little bit. This should only be used for immediate use because after the sugar cools it will have lost more moisture (due to the fact that microwaves are heating the moisture in food).
you can use the bread trick on keeping cookies moist too
I think hygroscopic is your favorite word, and I'm going to remember it if it kills me. I wonder why it's hygro- and not hydro-
@Ocaasi: Actually you're right...another favorite (although I haven't used it here) is "organoleptic" which would be the technical term for "mouth feel". "Butter leaves a more palatable organoleptic quality on the palate than shortening"
As for "hydro" vs. hygroscopic...there is no such word as hydroscopic....don't know why but that's the case!
Organoleptic. It's almost a mystery why it never caught on.
MMmm... that fried chicken, what organoleptics! Where are these terms from--I mean, are they commonly used in culinary schools, or are they more of a food-science/food-industry jargon.
+1 for the bread trick. This is what I've always done when our gets too hard and it's magic
I resorted to the "brown sugar keeper" as my bread kept coming apart in the brown sugar. Though for cheap (about $1) you can get cute ones at any craft sale. For instance I have a worm. :D
I have a "brown sugar keeper" and it works flawlessly. I just keep it in the brown sugar jar all the time and moisten it if the sugar's getting a bit hard. Frankly I think it's worth the cost if this happens to you a lot as it's extremely convenient and not very expensive.
@Ocaasi: because in Greek hygr- (ὑγρ-) means wet, moist, while hydr- (ὑδρ) is water.
I use a ziplock freezer bag and get as much air out as I can, and generally it keeps pretty well, 6 months or more. When it does get hard, slice a piece of apple and put it in the bag with the sugar for a couple of days.
There are also ceramic disks you can buy that you can put in the bag with the sugar that will keep it soft for much longer, but I've never used one myself so I can't vouch for it.
I've found the best way to prevent it from happening is by keep a terra cotta stone in my bag/tupperware holding the brown sugar.
Something like this or this (the latter says it keeps for 3) works great for me. You wet it and leave it in there and it keeps the brown sugar from drying out. You'll have to re-soak it every so often, but it's not weekly or even monthly in my house, and I open the brown sugar so often it's easy to remember to do it when I notice the stone is dry.
For a quick fix, you can re-soften it easily by putting a slice of apple in with it for a bit. Don't forget about it though, or the apple will go mouldy and ruin the sugar (I speak from experience on this one!).
A better option with no such downside is a "brown sugar disc". It's a piece of clay that you soak in water for 15 minutes, then put in with the sugar. It will help keep the sugar soft, without getting it too moist. You can usually find these easily in kitchen shops (or even grocery stores, sometimes). Every few months you may need to re-soak the disc.
I've never seen a "brown sugar disc" in a cook shop before - may be there isn't the demand in my area...
i happen to have one of those seal-a-meal vacuum sealers, and i use one of their container options and store the opened bag in that. i have heard that the apple/bread slice trick works, too, so would give that a shot instead of buying some special thing.
My mum used to store sugar in sealable pots with a layer of dried rice at the bottom. The idea was the rice would act as a desiccant.
These days you could watch out for one of those little packets that seem to often come with electronic products like hard drives etc. Those little sachets are full of silica granules which are highly absorbent. You might toss one of those in to the top of the canister. Don't worry, they are totally harmless to food and may even help with odour contamination as well.
Brown sugar is usually fairly moist, though - I'd guess keeping white sugar dry keeps it from clumping or misbehaving, perhaps that's what your mum was after, but brown sugar usually gets harder to work with when dry, and other workarounds tend to keep the brown sugar a little bit moist to keep it workable.
I have found those Lock n Lock containers make THE BEST storage for brown sugar. I have had brown sugar out of the bag stored in one for over a year without it hardening. No clay discs, no bread pieces, no apple slices....nothing. Awesome containers for this kind of storage.
A great way to make your brown sugar stay nice and moist is to cut a piece of bread and put it in your brown sugar bin. What happens is the brown sugar will soak up the moisture after time and your brown sugar will last a lot longer! just make sure that you are changing your bread every so often.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.496720
| 2010-08-01T17:41:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3935",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Darin Sehnert",
"David",
"Dinah",
"Jon",
"Kimmen",
"Kyra",
"Megha",
"Mike Marks",
"Mr. Shiny and New 安宇",
"Ocaasi",
"Ritesh",
"Rowland Shaw",
"Stefano Borini",
"adambox",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100986",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22157",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33007",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/390",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7353",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7354",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7542",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/771",
"mahsa",
"nico",
"philip",
"stephennmcdonald",
"sugaredlightning",
"user541686",
"xtian"
],
"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
}
|
3622
|
Can red wine vinegar replace white wine vinegar?
I have a recipe for broiled swordfish steak that uses the following ingredients for the baste:
olive oil, butter, Dijon mustard, white wine vinegar, and black pepper.
I only have garlic-flavored red wine vinegar (no lemon either). Can I use that or would it be better to skip the vinegar altogether?
Well one problem might be that it might stain your fish red ...
Vinegar, in general, has distinct acidic characteristics that will affect a recipe; it's often used for this reason. For instance, in marinades, the acid is used to break down muscle fiber and help flavor penetrate. In Cevice, the acid component is used to "cook" the fish.
Additionally, the different types of vinegar have different flavor characteristics. I, personally, don't much like red wine vinegar as I find it kind of bland. I much prefer balsamic or champagne. So the question you really need to ask yourself is, "will the flavor of the red wine over the white wine adversely affect my dish?" You might ask the same question about the garlic.
So subbing one type of vinegar for another is fine if you're looking to replace the role of the acid in a recipe (also why you can sub lemon juice). Whether or not you feel the flavor can be substituted is really just a matter of personal preference. If you don't know ahead of time about the flavor, try it and find out for sure.
To specifically answer the flavor characteristic for your question, I'd say yes. Red wine is OK. As pointed out, swordfish is a hearty fish and should hold up fine. I probably wouldn't sub balsamic, would use champagne as a priority, would think long and hard about apple cider. If it was a lighter fish, I'd be much more wary about red wine.
Red wine vinegar has a much more pronounced, grape/fruit flavor than white. I normally wouldn't recommend it for fish... except maybe swordfish which can hold up to a ton of flavor. I'd personally just use lemon juice instead.
I second @Ocaasi. There should be no vinegar in the recipe, lemon is better.
Both answer's already given show how subjective cooking can be (I can agree with parts of both of them).
In this specific case (mustard + vinegar), I'd make sure my mustard + red vinegar combination don't result in an ugly brown. As mustard's also adding it's taste, I prefer 'clean tasting' vinegar (or lemon juice).
I agree that a lemon juice might be better than red wine garlic vinegar, esp if you weren't looking for garlic. If garlic is part of the equation anyway, then go ahead. Swordfish can get dry, so don't leave off fluids that can fight the dryness, and be careful not to overcook.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.497342
| 2010-07-28T19:39:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3622",
"authors": [
"Amelse Etomer",
"Madhusudan.C.S",
"Pointy",
"Richard Campbell",
"Tremmors",
"Zenon",
"dotHTM",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6553",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6559",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6560",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6944",
"justin.m.chase",
"papin",
"reticent"
],
"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
}
|
3341
|
What do you use to make tzatziki? Onions, garlic, or both?
I found tzatziki sauce in a supermarket. If I recall correctly, the ingredients listed on the package included onions. I then read on Internet that tzatziki sauce is made with garlic.
What do you use to make tzatziki, onions, garlic, or both?
Typically garlic is used. If you prefer onions and garlic, go ahead but it's typically cucumber, yogurt, dill, garlic, lemon juice or vinegar, olive oil, salt, pepper, and sometimes sour cream.
Also one may want to drain the yogurt first to make the sauce a little thicker (well potentially a lot thicker).
or just use the greek style yogurt if you lack the cheese cloth to drain it yourself.
Can pour a whole tub of yogurt in a large coffee filter inside a funnel too. Let drain overnight and you're good to go. Oh, and you MUST squeeze all the water out of the cucumbers too.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.497580
| 2010-07-26T19:54:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3341",
"authors": [
"Bryan Oakley",
"Michael Dean",
"Pointy",
"Rake36",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6056",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6060",
"sarge_smith"
],
"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
}
|
3890
|
Crispy fried chicken goes limp: picnic disaster
I use a simple fried chicken recipe: wash chicken (I use thighs), dredge in seasoned flour, dip in egg with a bit of milk, re-dredge in flour, shake and fry. The dish comes out great on the day I cook it, but loses its crunch the next day when I want to take it as part of a picnic lunch.
Is there a way to avoid the limp-crusted fried chicken on day 2?
P.S. I remove skin and all visible fat, and I drain on paper towels both top and bottom sides.
Once fried chicken or any fried food for that matter is refrigerated it is going to lose it's crispiness. This is due to the cruncy exterior coating absorbing moisture from inside the food combined with moisture being trapped inside the wrapping/storange container which then is absorbed by the food as well. It happens even shortly after frying if the food item is placed on a flat surface where the inner steam can't escape and is trapped between the food and the surface under it. This is why when frying large batches or holding fried food for any extended time, it's best to drain on a cooling rack that's upside down on a brown paper bag or paper towels. Upside down so that it's close to the paper to absorb excess grease but still allows a small bit of airspace so that steam can escape and if keeping it in a warm oven, hot air can circulate.
You can re-crisp your chicken by placing it on a roasting/cooling rack on a baking tray and place in the oven to re-crisp the skin. Be careful not to dry it out.
The first part of the solution is not to cook it as close to eating time as possible.
After that, you're fighting to dry the skin as fast as it gets moist.
Dry as thoroughly as possible after cooking.
Wrap in cotton napkins that will help wick away moisture.
Keep in a loose weave basket. Obviously, this is not compatible with keeping the chicken in a cooler, so again, the shorter the time-frame, the better.
Okay I'm answering this super late, but crisp fried chicken is not bound by time :)
So what works for me is
Fry it with a starch; something like a potato starch or corn starch or even rice flour rather than regular flour.
Fry it fresh. Have as little time possible between frying and consumption.
Dry it out on a rack after double frying it. Proper air circulation provides great crispness.
Once it is at room temperature, pack it immediately in airtight ziploc bags by vacuuming it either by plunging it into a bin of water or using a straw to suck out air. You could also add food grade dehumidifiers (even silica gel is safe to use)
Although your chicken will eventually get limp cause the crust will absorb moisture from within the meat; these steps will ensure it doesn't absorb moisture from the air. Another thing to do is to double coat it and create a barrier between the meat and the crust (similar to having a layer of chocolate on a tart crust) by having a primer coat of egg white + corn starch batter that is fried till crisp and hard and then proceeding to give it another proper flavorful crust.
It sounds like your double-dip method is a double-edge sword. It makes the chicken phenomenally crusty, but that crust is then a giant sponge for water. Darin's quick-roast revival sounds like the solution.
Just to be clear, the double-dip method is great. Except for leftovers at a picnic.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.497688
| 2010-07-31T22:47:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3890",
"authors": [
"Clement Herreman",
"Johnny",
"Ocaasi",
"aneuryzm",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7629",
"markets",
"ripper234",
"wbyoung"
],
"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
}
|
120598
|
How much does a dL of flour weigh?
I have a baking recipe that uses metric volume measurements. I’d like to convert deciliters to weight.
How much does a deciliter of flour weigh?
We already have different questions for converting flour volume to weight, maybe the most canonical one is https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2915/standard-weight-conversions-for-converting-cups-of-flour-to-grams-of-flour. I still hesitate to close this one as a duplicate, especially because most people in the world are not aware that a "cup" is a standardized measurement of volume, so for them, an answer about the conversion of cups to weight is not useful.
where is this recipe that is using metric volume of flour?
There can be no exact general conversion because flour's density depends on how it has packed into a space and also a little on the specific flour – this is why mass measurements are preferred for most serious purposes.
However, there are plenty of resources that will give you a suitable answer and any recipe using volume measurements for solids shouldn't be too dependent on small variations: the first one that came up for me when I googled 'dl flour in grams' was this which gives 52.1g. (The implied level of precision here is misleading of course.)
This is pretty close to the rule of thumb I learned which is that flour has a density of around 0.5 (g/cm^3 or kg/l).
@quarague Nice rule of thumb!
Building off what @dbmag9 said:
According to Pastries like a pro
1 Cup Sifted Flour ~114g, so 1 dL is about 48g.
1 Cup Unsifted Flour ~140g, so 1dL is about 59g.
So, if it is "Sifted Flour" or "Flour, Sifted", you would have different weights.
I also looked at King Arthur Baking for "flour".
Averaging the Wheat flours came out to about 50.55g / 1dL.
All Purpose flour came out to 50.7g / dL.
Averaging all 48 types of "flour" listed came out to 47.18g/dL.
dL (deciliter = 0.10 liter [100ml] = 100g of water)
'dL' is used in Sweden as a measuring spoon/cup and 60g is quoted for flour.
Translated from Umrechnung dl = g page listed below:
name
dL
Sugar
90g
Flour
60g
Fine rye flour
50g
table salt
121.7g
Coarse rye flour
55g
food starch
80g
Syrup or Honey
140g
Almonds/Nuts
65g
raisins
60g
Melted butter
90g
oatmeal
30g
For those who are not in Sweden, IKEA seems to offer such spoons/cups:
VARDAGEN:
1 ml (1 [Swedish] pinch = density g/ml)
table salt = 1.217g
1 Cup (US) = 287.9278838205g=((1.217*0.2365882365)*1000)
1/16 Teaspoon, pinch (US) = 0.3749060987g
1 Teaspoon. (5ml)
1 Tablespoon (15ml)
1/2 Deciliter (50ml)
1 Deciliter (100ml) = 0.4226752838 Cup (US)
1 Cup (US) = 2.365882365 dL = 236.5882365ml of water
100ml=236.5882365*0.4226752838
If you know that your flour is 140g per US Cup:
1 dL = 59.1745397282g = 140/2.365882365
Sources:
Swedish Baking Measurements and Measures
Umrechnung dl = g (in German)
tsk, msk und dl: Schwedische Maßeinheiten | TROLLLAND (in German)
VARDAGEN Küchenmaß 5er-Satz - IKEA Deutschland
How to convert 1 milliliter of table salt to grams
Density Database Version 2.0 (2012) PDF
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.497978
| 2022-05-15T15:26:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120598",
"authors": [
"WendyG",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70727",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81322",
"quarague",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
120722
|
How to add creaminess to cooked corn chowder; mine is too thick?
The first time I was making corn chowder, I used a recipe with a little olive oil, vegetable broth, milk, 20oz of frozen corn, Greek yogurt, red potatoes, onion, bell pepper, garlic, salt, pepper, a little cayenne pepper, and rosemary.
It cooked in slow cooker over 8 hours; the potatoes (diced small) were barely soft. It looked to me like it was going to be too liquid, so I keep adding some floor mixed with milk in two hour intervals, until I thought it was thickening, but now it's over thickened.
It didn't have a good taste either; I've been adding all kinds of spices trying to get it more flavorful.
Welcome to the site. Are you asking how to salvage your chowder or how to thicken it in the future?
Thank you! I am trying to salvage what I have cooked. I'm afraid if I add either more broth of milk, it will change the flavor, which I've had a time with!
broth *or milk, tks!
unfortunately, I cannot think of any way of thinning a soup without adding more liquid.
Add milk is the only way I can think of.
I don't know if you'll be able to salvage this soup, but I will tell you how you can try. The reason your soup tastes unpleasant is that you added a raw flour slurry. Adding raw flour gives a raw flour flavor which is unpleasant as you've found. In small quantities you may not notice it, but if you add a lot it can ruin a dish. If it is very strong now it may still be too strong after you thin the soup out.
The only way to thin the soup is to dilute the soup with fresh milk and/or stock. What I would try is to remove half the liquid (strain out the solids and put them back in) and replace it with fresh liquid and add some herbs and spices to replace those flavors. The reasons for removing half the liquid as opposed to adding more to the whole soup are 1) to keep it in balance with the solid ingredients and 2) to minimize waste: if it doesn't work you're either throwing out double or if you decide to eat it you have twice the unpalatable soup to eat. Bring it up to temperature and try it, it may need more seasoning. Try some white pepper, it's good in chowder and may help to disguise any remaining raw flour flavor. That's as far as I would personally go, if you end up with something edible I'd stop before you go overboard and make it worse.
There are 2 main ways of thickening a soup, one is to use a slurry as you did. Slurries are quick and convenient, if you want to use a slurry use cornstarch (corn flour) or potato starch instead, they will thicken without adding flavor. The second method is to make a roux, which is equal amounts by weight of flour and butter cooked in a pan. The benefit of a roux is it cooks the rawness out of the flour and adds flavor. The longer you cook it the darker it gets, the more flavor it adds but it reduces its thickening power. For my milk based chowders I make a light roux, cooking it just a minute or two as I like the depth of flavor it gives. However, there's nothing wrong with a cornstarch slurry if that's what you have the time and inclination to do, a roux is just extra credit. If time is a factor you can make a roux ahead of time and keep it in the refrigerator.
Another problem you ran into was that in a slow cooker it can take a long time to see the results after adding thickener, this is because slow cooker temperatures are low and flour/cornstarch don't fully thicken until the temperature reaches 203°F/95°C, although they start to thicken at a lower temperature. You have to know how much thickener to add, or you add it and then wait a long time to see the result. You could also use a lower temperature thickening agent like tapioca starch or arrowroot and see the result sooner.
If I want to make a soup creamier, I often add triply thickened with a puree of the soup, half and half, and corn meal. This means your chowder will be thick and creamy.
You may also add a small can of coconut cream.
In this case, the soup is already to thick. Adding purreed parts of it will make it worse.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.498216
| 2022-05-31T16:39:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120722",
"authors": [
"Esther",
"GdD",
"connie thompson",
"gnicko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99418",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4265
|
what's a good technique for pasteurizing eggs?
I tried to make homemade eggnog last Christmas. It turned out fine, but the eggs were an issue. I thought about buying pasteurized eggs but they would've run me $12 for two dozen, which seemed obscene.
Pasteurization was important because my young child might have wanted some eggnog, so it needed to be very safe.
So I pasteurized the eggs by heating them a little at a time in the microwave, stirring, heating etc until they reached 145F. I may have separated the yolks, but can't remember exactly. I read about the technique on a blog. This worked well enough, but I ended up with some chunks of cooked egg in the egg nog. Not a big deal, but I spent a lot of time on this eggnog and was disappointed that it was less than perfect.
What's a good technique for pasteurizing eggs that doesn't result in chunks and gets the eggs to the correct temperature?
The microwave is too harsh an environment for this.
If you have a sous vide circulator, you can also pasteurize in-shell at 135 F (57 C) for for 75 minutes according to Douglas Baldwin's A Practical Guide to Sous Vide Cooking.
To pasteurize on the stove in the shell takes some care. You must bring the water up to 140 - 150 F (60 - 65 C) for 3 to 5 minutes to pasteurize them. You must not exceed 150 or you will begin to cook the egg. If the eggs are in the water as you heat it then they will closely match the temperature of the surrounding water. Just make sure they aren't resting on the bottom of the pan. If you want to be extra careful you can leave them in longer, as long as you don't let them get too hot.
Alternatively, since you're using them in egg nog, you can combine the eggs with the milk and heat this slowly on the stove until it reaches a temperature or 140-150 F, maintaining for 3-5 minutes.
How can you be sure that the yolk gets to 145 with this technique? It seems flawed on the face of it, since getting the yolk to 145 is the most important part, but also the hardest to measure with your technique.
Why not separate the eggs and heat the yolks and whites by themselves? More work, but it would help get to the desired result without double-cooking the milk.
@jcollum: The worry with eggs is more about the outside, than the inside. Salmonella bacteria live on the surface, not on the inside. The problem is that it's impossible to get to the inside without some contact with the outside, so either sterilize the outside, or sterilize the whole mess. Beyond that, the yolk is the part of the egg least likely to be hosting any bacteria...The white is full of natural antibiotics, and the shell membrane is an excellent barrier against bacteria.
@jcollum:I clarified my answer. If you heat the eggs in the water they will match the temp of the environment
The new link is good. I think we can call that the answer.
@Satanic: Salmonella can migrate into the yolk. That's why they need to be pasteurized. Source: http://www.incredibleegg.org/egg-facts/egg-safety/eggs-and-food-safety#4 It may be rare, but still could happen. No reason not to prevent it.
love this - thanks! just wondering if it's mostly surface bacteria we're killing then is there a risk of re-contamination from handling the eggs before & after the process? I went nuts with the hand-sanitiser to be sure!
@C4H5As Can't hurt. The risk should be negligible though. Most homes should be free of Salmonella; it would normally only be present if it was brought in by eggs/meat/produce. So don't handle your raw chicken and then pick up your pasteurized eggs.
The only guaranteed safe method is just to buy eggs pasteurized in the shell. IMHO, well worth the slightly higher price.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.498650
| 2010-08-04T20:23:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4265",
"authors": [
"Alex Reynolds",
"Archeosudoerus",
"David Burchett",
"Jason",
"Mark McDonald",
"Matt Fenwick",
"Monte Hill",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Talbatz",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1716",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8006",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8007",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8008",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8355",
"jcollum",
"madhead",
"ron"
],
"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
}
|
120882
|
Applying seasoning to mushrooms
So I started baking pleurotous mushrooms recently; they're really yummy. The recipe proposes oil with garlic, salt, and pepper to be mixed and then spread on the mushrooms with a brush. However, this is hard, as the-carefully placed-mushrooms are simply moved if I try to brush over them!
What can I do to prevent this?
Is there maybe some device that allows me to spray a seasoning on them, without clogging despite the spices inside?
And you can't hold the mushrooms with your other hand and then just wash your hand(s)?
@ViktorMellgren - yeah, seems too sensible ;)
Sounds logical, but it's really much more comfortable to use the other hand to hold the container of the seasoning to frequently dip the brush inside
You won't be able to spray that mix as the pepper will clog up the sprayer, the salt may likewise cause problems. I can think of two options that may make it easier:
Spray on the oil with a sprayer, then apply salt and pepper. I would use my fingers to sprinkle the salt for better control, then grind fresh pepper over
Mix the oil and seasoning together and toss the mushrooms in it to coat. This could work if you have enough oil mix, if it's meant to be a light coating then I would use option 1.
#1 seems weird to me. I would definitely choose number #2. Same with diced potatoes, or any other veg. Either use a large bowl, or to save on dishes pile veg/shrooms in center of baking sheet. drizzle with oil, then seasoning, then gently toss using fingers and finally "carefully place" your shrooms.
@Zak option 1 is pretty much what I do for oven-baked sweet potato wedges, either spraying or brushing the oil, because I only really want enough oil for the seasoning to stick to. You may want more
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.498983
| 2022-06-22T14:37:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120882",
"authors": [
"Billy Kerr",
"Chris H",
"George Menoutis",
"Viktor Mellgren",
"Zak",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45462",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75888"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20279
|
How can I get my layer cake to cook more evenly/not burned?
I usually make a two layer cake, and I have a family favourite cake recipe which is fool-proof. I now want to start making one layer (thicker) cakes and i am using catering grade tins. I just finished baking my first one.
Because this cake was thicker, I lowered the temp from 180° C, to 170° C. The cake rose well, but the center was liquid till the very end; it also burned on top and I had to leave the cake in for much longer than I usually do (45 minutes instead of 35).
The length of time I baked it for isn't a problem, the cake rose very well too, but what should I change to stop the cake from burning at the top?
The main reason why the top is being burnt while the middle is still uncooked is uneven temperature in your oven. Usually caterers/bakeries have higher grade, convection ovens which can accomadate the bigger cake tins because it can output an even temperature throughout the oven.
What you can do is:
Lower the temperature even more and bake for a longer period of time,
or order a pizza stone to even out the temperature of your oven.
Bake the cake at lowest rack (remove the upper racks if need be) and maybe even making a tin foil tent over the top to take from direct heat.
In a conventional oven, the majority of the heat is at the top.
You don't mention lowering the oven rack to compensate for the change in height. I'm fairly certain that would solve your problem.
Center rack is normally recommended - if you used a higher rack then that's definitely the reason it burned. But even if you used the center rack, you might need to lower it for a particularly tall cake. You might also need to extend the cooking time slightly to compensate for the lower effective temperature.
Note that this doesn't apply to convection ovens, which have a relatively constant temperature throughout.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.499163
| 2012-01-09T16:12:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20279",
"authors": [
"Greg H.",
"Jed",
"John Ryan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44427",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44430",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44440",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44698",
"m.thome",
"mechanicarts",
"user44432"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19169
|
Are there thermo bottles to store tea, as soon as it is made (100ºC/212ºF)?
I'm looking for a thermo bottle (~ 1 Litre/ 33 oz) to store tea, as soon as it is made (let's say its temperature will be around 100 Celsius/ 212 Fahrenheit.
Is there such a brilliant bottle? Would this SIGG Thermo Bottle be able to do this?
I don't even need to maintain the beverage warm. I just need a portable recipient that withstands such temperatures (and doesn't leak/allow me to drink directly from it).
I have the SIGG, and wasn't impressed. It loses heat pretty quickly. I use a Thermos Nissan and that thing works for 16+ hours. The Stanley ones are also good, and bigger capacity like you need.
You don't need anything special for that. I have often made tea in a regular thermo bottle, with no adverse effects on the bottle. It does help that it keeps the tea hot. So the fancy one you linked is probably OK too.
If you want a lighter bottle, you can see if a glass bottle doesn't weigh less, although a thermo bottle from thin stainless steel isn't that heavy compared to glass. Glass should withstand boiling water without breaking, if the bottle isn't too thick and hasn't been held in a very cold place (room temperature is OK). It still can shatter, so you should probably take precautions (pour over the sink), although the chance is very low.
A typical softdrink bottle shouldn't be reused for tea, even if it doesn't melt outright it is likely to get very soft, etc. But some plastic bottles will be OK with hot liquids, for example Nalgenes should do the job. They have the advantage of being wide-mouthed (it is very hard to clean a glass lemonade bottle because of its narrow mouth).
You can go to the local hiking store and see what they have, and whether you like it more or less than a thermo bottle (and they will have thermo bottles too). Their bottles are optimized for easy caring, and some come optionally with a neopren sleeve to keep the temperature longer.
There are tea tumblers/Thermos bottles which come with built-in infuser baskets, so you can steep loose-leaf tea straight into them, and then sip from the top. They're explicitly designed for this use.
Yes, I've seen one, from Thermos. Unfortunately its capacity was only 20 oz. Do you know any with bigger capacity?
That's the largest size I've seen for tea, but you can always put it in a conventional 1L Thermos. If you're worried about shattering, just preheat by swirling a little hot water in the thermos before pouring in your tea.
If you are near an Ikea store they have perfect 32oz thermos' for $15. I buy like 1 a month and have about 10 now. I make all my tea on a friday night and then it is cool by Sunday. I steep it and then put it right in the freezer ( I like cold tea). But I found that with Green tea if you let it sit the tanins come out and it gets brown and loses its taste.
In my experience, if tea is stored for any length of time, it goes "off"... It takes on an unpleasant stale flavour, and the colour changes from bright reddish-brown to a more greyish colour - which is particularly noticeable if you add milk.
I never put tea in a thermos - I find it better to take hot water (really hot... straight from the kettle into a pre-heated insulated flask) and some teabags, and make the tea when needed. It isn't perfect, since the water is usually a bit cooler than it should be (not boiling) but the result is much nicer than tea that was made several hours earlier.
Why this happens I am not sure. I imagine it is some kind of oxidation reaction, but I could be wrong.
It is even worse if you try to store tea with milk. It goes nasty in a quite a short time - half an hour or so. There seems to be some kind of reaction between the tannins and the milk.
I understand that iced tea is routinely stored for hours, so perhaps it is not affected in the same way. Maybe the temperature is part of the problem.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.499609
| 2011-11-27T12:42:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19169",
"authors": [
"AleOtero93",
"BZink",
"BobMcGee",
"John Assymptoth",
"MonkeyZeus",
"Paul Kertscher",
"Rhonda",
"digitalextremist",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41668",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41671",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41718",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41740",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41894",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8114",
"neanderslob",
"user41673"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19088
|
Reheating turkey
I baked my turkey, cut it off ahead of time, and froze it. When I reheat, should I have it thawed and reheat in slow oven with chicken broth and the drippings from the turkey, or should I reheat in hot oven? It seemed a little dry.
When you reheat, does the turkey get more tender or does it get tough?
Reheating the turkey will not render it more tender, though it can make it more tough if you heat it to a sufficient temperature to begin cooking the proteins again.
I would recommend having the turkey thawed prior to reheating and then warming it in a low oven with some broth as you mention. Reheating in a hot oven would increase the chances of overheating resulting in dry turkey.
If the drippings form the turkey are not fatty those would be fine to use as well. If there is a lot of fat in the drippings I would be worried that the turkey may seem greasy when eaten.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.499945
| 2011-11-23T14:36:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19088",
"authors": [
"Michael Hoffmann",
"Myles",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41454",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41456",
"xorq"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19162
|
How to make Chicken Laksa taste more like To's restaurant?
I've tried a couple of recipes to make Chicken Laksa but I cant get it to taste like this Malaysian restaurant (To's in North Sydney).
I've had the best luck with this recipe from Taste.
Is it just Red Chilli and Shallots I'm missing, or am I doing it wrong using laksa paste (Tean's Gourmet Malaysian Curry Laksa Paste)?
Hi Jeremy, welcome to Seasoned Advice. Please note our policy against recipe requests in our [FAQ]. We do allow questions about recreating restaurant recipes, but in order to get a useful answer you should be more specific about how your recipe is coming out differently from the restaurant you prefer.
For a start, any Asian dish will be effected if the chicken stock is not good. Make quality chicken stock from whole chicken carcases, and take your time with it
In the case of Laksa, the key flavours are mostly in the Laksa paste (shrimp paste and lemon grass). If you don't have an equivalent of the one used at To's you will have an entirely different dish. A lot of effort can go into a Laksa paste (or for that matter curry pastes in general), in terms of exact ingredient ratios, roasting times etc, quality and freshness of ingredients etc
Laksa is often made with prawn stock, not chicken stock. Save the prawn heads and other fish bits, and boil them up for a very stinky prawn stock
Don't overdo the coconut milk/cream. Stick to one brand, and start with a lot less and see how it goes, if it is lacking, add more. Record what the magic amount for your favourite brand is
Getting quality and fresh ingredients for Asian dishes is often a major stumbling block for truly authentic tastes. Making your own decent Laksa paste is near impossible outside of Asia. Western grown lemon grass, tastes like, well grass!
When you're next at To's have a peek in the kitchen, ask if you have too. And check what they use for Laksa paste. If it's out of a branded jar you're in luck, if it's homemade, it's back to the grindstone, literally
The recipe linked, does not seem like a very good Laksa recipe to me. Also a good Laksa is topped with chilli oil. This is an import part. It consists of a lot of chilli and a little garlic cocked in a cup of oil. Float a couple of spoons of this on each bowl as you serve it
this was the exact answer I was looking for. I'm a beginner home cook but am such a good customer of To's and if I play my cards right I think I'll be able to ask for their Laksa paste. If the paste is a recipe then I'll pay them for it. One time I did see a guy (another good customer) only order just their laksa liquid:)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.500056
| 2011-11-27T03:49:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19162",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Abdullah Abdulmajeed",
"Brett Wolfington",
"Eric Platon",
"Jeremy Thompson",
"Miguel Trias",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41652",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41653",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41654",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41802",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8109"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22388
|
Fresh half and half curdles in hot coffee
I have a specific travel mug that I use on occasion that will curdle the creamer. The creamer I used is only a few days old and it only happens in this mug. It's a stainless steel double walled with lid. I have no idea why it does this. When I use a normal mug, I have no issues.
One possible difference is that when you pour coffee (or any other hot liquid) into a ceramic mug, the liquid cools a fair bit (the heat is "lost" to heating the ceramic cup). The double-walled stainless mug is designed to lose as little heat as possible, and the inner wall has much less thermal mass than the ceramic. So, when you pour the creamer into the stainless cup, the coffee is hotter.
The simplest way to test if this is the case, would be to measure with an accurate thermometer. And the solution, then, would be to allow the coffee to cool some before adding the creamer.
Alternatively, temper in the creamer. To do this, put the creamer in the cup first, then add a little coffee, stir, add a little more coffee, stir, then add the rest. The idea is to slowly heat the creamer up to the coffee's temperature. This should prevent curdling, even if your coffee is near-boiling.
It could be some residue on the cup, but I doubt it, because stainless is fairly easy to clean. Also, it'd be hard to imagine enough residue to curdle the cream without also being very evident in the taste of the coffee. Stainless steel itself is pretty non-reactive, so its probably not a reaction with the coffee or cream.
Are you by any chance cleaning the mugs differently? If you're using something acidic (vinegar maybe) to clean the stainless mug then it might be residue causing the curdling.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.500284
| 2012-03-19T13:39:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22388",
"authors": [
"Dana",
"Thieme Hennis",
"VeeW",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50332",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50333",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50336",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50454",
"user50454"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20296
|
What type of vegetable oil should I use for tempura?
If I want to make a really superior vegetable or seafood tempura, what kind of oil should I use, and what temperature should I heat it to?
I've been using refined peanut oil (Lion & Globe brand) and heating it to around 375F. However, the results haven't been as good as I'd like them to be. Would using a different type of oil help?
In my experience at expensive tempura restaurants, sesame oil is almost always used at least as part of the blend, but my understanding is that it is not the roasted kind, which has far too low a smoke point. I've been to a restaurant in Izu, now closed, where it was obvious because we were seated right in front of the fryer and the smell was quite noticeable, and the fancy place I went to in Tokyo was apparently using sesame oil as well, but they had more effective ventilation, so it was mostly obvious from the flavorfulness of the results. I've seen unroasted sesame oil in middle-eastern markets and I know some companies sell it in the US, so it is obtainable, and I've seen it at about $40/gallon on Amazon. I also know from experience that a blend of the roasted sesame oil and neutral, high-smoke-point oil will have a higher smoke point than just straight roasted sesame oil, and will add flavor, so it's at least possible that some people do that.
At home and at inexpensive restaurants, other vegetable oils are frequently used, and there's a simple tempura set that you can buy as a gift pack that I've seen used as a winter gift. This is usually cottonseed oil or a blend. In some regions, an ambiguous blend called "salad oil" is commonly used. It is not unheard of to use tea seed oil (camellia), which is increasingly available in the US at Asian markets (when I ran a specialty import business, I used to sell sell some that a Chinese tea importer was purchasing until he shifted his focus to larger packages suitable for restaurant use).
The Japanese entry for tenpura on Wikipedia confirms that a custom blend of sesame, cottonseed and other oils is often used at tempura shops. The Tokyo style and Kansai style is a bit different, with many Tokyo shops serving a darker version thanks in part to sesame oil and egg, and Kansai region versions leaning a bit whiter thanks either to using neutral vegetable oils or lack of egg.
I've used canola oil but it tends to leave an unpleasant aroma in the air, especially after the second use. If I were in the US and on a budget, I'd probably choose peanut oil, but it will taste different than most of what I've seen in Japan. I doubt that I've ever encountered peanut oil-fried tempura in Japan, though there's a chance I just didn't notice.
In practice, I've found that the most important thing to get good results from homemade tempura is to prevent overloading the fryer, because the temperature will drop too quickly. This is true for other kinds of fried goods as well, but is far more important for tempura because the coating should be fairly thin. As an unpracticed amateur, I've found that using a modest amount of katakuriko or cornstarch in the flour blend helps produce crisper results.
It's fairly difficult to get an assortment of different items to be ready at the same time, so consider making it in "courses" if you want flawless results, or make only one or two items at a time. Tempura restaurants tend to have wide, slightly shallow fryers, whereas most fryers meant for western deep-frying tend to have several stations of deep pots, since it's ok in many cases for things to be submerged, like when making french fries. It's quite unusual for tempura to be completely submerged.
Edited to add:
Assuming you're coating with a batter (there are some types that are dusted with flour or katakuriko rather than a full batter), I get far better results by keeping the batter (or the flour) very cold.
Many years later edit, since I live in Japan now and occasionally buy prepared "tempura flour":
I just wanted to note that, looking at the ingredients in tempura flour sold in Japanese supermarkets for home cooks wanting to make tempura here, baking powder is typically in the mix. I have added it occasionally with plain flour in the US depending on how important crisp results were to me, but if your primary issue is textural it may be worth a try. I don't think it's as much baking powder as "self-rising flour" would contain, but I'm not sure. I will say that in a pinch, when I was low on regular flour, I used tempura flour in scones and got acceptable results, so it may be "just enough" to cause some carbon dioxide explosions that produce a leavening effect.
Jason, yes, tempura shops in Tokyo serve their tempura in courses ... often quite a few of them.
Peanut oil is good although it is not a cooking oil that is used a lot in Japan. I have never seen or tasted tempura fried in sesame oil. Traditionally, sesame oil is used in small quantities for flavouring and aroma, not usually for deep frying. However, hooray for experimentation! As long as the final product tastes good. As mentioned, most any oil that can be used for deep frying is acceptable for tempura. I prefer corn or canola oil. It is best to use a thermometer to keep your temperature consistent at around 350° F (not more than 360° F) which will help keep your tempura the same colour and crispness. It's also important to keep your batter cold (use cold water and refrigerate) so that the batter doesn't absorb too much oil and stays crispy. The batter should be a little runny (can be a little lumpy; do not overmix) and shouldn't overly coat the vegetable/seafood. Japanese chefs use their hands to coat the vegetable/seafood in the batter and then into the oil so they can work more quickly. Once they put the tempura into the oil, they sometimes take some batter and splash it onto the tempura in the fryer to give the pieces a "flakier" appearance.
Traditional oils are:
Sesame (non-roasted sesame seed oil, hard to get outside of Asia), and may be cut with soy
Soyabean (probably not like American soyabean oil though, as they grow different species)
Cotton-seed
Camellia (hard to get outside of Asia)
Consider that oily fish, bird, and pork are also often deep fried in Japanese cooking, so the oil will be heavily tainted/flavoured with the fat from those too
Imagine cooking your delicate tempura in a pot of steaming tuna oil
Well, traditionally you'd need to go for sesame oil, but soy or canola will do just fine.
I tried hazelnut oil once and it did a great job imho.
When making tempura you should experiment with spicing up your oil - I love chili, and i make my own so-spicy-it-might-kill-you chili oil, so i added two spoons of that into the boiling soy oil before deep frying the tempura. It added quite a zing.
I apologize in advance if experimenting with tempura hurts the feelings of any Japanese readers this website might have, i truly respect your culture and cuisine. Arigatto.
If you're going to use sesame oil, make sure it's the refined kind; many if not most bottles of "pure sesame oil" are unrefined and will smoke far below deep-frying temperature. YMMV but I've only seen the refined sesame "cooking oil" at Asian stores and supermarkets.
I find sesame oil to be a bit too rich and thick for frying food that you want to be light, crisp, yet still fluffy like good tempura should be. I've honestly never used sesame oil other than adding a tiny tiny bit to flavour some food.
Do you have a reference for this? Not only is sesame oil strong, it's expensive enough that I find it hard to believe it's the traditional oil for tempura.
I have no reference aside from general knowledge, a long trip to the far east and a major interest in what i eat :-) bottom line: for tempura use any vegetable oil and experiment to find the one that suits your flavor.
It isn't "refined" vs "unrefined" but rather "toasted" or "roasted" (which has a low smoke point) vs. unroasted sesame oil that makes a difference on the smoke point.
Whenever I'm frying, I tend to use a mixture of grapeseed oil (for the high smoke point) and sesame oil (for the flavor). I don't use a thermometer, but I'd guess you want to go up to 400* for best results--you want the panko to absorb as little oil as possible while it crisps.
Panko? Tempura is a batter, not a crumb
Peanut oil is also a good choice. Most nut oils have pretty high smoke points if you get the refined versions of them. If you have nut allergies, as Jan suggested, Grapeseed is a good choice.
I got this from Netflix's doc "Japanese Style Originator" [1], they asked the Michelin star chef what oil he used.
His response:
"I use a blend of 2 kinds of sesame oils. Without sesame oil, you cant fry tempura with a crispy coating. The boiling point of sesame is higher than regular salad oil. That's why sesame is better. I also adjust the temp of the oil depending on what i cook"
[1]https://www.netflix.com/title/80159732
There might be something lost in translation... maybe it is about viscosity? If you heat your oil to boiling point you are more likely about Bao style stir frying and not deep frying :)
Smoke point rather than boiling point. In most situations with most types of cooking oil, you will not get to see their boiling points, they will crack (and produce smoke and char) long before you reach boiling temperatures.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.500475
| 2012-01-10T06:12:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20296",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Alina Bell",
"Bill",
"Brian D",
"Donnella Benbow",
"FuzzyChef",
"JasonTrue",
"Jay",
"Jylo",
"Olivia",
"Rayan",
"TFD",
"Talbatz",
"aashraff ally",
"coffee-grinder",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44470",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44495",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44664",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45202",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45233",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45804",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64827",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8007",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"j0ntan",
"rackandboneman",
"user110084",
"user82428",
"vargonian"
],
"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
}
|
16192
|
I've made a bechamel sauce and added sherry to it, but too much: How can I fix it?
I've made a bechamel sauce and added sherry to it, herbs, etc; the sherry is too overpowering. How can I correct that?
Bechamel sauce is only flour milk and butter. Even with the sherry, it's not a big expense. If you make a mess of one batch it's probably best just to bin it and start a new. Diluting it down with more sauce may work by your probably just going to end up with loads and loads of sauce that you'll never eat.
If at first you don't succeed, try, try again!
If at first you don't succeed, lower your standards! Garfield.
I really do not think there is much you can do about that. It is probably best to just make another batch of bechamel sauce and mix it with the sauce you already have. The concentration level of the sherry will be halved. Then of course you need to add more of all the other flavorings, herbs and whatnot.
If there is way too much sherry in there, as in 4x what you need, your best bet is to start over. Otherwise, just simmer it for a while (maybe 30 minutes) to boil off the alcohol, which will make the sherry less prevalent. If that doesn't work, you can dilute a bit with extra milk and then more roux.
Creating excess bechamel is not a problem; it is flexible and freezable, so you can always use excess in other dishes. Add cheese and you get mornay for broccoli or other vegetables. Heavy cream makes sauce supreme. Mustard sauce is another good bechamel-derived sauce. You can ALWAYS use excess bechamel or veloute somehow, because of how flexible these mother sauces are.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.501269
| 2011-07-16T08:30:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16192",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Brian",
"Grayson Briggs",
"Jennifer Adler",
"Patrick Hoefler",
"RettaJo VanDriessche",
"garblargh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34470",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34472",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6757"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
128575
|
What is a good resource to evaluate my ability to taste olive oil?
I'd like to improve my knowledge of olive oil (and olives), by just seeing if I can tell the difference between common brands like California Olive Ranch, Partanna, Lucini, Colavita, etc. I can taste them and come up with my own descriptors. But, how do I see if my descriptors match those of the sommeliers?
Basically, I'm looking for a low-budget way to educate myself and my palate to detect nuances in olive oil.
Are there some resources out there that will tell me if I'm right or wrong?
What are you trying to achieve by learning this? Just personally enjoy olives or olive oil? Teach others?
I want to become a sommelier
For your purposes an Aroma Wheel could work. There you are guided through the taste and get an idea on what you could try to taste.
I found experimenting with aroma wheels for wine very helpful.
A quick googling showed that there are aroma wheels for olive oil, too.
They are of course not answering the question what others tasted but I find this less of an issue as perception of taste is highly personal.
Perhaps, but then there is a certification to become a sommelier. So, a certain part of it is objective.
@underdog987 Of course there is in a professional context. The problem I see here is to get hold on such a description. Also to my understanding these tastings are done in very controlled environments that you can‘t replicate at home easily. Best option would of course be to attend to a workshop with an experienced taster but that would not qualify for inexpensive and easily at home
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.501441
| 2024-06-15T22:24:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/128575",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/111596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81322",
"jmk",
"quarague",
"underdog987"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100017
|
Which type of charger for soda syphon batter
I'm looking for a recipe for batter using a soda siphon. Since the term soda siphon, as opposed to the cream whipper is used, I assumed the cartridges should be CO2. (The recipe doesn't say that.) I've found a few online posts that say it's better to use NO2 cartridges.
Do you have any advice?
Please don't use NO2, which is toxic, for any food. The gas you mean is N2O.
Many batters made in a soda syphon/whipper that I have seen, and used myself, use CO2. This is common when the goal is aeration. Though, I have also seen N2O used.
A description of what you are making, and which brand of whipper, might allow a better response.
My apologies I’ve re-read the recipe and Heston says to use CO2. The recipe involves flour, rice flour, honey, vodka and lager, and a spell in the ‘fridge. It’s an isi syphon, 0.5L. Apparently it has a safety valve. Looking at couple of other recipes for isi and doing the maths on quantities, it looks like halving Heston recipe and using the 0.5L syphon with two CO2 charges is the way to go. I’ll report the results!!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.501599
| 2019-07-06T18:01:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100017",
"authors": [
"Matthias Brandl",
"RFlack",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76013"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
120897
|
Does cooking food inside a pressure cooker and then leaving it locked preserve it similar to canning?
I have made some food in my pressure cooker and left it in room temperature for over a week. When I opened it, there was no mold. I threw it out because it might have still been bad, but this got me thinking.
Since canning is basically cooking food in a sealed environment, isn't pressure cooking similar when I do not open the pressure cooker? Could the food be left in the pressure cooker at a room temperature for a longer time, given that I pressure cook it every time I close the lid?
This is an interesting question – I hope someone can answer in terms of the science without getting too distracted by the 'no food safety except for government guidelines' thing.
Does the pressure cooker boil the food during the cooking process? Did you eat some of it before leaving it for a week? If the lid was left closed then it sounds fairly sterile but if you put a utensil in there, whether to eat or test consistency, then all bets are off.
It's important to point out that the presence or absence of mold doesn't really tell you anything about the safety of food.
Note that thorough cooking basically forces bacterial growth to start over. If it's in a container that restricts airflow that will slow it down on getting started even more. But the effectiveness tends to be highly subject to environmental variation, which is why canning goes to such lengths to achieve a consistent internal environment. But there are many traditional stew recipes based around bringing the pot to cooking temperature once or twice a day and otherwise letting it sit. Such recipes do require care and attention to detail though since mistakes will turn them into incubators.
When you take the pressure cooker off the heat, it's filled with high-temperature, high-pressure steam. As it cools, that steam condenses, leaving a vacuum. Pressure cooker valves are designed to allow air to enter to fill the vacuum (to avoid damaging the pressure cooker, and to make it possible to take the lid off). So it isn't really sealed once it's not at high pressure.
So the moment you open up the valve, the outside air (and all the bacteria) will get inside the food container. The only way to use pressure cooker for preservation is to never open it up, right?
@aaaaasaysreinstateMonica No because as Sneftel said, the pressure cooker automatically allows pressure to equalize so it's not damaged or dangerous - so there is no way to use a pressure cooker as a preservative tool.
@aaaaasaysreinstateMonica just look at things like instant pots, it should be rather obvious that even when "sealed" there's still going to at least some air exchange, you need a lot more than a cheap rubber gasket to stop that. Even at high pressure there are some losses, but too small to matter for the cooking process
@eps To be fair, it does seem to work for jam jars.
@eps no you don’t: jam jars, mason jars, Jerry cans, screw top wine bottles, beer bottles. Tin cans don’t even need the rubber, just tightly folded metal.
Surely this answer is technically right. But still we should think of the details: most of the steam will condense while the food is still at a temperature like 90°C (on the metal lid and walls, because these are cooled from the outside). And the air sucked in will also be heated to a considerable temperature (70°C?) by the food. So, it'll still be pretty close to sterile. It's true that “pretty close to sterile” is not enough to store it for a long time at warm temperature because of exponential growth, but it is certainly enough that you buy a lot more time at a slow-growth temperature.
@leftaroundabout One could make an experiment by placing something molding next to the valve which will serve as an inlet and see whether it starts to mold faster inside. Because even late in the cooling process, when the temperature inside cools from 40C to 20C, some air will still flow in and the spores will find ideal conditions for germination. Just not very much air, so chances are only few spores -- unless we provide them.
@DKNguyen Very true. But the seal of a pressure cooker is designed "the wrong way around", sealing against over-pressure. It will readily let air in when the pressue inside is lower, as opposed to a jam jar etc.
The (old-fashioned Central European) pressure cookers I've worked with have outlet valves which in pressure cooking position let gas out (at defined pressure), but not in. These cookers do have an underpressure after cooling which you manually relieve before opening (it's plain impossible to move the lid unless you do that). Either with a lever pushing the rubber sealing or by twisting/screwing the valve into an "all directions open" position. I don't know whether/how long they keep the full bar of underpressure, but after some days you still get the "ffflump" sound when air goes in and the rubber detaches from pot wall and lid.
I'd certainly not expect this to last years like with a jar, but I do use it for several days or a week. Whether you do, is up to your own judgment.
There's also the question of what is in there: keeping fruit from molding until I have time to finish and jar the jelly a week later => fine. The risk here is to have to throw away the food and work, but it's not a risk of not being able to detect if that stuff went bad.
Personally, I also don't have a problem with, say, a goulash kept that way since (and iff) it's properly heated again before eating (the 2nd heat treatment will destroy any botulinum toxin that may have formed - such a twice-cooked-scheme is btw an officially recommended option over here).
For everything else in terms of microbiological contamination, I think the probability of anything I cannot detect by sight and smell getting in without any detectable microbial contamination is negligible. Note that this is the same heuristic as for canning: underpressure OK and no mold, no smell, no bad taste => everything as it should be.
I wouldn't keep fish that way - but then I don't pressure cook fish anyways.
Note also that
the official food safety recommendations for private homes over here contain more "know which food is prone to have undetectable problems" and more "trust your cerebellum" for the rest than what I know about North American recommendataions.
The local climate would typically allow me to have a closed pot with cooked quinceys stand in a place of, say, 10 - 15°C. Which is not as cool as the +8°C of the fridge, but also quite different from the "never much below +30°C for weeks" in summer when I was living at the Mediterranean Sea.
(My latitude in North America would translate to the north end of Newfoundland or Vancouver Island, or Regina)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.501728
| 2022-06-24T05:18:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120897",
"authors": [
"DKNguyen",
"MonkeyZeus",
"Perkins",
"Peter - Reinstate Monica",
"SnakeDoc",
"Tim",
"aaaaa says reinstate Monica",
"barbecue",
"dbmag9",
"eps",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91020",
"leftaroundabout"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17321
|
How do I neutralize a strong garlic flavor?
I recently made some pesto from scratch and my end result, while delicious, was overpowered by a strong garlic flavor, and not entirely in a good way. I'm talking about that sharp, spicy flavor that garlic sometimes imparts.
I would have added more basil if I had it on hand, but I used all of my stash in the first go-round.
What else could I add to lessen the flavor? Is there a general purpose ingredient for this situation?
For the next time you make it, a common way to take out the "bite" of raw garlic is to roast it first. Chop off the top of the unpeeled head, drizzle in olive oil, sprinkle some salt, wrap in tin foil and pop in the oven. More details and pictures covered here and here.
A quick search for roasted garlic pesto came up with a bunch of recipes as well. I've used this trick with numerous recipes when I want lots of garlic, but want to take out the bite (from salsas, to guacamole, to just a straight garlic spread for bread).
a quick view of the top recipes that google offers for "roasted garlic pesto" all use "roasted garlic" to be added to the pesto. Since OP can't un-ring the bell on putting the garlic in the pesto are you suggesting 'roasting the pesto"?
Good point... I guess this would be more a note for next time.
Roasted garlic pesto sounds pretty good; I'll give it a try next time.
I had this exact same problem when I first made homemade mojo... It would snap your head back when it was fresh! I had made it a day early for a party the next day and by the time the party came along, it was perfect!
Could you try this and let all the flavors marinate for a day or two before serving?
I had some more of the pesto about a day after making it and the garlic flavor did get reduced, but was still stronger than I liked.
hmmm... I had one more thought, but didn't want to risk it as my answer: Lemon juice will instantly take garlic smells off your hands, but i'm not sure what it would do to the taste of your pesto or if it would cut the taste of garlic.
I know this is a bit of an old question but I came along it on my own search so thought I'd share my solution.
I figured the problem with the excess garlic is that it's raw so I sprinkled some parmesan on top of my pesto and baked it in the oven for 5-10mins. Stirred through the now melted parmesen with the semi-cooked garlic and it tastes so much better. Still a little garlic-y for my liking but hey, we can't all be perfect.
Oh, I was making my pesto in a glass mixing bowl so just chucked the whole thing in the oven but make sure whatever you have it in is oven safe before whacking it in. Enjoy!
If you didn't pre-roast your garlic and need to fix it after the fact... Throw your pesto in a saute pan with a little olive oil and cook it very lightly; that will help mellow the flavor. Also, are you using lemon juice in your garlic? I find that helps temper it while adding some much needed acid. Finally, make sure you are cutting out the "sprout" piece from the center of each garlic clove as that usually has the strongest, most unpleasant flavor.
Pasteurization or freezing should cut the spiciness of garlic somewhat, since they reduce the flavor of whole cloves. Pesto generally freezes well, so give that a shot first. Heating the pesto briefly to a high temperature may affect the flavor, but will reduce garlic's role. The shorter the period at heat is, the less it'll affect non-garlic flavors.
If you are willing to end up with something that is 'not pesto' but rather 'pesto cheese spread' you can mix your pesto with cream cheese, butter, sour cream (etc..) to dilute the garlic over a larger volume. The dairy product will help take the edge of the pesto and will give a delicious dish, just not the one you were planning.
The more the membranes in walls of raw garlic are bruised or torn, the spicier/stronger/more bitter it will taste. Cutting fewer walls (instead of smashing which tears many of them) results in less spiciness especially when cut with an extremely sharp blade. So if you're goint to use the garlic raw, chop or slice it rather than smashing if you don't want that extra pepperiness.To get the skin off easily, a little bit of smashing with a knife blade won't affect things too much. Cooking garlic makes it almost "sweet" though and removes that "hot" spicy taste, which is very different.
While you are correct, I'm not sure if this advice can be related to pesto as well, since the garlic will end up in very very small pieces...
I know this is a super old question, but I ran into the same issue just now and adding a bit of red wine vinegar and sugar to taste (honey would probably be better) took the bite out.
My hunch is that the answer is quite simple: mix your pasta into your pesto immediately after draining it, before it has time to cool. This will cook the garlic just enough to take the zing out. (Adding a bit of hot pasta water will help as well, as is often recommended in pesto recipes to thin the sauce out.)
In Uganda some people don't like garlic at all but we all know the importance of garlic and some foods are just tasteless without garlic. So as a training chef I put a small pinch but for the times when I put a little too much of it, I use lime, oranges or lemon.
Had the same problem and used a little dry mustard. Seems to blens the garlic not the rest of the sauce.
Boil the garlic in milk and drain the milk. Repeat this process 3-4 times and you will be able to remove the strong bitter flavour.
The question is about reducing the flavor after the pesto is made, not before.
To make it less "garliky" you can add more pine nuts (finely chopped), this doesn't change it's flavor and makes it more crunchy. If you are out of them, add more freshly grated parmesan cheese (again, do not process).
Real italian pesto is not processed. All ingredients are hand chopped (use a very sharp blade for basil so it won't turn black!). The idea is to distinguish the different textures of all the ingredients (it's not supposed to be a paste like we usually see it!).
Not so sure about the note for "real Italian pesto". It was originally made by grinding with a mortar and pestle, and if you want a really good pesto, that is still the way to do it.
I realized I did not have enough salt so added French sea salt. This was for green bean casserole I made from scratch without a recipe. Used a garlic infused broth in the cream sauce and was too much garlic. Wow. So with the salt, I think it is tempered. But will see tomorrow on holiday if it marinates well and is fine. If not, I may try a teaspoon of balsamic or coconut vinegar, a hint at a time and hope that helps. Thanks for the advice on this, gave ideas.
Not sure salt is an effective way to cover up garlic; if anything it generally brings out flavors unless you make things really salty.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.502303
| 2011-08-30T18:15:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17321",
"authors": [
"Adam Jaskiewicz",
"Becky Morton",
"Cascabel",
"Cos Callis",
"God'sfriend",
"JShweky",
"John Brunton",
"Kiran",
"Lauren Stephens",
"Louise Kavadlo",
"Mien",
"Mike 'Pomax' Kamermans",
"NadjaCS",
"Richiban",
"Rikon",
"annag",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141052",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37190",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66019",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6791",
"rageear",
"rumtscho",
"talon8",
"user37190"
],
"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
}
|
14442
|
At which temperature and how long should I cook tilapia on the grill?
I have never done tilapia on the grill.
At which temperature, and how long should I cook it?
Agree with @Daniel that fillets can be done on the grill, but in my experience a tender fish like Tilapia will break up and fall through the grill. Unless you have a finely meshed grill and a lot of cooking experience I would avoid it.
Tuna, swordfish, mahi-mahi and salmon steaks all work well on the grill. But this should not stop you from grilling Tilapia or any other tender fish, just put it on the grill whole! For Tilapia I would do something like below.
Make shallow slashes in the thickest parts of the flesh, coat with olive oil, season with your favorite spices, and then grill for 3 to 5 minutes max each side on a hot grill. You can mostly judge by sight. When it still looks like it needs another minute I always sacrifice my piece, take it off the grill, and pry off one of the thicker parts. If it's still raw looking on the inside, let it and the others go for another 30 seconds on each side. Nothing better than perfectly cooked moist fish and nothing worse than dry overcooked fish and the difference between the two can be as little as 1 minute. Note: it might be obvious to many, but using a whole fish implies that you've "cleaned" the fish first by removing it's innards before any other preparation.
If you really want to do fillets for a delicate fish on the grill then just coat them in oil, and wrap in tinfoil with a slice of lemon or whatever you prefer. Again, sacrifice a piece to check for doneness. Tinfoil will not magically keep the fish moist if you overcook it. Using foil you won't get the flavor of the grill, but then again picking all the broken pieces of each fillet off the hot coals is a bit too much grill flavor IMHO.
Picture source is Wikipedia licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.502867
| 2011-04-30T23:38:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14442",
"authors": [
"Todd Chaffee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5938"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17006
|
Leaving the food out to cool off after cooking
After cooking, if the food is hot I heard it is better to leave it out until it cools. Why? Because if you place it hot in the refrigerator, the bacteria will grow there.
On the other hand, I think that leaving it out too much on the shelf would also attract bacteria.
So what is the truth? What should I do, leaving it out to cool off or placing it hot in the refrigerator?
If you're routinely cooling large pots of liquid, you may want to get an ice paddle/ice wand/cold paddle
I leave my hot food (usually stews or soups) out (things like steaks and such go right in, covered), for a while, for a number of reasons:
A 'skin' forms over the top of the liquid, preventing evaporation via steaming, which creates a cooling effect.
I stir the pot frequently, bringing the hottest food out of the center, allowing it to cool faster.
I don't want to put hot food in the refrigerator, it will tend to warm up the other foods already in there.
I like to cover the food once it's in the refrigerator. If I put a pot in uncovered, the chances are fairly good that I'll forget about it and have dried glop the next day.
can you be more explicit about "for a while"?How long?
For a while is pretty much determined by circumstances, if it is very warm out, and in the kitchen, will only cool until the pot surface can be touched without pain, then put it in the cooler. On really cold days I will sometimes put outside and wait until the the container feels cool. The important thing is to get the stuff cooled from the hot, safe temperature through the dangerous warm temperature to the cool safe temperature. If I am leaving to go somewhere, I will put the pot in the refrigerator, uncovered almost immediately. Don't like to do that though.
One other thing I forgot to mention is that in the winter, when I'm home, I will take a pot of soup or stew and put on the picnic table, which is many times covered with snow. This cools food quickly; it's quite nice to look out the window and see the pot steaming. Have done this a couple of times and had coons or a bear get into the food though, have to keep a close eye on food left outside to cool.
The snow's an interesting idea. With respect to the original answer, it's not really a safe practice. The recommended approach (by all or almost all food safety boards) is to split it up into smaller portions and refrigerate those, and/or use an ice bath (or snow, I guess). I'll admit, I do the pot-on-the-counter or pot-in-the-fridge routines myself sometimes, but it's one thing to do it and another thing to post it as advice.
I accept that it isn't a safe practice if one considers that anything done incorrectly is an unsafe practice. Other than under that definition, I have been using this method for around 45 years. Never have had any bad effects on any guests or family...there have been a few times when I've forgotten my cooling food and tossed it. Every thing we do can be defined as an unsafe practice; from getting out of a chair to skiing or skydiving or using sharp knives, by someones definition. Even typing this message can cause carpal tunnel, as I'm not using the correct wrist rest, an unsafe practice.
One other hazard, at least with cooling food outside; on several occasions I have had to retrieve my pot or pan or whatever from the bush, where the critters had taken it to lick it clean.
This isn't "unsafe" as in "acceptable risk like driving a car or chopping food with a sharp knife". It's unsafe as in clearly and unambiguously recommended against by food safety guidelines and regulations across the globe, and completely avoidable without any loss of quality or time. This is science, and science is not interested in the personal anecdotes of one person whether that person has been doing it for 45 years or 45 minutes; there is the right way and the wrong ways, and this is one of the wrong ways.
Some facts seem to be getting mixed up here.
Hot food is going to remain "warm" (i.e. in the danger zone) much longer if you leave it on the counter rather than in the fridge. That's basic physics. If the ambient temperature is colder, then the food will stay warm for less time, leaving less time for bacteria to grow.
There are reasons not to pop a huge boiling pot directly into the refrigerator, or more importantly the freezer, but they mostly revolve around the side effects - notably, that it will warm up other food, accelerating spoilage of everything else in there, and in some cases be very hard on your appliance (which needs to run at full tilt in order to handle all the heat).
Assuming you've got your food divided into small portions, you'll want to refrigerate them as soon as possible, or use an ice bath to cool them even faster as Jason mentions.
I haven't seen anyone diving the food into small portions to cool.
@Theta30: But restaurants put large batching into long-n-wide-but-shallow containers whenever possible to improve the cooling.
@Theta30, where exactly have you been looking? You mean you haven't seen anyone doing it in our own personal household, or...? This (divide + optional ice bath) is how it's done by every responsible cook and caterer and it is what the regulations insist on. You would never see a big pot of soup just left out sitting - unless it was being held at high temperature.
Based on the guidance my friendly local health department has given me, you need to get things to the right temperature as fast as possible to minimize bacterial growth, generally within four hours after it has been out, for "potentially hazardous food."
This means that you need to figure out a strategy to chill food within that timeframe. Items that are too big and too hot to cool below the "danger zone" within this time require a more complex approach than "leave it out until it cools" or "stick it in the refrigerator right away." The most practical option in such a case is to place the food in shallow containers or sealed plastic bags, then place that in an "ice bath". An ice bath is just ice and water. You may need to replace the ice bath a few times if the ice melts too quickly without reaching the target temperature.
I haven't seen anyone using ice to cool.
In professional settings, it's a fairly standard practice, but probably not that widespread in home cooking. I've done it at home with soups and similar items.
It's pretty much required in professional settings... no other way to get 20 gallons of veal stock down to a safe temperature in a reasonable timeframe.
The most recent Food Code actually calls for the food to be down to 70˚F within two hours, and then down to 41˚F four hours after that.
Putting hot food into plastic bags means that it will start steaming. Ice baths can be made in the sink (most easily for something like a stock pot) -- also, for liquid foods, you can make a home "ice wand" by filling another smaller pot or a plastic bottle with ice and putting that into the hot liquid.
Another reason not to put hot food in the fridge can be that, if there is no lid on the pan that closes it off well, huge amounts of water will likely condensate all over the interior of your fridge. Other foods will get wet, and stains may develop.
Transfer your food to containers instead of sticking the pot in the fridge; 2) either way, use a cover; 3) the other food in the fridge should generally be covered, too.
@Caleb: Right, all those things together can solve the problem. So perhaps the advice some people give not to put a hot pan in the fridge is meant for people who do not or cannot always cover their pans. I'm mainly thinking of oven pans. Oh, and, if you cover a pie, the water will drip back onto the dough and make it soggy. So never cover things cooling down that are supposed to be crunchy.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.503060
| 2011-08-21T03:39:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17006",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"BobMcGee",
"Bogdan",
"Caleb",
"Cerberus",
"Frankie",
"JasonTrue",
"Justin",
"Kieren Dixon",
"Kris",
"dee",
"derobert",
"dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36456",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36461",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36639",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5009",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7092",
"jscs"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16803
|
Why does my fudge always set up like a rock?
I've followed the recipe for an opera fudge (and several others) as close as I can, yet my fudge always turns out grainy and crumbly. The best results I've gotten have come from not washing down the sides of the pan, but transferring the mixture to a new pan instead.
In Scotland we make a kind of fudge that is deliberatly hard and crystallised known as Tablet. This was a popular treat when I was growing up. Essencially the recipe for tablet, soft fudge, toffee and caramel are quite similar. The difference is made by how you cook and treat the mix as it cools.
Essentially you need to know about sugar boiling points. There are two important levels used: soft boil, and hard boil. My cook books suggest using a sugar thermometer to get the perfect boil but I've never found a sugar thermometer in the shops. Instead I rely on a great deal of practice, the colour, the texture and the drip of the mix to gage how hot the sugar is.
In a soft ball (234–240 °F or 112–115 °C), if you drip the mix onto a very cold surface or into cold water, then touch the drip with your finger, it will be soft like caramel. Additionally the colour will change from cream to yellow/tan.
In a hard ball (250–266 °F or 121–130 °C), dripping again onto a cold surface or into cold water, then touching the drip with your finger, it will be firmer or even hard. The colour will darken slightly to a dark yellow or light brown.
For caramel and fudge you go to a soft boil then cool. For tablet and toffee you go to a hard boil.
The next part is the cooling. This is equally important as the boiling. The faster you cool the mix the smaller the crystals become. The slower, the larger. If you want a caramel or a toffee, you must avoid agitating the mix as it cools. For fudge you should stir the gently as it cools slightly before pouring onto the try. For tablet, the mix should be vigorously stirred until stiff then poured onto a try.
I think in my latest batch that I might have gone to too high of a temperature. I also noticed that I went from a boil to 234 degrees really fast. I've read that the speed at which the mixture comes up to temperature is important. Is this true?
Yes, the speed that you raise and also lower the temperature is critical in getting the correct texture. If the temperature rises to fast it can also affect colour and flavour. There is always a risk, when going for a hard boil, to burn the mix an ruin the batch. Generally I want to use a low head and bring the mix gently to a boil then slowly increase the temperature. As you do this you are also boiling of more water and that affects things.
Be patient and do not stir fudge during cooking, only drag wooden spoon across bottom of pan. Remove from heat at 236-238 degrees fahrenheit, or soft ball stage. Drop in butter and let cool without stirring to 110 degree fahrenheit. Very important to let the fudge cool and rest before beating.
What you're seeing is crystalization. Fudge is such a picky animal. Here is a site called the Science of Cooking that walks through exactly how to avoid grainy fudge:
http://www.exploratorium.edu/cooking/candy/recipe-fudge.html#
I agree that this is crystallisation. But you shouldn't just give a link with a recipe/technique suggestion, because you don't know whether it will be online tomorrow. You are supposed to summarise the parts about preventing improper crystallisation and list them in your answer, while keeping the link for credit.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.503812
| 2011-08-11T03:39:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16803",
"authors": [
"Denise",
"Lschk",
"Rincewind42",
"Warp3",
"basilard99",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35871",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35872",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35876",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35883",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6615",
"rajsekhar",
"ravi.zombie",
"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
}
|
15559
|
How Can I Make Flour More White When Under Process In Flour Mill
My father is a flour miller. He wants to know how he can make wheat, or flour more specifically, whiter during the milling process. Is there anything that can be done before in preparation or after the process?
The β-carotene (which gives freshly milled flour its yellow/orange-ish tint) will degrade on its own if the flour is allowed to sit.
Is he already using white whole wheat instead of red?
Were you able to find a solution to make the flour look whiter yet?
Flour will whiten over time when stored. It generally takes several months to get a whiter color. Most flour manufacturers wish to speed this process up and so they actually bleach the flour using cholrine or benzoyl peroxide. This bleaching process also removes nutrietns which is why flour in the U.S. that has been bleached must also be "fortified" by having nutrients added back in.
There isn't much you can do beforehand. After milling, you can either bleach for immediate affect or store and allow it to whiten naturally. Keep in mind that different flours are usually bleached with different chemicals depending on what you plan to do with the flour.
I'll leave it to you to decide if it's worth the time and nutritional value to mix chemicals in to your flour for what is purely a cosmetic benefit.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.504154
| 2011-06-17T14:30:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15559",
"authors": [
"Anand Gangadhara",
"Helen",
"Khaled",
"Tonci",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33002",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33012",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67968",
"justkt"
],
"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
}
|
15318
|
Is a little oven less hot than a bigger oven?
Some months ago, I found a recipe for cookies and made them in a big oven; they were delicious and cooked very well (soft cookies) at 180 °C (356 °F) for 7 minutes.
I recently tried the recipe again, but I have no longer a big oven, so I used my little one (with heat source at the top and bottom).
The cookies were still almost liquid after 15 minutes, and I though that was my oven that was too old and not keeping a good temperature; I tested on another oven that is new, and I got the same result.
Does the little oven heat less than the big one? If yes, what do I need to do to adjust the temperature and/or the time? If not, what am I doing wrong?
The recipe is:
125 grams of soft butter
125 grams of brown sugar
175 grams of white flour
one egg
1 cc of baking powder
100 grams of chocolate chip
Mix all except chocolate chip. When you have a homogeneous substance, add the chocolate chip.
Bake them 7 minutes at 180 °C. they're still very soft after that delay but they will harden.
Is it possible you're using different butter?
My guess:
With a little oven you probably don't preheat as long, and when you open the door you let ALL the hot air out. You need to reheat the air in the oven after the cookies go in for them to cook. Because the hot walls and rack are much smaller (and probably not as well heated to start with), it's harder for them to reheat the inside of the oven.
So the temperature is lower when you start the cookies. Some (maybe a lot) of the cooking time is spent getting the oven, the baking sheet and the air back up to temperature. Cooking them longer or at a slightly hotter temperature should help with this.
but why after 15min (wich is more than the double of the 7min) it's still liquid , the idea of the all the heat getting out when we open the door crossed my mind , but i think this is too big to be only that.
My next suggestion would be to use an oven thermometer and see what temperature you're actually getting. It's the only way to know for sure.
i'll try to get one . i'll try too to cook them at lower temperature during more time (like 140 for 20min) , if the issue is the heat going out , this could help a bit i guess.
Another thing to consider is that small ovens' heat has a higher proportion of radiation and a lesser proportion of convection, which means that 1. Smaller ovens are more affected by the cycling of heat, and 2. When both ovens are outputting the same amount of energy per amount of air (which should lead to the same air temperature) the rate at which the heat is transferred to the cookies is different. Together with the smaller thermal capacity bikeboy mentions, you'll probably need to change your baking times - but the exact time difference needs experimenting.
"Because the hot walls and rack are much smaller, it's harder for them to reheat the inside of the oven." But, the inside is much smaller! In fact, it should be easier for the walls to heat inside because the volume is smaller by a larger ratio than the walls are smaller.
"With a little oven you probably don't preheat as long." Why is this true? Isn't the element smaller? "…when you open the door you let ALL the hot air out." It might be true that the hot air escapes faster from a little oven despite the smaller door?
All possibilities. I think a key is that the thermostat (at least usually) monitors the air temp in the oven, and with a far smaller volume of air to heat, you get the thermostat saying, "hot enough" before much of anything else in the oven is hot. Also, depending on the kind of oven, a smaller one may have much lower thermal mass, worse insulation and be draftier (think about countertop ovens). At the end of the day, the only way to know what's going on is to measure the actual temperature of the thing (ideally in use).
Also, smaller ovens are often also cheaper ovens, so the quality of its components may be a factor as well.
It could be that your oven's temperature control is off somewhat. Ovens aren't exactly scientific instruments, so you can't be sure how accurate they are with this kind of thing.
Get a decent oven thermometer and go by that rather than the temperature knob. You might be surprised. Mine runs about 10-15 degrees less: when I set it to 180 on the dial, it's often about 165 on the thermometer.
yes i think of getting one , could be handy in many other situation .
Yes. Generally you can get away with a bit of inaccuracy as long as the oven is 'hot' rather than 'moderate', but baking is a bit more scientific and thus needs more precision.
I have the same issues as I have a small apartment oven. It affects all recipes for baking in the oven. I have found (so far) that I need to reduce the temperature by 50 degrees F and double the baking time minus 15 mins.
Example: I have a chocolate cake recipe that bakes for 30 mins at 350 degrees. I reduced the temp to 300 and baked it for 45 mins (double the time = 1 hour and minus 15 mins = 45 mins). So far it is working.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.504318
| 2011-06-08T13:14:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15318",
"authors": [
"Dan Henderson",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Neil G",
"Ronald Slaney",
"Spammer",
"bikeboy389",
"eephyne",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153461",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4522",
"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
}
|
17055
|
How to make central/south american "arroz con pollo"
In Belize, Peru, and the Dominican Republic I absolutely loved the perfectly moist and delicious arroz con pollo. Always flavorful and simple, it was my fall back anywhere I was anytime I was too tired to try something new.
Can anybody here share with me the way to make this simple delicious style, my wife knows how to make it with a tomato base mexican style the way she grew up with it, but as we've had it without the tomato base she's not sure what to do to get that same moist light delicious flavor.
We searched for recipes, but all of them were the mexican tomato base kind. Please help anyone who has had this same dish I'm referring to.
To be more specific, I'm looking for the various types of ingredients used for flavoring this dish around central/south America, not a specific recipe. I am rather interested to the variety of ways this dish is seasoned when made without a tomato base.
As written, this question looks like a recipe request, which isn't allowed here. Could you rephrase to ask about the different types of the dish, or to ask about techniques for achieving moistness?
Incidentally, here's a link to Google advanced search for arroz con pollo without the word tomato or tomatoes. http://www.google.com/search?q=arroz+con+pollo+recipe+-tomato+-tomatoes&hl=en&biw=1366&bih=643&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images&tbs=
I have to concur on this being a recipe request. A quick search of arroz con pollo turns up several recipes, only a few with tomatoes or tomato sauce. I'm not sure how much value we can add on a Q&A site without a more specific question.
Use Chicken Broth for about 1/2 of the water needed for the rice, and then use a can of beer for the rest. This will give it a great flavor for the recipe.
I also found some recipes that call for adding orange juice and cilantro to the rice cooking liquid. (This seems to be a Peruvian combination.)
@Martha thanks! This is exactly the type of things I was looking for!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.504773
| 2011-08-23T00:10:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17055",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Ashley",
"Ivan",
"Jimmy Hoffa",
"John Jennings",
"Liam",
"Martha F.",
"ebrohman",
"glS",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2173",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36612",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36618",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36619",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36637",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
126614
|
Accidentally used sausage meat in meatloaf
I tried a new recipe that called for ground pork and beef. I accidentally used pork sausage. Noticing my mistake, I cooked a sample and don't like it! How can I mask the sausage taste before baking the entire batch?
As long as I don't "stub my toe" and make it salty, would powdered beef bullion work?
could you just add some ground beef to it? also what else is in the recipe?
With my budget, I was hopeful for a alternate solution but...I'm sure that will be the best fix! The recipe has ground beef, pork (now sausage) onions, peppers, onion soup mix, crackers, eggs, Worcestershire, tomato paste, sour cream, salt& pepper. The topping is ketchup, brown sugar, scant amt of jalapeno juice & Worcestershire
I'm almost ashamed to tell... I've been a cook most all my life and simply wanted to try something new but...I guess after having a stroke and, at my ripe ole age of 56, when it comes to making lg batches...I should stick with what I know! Lol
the "sausage taste" is presumably the spices in it rather than the pork itself. You can perhaps cover it up by making the meat mix spicier with black pepper, some of that jalapeno juice, some chopped jalapenos, etc. You could also add more plain unspiced meat to make a larger meatloaf closer to the taste you wanted.
A "perhaps more budget friendly" dilutant than "more meat" would be to take it in a "cottage pie" direction with potato, or a "chili" direction with legumes - perhaps split peas rather than beans for faster cooking. Or just eat the mistake without making it larger and not liking it much (been there.)
@Ecnerwal yes. Edible but not great is often improved by a spicy sauce (or a dairy-based one, if the problem was an excess of spice in the first place). The sauce could come from a bottle.
@ChrisH Sour cream or yoghurt if dairy's not an issue might be the ticket. I'm somewhat out of the habit due to dairy being a problem hyper-locally.
I personally like sausage in meat loaf, but I can see how it might not appeal. Assuming the problem is the seasoning used in the sausage, I'd turn this into a batch of meatballs, then use them in a saucy dish with a complementary flavor. Divide them up and try them in different dishes, such as Swedish meatballs, spaghetti, barbecue, etc.
I would rethink the whole thing and add chilli seasoning and beans. Sometimes trying to hide a strong flavor only makes it worse, so embrace it! Tell the family their having chilli dogs & fries. They will love it and you can freeze any extra chilli.
While I haven't tried it with sausage meatloaf, I would recommend adding a lot of onions, since onions add a very nice flavor to meatloaf; they might mask the sausage taste. Don't use big slices of onions (cut them up into little pieces and mix them with the meatloaf). I recommend white onions.
Something else I haven't tried might be to add a little bean flour. Pinto beans (not sure about bean flour) seem to absorb extra grease; so, my hypothesis is that bean flour might make it seem more like hamburger by masking the grease.
Also, if you're making meatloaf patties, I would recommend making the patties thin (not thick), to make them seem less greasy by making a higher percentage of the patty crisp.
I'm afraid you did not provide enough information. What recipe did you follow? What is the problem? Too salty or wrong spices? Without knowing what it is that bothers you the most, I can only suggest that you try to either add some ingredients (like grated potatoes to the mix to make it less salty), or try to use the stuff in an entirely new dish / recipe. Like meat balls in a sauce that will pair well with the existing mix.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.504978
| 2024-02-07T14:41:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/126614",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Ecnerwal",
"Kate Gregory",
"Luciano",
"Pamela Brown",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108154",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
125177
|
Ate some bad green salsa before i realized it was bad. Botulism?
Got a burrito from my favorite burrito spot today for lunch. I really like the green salsa so I got some extra. They were hand prepackaged little cups. The lid felt like there was a bit of pressure in there and it spurted a little when I opened it. Didn't really think anything of it since it's not canned, and it's hand made in store. Poured a bunch on my burrito, and then bit in. It tasted like mildewey alcohol. Smelled bad too. I didn't see any visible mold, but I spit it out immediately. Of course I swallowed a little, but the more I read, the more I'm worried about me having just ingested botulism. Is this possible in tomatillo green salsa that wasn't canned?
I don’t know for sure, but it sounds like fermentation is most likely (based on the pressurization and alcohol taste). Botulism is still possible, but it needs anaerobic (without oxygen) environments to really thrive
… and you wouldn’t be able to taste botulinum toxin anyway.
First things first: we cannot and will not give individual health advice. If you have a question pertaining your personal well-being, call your healthcare provider.
But we can, at least to some degree, analyze what happened and that will probably help you proceed from there.
Food safety guidelines typically give time margins with restrictions along the lines of “unless you notice signs of spoilage”. This is because our human senses can not detect all dangerous microorganisms or their byproducts - botulism the most famous example and because “unsafe” doesn’t directly translate to “spoilt”.
You noticed a moldy and alcoholic taste, which indicates both mold growth (yes, even if you can’t see the colonies with the bare eye, your mouth and nose are sufficient here) and a fermentation process. While you shouldn’t purposely eat these foods, healthy adults’ bodies can usually handle small amounts that got ingested accidentally without problems. If you are worried about your personal well-being, again, call your GP or similar.
Now to botulism.
The basic answer is - we can’t know. First, because C. botulinum and its toxin is tasteless for humans, second because we don’t know about the processes at your burrito place. C. botulinum, the bacteria producing the toxin, can be found in soil (and thus be transferred onto the tomatillos, onions, garlic, whatever grows in soil), but typically as spores. In low-oxygen environments, they can activate and produce the toxin over a certain time span. High acid and sugar levels and low temperatures inhibit bacterial growth. Use this information together with your personal risk tolerance to draw your own conclusions and if you have more questions, contact your healthcare provider.
Note that the observed spoilage is totally unrelated to potential C. botulism growth, we are looking at separate processes with unrelated participants and byproducts.
Also, if the OP had botulism toxin poisoning, they wouldn't be posting about it on SA because they would already be in the ER.
@FuzzyChef possibly. But that would be medical advice, which we don’t do here.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.505292
| 2023-09-07T17:35:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125177",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
122842
|
Substitute for Beer in a savory flatbread recipe to make it halal
Several recipes for savory flatbread call for light beer as an ingredient. What would be an acceptable Halal substitute that would preserve the taste and texture of the bread?
The bread is typically fried in a pan rather than baked in an oven, and contains a mixture of green herbs and cheese. It is not left to rise.
Welcome! A few sample recipes could be helpful in tailoring the answers to your needs.
Beer is added for two reasons: flavor and - especially in rather liquid, pourable batters - for the fluffiness due to the carbonation.
The latter can be achieved with any fizzy drink, typically carbonated water.
For the former, decide whether you want/ need the slight bitterness contributed by the beer and of it’s not super important, just skip it (but use another liquid, see above). Otherwise aim for a slightly „sharper“ cheese or a higher ratio of bitter herbs. Some leftover black tea could also work, but substitute only some of the beer and the rest with water.
My gut feeling would be to not bother, just add regular water for firmer doughs and carbonated water (soda water) for batters.
I would suggest looking for a Middle-Eastern or Indian flatbread recipe, most/all will not have beer in them.
Or use non-alcoholic beer.
non-alcoholic beer might be considered as non-halal if brewed where alcoholic beer was brewed earlier
@Vickel if you are buying any large brand, then non-alcoholic beer is not brewed, it is just beer with alcohol removed from it (through low-pressure distillation or reverse osmosis). Specially brewed beers with neglible alcohol content are usually avaliable only from small breweries for a premium price (unless you are living in Islamic country, where it is slightly more avaliable).
So, yes, most non-alcoholic beers are definetly non-halal.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.505647
| 2022-12-29T20:50:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122842",
"authors": [
"Revolver_Ocelot",
"Stephie",
"Vickel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90522"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
122961
|
Why did my smoked boneless chicken breast come out dry and without apple flavor?
I have a Pit Boss Lexington grill. The lowest temperature setting is smoke which is about 50-160 degrees. The setting above that are marked in degrees. I was using trager apple pellets. I had a skinless, boneless chicken breast. I cut the breast in half and used a dry rub on one piece and nothing on the other. I smoked it for about 3 1/2 hours on the smoke setting. I used the lower rack with a pan of water for moisture. Internal temperature was about 152 degrees. Not only was the chicken dry but it had no apple flavor. What did I do wrong?
Please clarify your temperatures, did you cook your chicken to 152 F or C? Are your grill temperatures in F or C?
someone else tried smoking boneless chicken breasts, here are some tips https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73025/smoking-chicken-breasts-with-and-without-skin
With few exceptions using thighs will always produce better results, particularly if you don't brine and/or are not a great cook. The health differences are completely negligible despite what many say. Huge bonus: they are easy to debone if needed and boned thighs are still extremely cheap vs everything else that has skyrocketed in price
In my experience, smoking with apple wood does not impart an apple flavor. It imparts an apple wood smoke flavor. Apple wood doesn't necessarily taste like apples and of course smoke is a very different flavor from apple flavor. So when you try again and get the time and temperature correct and have a more tender, less dry smoked meat, I wouldn't expect it to taste like apples at all. It should taste like smoked meat.
Can you be clear how your smoked boneless chicken breast might have come out dry, with or without apple flavour?
As moscafj's answer correctly states, the lowest average temp on that grill is more like 180-200F so you annihilated that poor bird! Even though the final temp may have been 150, it was almost certainly much hotter than that at some point (if the internal meat was firm and white this is certainly the case). But also, the idea of "low and slow" for BBQing is because your typical BBQ meats, like pork shoulder and beef brisket have tons of connective tissue which breaks down over time, along with tons of fat which keeps things moist throughout the cook (because it slowly gelatinizes into deliciousness). Skinless breast has none of that and is notoriously hard to keep moist regardless of how you cook it.
So really unless you know what you are doing it's a horrible cut of meat to smoke -- and it certainly should never be smoked for that long regardless. Whole chickens should be checked after an hour with an average smoke temp of 200 and will probably be done by 1.5-2 hours. In practice, since opening smokers is undesirable (you lose a lot of heat), you should have an oven-safe type thermometer so you always know what temperature the meat is. Ideally, have one with multiple inputs so you can monitor multiple zones in the meat and/or also monitor the temp of the air in the grill.
Additionally, apple wood is not a super strong flavor to begin with, but it's also important to keep in mind that smoke adheres and penetrates the meat best when it's cold and stops "sticking" to the meat once the outer layer gets fairly warm (and pretty much stops doing anything good after 130-140). Given the grill temp you would have hit that fairly quickly and thus the smoke really was only flavoring the meat for ~30 mins. This is why when you are smoking something like pulled pork you are only trying to get the good 'blue' smoke for the initial hours of the cook and after that it's much more about applying low and slow heat to bring the internal meat to temp -- you really don't want to be smoking it the whole time. In fact, it's often bad to do so because smoking can quickly go from adding a nice flavor to adding a lot of bitterness and unwanted flavors if you overdo it.
So TLDR, wrong cut, wrong amount of time, and wrong temp.
I'm not sure where your numbers are coming from. According to the Pit Boss Lexington manual, the lowest smoking temperature is 200F (about 95C). It looks like your temperatures are off. Also, three and a half hours to smoke a chicken breast sounds like a really long time. Essentially, it appears that you've overcooked your chicken.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.505815
| 2023-01-09T03:11:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122961",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Luciano",
"Robbie Goodwin",
"Todd Wilcox",
"eps",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84365"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
123312
|
Are hard boiled eggs safe to eat after hours out of the fridge?
I left hard boiled eggs in cold water over night are they still good to eat? The have the egg odor to them
And for hard-boiled eggs specifically: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120884/are-my-boiled-eggs-ok-to-eat/
It depends just how long they are out. In truth, I often take raw eggs out the night before baking so that they come to room temperature. As a child, I remember eating hard-boiled eggs from our Easter basket--sometimes several days later with no problem. This is my "take" on eggs after 72 years!
The USDA definitely disagrees with me, and attached is the US Government's "scientific" view:
https://ask.usda.gov/s/article/How-long-can-you-keep-hard-cooked-eggs
Ultimately, trust your nose: If it smells fine, eat it (the egg, not your nose).
Smell is not a reliable indicator of food safety. It is, perhaps, a better indicator of spoilage, but really not a useful food safety tool. The problem with using your nose is that, more often than not, food borne pathogens don't create off-aromas. Another challenge is that personal experience...luck...is not a helpful way to think about food safety either. Best to go with the science (deliberately not in quotes). :-)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.506475
| 2023-02-07T15:14:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123312",
"authors": [
"Juhasz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70120",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44443
|
Ways to make my cooking routine more efficient?
I enjoy cooking. In an ideal world, I'd spend some time messing around in the kitchen four or five nights a week. But as it stands, I'm very busy, on a very tight budget, and trying to keep up with my body's high caloric demands so I can put on some muscle.
In an effort to address these issues, I've been cooking in bulk for about a year. I set aside Sunday to do my grocery shopping and cooking, and just reheat things as needed throughout the week. Not only am I dissatisfied with the results, but I am consistently frustrated with how long things take. This week's batch cooking really stood out to me in that regard.
Cooking three large servings (1500 kcal each) of chicken fried rice took 2 hours, excluding prep for the marinade (15 minutes) and marinating time (1.5 hours). An orange ginger pork stir fry (no orange sauce, just an orange ginger marinade) took me 45 minutes to prep the marinade and vegetables, and another 30 minutes or so of cook time, just for the flavors to be weak and the texture unpleasant.
It seems I spend far too much time cleaning my cast iron pans; I've yet to cook a meal on them where something hasn't been burnt on pretty seriously and required multiple passes with salt and/or fat of some sort to get off. Today, I had to resort to the water-boiling method to get some gunk off, reseasoned both pans with a thorough coating of coconut oil and still had to take 10 to 15 minutes muscling through crud on my pans between each serving of fried rice, and to add insult to injury, I'm looking at one pan and seeing some sort of white coloration on it that I'm pretty sure isn't supposed to be there.
So, with that being said, is there anything about what I've described that suggests some clear, correctable problem? Please, no suggestions that involve 'buy this thing.' I'm on such a tight budget that let's just assume that's not an option. I have to learn to work with what I have more efficiently.
I have:
a 3 Qt. cast iron Dutch oven
a 10" cast iron skillet (serves as the lid on the Dutch oven)
a 2.5 Qt. stainless steel sauce pan
a 1.5 Qt. stainless steel sauce pan
a 1 Qt. stainless steel sauce pan
a 17.25" x 11.5" cookie sheet
an 8 Cup Rice Cooker
2 4-Qt. tupperware containers
2 2-Qt. tupperware containers
4 1-Qt. tupperware containers
My weekly food budget is $40, and I'm trying to get ~3000+ calories 3 days a week and ~2400 calories otherwise. I'm going for paleo compliance as far as I can--I permit myself the use of rice because it's cheap, has relatively low phytic acid content, and helps answer my high caloric needs. But other grains are a no-no.
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/149/67
also related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/9716/67
It sounds like you also should invest some time really seasoning your cast iron pans. The amount of sticking you're describing would match a not-quite-seasoned pan. http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/641/whats-the-best-way-to-season-a-cast-iron-skillet?lq=1
It'd be helpful to know what exactly you have in your kitchen: soups are great to make in bulk, but that doesn't help you if you don't already have a saucepan.
I see a few issues with what you've described:
It sounds to me like a significant portion of your time 'cooking' is actually cleaning. This might mean that you're not letting the pan heat up significantly, or that you're not using enough oil. (yes, we're trying to be healthy, but it is fried rice).
By cooking in bulk, you're likely over crowding your pan. This would dramatically affect the texture of the final result. (see BaffledCook's reply)
The crud that you're scraping off is likely fond, the brown bits that stick to the pan and caramelize. What you want to do is try to deglaze between batches with some liquid (ideally, whatever you'd be using in the sauce, but without any cornstarch), but keep the now dark brown liquid to make your sauce. If you don't save these bits, then you're dumping the flavor down the drain.
I suspect that you're making the rice and using it in the same day -- this will result in more sticking. You're actually better off making the rice a day ahead, spreading it out to cook, then putting it in a container to place in the fridge.
Personally, to speed up my fried rice, I actually make Nasi Goereng -- while the pan is heating up, chop up an onion and whatever other veg, then make an omelette or two in the hot pan (set aside, then cut into ribbons), cook the veg, add the cold, cooked rice + your spices (I often just use madras curry powder + soy sauce, mix in the egg ribbons.
Consider expanding your repertoire of meals to those designed to cook for a long time without attention, and to cook in large batches. You seem to be taking things that are supposed to cook "a la minute" and cooking 3-5 times as much, which as you've seen doesn't work out well.
If you have an oven, roast chicken (or other meat) and a cookie tray full of roasted vegetables will take an hour. If the chicken is very large and needs two hours, start it first and then put the vegetables in later. You might turn the vegetables once while they're in the oven. I find these taste amazing with very little added ingredients, but lemon or garlic in the chicken, or a little salt and rosemary tossed with the vegetables, can take it up to sublime. You can roast any root vegetable (potato, onion, rutabaga, small whole beets, carrot) and (for shorter times) broccoli, cauliflower, green beans, asparagus, you name it!
If you have a large enough pot (I use a cast iron one) then a stew, curry, or braised meat can be made in large batches. Brown the meat (perhaps half first, then take it out and brown the rest) and some onions, add spices, water, simmer it all together for an hour to soften the meat, or for tough beef maybe three hours, then add vegetables that cook in the liquid. If you like, make dumplings that cook on top of the liquid. On the day serve with rice, pasta, etc. You can also do this with Italian meat-and-tomato sauce.
Most peasant food tastes amazingly good and needs hours of unattended cooking. Find some recipes that fit your tastes and use these techniques, and your cooking will be way more efficient.
Very good points! If you want to spend little time cooking, you shouldn't be using a pan at all.
If you have sufficient vessels for it, casseroles are another thing that works well to plan-ahead cooking. I have the foil 'take out' containers, so I can assemble multiple individual sized lasagne, shephard's pie, chicken pot pie, echiladas or similar, and then freeze all but one. At some later time, I can take the lid off (which is paper coated), wrap in aluminum foil, and toss in the oven to heat through. (if I was smart, I put it in the fridge the day before to thaw out). On the scope of what you're talking about, I'll make batches of stew, chili, or soups, and freeze it.
Large quantities of soups, stews, etc. are likely to be a challenge now that we can see full inventory and the largest vessel is 3 qt. Also - ouch - no larger baking dishes for things like casseroles. I'm thinking roasting is the best available option.
Two or three quarts of stew or chili, served with brown rice or quinoa that was cooked in one of the smaller pots, would serve a lot of people, or one person for a lot of days. I agree that getting a collection of freezer to oven single serving casserole dishes would be smart: prep them and freeze them, bake them each day.
A cheap and simple way of improving the quality of your storage method is to buy ziplock bags. You should store each individual serving in separate bags and press out the air as best as you can. These bags can be frozen, so that will give you longer storage times. They can also be reused, so it's not expensive. (A more expensive solution would be to buy a sous-vide machine for around 100€)
You should consider marinating longer. You could buy on Sunday, freeze for a week and marinate on Saturday.
Your food sticks to your pans because your not heating them sufficiently. Get a cup of water and a teaspoon. While you heat your pan, splash a drop of water on it. Wait until you see a 'mercury ball' forming. That's when your pan has become non-stick. If the pan forms multiple balls, your pan is too hot. [This works for stainless steel, I hope it works similarly on iron]
If you fry your rice in a hot pan, and you add a liquid, the rice will stick to the bottom. Solution: fry separately and keep it warm in another pan on a low flame.
When frying (sauté) meat, start with the high heat to brown it (for flavour), then take it out and fry some vegetables at the same high heat. Add cold water, add your meat, bring down the temperature and stick a thermometer in the meat until it's done.
Try to be consistent; write down your method, check the results, write down a tweak, check the results...
Let us know how that works out!
As the other answer was more about your specific example of fried rice & stir fry, I'll offer a completely different answer on 'cooking more efficiently', more in the lines w/ what Kate mentioned, but a few recommendations:
Compare your speed in processing things to TV chefs (that actually do cooking, not just substitute pans out every couple of minutes). If you take 2x as long as them, that's not so bad. If you're taking 5-10x as long for a given step, that's something you probably either need to practice & improve on, or stop doing those steps. Even small things like how long it takes you to dig up all of the proper ingredients can drag out the cooking time significantly.
How finely you cut things up matters. Taking a minute or two to chop things finer might save multiple minutes when cooking. (and dramatically affects the outcome in terms of flavor & texture). Having a sharp knife will significantly affect how long this takes you. (unless you cut yourself, which slows things down).
To save time from cooking every night, if you plan your meals well, you can intentially cook too much food one night to give you a head-start towards the next night's meals.
For example:
London broil
Fajitas
Stuffed bell peppers.
You cook the steak the first night, the second night you reheat the leftover steak in an appropriate marinade (I use a mix of italian dressing + lime juice) and cook some onions & peppers. The third night you stuff the leftovers into a bell pepper & bake.
London broil also turns into a good stir fry or a beef stroganoff. Meatloaf becomes meatloaf sandwiches, sloppy joes, the basis for a meat sauce over pasta, or a casserole. Roast chicken becomes a chicken pot pie, chicken ala king or chicken fried rice. Ham becomes ham & bean soup, ham & cheese casserole, or a pasta salad. etc.
Some of the advantages of this technique is that you're in the right mental state for what you're going to be cooking, so you don't waste the time the next night with the 'what am I going to cook tonight?' and 'do I have the right ingredients?' game.
It sounds like part of the problem is you're putting a very high standard on your cooking, since you're working hard to prep and use marinades. Normally this is a really good thing and is often the difference between "good food" and "great food". At the same time, though, it takes much more time. Worth it if you're hosting a dinner, but not so much when you just need to get some food made. You can work much faster if you're willing to sacrifice some quality, and even then the food usually comes out good. Some ways of doing that:
Telescope everything. This is the big one. Instead of prepping and then cooking, prep while you cook. Fry the meat and veggies while waiting for the rice to finish. Chop the pork after you've added the onions. It can throw the timing off, so some things will be a little over or underdone, but with after a couple of times it gets easy to hit "good enough" and you can finish a pasta sauce before the water starts boiling.
Instead of marinading, prep a sauce while everything's cooking and add it at the end. Let everything simmer in it for a little bit, and you get some of the benefits of marinading without the timescales needed.
Use the rest of your kitchen. This is not so much "doing things faster" as "doing more things in the same time." Assuming you can only watch one pan at a time, that still leaves (in a normal kitchen) three burners for simmering and steaming things, an oven for baking and roasting, and a countertop for prepping cold foods. Water stuff and oven stuff don't require much attention so you won't hurt them by multitasking.
A couple of other things you might want to play with: if you're working with things that freeze well, prepare more than you can eat in a week. I usually bake breadrolls in really large quantities and chuck most of them into the freezer, which means I have to bake less next week (or just fill the freezer more). Also, you might want to experiment a little with your knifework. If you can speed up your chopping, you can prepare things faster. Sounds obvious, I know, but it's really surprising just how much time this saves you.
+1 for the suggestion to cook in even larger batches and freeze things. In particular, even if certain dishes don't freeze well, the ingredients may -- for example marinated and cooked chicken.
I agree with a lot of what other answers mention.
These tips will help with the cleaning problems:
Seasoning your cast iron correctly.
For example
Heat your cast iron and stainless steel pans enough before adding food
Heat up the oil you add to the pan hot enough before adding food. Oil should be shimmering and you should be able to smell the type of oil you put in once it heats up. For example vegetable oil will smell like corn.
Knowing when your oil is too hot for the food items you are cooking. Once your food is in the pan, it should not be crackling. Turn the burner down if it's cracking and if need be take the pan off the burner for a few seconds to adjust the heat of the pan.
Knowing your stove top burners and how much heat they put out on different settings. Each burner can/will put out different heat amounts. Know where your high and medium heats are for each burner.
Some other tips:
Double check your oven temperature reflects the same temperature you set it for using an oven thermometer.
Don't crowd the pot when searing meats. If marinating, let the excess drip off the meat first before placing the meat in the pot else you are steaming it. Sear meat in batches. If you are cooking other items for the same dish, like vegetables, take out the meat after searing so that it does not cook longer than it has to, cook the other items of the dish and add the meat at the end.
If you ever get a chance, buy or get someone to gift you an instant read thermometer you can stick into your meat to see when it's done instead of guessing or relying on some recipes' time.
Stir Fry Tips:
Sear the meat on high heat (do not cook all the way)
Take the meat out of the pan
Add vegetables in groups according to how long they will need to cook until they are almost tender crisp
Add aromatics for about 30 seconds to a minute (garlic, ginger, spices...)
Add any sauce, including the marinade sauce if you used it for the meat
Let the sauce cook down a little so it thickens
Add meat and cook until desired doneness
Fried Rice Tips:
Make a bunch of rice
Lay it flat on a cookie sheet on top of tin foil or parchment paper (so you have a better chance of not having to watch the pan)
Stick it in the oven @200 for 30 minutes or air dry for an hour.
Now it's ready for whatever recipe you choose
You can also store it after drying it in the fridge or freezer.
Reheating Tips:
You can reheat your fried rice (or just about anything else) on a baking sheet (cover the baking sheet in tin foil or parchment paper) in the oven @350 for 20-30 minutes
Do not heat frozen food up on high heats. If you have the time let them thaw in the refrigerator or in the microwave on one of the defrost setting turning/stirring making sure the food does not have a hot spot where other parts of it are still frozen.
There are a lot of slow cooking meals you can do in large quantities in a stock pot on the stove top. Especially central/south american foods. Chili verde for example. If you have a mexican market with a butcher, you have access to cheap meat cuts that you can cook low and slow. Even chicken is cheaper at our mexican market and fresher than say Foster Farm chicken packages.
You can also prep and freeze a lot of sauces that you can throw in to meals. Curry paste or tomato based sauces for meatballs are some example.
Remember to salt and pepper your food to taste at the very end (most cases).
There are a lot of flavored rice recipes out these besides fried rice.
You can find good deals at garage sales too for bigger pots and pans if you end up needing them.
Try to find the best multi tasking workflow for each meal you make and keep refining it every time. Get your mise en place in order too.
Don't rely on every recipes instructions, use your head and think about what the end product is and how the instructions might need to be changed so the items in the meal don't over cook or get mushy or burnt.
Taste as you go!
If you are going to reheat, think about if you want to fully cook everything on Sunday, maybe under cook it a little until you reheat it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.506632
| 2014-05-27T08:21:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44443",
"authors": [
"Alan Shutko",
"Alfreda Robertson",
"Bob Mathews",
"Bulhwi Cha",
"EM H",
"Federal Management Ltd - Leeds",
"Hovercouch",
"Joe",
"Kate Gregory",
"Kevin",
"Lakestone Enterprises LLC",
"Master Blaster LLC",
"PuzzledVacuum",
"arp",
"cbay",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104490",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104491",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104492",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104494",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104586",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18104",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"logophobe",
"rumtscho",
"user104554"
],
"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
}
|
92081
|
How can I know if it's worth cooking a Very Old (10 Years) Chili Bean Mixture Containing Red Kidney Beans?
I had 24-oz. bags of chili mix beans that consist of red kidney beans, navy beans, cranberry beans, and black beans, and which have been stored in our pantry in their original, unopened, plastic bag packages since I purchased them about 10 years ago. I just tried to prepare half (about 12 oz.) of one of the packages by:
Rinsing them thoroughly and repeatedly in a strainer,
Soaking them in plenty of water in a metal pot in my refrigerator for approximately 48 hours,
Draining off the soak water, and rinsing the beans in three to five batches of fresh water,
Boiling for a total of two to four hours, adding water as needed
Letting sit in the hot pot on the stove a while,
Another hour of boiling time
Adding 1/2 tsp of sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) to the pot of boiling beans during the last 10 minutes of that,
Another hour of boiling time, bringing the total number of hours the beans have boiled to four to six hours,
I decided to stop after testing a kidney bean and other smaller beans for softness again, and discovering that, although the bean skins started dissolving off of the beans after I added sodium bicarbonate to the bean and water mixture, the interior of the beans were still hard.
I have learned that very old beans, may never be cooked to softness due to chemical changes that have occurred within the beans's cell structures. However, some people on the Internet advise that very old, dried beans can be cooked to a soft texture if, when you are soaking them prior to cooking them, you add 3/8 to 1/2 tsp of sodium bicarbonate to the soak water. One person also said that, if your beans are very, very old, you may also have to add sodium bicarbonate to the cooking water. I also learned that, if your cooking water is very hard, you will probably have to add sodium bicarbonate in order to be able to cook your beans to softness.
I have decided to throw away these long-boiled beans, as I am now convinced that they must be so old that they will never soften up, something I have read about during my Internet search. However, I am wondering if I can salvage the remaining 1 1/2 bags of the same chili bean mixture by soaking the rinsed beans in water to which I have added sodium bicarbonate. Maybe soaking them in sodium bicarbonate water for a very long time, say 24-28 hours, will work, whereas just boiling them in sodium bicarbonate water wasn't good enough.
Do you think trying this again but soaking the beans in sodium bicarbonate water prior to cooking could work?
I'm also concerned that red kidney beans must boil for a minimum of 10 - 15 minutes, and better yet, for 30 minutes, just to be on the safe side, in order to break down and rid them of the toxins that can make one very gastrointestinally ill. If you have boiled red kidney beans for more than 30 minutes, yet the interiors of the beans are still hard, are they safe to eat, or are the toxin levels in them still too high? In other words, are kidney beans safe to eat after they have boiled for a minimum of 30 minutes, no matter what, or do they still have high levels of toxins as long as the interiors seem uncooked because they are still hard?
Hi and thanks for visiting Seasoned Advice, and for having taken the time to have a look at the introductory [tour] . Please would you consider editing your post down a bit to the salient details? I've tried to read it a couple of times but never got further than you breaking off operations to feed your child a meal and make him a packed lunch and snack....
About 6 months is the shelf life of dry bean.
Soaking will help, but you might still end up with beans that don't fully soften up.
I have had some luck cooking old beans in a pressure cooker. What have you got to lose by trying? if they don't get soft then toss them, which is what I assume you will do if you don't try.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.507964
| 2018-09-04T07:16:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92081",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Spagirl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
129185
|
How do you make the vacuum seal on a glass jar?
The main problem when preserving jars is how you vacuum your jars.
I do not want to use a special jar for preserving aliments, nor special caps for the jar. I only have the normal ones, the ones you tap the cap and it is supposed to seal. The Quattro Stagioni cost too much if you want to preserve more than 30~50 bottles. There are also special tool which I do not trust at all.
I am not asking about:
For aliments with a low PH. For example pickled gherkins, pickled gherkins pickled eggs, and not that much. I do not like to make every vegetable pickled.
Aliments that are dehydrated. I do no even have to save in a bottle I can use a rope, for tomato or fungi/mushrooms, but others like dry ginger, onion or lemon I save on a jar.
Aliments which are saved with plenty olive oil (AOVE). I am spanish, so AOVE is the base of anything. I have done raw salads (tomato, onion, some garlic, zucchini), put them on the bottle, boiled up and its ready. But I am a little doubtful about cooked aliments, even when I cover them up with AOVE i see air bubbles in the bottle, I have thrown some out because they got rotten.
Aliments that are fermented. I am really familiar with Sauerkraut. It is great how easy it is and how you do no need any sanitizing process. I usually crush with my hand the raw cabbage, some onion, garlic, ginger, turmeric, salt, wait for it release all the water. Put all on the jar, cover the jar with plenty of the water it released (which is basically brine) and that's it.
My usual method with the jars is:
Boil the cap in water (about 20 minutes in the moment it start boiling)
Boil the bottles (about 20 minutes in the moment it start boiling) or heating it in the oven (about 20 minutes at 100 Celsius/212 Fahrenheit)
After I sanitize my bottles I put my cooked food, for example tuna, or roasted vegetables (typical in spain), and the boiled in water the bottle with the food inside. But the caps that tell you when the bottle it is vacuum?. For me, most of the time they do not work. Most of the time there is an air bubble in some jars.
I know there is technique called autoclave, and there are some not cheap manufactured machines such as:
https://grupo-selecta.com/en/autoclaves-for-canning/
Which method do you use to preserve your aliments, and if you have found ones do not fail that much when preserving cooked aliments, or any tool, tip or specific cheap jar or method to vacuum and preserve my aliments in a jar?
Be very careful preserving garlic and onions etc raw as they can contain bacteria which cause Botulism. BTW, your English is fine, much better than my Spanish
@bob1 I have corrected that. I was wrong
@KateGregory Yes I mean "cap". And yes I have research about it, it is more correct to use lid. But I have discover that 'Lug Cap' it is the kind of lid it has all the jair in Europe and more specifically in Spain. In the other hand I have found that in EEUU they usually use what they call 'Plugs' which is a lid that has two parts one that is flat maybe you refer to this?
The cap must be lose while heating to let the excess hot air escape. This change in air pressure creates the partial-vacuum (because colder air takes up less space). If the hot air cannot escape, there is also a risk cracking / exploding the jar.
Interesting how one learns "alimento" is translated to "food" in English, then some 20 years later you learn "aliment" is also a valid English word.
@JoL A very, very rare English word. (I'm a reasonably widely-read native, but I don't think I've ever heard it before — I correctly guessed its meaning, but had to stop and think. Even Wiktionary marks that meaning as ‘(now rare)’.) I wouldn't expect many people to understand it — unless OP has a particular reason for it, I think this question would benefit from it being changed to something easier to follow. (Also, ‘AOVE’ might be worth explaining, or replacing with ‘EVOO’. OP's English is pretty good apart from those, though.)
@gidds there is an expression commonly used on Spanish and I have search the equivalent on English it says -'A word to the wise is enough'. I not a native english, so I bet is better to trust an English Native Person. Trying to give a reason to my unconscious way of why I used aliment instead of food is that I usually used food when you are gonna eat it, aliment refers to mutiples ingredients that make part of the completed food you are gonna eat in the moment to speak. But most of the time in Spanish it can be used both for the same meaning. Thank you, i am learning a lot on this Post
One problem with a very rare word like ‘aliment’ is that it looks like a typo for the much more common world ‘ailment’! (That's what I'd normally assume, though the context rules that out here.) — There's no single obvious replacement: you could use ‘ingredient’ for a single material and ‘food’ for a ready-to-eat mixture; or I think ‘foodstuff’ would cover both cases.
I think the use of "You" in this question means its really a different question for each answer. You're asking about their specific personal habits. I don't think that fits with the stack exchange voting system which relies on everyone answering the same question.
It is ok that you can see some air still in the jars. In fact, if you fill the jars so full that there is food to the very top, you won't get a seal. The way "canning" works is that heat expands the air at the top of the jar and forces it out of the jar so less air is in there. When the jar cools to room temperature, the pressure in the jars is less than our atmospheric pressure (a small vacuum, not an absolute vacuum) and this holds the lids on so tightly that bacteria cannot get in from outside. If what went into the jars was boiling hot, then there will no be bacteria already in there growing, so you are going to be ok. As you noted, a slightly acidic pH is helpful, but that doesn't mean it has to be pickled: I add a teaspoon of lemon juice to canned tomatoes, which you can't taste but which all the recipes swear is vital to lower the pH.
You asked how you can know if the seal fails? I use the two part lids for my jars. A flat metal lid with a little rubber ring on the inside surface, and a larger metal screw ring that holds it on while processing. When you first put the lid on, you can push the domed centre and it will boing up and down. After "processing" (boiling the closed jar full of food in water, for 20 minutes if they are 1 litre jars), the lid should stay down exclusively. It's common for them to "ping" down noisily when you remove them from the boiling water. Sometimes you poke them to check and they go down once, but then don't bounce up again. If your lids have "gone down" the processing has succeeded and you have a vacuum seal.
If your lids still "boing" after processing then you need to do something else. Most of the time it's a matter of removing the lid and cleaning the edge of the jar, maybe taking out some food if there wasn't enough "headspace", and processing it again. But some people just put the jar in the fridge and use it right away rather than trying to redo a single jar.
I am not going to address your other methods such as covering with olive oil or fermenting, that is too broad a scope for a question here.
The heat forces air out of the jar or does the expanded hot air at the top "shrink" when cooling, thus pulling the seal / lid in and creating the low pressure situation?
Has both of you commented. I realize that immediately when I get off the jair of the boiled water the 'Lug Cap' still doing "Boing", but once the jar get cooled it seems that it pulls the lid and create the low pressure situation
Yes, wait until the jar is room temperature to give it chance to snap down before you think it "didn't work"
@Luciano both. That air doesn't start much above room temperature, so just heating and cooling does nothing. But when hot some slips out through the rubber and then the lesser amount cools that means low pressure in the jar. Physics.
@Luciano A good way to see this in action is to take something like a plastic water bottle with a screwcap, add a little hot water, then close and shake it up. The bottle should puff up like a balloon. Then unscrew the cap, release the pressure and close the cap again. Then you can wait or rinse the bottle under cool water, and it should collapse. Note: subjecting glass to such quick temperature changes might cause it to crack or shatter.
You could practice with just hot water. Once you can get a jar of water (or even empty) to seal, them it's easier to move onto foods.
I've always been instructed that if you poke the center down after the fact and it stays it isn't necessarily indicative of a perfect seal. For that reason I've always been warned to never poke the lid until after the jars have cooled so that you know for certain the lids have popped on their own and not because you poked it.
For effective vacuum sealing without special equipment, try using the water bath method. After filling your sanitized jars with food, screw on the lids tightly and process the jars in boiling water for the recommended time. This helps create a vacuum seal as the contents cool. Ensure jars are completely submerged and avoid overcrowding. For better results, you can also use a canning funnel and jar lifter to handle hot jars safely.
Please don't post AI-generated content.
And note that the instructions you posted do not correctly preserve low-acids foods and can lead to poisoning, and also won’t create a vacuum seal.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.508397
| 2024-09-09T09:30:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/129185",
"authors": [
"David K",
"Ismael",
"JimmyJames",
"JoL",
"Kate Gregory",
"Kingsley",
"Luciano",
"Sneftel",
"bdsl",
"bob1",
"gidds",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113620",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36746",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71968"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
125709
|
Why do most people use old white cabbage for coleslaw?
In the UK at least most people will make coleslaw out of what are sold as "white cabbage" (example here), such that these are frequently referred to as "coleslaw cabbages". Why is this particular type of cabbage usually chosen?
I know little about growing cabbages, but I eat quite a few and this is based purely on my own observations. There are many different types, and quite a lot of variation within each type. However there is one "axis of variation" that I attribute to being at least related to the age of the plant at harvest. In the shop this axis can be identified by the density and compressibility of the cabbage, which relates to how much air there is between the layers of leaves. The ones with more air between the leaves, and therefore have lower density and more compressibility, will tend to be less tough/fibrous and also less bitter. In almost all situations I would prefer the younger cabbage, but to my palate these properties are particularly important when the cabbage is served uncooked, such as in coleslaw. In the UK the cabbages that are most likely to be "younger" are sold as pointed or sweetheart cabbage (example here), and the cabbages that are most likely to be "older" are white and red cabbage. I have tried a basic coleslaw with pointed cabbage and it seemed to work for my palate. I do not understand why anyone, let alone everyone, would choose the "old" white cabbage for coleslaw in particular when there is younger, sweeter, less tough cabbage available for the same if not less money. Can anyone explain?
What makes you think the density of the cabbage is determined by its age?
No very good reason. Things tend to get tougher with age, the old leaves of any one cabbage will be tougher and more bitter. I have always assumed this. I try an make it clear in the question that this is just an assumption.
FWIW: "Coleslaw" comes from the Dutch word "Koolsla". It literally means "Salad of (white) cabbage".
You can also change the texture and remove some of the bitterness by giving your cabbage a salt massage after cutting it up… just add salt, get your hands in there and squish it around, then wait a bit and it will give up a lot of moisture. Drain and possibly give it a rinse so it’s not too salty
I find this absolutely fascinating because to my palate, "green" equals "bitter", in all vegetables (not intrinsically bad, because a little bitterness is often a good flavour component). I find any green cabbage needs to be at least very slightly cooked to take the edge off the bitterness, whereas white doesn't - and is wonderfully crunchy and generally very pleasant raw.
The primary factor determining toughness in supermarket cabbage is effectively cultivar, not age. While cabbage does get a little tougher as it grows, that doesn't matter to the consumer because farmers won't sell white cabbage (a decidedly low-cost vegetable) until it's as heavy as it's going to get. In any case, round cabbage and pointed cabbage are sold at similar ages.
Why, then, is coleslaw so often made from white cabbage? It would be hard to rank the reasons, but here's the big ones (IMO).
White cabbage is crisp and juicy, more so than sweetheart cabbage. It stands up well to acidic dressing even when thinly sliced. Try making a strong zesty coleslaw with sesame oil and lemon juice and leaving it for a few hours; the white cabbage will still have some crunch while the sweetheart cabbage wilts into stringy mush.
White cabbage is cheaper (based on a quick survey of nearby markets, about 40%-75% of the price). And even pound for pound, white cabbage has a more consistent texture, reducing wastage.
White cabbage has a (IMO) pleasantly peppery taste which sweetheart cabbage lacks.
White cabbage produces a "traditional" coleslaw texture. Sweetheart cabbage doesn't.
White cabbage is available fresh in more seasons.
All of this is a matter of personal preference, of course. If you prefer your coleslaw with pointed cabbage, no reason not to go with that.
It is interesting how different what you describe is to my experience. I wonder if your "pleasantly peppery taste" is my "more bitter". Can I ask, does that flavour go away with cooking at about the time the cabbage loses its rigidity?
@User65535 Couldn't say, I don't usually cook cabbage. (And of course never for coleslaw.)
Part of the 'peppery' in cabbage is like that of mustard - glucosinolate. The two are related plants. Cooking or acid [like lemon juice] will knock back the perceived pepperiness [though personally I love it.]. Over-cooking, on the other hand will start to smell like bad eggs as the glucosinolates break down 'too far'.
Not to mention that the denser cabbage is easier (for the regular consumer, not chefs) to slice into thin slices or even grate to make the coleslaw. If you do decide to cook cabbage sometime and are into east-asian flavours, try hot and spicy cabbage/Sichuan cabbage; basically very hot pan, add oil, sichuan pepper, and dry chili peppers, add cabbage immediately, fry, add brown sugar and fry ~1 min, balance with rice vinegar and soy sauce. Best way by far IMO.
I'd argue that (2) is the overwhelming reason.
Inertia. That's how they've always done it, that's how their parents did it, etc. Probably based on a time when there was less variety in produce available.
@user3067860 - that was my thought. In the 70s when the UK first ever heard of coleslaw, that was how it was made. Cabbage availability was white, similar looking green [tougher], savoy [for a treat]. Little else. Pointy/sweetheart… nope. Red came in jars, pickled.
Supermarkets in Australia are fairly rubbish (but have succeeded in removing fresh produce markets from the high-street), so I've "enjoyed" making coleslaw out of all sorts of cabbage.
Red cabbage stains the coleslaw kind of purple-pink, and I think this makes it look much less appetising. I will not use it for coleslaw if I can find anything else, including Wombok. So unless purple mayonnaise is your thing, this is a big reason to stick to white/green cabbage. At parties & BBQs, I find purple coleslaw doesn't get eaten.
Wombok ("Napa") works OK, but to my palate it doesn't have the same textural crunch as "old white" cabbage.
Savoy cabbage works the same, but obviously is curlier so looks a bit weird. Sugarloaf / Pointed cabbage is pretty much the same as "old white", but obviously more delicious because "sugar" is in the name. /s
Red cabbage works well for vinaigrette style coleslaw. (I don’t make mine with mayo)
Whether pink is desirable or not is also a matter of taste. Barbie, anyone?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.509251
| 2023-11-01T09:21:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125709",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe",
"Nye",
"Opifex",
"Sneftel",
"Stephie",
"Tetsujin",
"User65535",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26952",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97169",
"user3067860"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113609
|
What does it mean when an egg splatters and the white is greenish-yellow?
This morning I decided to make some eggs. I cracked open the first egg and it just all sort of splashed out onto the pan, the yolk already liquefied and the whites with this yellowish-greenish hue.
I cracked open a second egg to see if the whole carton was like that, and it came out just fine, with white whites and an intact yolk. I still threw it out because that does not look safe to eat.
The carton shows a Best By October 2020, so it's a little out of date but not by much.
What happened here?
It means you're living a Dr. Seuss story.
I've never been a strict adherent to 'best before' dates, always using a bit of judgement as to how long I will keep something, but even I would consider 2 months past best before to be pushing it for eggs, even if refrigerated.
I'd rather repeat this exercise, even if the eggs were fresh...
@Tetsujin Pushing it, sure - but eggs do actually keep a long time and the currently only answer is absolutely right in stating that if the eggs smell ok, then they are ok to eat when properly cooked.
related : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/109775/67 ; but also worth mentioning that 2 months past the best by date is going to be significantly different if you're in a country that refrigerates eggs or not.
Two months out of date is not much for canned foods; it's significantly more for fresh foods.
From The Splendid Table:
Older eggs (which are still safe to eat) tend to be more alkaline, which encourages a green reaction similar to that green ring you can get around a hard-cooked egg yolk. The green is harmless, but pretty much inevitable in older eggs.
From Quora:
If the yolk is breaking easily then the eggs are either older eggs or lower grade eggs. The highest grade eggs is AA which not only looks at shell quality, but also the yolk quality. AA eggs should have a tall firm yolk. Over time the yolk becomes less firm and resilient causing breaking when it's cracked. Just because the yolk is breaking doesn't mean the egg is no good, just lower quality.
Conclusion:
As long as the egg doesn't smell, it should be safe to eat, making sure to cook it thoroughly instead of leaving some parts liquid.
Older eggs becoming more alkine is the result of a natural ammoniac fermentation (which in turn is due to the nitrogen content of the proteins in the egg). The ammoniac fermentation itself is completely harmless and doesn't render the egg inedible.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.509785
| 2021-01-05T13:09:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113609",
"authors": [
"András Hummer",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Nobody",
"RonJohn",
"Tetsujin",
"Vickel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90682"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
90847
|
plastic cutting sheets. how to use properly
I bought some plastic cutting sheets in a pack of two. One side is smooth, the other side has a rough texture. Which side of the sheet should I cut on?
Can you explain your question a bit more? Show an example of what you're calling a cutting sheet, and what the 'rough' versus 'smooth' side is? Depending on exactly what you mean, I could see the answer being either way.
... and how does this relate to cooking?
@FuzzyChef : because it's an alternative to a wooden cutting board. (or plastic one) See https://www.amazon.com/Flexible-Plastic-Cutting-EZ-Grip-Waffle/dp/B014HPPAFS
related : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/84166/67
Ah, I think of "plastic cutting sheets" at the kind of thing you use for fabrics and paper crafts.
The rough surface faces downward to prevent the board from slipping on smooth surfaces.
That's the way that I typically use them, as well. If it's still too slippery, you can put a damp towel under the mat. (and they also sell ones that are silicone on one side to grip the counter better)
Wouldn't the rough surface slip more on a smooth bench, since it has less contact area with the bench? Anecdotally, I find this to be the case for me.
Are they very thin, hard but flexible sheets? Mine came with no particular instructions on which side to use, in fact all it said was that they were reversible - use either side or both.
Yes. I was wondering the same. I just visited a company's website and they described the "bottom" of their silicone cutting sheet as being textured (waffled) so as to provide a non-slip surface.
I might add that a smooth surface (cutting side) provides less of an environment for bacteria. (However, plastic is definitely not the best cutting surface as slicing itself creates a developing place for bacteria). A little bleach in the dish water is always wise. All in all, the convenience and flexibility for pouring makes these sheets popular and I use them daily.
Hope this helps.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.510034
| 2018-07-06T20:01:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90847",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe",
"Joe M",
"Jordan Barrett",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96167"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
94471
|
How to remove mutton smell while cooking?
Some people do not like specific smell of mutton in curry. What I do to remove the smell of mutton while cooking?
I am one of those people who really doesn't like the smell of mutton/lamb for at least the first couple of hours if I'm making any type of curry.
Whilst cooking from raw, I'm not sure you can do more than cook in a well-ventilated area.
However, for your final dish, there's a 'cheat' I use, which started as being borrowed from an Indian Restaurant trick known as the 3-pot method. [Oddly, this trick, which I've known for 30 years, seems to have not a single Google hit]
If you really want the smell to be gone, do this the day before...
Cook the mutton separately in a thin 'curry broth' using minimal ingredients, maybe just a little onion & oil to fry your bhoona/bhogar spices in at the start, then add some generic curry powder & simmer gently for a minimum of 45 mins, though I prefer 3 or 4 hours so any fat really renders down.
Strain off the meat & you can then either discard that 'broth', or use it to make further masala gravy/sauce base, & allow the meat to cool separately. Save in a sealed container in the fridge overnight, then the next day add the meat to your actual dish.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.510232
| 2018-12-03T17:04:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/94471",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
110390
|
Is it safe to eat a dish made with vinegar if the vinegar lid had black stuff on it?
I stored some vinegar in a salsa container. When I opened it, I noticed some black stuff under the lid. The vinegar liquid looked good, so I used a little and started to cook with it. When I washed the lid, the black stuff under the lid dissolved. Is my dish safe to consume?
What was the lid made of? Steel lids can turn black on exposure to vinegar (even just fumes) if the coating on them is even slightly damaged. This is more like rust than mould
The "black stuff" is most likely mold. I have found it under the lids of many foods I preserved and ate without suffering any adverse health consequences, including various vinegars.
if it's wine vinegar it's completely safe. that's simply a layer of mother of vinegar (mycoderma aceti). If there is still some unfermented sugar in the vinegar it may form even if is a store-bought one. It's a natural process.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.510366
| 2020-08-24T18:46:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110390",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
96146
|
Keeping cream pies set while browning meringue topping
My cream pies set up great until I put them back in the oven to brown the meringue. When I take them out & let them cool, they are no longer set up. What am I doing wrong?
How are you setting your cream pies?
What oven setting do you use?
There could be a few things going on here:
If it is the meringue that is not holding - you probably need to beat it longer (stiff peaks will hold in bowl if turned upside down for a short time) and add the sugar slowly to ensure that it dissolves before spreading. To test if the sugar is dissolved, pinch a small amount between finger and thumb and rub; if it feels gritty/sandy then the sugar has not dissolved.
For the filling - most recipes (in my experience) say to spread the meringue over a hot filling, so you don't need to let it cool before adding the meringue. This may vary according to the type of filling you are using though. I'm most familiar with lemon-meringue and chocolate-meringue.
Also for the filling - this depends on the filling. If you are setting the filling using gelatin rather than using the natural coagulating properties of an egg based custard, the gelatin can re-dissolve upon re-heating, but should re-set when cooled. Cornstarch will also re-dissolve when reboiled (though browning your pie should only do this locally at best) and will no longer thicken when cooled.
To brown the meringue use the broil/grill function on the oven and a very high heat setting, not a regular bake. Keeping the door open a bit during the browning should keep the base of the pie cool, so long as you are not putting the pie back into an oven that has recently been used for baking something (i.e. is not radiating lots of heat anyway).
You can also brown meringue by using a chef's blowtorch (who doesn't like flames!), these heat locally so you have to wave it around and take care not to scorch the meringue or blast holes in it. There is little chance of heating the rest of the pie with one of these.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.510466
| 2019-02-04T20:12:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96146",
"authors": [
"TQ1000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67311",
"senschen"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
96320
|
Worried about my Buddha hand rind ferment
I am testing out the Buddha hand fruit ferment.
I washed everything well, cut the rind and poured honey water in the jar and sealed it tight. I opened it one day and it bubbled for a few minutes very strongly. I put the top back on and now there is a white film on top of the liquid and I am not sure what or if something went wrong.
First and foremost, you shouldn't seal anything fermenting because it could accumulate too much pressure and fail in a potentially explosive manner (as with this unfortunate accident https://www.homebrewtalk.com/forum/threads/glass-carboy-explosion.517237/).
Also, white films forming on top of fermenting beverages usually means that an infection got hold (and the fermentation vessel, if not made of glass, usually will harbor these bugs from now on and infect the next batches). A good ressource here : https://www.homebrewsupply.com/learn/is-my-batch-infected.html
It's not uncommon in fruit based fermentation if everything isn't frozen then pasterized. Regarding if it's drinkable, it would need a proper identification of the bugs you got in there, but folks over at https://alcohol.stackexchange.com/ might be a better fit to answer this kind of question. Stay safe!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.510657
| 2019-02-12T15:35:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96320",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
97064
|
Determining Bundt pan size when recipe gives a loaf tin size
What size Bundt pan do I need for a pound cake that is supposed to be baked in a 9 by 5 loaf tin ? I have a Bundt pan (never used one before) that holds 8 cups of water.
According to here, your 8 cup Bundt pan should work.
https://cooksinfo.com/baking-pans-by-volume
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.510872
| 2019-03-23T14:38:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/97064",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
117571
|
Is it safe to use raw eggs in icecream as in the Dukan recipe?
I've seen Dukan's icecream recipe on several sites and nowhere they say to boil or otherwise cook the eggs, only to mix the yolks with the sweetener, and to whip the whites. I thought it isn't safe to raw eat animal derived food frozen in a home freezer as it may not kill infections (like fish flesh: it should be frozen according to safety standards before it can be safely consumed as raw).
It's not clear what your question is. A lot of recipes for all kinds of different foods use uncooked eggs. A lot of foods people regularly eat are not "safe". That said, traditional ice cream recipes that include eggs do often cook the eggs, in order to make a custard base.
@Juhasz my question is isn't it unsafe or may be I miss something? By the way what are those unsafe regular foods?
If you just search raw eggs you’ll find lots of answers but in short if you are using eggs that are fresh, (and refrigerated for the USA) then you should be just fine. Bacteria don’t just magically appear. They need the right conditions and time to grow.
If you're concerned about using raw eggs, you can get cartons of 'liquid eggs', which are pasteurized. Just make sure to get "whole eggs" and not the ones that are egg whites. You can also get pasteurized eggs still in their shell, but they're harder to find.
Does this answer your question? Is it safe to eat raw eggs? That question starts out talking about raw eggs by themselves but also addresses raw egg as an ingredient in other recipes.
It's impossible to answer this question without seeing the recipe you are referring to. Most ice cream bases are cooked to form a custard, so are not raw. If you can edit with a recipe then your question would be clearer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.510929
| 2021-10-20T22:07:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117571",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Juhasz",
"Ya Y",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96083",
"mroll"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
129772
|
Why won't my White Chocolate Ganache set in the freezer?
I melted my white chocolate per the truffle recipe: 4oz wafers (wilton), 1/4 cup cream. I put it in the freezer to set but after 8 hours it still had not set, per instructions I retempered and added more chopped wafers stirring until the new chocolate was melted. Returned to the freezer, waited another 8 hours but it still has not set up. Does anyone have any advice?
See White chocolate ganache won't set. Also answered by rumtscho nearly 12 years ago!
This question is similar to: White chocolate ganache won't set. If you believe it’s different, please [edit] the question, make it clear how it’s different and/or how the answers on that question are not helpful for your problem.
Wilton wafers don't contain any cocoa butter and so cannot be "tempered". If you continue to use Wiltons, you can skip the tempering step in future batches.
Does the freezer step add enough variation that this can be considered a different question than the older white chocolate ganache question, or is this indeed a duplicate? What about Wilton wafers vs. Nestle chips?
@Marti I think that it's the combination of freezer and using chocolate that makes them different. The OP in the older question is using cocoa butter instead of chocolate, which is quite unusual. It turns out that the answers are the same, but that's not a reason to close the questions as duplicates.
You have way too much liquid there. When working with white chocolate, you can only use rather small amounts of liquid. A proper ratio would be 14 to 18 ml of cream to 100 g of white chocolate, which works out to around 1/16 cup of cream per 4 ounces of chocolate.
Your recipe sounds quite dodgy. Not only does it give you the wrong ratio, but it also directs you to use a freezer, which will likely throw your chocolate out of temper. I would suggest finding better instructions.
You should be able to save this batch by adding around 12 more ounces of white chocolate, unless it has split by spending time in the freezer.
I don't have any better alternatives but note that if OP adds another 12 ounces of white chocolate they will end up with a little over half a kilogram of ganache. That is a lot. Think about what you will do with such a large batch before you prepare it.
Thank you all for the feedback, I did finally get it to work out by adding more chocolate. But putting it in the freezer in covered does not harm, just a quick set up.
@BarbaraForget chocolate only tempers in a very short temperature window (26ish °C to 32ish °C), and putting it in the freezer brings you out of that window too quickly. That said, Wilton wafers don't need to tempered, so freezing them is fine.
@Hovercouch any chocolate can distemper when exposed to the wrong temperature change. If you want to keep the wafers tempered, you have to treat them accordingly, and the freezer is not the place for that.
@rumtscho Wilton wafers aren't "chocolate": they don't have any cocoa solids or cocoa butter. Tempering depends on cocoa butter's unusual crystalline properties. Anything without that can't be tempered (or distempered).
@Hovercouch Wilton products are rare in Europe, so I have never had contact with Wilton wafers. The OP states that they're making a white chocolate ganache; if the Wilton wafers aren't chocolate, then this may be an even deeper problem, and they should go and use some actual white chocolate made from cocoa butter.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.511100
| 2024-12-15T12:57:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/129772",
"authors": [
"Barbara Forget",
"Hovercouch",
"John Rennie",
"Marti",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26414",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81322",
"mustaccio",
"quarague",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
76250
|
Is it safe to eat food cooked on a dish on which breaded chicken has been cooked and which wasn't washed?
I cooked a frozen breaded chicken steak on a baking tray over 12 hours ago and I have absent-mindedly put something in the oven without washing the tray prior.
Am I in danger of giving myself food poisoning, should I eat this food? (I plan to have it in the oven at 200 Celsius for 30 minutes)
Maybe strictly speaking there's a slight risk, but assuming you're a non-pregnant adult with a healthy immune system I would think the chances of any serious food poisoning would be pretty slim.
The first-order thing to pay attention to here is probably how much debris is actually left on the pan. If there's obvious stuff stuck to it, or if there were some kind of sauce, that'd be a nice home for bacteria. If it's a bit of grease and some dry crumbs that brush off, eh. I assume it's the latter, with a frozen breaded steak.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.511367
| 2016-12-08T20:22:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76250",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
125107
|
How do I establish how many chickens fit on my rotisserie?
I have a large rotisserie BBQ with double skewers side by each. I would like to get an idea of how many whole chickens I can roast at the same time. The skewers can fit about 5 small chickens (3-4 lbs) each, but I'm wondering if skewers will fit side by side and still rotate without rubbing.
What is the Average widest diameter of a small chicken?
I hoping that someone here with access to a bunch of small chickens can measure a few at the widest part and provide their results.
You could nip down to your local supermarket with a tape measure… just ignore the stares ;)
This really depends on location, chicken sizes vary around the world.
The issue is that the size varies greatly. However, once ready to put on the rotisserie, you could also truss or tie the birds, compacting them a bit and helping to create clearance. Seems to me that you could get a rough idea with two chickens, by placing one on each rotisserie.
The nice thing about that test is that you can avoid waste if they clash, just by sliding one asking until they don't. But I suspect you'd end up with 5 chickens on one and 4 on the other if you can line them up perfectly, or 4 and 3 so the widest parts fit in between each other
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.511466
| 2023-08-30T16:30:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125107",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"GdD",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
108971
|
What does the halal label mean to non-muslims for non-meat foods?
For example kosher berries or salad are checked more thoroughly for insects than usual as far as I know, so could be attractive to non-jews who don't want to accidentally eat insects.
Are there similar reasons to search out or avoid halal food for non-religious reasons?
I restrict this question to non-meat food because there is an existing question where the answers all focus on meat.
Since Halal food can't contain pork meat / by-products or alcohol, you'll see some ingredients substitutes (for example, Halal candy will not contain pork gelatin for sure; instead probably agar-agar will be used). So it might be advantageous if you can't consume alcohol or are allergic to pork.
As with any substitutions, sometimes you'll see a difference in texture / flavor, sometimes not.
Of course, by-products! Another scenario in which that might be useful is if you are a strict vegetarian/vegan and want to eat candy without gelatin.
@LSchoon I didn't mention vegetarian diet because sometimes the substitute ingredient might be from another animal! So halal doesn't automatically mean meat-free.
@LSchoon: ... for example, you can buy bovine or even fish gelatin.
I am by no means an expert on this, but Wikipedia suggests that there may not be a (big) difference between halal and non-halal for non-meat foods:
According to the Quran, the only foods explicitly forbidden are meat from animals that die of themselves, blood, the meat of pigs and any food dedicated to other than God.
The one exception would be alcohol or other intoxicants, because you will not find halal-certified alcohol for obvious reasons.
eating anything that could be harmful to the human body is Haram (non-Halal), like snakes, scorptions, etc. A Halal food is a food that does not contain pork, its "derivatives", non-halal meat, its derivatives (like gelatin), other illicit food, its derivatives and alcohol (and other intoxicants/drugs).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.511598
| 2020-06-10T13:44:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108971",
"authors": [
"Betty",
"LSchoon",
"Luciano",
"cbeleites",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84071"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
82212
|
Thai beef meatballs, how to get chewy texture and how corn flour and baking powder function in recipe?
I have attempted to make thai beef meat balls for about 10 times now and failed almost everytime. Thai beef meat balls need to be stretchy and have a chewy texture when finished.
I have tried mince with no fat, mince with 10% fat, high quality mince with no fat, still cannot get the right finished texture like the one in this video: Thai Beef Meatball Recipe
So I was wondering, what does cornflour and baking power do to the mince?
Why is it so necessary to have the mixed mince very cold before shaping it into a hot water?
I have followed exactly what the above video says and still cannot get it right.
What exactly is the problem? You say it isn't right, but how is it not right?
Likely the absence of chewy texture though not explicitly asked. Two questions here: what the ingredients do and and why texture not attainable.
Is it baking soda or baking powder?
by not getting it right means I get the finished product with is meatballs but it is very soft and not firm and not chewy as what's shown in the video.
10% fat means that 10% of pure fat has been added to the chunk of meat (with whatever intermuscular fat it had). It might be worth trying again using a chunk of meat and cutting it up, as shown in the video. (I'm also not sure if it's better to work with the meat when it's cold, or let it warm up some ... it's going to warm up as it's in the food processor)
Baking soda or baking powder? Powder will produce gas bubbles.
Both baking soda (but not baking powder) and corn starch are prevalent in chinese cooking and its derivatives elsewhere in Asia. I am reasonably sure that they are used even in home cooking.
Corn starch is used as a binder and texturing agent in minced or finely chopped meat. I have also seen it used in home cooking on sliced meat in stir frying for texture, mainly to capture the meat juices and allow that to become a thin coating of sauce adhered to the meat.
Baking soda is used as a meat tenderiser, more often in commercial cooking and less so in home cooking from what I have seen. Again, this is used commonly in sliced as well as minced meat.
As for meat balls (and fish balls/fish cakes too), the bouncy/chewy texture comes from kneading a meat paste (just ground beef if not fine enough) and also the way they are formed, effectively by extrusion - a pinch of meat in the palm of your hand, form a fist and squeeze it out through gap between your curled index finger and thumb. These are always cooked immediately, I suspect for hygiene because of excessive handling.
addendum
Though I have never seen it used, I can see how double action baking powder could produce those little bubbles in the puffier fish balls that you sometimes observe. This would certainly justify keeping everything cold and a hot bath immediately after extrusion. Much if not all of the tenderising function of the soda inside baking powder would be lost however.
I do not know any more today. The only other idea is that some sausages have a very similar bouncy texture. Perhaps someone can chime in with that know how.
So what makes it firm, strachy and chewy? That's what I want to find out. Is it the cold, the time frame I have to process the meat, the corn flour or the baking soda? I have also tried to double the amount of corn flour as oppose to the video above and makes no different which I still get the soft, easy to pull apart type of texture when finished.
It is the fineness of the mincing. You are aiming for a paste not just ground meat. Baking soda also helps to break down the meat. You do have to knead your paste.
I have also tried to knead my paste by using food processor to blend it for about 10mins which is 8 mins longer that the lady in the video says. I have also checked my paste to see if it is really pasty and fine blend and still came out soft. I really don't understand why hence this post.
I will need to either experiment a bit and ask around, out of knowledge and ideas right now. It was not even an issue the few times I played with it. I do know that the texture is not uniform and that bounciness is something people pick on among vendors. It is not that dissimilar to the texture of some sausages actually. Perhaps that might be a potential source. Try double action baking powder too and keep everything very cold till the hot step. Will have to defer to others right now.
I read the key is to keep the meat cold and to put in the freezer to keep it that way then take it out before it freezes solid and you do this several times during the process right up to cooking.
I've also seen videos using a food processor or blender where they put ice cubes in, rather than just chilled water.
Flour can be substituted for other flour of the same type (in this case flour of any starchy grain: wheat, corn, potato, etc). The same thing with starch (corn starch, potato starch, etc).
Temperature controls what the fat does, and the texture of meatballs is the behavior of the fat. Movement: too much stirring in a too warm room, melts the fat and makes them dense. Be careful the temperatures of your meat more than anything else.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.511780
| 2017-06-06T06:28:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82212",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"user110084",
"user222452"
],
"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
}
|
123829
|
Can a Greens Lemon Meringue Pie be frozen?
Can you freeze the completely made cold lemon meringue pie, and will it look and taste the same after freezing, or will it freeze better without the meringue? Alternatively, can it be made a day in advance and stored in the fridge successfully overnight.
what is special about a "greens" Lemon Meringue Pie? Is that a brand? A recipe?
I suspect that it's a typo, but I can't figure out for what.
I assume here we are talking about this type of LMP:
If so, I would recommend storing it in the fridge overnight, although it will probably loose some crispness being in a moist environment. Ideally, I would try and make it on the day for best results.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.512163
| 2023-04-06T14:40:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123829",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Kate Gregory",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
108120
|
Time effective technique for separating mint leaves from stems
Separating mint leaves from their stems seems like a hard task for me.
It is taking too much time to separate leaves from the supporting stems in order to use mint leaves in my curries and juices.
Specifically,
is it recommended to separate the leaves from the supporting stems? (It is practice in my place to separate leaves and to not include stems in diet.)
if yes, then is there any time-efficient procedure for separation?
Do you buy the mint or grow your own? I might be inclined to separate at the picking stage if it's home grown
@ChrisH Not homegrown, I buy it from. vegetable market.
https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103984/do-i-need-to-rip-the-leaves-off-mint
Hold the stalk by the tip of the steam and then run your forefinger and thumb down the stalk. You can then just pinch the soft top leaves off and add them to the pile.
E.g. in this youtube video
Some people also will use the holes in a colander instead (the idea being you then have all the leaves in the colander ready to wash, although I never wash mint because I think it makes it taste funny).
You can also buy tools for the same purpose. Such as this one from John Lewis. But I don't really see how it would save more time than using your fingers.
This works on a whole lot of leafy herbs as well. Basil, rosemary, thyme, etc.
Separating the leaves of mint from the stem is only necessary if the stem is woody, which partly depends on the variety and age of the mint. The stems of young mint shoots on most varieties of plant are tender and full of mint flavor, so can be used in dishes. Once they get older the shoots become stiff and woody, and can't be left in dishes or pureed. You can still use them to flavor dishes if you remove them before serving, but if you want the leaves to stay in you must remove the leaves.
The best way to remove leaves is to hold the tip of the branch with one hand and loosely grip the branch with your other, then slide your hand down the branch. This pulls the leaves off without you having to pick them off.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.512256
| 2020-05-05T04:33:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108120",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"D.W.",
"Tristan",
"hanugm",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2794",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72758"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
77628
|
Can I bake cakes or pizzas in my kenstar microwave grill combo oven?
I have a Kenstar microwave grill combo oven without convection mode with coils fitted upwards. Can I bake cake, pizzas or cookies? In which utensils?
What does the owner's manual say? If you don't have one, you can look on the back, find the model number and download it. Here's an example, based on your basic description
With a grill combi microwave you might just about get pizzas to work imperfectly; cookies and cakes aren't very likely to come out nice.
If you really want to try making cake in it, start with a pure microwave cake recipe and just brown the top under the grill and the end. My experience of these recipes is that you'd have to be desperate and not very discerning (though fruit cakes are less bad).
You would use whatever utensils are suitable for both microwave and grill modes -- see the manual, and try to keep the food low compared to pure grilling (further from the grill). I would recommend pyrex, but that may not be such a good idea if you're in the Americas, where pyrex isn't what it used to be (literally) or what it is here in Europe.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.512455
| 2017-01-20T14:47:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77628",
"authors": [
"Giorgio",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39489"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
77634
|
Can I still cook this white king hot cake without using any eggs?
So I have a hotcake mix in a box, White King Hotcake Creamy Classic, but I ran out of eggs.
It's 1:10 AM here in the Philippines and there are no stores open so I'm asking if I can still cook this Hotcake without eggs.
Probably not. Can you include the full recipe?
https://www.bigbag.com.ph/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/White-King-Hotcake-Mix-Creamy-Classic-Yummy-and-Fluffy-400g.png this is the picture XD
Generally pancake mixes that require eggs use them as a binder, so if you try to cook them without eggs, they may not hold together. You can decrease the liquid, but then you'll end up with something tough and probably not what you want. You may want to have a look at suggestions in answers to this question.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.512561
| 2017-01-20T17:12:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77634",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Varus Vandit",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53870"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
125688
|
Failed attempt at making condensed milk
I followed this recipe to make condensed milk but it never thickens.
2 cups milk
1/2 cup sugar
25 gr butter
I tried it once following the recipe to a T, and when it didn't thicken not even a little bit after 30 minutes, I decided to halve the recipe and use a big frying pan so that it would thicken faster. It didn't thicken, again. It never thickens and the consistency is exactly like the milk itself.
I mix sugar with milk, then on medium heat constantly stir. After about 20-25 minutes, half of the milk was evaporated but the thing didn't thicken! What am I doing wrong?
If half of the milk has evaporated AND you've added the sugar, it has definitely thickened. What could be happening is that the heat has made it runnier than you're expecting. Assuming you've reached the post-reduction volume you're aiming for, let it cool before judging the final consistency.
@Abion47- Well, at the end it is slightly thicker than milk and is in no way comparable to the consistency of store bought condensed milk. I could have left it on the heat even longer but I didn't, it is already too sweet for my taste, could have been sweeter if I let the milk eaporate even more.
Are you using whole milk?
@KnotWright__ It says "fresh milk 3.8% fat" on the label.
It's not clear whether you've done what @Abion47 suggests, and let it cool to ruin temperature before testing. I've only used tinned condensed milk, but I know that the consistency changes a lot if you warm it up. It's not melting as such, because it's liquid at room temp, but it's rather like melting
@chrisH -- As I said, after a few hours it was still the same consistency.
@Gigili you mention tens of minutes (and that on the heat), not hours. I wondered if I'd missed it, but find in page for "hour" didn't give anything.
@ChrisH -- Well, it was "tens of minutes" at the time of writing that comment and "hours" when replying to you.
This Nutrition Facts table for sweetened condensed milk lists 166g of sugar per cup.
Perhaps some of that comes from the naturally occurring lactose in the milk, but probably not a significant amount compared to the added sugar.
You're only putting about 100g of sugar in to your mix and then reducing the volume by half.
So you're probably starting off with a little over 2 cups, and reducing it down to a little over 1 cup, but you're still left with substantially less sugar in that 1 cup of reduced product - probably only a little over half the amount indicated above.
I suggest increasing the amount of sugar to at least 3/4 cup.
There's apparently about 13g of lactose per chip of milk so more like 3/4 than half the sugar - if they're reducing it to 1 cup, and reducing by half won't do that because of the volume of the sugar.
Well, I think I didn't explain it well. I tried to make condensed milk twice. Once I followed the recipe and it didn't thicken at all, went directly to the trash. Another time I halve the recipe and the consistency was only a little bit thicker than the milk.
You said 20-25 minutes, this is way too short.
When you are reducing milk, you have to use a really low temperature to avoid caramelization. It shouldn't even be simmering. You have to watch it to know when it's done, but the correct time should be in the range of 6 to 12 hours.
It will be a bit fiddly to get it to work without accidental browning (or worse, scorching) but with enough oversight, the end product should be acceptable.
The recipe claims 30 minutes would be enough. 6 to 12 hours?? There remains nothing in the pan after six hours!
@Gigili Your task is to stop the heating between the point where it's still too liquid and the point when there's "nothing" left (actually, it will never be nothing - worst case, there will be charcoal at the end). You should also do it as slowly as possible, because if you don't, you'll end up with fudge instead of condensed milk. Evaporating milk over many hours is absolutely normal, while 30 minutes aren't at all useful; if you heat milk to boiling temperatures over 30 minutes, it doesn't lose much water, despite ending up too hot for the condensation process.
If I need a thicker consistency I would add some skimmed milk.
Sounds counter-intuitive. Can you explain, why?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.512913
| 2023-10-30T21:37:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125688",
"authors": [
"Abion47",
"Chris H",
"Gigili",
"KnotWright",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79151",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79613",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
122426
|
Will cooking previously-frozen cream make is less grainy?
I bake smoked fish in double cream with a sprinkle of cheese. I have frozen double cream and will use it if the cooking ensures a smooth sauce without a grainy texture. So I am really asking if cooking will smooth the texture.
Are you saying that the sauce is grainy while warm? What's grainy, the cheese, the cream, or the bits of fish?
As far as I understand, your problem is that your cream became grainy when thawing.
You won't be able to get that cream smooth, especially not by cooking it. It will stay grainy whatever you do.
A possible use is to "hide" it in a place where grainy dairy is OK. There are cake and savory-flanlike recipes made with slightly grainy cheeses like tvorog in the batter, you can use it there as a substitute. They don#t taste grainy when you bite into them.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.513364
| 2022-11-22T21:59:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122426",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116644
|
Why might beautiful looking morello cherries be tasteless?
I've just eaten the most beautiful looking morello cherries grown in Kent (England} but they were tasteless! Why?
Have you noticed a lack of taste/smell for other foods too? You might want to take a Covid test; a loss of taste is one of the main symptons.
Same as most supermarket food - forced, greenhoused, picked before ripe, kept cold until it arrives at the supermarket, often in an ethylene environment which causes some plants to actually ripen. These are known as climacteric.
See Wikipedia - Ripening
Cherries are actually non-climacteric, which means they only ripen whilst still on the plant. This means the time from picking to selling needs to be kept very short; if they're picked once fully ripe their shelf-life is hopelessly short for the supermarkets to sell through.
Also responsible may be big, fat, fast-growing strains of the product. Look good at the expense of flavour.
The solution… find a local greengrocer who actually cares, or at least pay the premium for the 'supermarket posh name' [Finest, Taste the Difference, etc] or organic [though that's still no guarantee].
My own personal gripe is supermarket coriander [cilantro to our transpondian friends] which from the supermarket is … just green stuff. From my local Turkish store, who import it themselves, you can smell it from next door. Chalk & cheese.
I remember, as a kid being taken to Blackpool for a weekend on the beach [50 years ago] you could smell the tomato greenhouses from the main road, a hundred yards away. The ones you bought in the town were picked yesterday. These days, that's why they sell 'on the vine' tomatoes - because the vine itself holds that smell long after the tomato has lost it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.513467
| 2021-07-31T16:39:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116644",
"authors": [
"Showsni",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94959"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
122373
|
What is the difference between durum whole wheat flour and hard amber durum wheat?
The Meijer brand package description is "whole wheat pasta" and the ingredients are "hard amber durum wheat". The Kroger brand pasta package description is "100% whole wheat pasta" and the ingredients are "durum whole wheat flour".
That sounds the same, but the Meijer fiber content per 56g is 24% Daily value and Kroger 56 g is 18% Daily value. The texture and taste is markedly different.
Why would the one which is not 100% whole wheat have more fiber? What does the word "hard" in the ingredient list mean?
I am looking for a pasta that is whole wheat with nothing removed or added just ground up. Pretty simple.
Ignore any information based on 'daily consumption requirements', always. They are all just advertising speak.
What is the difference between duram whole wheat flour and hard amber duram wheat
As with any edible plant, durum wheat comes in different cultivars. "Durum whole wheat flour" is the generic term covering all cultivars. When one brand says "amber", they are referring to a subgroup of cultivars. It is analogous to saying "apples" and "red apples". One of the brands seems to have chosen a more "poetic" style in their ingredient list.
the word "hard" in the ingredient list is a mystery
"Hard wheat" is just a synonym for "durum wheat", so saying "hard durum wheat" does not offer any specific information. It must be part of their decision to use fancier descriptions in their ingredient list.
Why would the one which is not 100% whole wheat have more fiber?
It doesn't. When you look at the nutrition labels, both have 6 grams of fiber - admittedly, I didn't find a product of either brand claiming 18% DV, but one had 24% and the other 21%, both with an absolute value of 6 g fiber per 56 g pasta. So they are using different DV references, or they made a mistake.
There is no "the one which is not 100% whole wheat". Both are 100% whole wheat, see above.
I am looking for a pasta that is whole wheat with nothing removed or added just gound up.
This can't be guaranteed by labelling. The relevant CFRs are 137.200 and 137.225, and they allow quite a few processing steps for whole (durum) wheat flour. Ascorbic acid and bleaching have to be listed on the label of the flour itself, but I'm unclear whether they have to be mentioned on the label of pasta made from such flour. Added enzymes don't have to be declared, and they can of course process it in other ways, without adding more stuff.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.513625
| 2022-11-17T16:42:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122373",
"authors": [
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.