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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
97118
|
Cross contamination of batter
My fish and chip shops serves:
beef and chicken sausages
Fish
Chips
Cod roe
Burgers
Is it ok if these are all dipped in same batter containers or should I use separate batter containers? What about rice cones?
I'm not sure of the question here - are you asking if you can use the same containers for all the different foods you batter? If so, the answer will depend on where in the world you are.
Can you please [edit] and add some punctuation, make your question a bit more clear? I can't understand if you want to serve the food in the same containers used for dipping the batter, or if the batter and rice cone are in the same containers, and what do beef and chicken sausages have anything to do with it. Also please fix the title.
I think i've edited to what you're asking. If not, please edit further. I have no idea what a rice cone is, or what it means to use the same rice cone container.
If your question is about hygiene (dont get people sick from raw meat), if you're frying it fully and making sure the meat is cooked then you should be fine to use the same batter. If you're talking about keeping allergens separate for health or religious reasons you should use separate batters.
Mate, you cannot use the same batter of fish in the same butter mix as sausage or potato fritter. There are vegetarians. This is why there are different coloured chopping boards. Blue is the fish red is the meat you can make people extremely sick potentially kill them
All battered and fried food in a chop shop is cooked to basically the same temperature, so the cross-contamination safety concerns giving rise to color-coded cutting boards aren’t relevant to shared batter.
that's possibly true, @Sneftel but "there are vegetarians" is still a valid point
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.513820
| 2019-03-26T17:44:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/97118",
"authors": [
"Kate Gregory",
"Luciano",
"Sneftel",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
122761
|
How can I make my Christmas dinner less dry?
For Christmas, I make the same thing every year. My family loves it, I never get any complaints, and they really won't let me leave out or substitute any of my staples. Nobody has a problem with it, but me.
My staples are spiral ham, roasted potatoes, this brussel casserole thing with breadcrumbs, sweet honey orange carrots, and crescent rolls. The dishes by themselves are fine, but everything is dry, sweet, salty, and hot. The cumulative effect kind of just dries my mouth out.
I make a sauce for my ham to try to put some zest back into the meal, but I need more tips. As I said, they won't let me substitute a dish out, so is there anything I can add to the meal to switch it up? Can I "alter" them in any way to keep the same spirit of the dish, but less dry? More sauces? Drinks?
Thanks in advance!
Is there a reason you don't just shove gravy on top of it?
A few bottles of Prosecco will do the miracle.
General remark that what a lot of answers have in common is that the key taste factor you're missing almost entirely is acidity. Fruit, pickles, vinegar or citrus sauces and dressings, (prosecco!), just get some acid in there! That's the best way to keep the palate from getting tired.
In our family tradition there is always a kind of fruit in a main dinner.
This can be as simple as a can of mixed tropical fruit, it can be prunes which have been soaking overnight or flash cooked, it can be cranberry in sauce out of a jar or self cooked.
Adding a simple bowl of fruit will add a different and not dry mouthfeel.
As indicated in a comment, some communities use pickles in this place. And in the English traditions there are some sauces which are often served with meat, like mint sauce with lamb, red current jam or horseradish with beef, chutney from apple and curents with pork.
All of these can be served straight out of a jar or can, just tip in a bowl or arrange on a dish for pickles or bigger pieces of fruit, which can be done in advance, adding very little work when serving the dinner.
In our Mennonite tradition this role is served by pickles (i.e., pickled anything, not just cucumbers).
There are possible ways around this, but a lot depends on how much your family are willing to compromise. As you say, the profile of the meal is dry, sweet, salty and hot and changing that balance will alter the whole "taste" of that experience, but there are a few things to consider:
You could cook the ham using the sous vide method.This will allow you to control the texture, juiciness and dryness of the meat to a very fine degree. This will also give you an excellent stock base to make a gravy from.
Reduce the salt content and replace with a different flavour enhancer. You could achieve this by using powdered MSG, garlic powder or Maggi liquid seasoning. The theory behind this is as the dish is less salty, you are less thirsty and as a result fooled into thinking the meal is less dry.
Changing the variety of potato and the oil / temperature used for roast potatoes can change their crispness profile considerably due to the amount of oil absorbed by the potato and their outer hardness.
Look at using a different recipe for your rolls that uses butter and milk in the dough to give a softer, lighter, moist good.
I would be inclined to just execute point 1 though, it sounds like your family love things just the way they are. That way you can focus on getting the star of the meal just right and at the same time be rewarded with a superb gravy that will fulfill your taste profile as well.
https://www.seriouseats.com/sous-vide-city-ham-with-balsamic-brown-sugar-glaze-recipe
Sprouts stand alone
This year it is all the same characters but the actors switch places. The breadcrumb casserole now is made with the honey carrots instead of brussels sprouts and that sounds so good I think I will try it. Get some parsnips in there too and maybe a leek. Yum.
The brussels sprouts will give you personally what you have been lacking. Get them out of the salty crumbs and let them stand alone. You will steam them or roast them and serve them with some likeminded vegetable friends (thin sliced shallots? fennel?) and balsamic vinegar dressing. You will offset your historical excess of yang with brussely yin: wet, vegetal, a little cruciferous bitterness, savory fennel winggirl, dark sour balsamic backing track. ooo -I saw it in my mind just now. There was red smoked paprika on it, added on top of the balsamic right before serving. Or did you steam some whole cranberries in there with them? Yes! So festive!
All the originals. Changed up just a little. I suspect tradition minded eaters might not mind you tinkering with the vegetables.
I’m not sure where the saltiness is coming from aside from the ham, but I generally don’t cook with salt (including unsalted butter), and let people add to their preferences with the salt & pepper shakers. Also, ham saltiness can be lowered by soaking it in water (Source: BBC).
For potato alternatives, consider creamy mashed potatoes or scalloped potatoes to add moisture for them.
Consider adding fresher greens, like green beans (boiled/steamed) or a leafy salad. You could also do boiled/steamed spinach or broccoli, or mix up the brussel sprouts and do them in a cheese sauce or boiled/steamed with a titch of vinegar.
There are some ham gravy options available online (random example), but you could also have sauerkraut available or relishes to eat with it too.
Oh, and some years we do tomato aspic (ours is simply tomato juice and lemon jello, but another simple recipe is this)
Aside: I’d also suggest giving yourself the freedom to experiment. Unless your family wants to do the cooking, I personally feel that while its kind of the chef to make what the family loves, they’re/we’re the ones doing the bulk of the work.
+1 just for your last paragraph. It is the chef that puts the food on the table, the others just have to eat what is there.
I suggest complimenting your menu with a Raisin Sauce. Ham & Raisin Sauce is a classic and it would provide an extra dimension to your palate. It's also fairly quick to pull together and kids like it as much as adults.
My Raisin Sauce (cannot possibly remember where I first got this):
Combine dry ingredients and set aside: 1/3 C brown sugar, 1.5 tsp cornstarch, 1/4 tsp (each) cinnamon, dry mustard (substitute: prepared mustard), salt, and 1/2 tsp ground cloves
Boil 1 C raisins in 1.5 C water about 5 minutes. Add dry ingredients and stir to blend, simmering until thickened.
Blend in 1 T vinegar.
Serve warm.
First cook with no salt water. And nothing must be salted before being cooked. Salt will be added when eating.Potatoes must have the same size in order to cook evenly. So split them adequalty if some are too big. Once almost cooked. Almost. Let them finishing the cooking in their own cooking water. Same goes for all vegetables. Voila for the greens. If meat is too dry. Add "un petit peu" de water in the pan and cover it. Keep it under warm but not hot cooker. To make it "sweat". Then remove water just before dressing. Bonus. A little sauce will really add something to pleasure your guests. Sorry for bad English. Greetings from France.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.514008
| 2022-12-23T12:07:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122761",
"authors": [
"Kevin Carlson",
"Luke Sawczak",
"Richard",
"Willeke",
"gboffi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58871",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81113",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95702"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
108687
|
Is it safe to use a stainless steel pan after making salt and vinegar brine in it?
I used my stainless steel pan to dissolve salt in a 30% vinegar/salt solution to kill weeds outside. After the salt dissolved I let the solution cool. This stripped the shiny surface of the pan. The surface still feels smooth like the normal areas. Is this pan still safe to use for foods?
aside: don't bother using vinegar as a weed killer, they come back in no time, so you would need to spray every few days to be as effective as a generic roundup knock off.
Your pan is fine, the vinegar and salt just dulled it visually but it is safe to use.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.514590
| 2020-05-28T14:15:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108687",
"authors": [
"dandavis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61679"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
110756
|
Cream of Tomato with garlic + cilantro stalks aroma
I've been trying to crack this Cream of Tomato recipe for many decades now that is served in almost all Indian five star hotels and professionally managed kitchens.
At the end when it's served, it has a strong and the most fragrant aroma of garlic, cilantro stalks, nutmeg, etc but does not necessarily feel 'garlicky'.
Here's my recipe to start with:
Add oil+butter in a pan with black pepper corns. Add crushed tomatoes, garlic and cilantro stalks. Let cook for 15-20 minutes. Blend and then strain.
Start again with butter and nutmeg powder.
Add all purpose flour and then some milk and let cook for a couple minutes.
Pour the blended/ strained tomatoes. Let cook for 10 minutes. Test salt/ white pepper.
Serve.
What can I do at the end to get the garlic aroma in soup?
Thanks and best wishes.
Welcome to the site! Asking for recipes is off topic on this site, so this question will likely be closed. If you have a recipe that doesn't work for you feel free to edit your question and post the recipe, asking specific questions about how to get the result you want.
Done. I didn't realize that my question was tantamount to having asked for recipe and neither did I realize that asking for a recipe itself was off the table as well.
@OldSchool I don't see a recipe added to your question. Can you check it?
@OldSchool - you can find out what is acceptable in terms of questions (here)[https://cooking.stackexchange.com/help). As the question now stands I don't think it will be closed.
If it's served in almost all the 5-star hotels, someone probably has already leaked it, if not outright published it. If not, you could try getting a night job. ;)
I have checked the length and breadth of internet and I didn't see it.
I’ve never been to India so haven’t experienced the soup you describe. Looking at recipes online though, I see it is often served the with croutons. Is it possible that the croutons are fried in oil flavoured with garlic, coriander etc so that they act like a tempering, fragrancing the soup?
Thanks @Spagirl.. how to achieve oil flavored of garlic?
@OldSchool It isn’t something I’ve done, but I would try frying a crushed clove or two of garlic and some coriander stems etc in some oil, then scooping them out and using that oil to fry croutons.
@OldSchool : search for "garlic infused oil". Typically you start with cold oil and sliced or crushed garlic, and then slowly heat it.
This is mere theory/guesswork, but I wonder if they might do it like a tadka [tarka] you add to dall [lentil] recipes?
Fry garlic & other spices in oil, then pour over right at the end. Stirring in is optional, for presentation effect.
Here's a link to a rather elaborate tadka method, including smoking charcoal which sounds fabulous, though I've never tried it myself
https://www.cookwithmanali.com/dal-tadka/
Alternatively, my own 'cheat' to punch up the garlic in a dall recipe is to add powdered garlic right at the end. This punches up the fresh 'garlickiness' a lot, with very little effort. It has a tendency to go lumpy if you're not careful, so mixed in as a slurry is the easiest way to avoid that.
As to the coriander/cilantro, I can think of no method to get the bright, fresh smell & taste into a soup just before serving other than to make a quick purée & stir it in. I'm sure you would be able to spot the bits of bright green, though, done this way, but coriander really doesn't keep that bright flavour more than a few minutes once heated.
Thanks for your detailed view. Cilantro I can probably manage by using stock water that has excessive cilantro stalks. I am going to try the garlic powder suggestion sometime soon and write back here. Thanks again ..
They also might've used cilantro / coriander root. It has a very strong flavor (without being overly soapy), but you have to go to an asian grocery store (or talk to a gardener) to find it.
@Joe - Yeah, supermarkets always chop the roots off. My local supplier doesn't. I have to say, though, that I've never understood this "soapy" thing people say when talking about coriander/cilantro. Maybe it's a regional issue. Where I live [UK] supermarkets sell stuff you've to crush before you can smell it [grown in UK]. My local Turkish store you have to keep it in a bag, it's so punchy and magnificent [grown in Turkey]. Neither would I quantify as 'soapy' in any respect.
@Tetsujin : it's believed to be a genetic thing (OR26A). There are some chemical compounds in cilantro that not everyone can taste, and most people who can taste it find it to be really, really nasty.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.514686
| 2020-09-17T17:18:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110756",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Kat",
"Obie 2.0",
"OldSchool",
"Spagirl",
"Tetsujin",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47377",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87687"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
97521
|
What does "lightly crushed" mean for cardamon pods?
I am currently attempting to make the “Fragrant Spiced Rice Pudding” on page 136 of “Gordon Ramsay’s Home Cooking.”
I am a novice with cooking so forgive me if my question is common sense for those more experienced.
The recipe calls for “2 cardamom pods lightly crushed” along with some other spices which I heat in a pan prior to mixing in any other ingredients. In the image accompanying the recipe I can see he leaves in the vanilla pods, and thiis leads me to believe that I am leaving in the husks of the cardamom pods.
My question is regarding the phrase “lightly crushed.” Does this involve breaking open the husks and crushing the seeds inside or just crushing the husks so that they crack open?
This one (and many others from that book) are available as TV shows / on youtube, here is the particular one for the Fragrant Spiced Rice Pudding that shows what he does for "Lightly Crushed": https://youtu.be/AeejA5TTHYE?t=318
Oh wow I was not aware of this. Thank you very much.
I'm pretty sure it's just crushing the husks a bit so they crack open - that's how I do it when I see "lightly crushed" for cardamom pods. It gives access to the seeds inside so flavor can infuse out of the pod and into the dish. The whole pod should be visible in the recipe, and removed before eating (would be a woody bite, else).
If you crush the husk in smaller bits, which would be needed to get to & crush the seeds, it would be harder to find and fish out, and more likely some huskish bit would find its way into and leave its texture in a bite. Its similar to how cinnamon would be used in big chunks of a stick that can be fished out, or else ground really finely into dust, but not left in a dish in in-between-sized little fragments - the texture is just not desirable
If the recipe wanted crushed or ground seeds to release the flavor, it would have asked for seeds instead of (or as well as) a whole pod.
Yes, I'd expect "2 cardamom pods, crushed seeds only" or to remove the whole pods; the latter appears to be the case here. Mine tend to split without leaving fragments of husk if I do break them open, so it would also be easy to put whole seeds in, but then the flavour might be too concentrated
I'm pretty sure this is exactly correct -- I've seen Gordon Ramsay do this in recipe videos.
He does this in his roasted pork belly recipe also. Just bash the pod with the back of your chef's knife
If you're doing a lot, then a food processor with the plastic kneading blade works well. Follow that up with a sieve through your pasta colander. Seeds go through, husk stay behind. If that's not good enough, round seeds roll down a cutting board, while the irregular husks stay up at the top.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.515063
| 2019-04-17T01:17:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/97521",
"authors": [
"AnotherPerson",
"Chris H",
"David Richerby",
"JacobIRR",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74128",
"user2813274"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
57745
|
All Clad Copper Core - everything sticks, why?
I decided to splurge on a set of All Clad Copper Core. I have no problem with browning meats with this cookware, but I am having huge problems with many other kinds of cooking. For instance, this morning I made chilaquiles for breakfast, and although I heated the pan, heated the oil, added the tortillas and salsa, the delicious crust (my absolute fave part) was stuck like concrete to the pan and had to be boiled, scrubbed, and sent down the drain. Bacon? all the crusty brown parts adhere to the pan like glue and the bacon remains a flabby slab. Spending 4 figures just to saute a piece of meat is not what I expected, and I'm having serious buyers remorse. Is there something I should know? I am by no means a novice cook.
Supposed to be a hand polished finish: http://www.metrokitchen.com/allclad_101 What does your finish look like?
I would guess you may be overheating the pans... copper is a big change (even if it's just copper core) and it can take a lot of effort to get used to. When I worked at a kitchen store, we would actively dissuade most people (other than very experienced cooks) from buying the copper cookware or copper core for something more forgiving like tri-ply stainless because they would, invariably, have the experience you are.
Are you used to cooking these dishes on a stainless surface? I don't know what your "mid-range" cookware was, but if you had more non-stick or cast iron or whatever, any stainless cookware will seem to stick a lot until you get used to it (despite All Clad's marketing). I agree with Catija that it's likely you'll need to use less heat. I own some actual copper (a few different brands) myself, but I find the All-Clad Copper Core to be an odd thing. I have one such pan (a gift), and I find it behaves weirdly: not like thick actual copper, but not quite like a normal clad aluminum pan either.
Also... is this question simply "can I return it"? If so, that's between you and the retailer you purchased it from. If you have an actual question we can answer, please edit your question to include it.
Thank you for your input. My previous pans were a wedding gift set of Farberware my grandparents got me 35 years ago (the quality was much better a long time ago), a couple of amazingly seasoned castiron pans (hand-me-downs from my great grandmother), and an assortment of nonstick skillets of varying sizes and quality. I have a flock of laying hens, so this week I'll be sacrificing a couple dozen eggs to practice on temps, fats, and techniques. I hope I can learn to use my All-Clad, if not love them.
You probably know this, but I'd just note that eggs are one of the most difficult things to cook on stainless without sticking. I have a number of stainless-lined copper pans, which I would use for just about anything... except some eggs. With sufficient fat and proper temp, omelets can slide off and fried eggs won't stick much. But for fried eggs I still tend to use cast iron or carbon steel, and for scrambled, I use my one non-stick pan (that's about the only thing I keep it for). Not saying it can't be done, but eggs are definitely going to be one of the hardest challenges in those pans.
Re: Bacon. A fantastic pan and/or a fantastic heat source will make the pan heat up much faster. When I switched to induction with clad aluminum pans I had to deliberately keep the burner on low to let the bacon render out before I fried the dickens out of it. Previously using a lodge skillet on a worn out ceramic cooktop, the latency of the equipment did the work for me. The second pan of bacon always turns out better b/c it's deep frying in the last batches' grease.
Pans made from different materials will heat your food at different speeds and to different temperatures.
Getting a perfect crust without sticking is a matter of very fine tuning. You have to set your stove just right, preheat the pan just right, and keep your food inside for just the right time.
If you spent 35 years cooking in a certain set of pans, you have unnoticeably fit your skills to them. You have a stove setting which you know works for you. You intuitively know just how long to preheat, when to start stirring, how much to stir... and this is all based on a certain heat transfer rate from the pan to the food, which has been constant for you over the years. Now, with a new pan, you are dealing with a completely different heat transfer rate. Also, you have chosen stainless steel, which is not a good surface for eggs (but should work well for bacon).
There is nothing wrong with the pan, but you'll have to go through a learning phase, experimenting a lot with temperature and timing, until you know the way to cook in your new pan until everything is just right. Observe your food carefully in the old and new pan and try to catch the moment at which the same change happens in both, this should help.
Very true. Keeping a notebook of results helps. Something like a copper core is likely to hold more heat, so more precise heat control may be required, and more accurate timing
It took me 10 years of frustration to learn to cook with a stainless steel pan. All you have to do is put in about 2 or 3 tablespoons of vegetable oil and heat the pan until you see slight with smoke coming off the pan. Turn off the heat and discard the oil. The cure that forms on the stainless steel for that particular cooking period is as non stick as teflon. All it takes is a couple minutes before each session. Once I learned this I immediately went from hating to loving stainless steel. Is it kind of a pain? Yeah, but nothing browns and makes sauces like stainless so an extra few minutes before each use is worth it.
Most people don’t season stainless steel pans, as the advantage to them is that you can scrub them if you need to. Typically, if you don’t want things to stick in them, you heat it up with a bit of oil in it just until the oil shimmers (not smoke, this will happen before it smokes), and then cook for food. It still won’t be as non-stick as Teflon, though.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.515331
| 2015-05-24T16:00:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57745",
"authors": [
"Amanda Cummings",
"Athanasius",
"Catija",
"Derpy",
"Janice",
"Joe",
"Rebecca Paul",
"Steve Haworth",
"TFD",
"Tony Watkins",
"Uum Sammy",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137462",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137463",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137464",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138308",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138309",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138333",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"tia "
],
"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
}
|
111001
|
Should one - moreover can one - defrost a frozen lasagna before cooking?
So I purchased one of these "frozen lasagna" products at the supermarket to see what it's all about.
It was in the supermarket freezer and indeed I am keeping it in the freezer of my fridge. (I.E., it's frozen solid when I took the pic just now.)
Here are the instructions:
Notice that...
It does not actually say to defrost it first.
Perhaps "everyone knows to defrost it" and they don't bother saying it? Conversely I guess perhaps everyone knows you put it straight in to the oven when it is frozen solid! So in fact,
should I defrost it or not before putting it in the (375) oven? Thanks.
(I assume it is "frozen solid". For all I know, they cleverly make it chemically so it never freezes solid and stays gel-like, or whatever, IDK.)
(If it should be defrosted, I guess it would take about 90 minutes to completely thaw to room temp?)
If it is the case that one does indeed, miraculously, put it straight in the 375 over directly from one's home freezer. In fact,
2A. Is it better to defrost it (for say 90 minutes) before following the stated procedures? So, the food scientists who created this product would rather I defrosted it, if I have time, but (amazingly) it's not necessary?
2B. Indeed, is it actually even OK to defrost it before placing it in the oven? For all I know, perhaps as a food safety matter, or something to do with the chemicals involved, it is specifically necessary to not defrost?
Again (surprisingly?) the instructions (see pic) do not have a sentence such as "Never defrost!" "Defrost if you have time!" "You must defrost first, you clown" or any similar guidance.
It's hard to tell from the photos, but 'family size' perhaps 750g? That's going to be somewhere closer to 4 hours to defrost. The giveaway is in the cook time, 70 minutes for a lasagne is definitely from frozen, especially as frozen ones tend to be shallower than home made, to heat through before the outside burns.
Usually the lack of an instruction is the instruction itself... If it doesn't ask you to defrost, it usually means you don't need to. Also 2B: what chemicals do you expect to be involved?? It's food...
@Tetsujin yeah, fresh lasagne is around 35-45 minutes in the oven from most recipes I've seen
If you look at the bottom of the box front, it says to keep frozen, as can be seen in a higher quality pic. (Store and brand not endorsed.) https://www.walmart.com/ip/STOUFFER-S-CLASSICS-Lasagna-Italiano-Party-Size-Frozen-Meal/10804842 Usually this means to not defrost unless it specifically states otherwise in the instructions.
@computercarguy Interestingly, that specific package (party size instead of the family size in OP's image) has frozen and thawed (via refrigerator) cooking instructions.
@Herohtar, interesting, and good call. I hadn't noticed that. But I want to say that reinforces the idea that you only thaw it if the package explicitly says to.
Frozen foods are made for convenience. For most people, convenience does not include remembering to defrost the food several hours before cooking. So the recipe and cooking method are indeed for cooking straight from frozen, unless they clearly state otherwise. You will get the best result if you take it directly from the freezer to the oven.
For most frozen foods, defrosting will make little or no difference. You would need to cook it for less time than in the instructions to avoid overcooking, but the end result should be about the same. Occasionally, defrosting before putting it in the oven will decrease the quality considerably. This is in particular with frozen pizza and other foods involving a crust where the base will absorb a lot of liquid during a long defrost (as opposed to a quick one in the oven on a rack) leading to a soggy crust. However, as long as you follow a safe method for defrosting (in the fridge), it is not a food safety issue. The quality may be slightly worse, but it's perfectly safe to eat.
Outside of premade freezer dishes (as Johanna notes, those are basically never defrosted), the "do I need to defrost it" question is really quite interesting. For the most part, if the food is already in its "to be prepared" state, defrosting isn't very important. It's when you're going to further work with it that you need to defrost it.
The rule on defrosting for the most part is that it might be necessary if it's a problem for the food to cook very unevenly. A steak is a good example of this: assuming it is reasonably thick, like a ribeye, if you cook it from frozen, the inside will still be frozen when the outside is fully cooked, so you do want to at least slightly defrost it. Thin steaks are fine to directly cook from the freezer, though, and even the ribeye might be fine given some practice with temperatures - just harder to get that perfect inside temperature. Bacon, on the other hand, is thin enough that usually you don't need to defrost it if it was stored in individual strips (not that we ever remember to do that). Hamburgers do not need defrosting, again if packed individually and in already formed patties; their texture is such that "overcooking" the outside is often considered a good thing (ignoring the changes in meat texture from freezing in the first place, of course). My regular breakfast right now is chicken or salmon burgers with egg on an english muffin, and I cook those directly out of the freezer - in fact, the directions say to!
Things cooked in the oven are usually, if not always, not required to defrost (as they are slower to cook, and temperature will even out) - but they might require slight alterations to their recipe, and some care for the changes freezing brings. A lasagna, for example, probably cooks fine from frozen - but be careful that you don't have too much water in it once it thaws. An unbaked pie or similar is probably fine also, but you are more likely to need foil covering the edges to prevent burning as you'll be cooking it for much longer than a non-frozen.
In a microwave, defrosting before cooking is not generally needed. However, for foods of larger bulk, cooking on a lower power (which is what the defrost cycle does, for microwaves capable of actually modulating their power) or with on/off cycles (how other microwaves simulate lower power) will allow the food to warm more evenly; this might be helpful for food quality in some cases. If it's something you can stir, though, you're probably fine just going full blast and stirring in the middle of the heating cycle once or twice.
For other cooking methods... Cooking in a pressure cooker, you basically never defrost - it just takes a bit of extra time to cook. Same for Sous-Vide - as long as you're not cooking at too low of a temperature such that you end up in the danger zone, anyway. Cooking in a slow cooker ("Crock Pot"), though, should never be done from frozen unless the food is dispersed (i.e., a bag of frozen veggies is fine); because of the extremely low temperatures, you'll be cooking up a pot of bacteria along with your food.
America’s Test Kitchen actually tried cooking steak from frozen, and they said they preferred it to defrosting first. (I suspect it makes it easier to hit rare or medium rare….. not so much if you’re trying for well done; thickness might also play a factor): https://www.americastestkitchen.com/articles/3269-how-to-cook-grill-frozen-steaks
@Joe Makes sense! I'm a sous-vide guy myself, but grilling, if you do it right, should be pretty consistent from frozen. I still think it's harder to do right, if you're not highly skilled at knowing when to move it (and skilled with a thermometer!), as it takes practice given people are probably used to the timings for a non-frozen steak - but it's definitely a good idea to give it some practice runs (and get a good thermometer!!) as I agree that I'd rather not defrost if I have the choice!
Unless it has recently changed, or there are regional differences in the packaging, as I recall there are two sets of directions on the package... one for frozen and one for thawed.
Another "technique" is included which, for the sake of speed, calls for thawing in a microwave and then completing the cooking in an oven, too.
The biggest (only) difference is the cooking time. I've cooked them all three ways and... there's little difference in the finished result.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.515958
| 2020-10-04T14:30:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/111001",
"authors": [
"Herohtar",
"Joe",
"Joe M",
"Luciano",
"MKHC",
"Tetsujin",
"computercarguy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37004",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77409"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
57040
|
Make a chocolate Cake
I want to alter this recipe to make a chocolate cake.
3/4 cup butter
1 cup granulated sugar
4 eggs
1 tsp of vanilla extract
1/4 tsp of almond extract
1 1/2 cups of almond flour
1/2 cup of coconut flour
2 tsp baking powder
1/4 tsp sea salt
If I add 1/3 cup cocoa to this Almond cake recipe, what else do I have to change, if anything? Will that amount of cocoa change the batter in a way I have to compensate for?
Yes, that amount of cocoa will change the batter. It will make the cake drier.
The more cocoa powder you add the more sugar and moisture you will need to prevent the cake from getting dry.
I would take out a 1/4 cup of the almond flour and add a 1/4 cup of cocoa powder. If you feel you would like a little more go buy a tablespoon at a time after that.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.516597
| 2015-04-28T07:23:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57040",
"authors": [
"Alexandra Kelso",
"Clint Warner",
"Fiona Stewart",
"Patricia Buchanan",
"Sheila Burnett",
"Sherilee Aragon",
"Susan J Johnson",
"Sylvia Kennedy",
"Thomas Alexander",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135681",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135748",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135749",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135753",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135758",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136170"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
85780
|
Fixing too much citrus in a chutney
I am making a cranberry chutney with honeycrisp apple and navel orange and I added too much dry orange and lemon. How do I cut the bitterness? It is plenty sweet with a bit of sugar and sweet apples. I usually add frozen orange concentrate but didn't have any. I am afraid to add it would only lead to more bitterness. Is cardamom considered bitter? I added this too.
Welcome to the site! Can you edit your question to include your recipe? We need that information to provide a useful answer. Without it all we can do is guess. Also, feel free to take the tour.
Hard to say without the recipe... but a low level fix is adding everything else except aforementioned citrus to re-balance it, and just end up with a larger quantity
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.516706
| 2017-11-20T19:10:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85780",
"authors": [
"Megha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"senschen"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
50349
|
What kind of rice can I use in a salt shaker to prevent clumping
Will brown rice eliminate clumps in the salt shaker as well as white rice? I know white rice works well in a salt shaker to eliminate clumps caused by humidity, but I only have brown rice on hand. Will brown rice work as well as white rice?
Rice in shalt shakers is a urban myth. Modern table salts contain anti-caking agents; if the rice has any influence, it's due to mechanical shattering of (unlikely) clumps. Brown or white makes no difference.
I wouldn't use brown since it has a relative short shelf life, 6 months compared to years for white rice. Not that either will help a lot.
Instead of adding rice - consider getting a salt grinder and use rock salt instead. You can even buy disposable grinders with salt already in them.
I do this at home, and it makes a significant difference. I suspect that it is the mechanical action of the rice, but since adding a teaspoon of rice to each shaker, I don't have to get out the toothpick ever few weeks to clean the hole.
Brown rice includes the germ (embryo) of the grain, which contains some oil. This oil goes rancid, which has an unpleasant smell. In the quantities that you are using, and that the oil is still inside the rice, I don't think you would notice.
Note that it doesn't have to be rice. a few beans, some barley, lentils, or wheat should work just as well.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.516794
| 2014-12-05T17:46:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50349",
"authors": [
"Antony",
"Barbara Young",
"Brandon Yanchus",
"Fabian Viborg",
"Patty Kaho",
"SnakeDoc",
"Stephie",
"Theo Ruffin",
"draksia",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120480",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120515",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36370"
],
"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
}
|
103803
|
What was this pickled vegetable which I was served at a middle eastern restaurant?
I was eating at an Iranian/Persian restaurant and they brought a bowl of pickles to the table. Among them was the usual wild cucumber, green tomato, pink turnip, etc. but there were also several strange ones I had never seen before.
They were small, between the size of a cherry tomato and a small plum, with a smooth (not ridged) shape. They were round/oblong (again kind of like the above fruits). They had a very fine coating of fuzz/hair. The taste was not pronounced in any way (it tasted much like the other pickles). The colour was muted green.
I thought they might be gooseberries but the texture was a lot firmer than a berry.
Do they pickle greengages, or unripe plums, or unripe apricots, etc.? If so, does anyone know the Arabic/Persian/Farsi/Pashto/etc. name for these?
Thanks
Two quick questions: 1) Why didn't you simply ask he waiter? 2) Why didn't you take a picture?
@Johannes_B Possibly because it only occurred to him later to ask?
@TomášZato-ReinstateMonica Correct. The meal was years ago.
With that much detail, i guessed it was a recent event. You seem to have a really good memory.
I suspect that these will be pickled almonds. Almonds are a favorite ingredient in many middle-Eastern dishes. The green color and fuzz give it away, most other fruits like apricots and plums lack enough fuzz to be noticeable at the unripe stage and are very hard when unripe.
I found a recipe with this photo:
Are these are what you are after?
This looks like it. I'd never have thought of almonds. Thanks.
It's probably green almonds like bob1 suggested. We eat them raw as a fruit or they can be pickled. They are called Oja in the Syrian region عوجا.
Thanks for supplying the Arabic name, مشكور! :-)
Anyone know the Farsi name, too?
or chaghale badoom
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.516961
| 2019-11-30T06:11:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103803",
"authors": [
"Johannes_B",
"Sixtyfive",
"Tomáš Zato",
"WackGet",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27078",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54940",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79783",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79811",
"tariq abughofa"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
83632
|
What is the name of a dish where meat is doused with brandy and lit on fire?
In about 1972 as a new bride, I made something with beef in the oven (had to have been from a cookbook) and then poured brandy over it and lit it on fire before serving. As we were college students, it would not have been an expensive cut of meat. I have searched using words like beef, brandy, flambee, fire, etc. but come up blank. Does anyone recognize the dish? Would love to serve it for our 45th anniversary next month!
Steak Diane
I first had Steak Diane at the Brown Palace in Denver long ago. I have made it several times and found the brandy flavor is overwhelmed by the other flavors.
If you want the liquor flavor, I have found a smoked or grilled Bourbon Chicken on Food TV that has a lot of flavor. The chicken is brined overnight in soy sauce brown sugar and bourbon, etc. but doesn't include flambe. Chicken might not be festive enough for your anniversary, though, but congratulations.
Definitely. Steak Diane was trendy in the 1970s.
This sounds like interesting inspiration for a faux-meat steak ... some flavor layering going on there ...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.517133
| 2017-08-10T17:28:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83632",
"authors": [
"Joshua Engel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51614",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
82632
|
How do I get my chocolate mousse to be firm?
I need to pipe my chocolate mousse into chocolate Cups but the shape is not staying, how do I make my Mousse firm? I used the following ingredients in my mousse: caramel treat, cocoa powder, chocolate and whipped cream.
What ratios are you using? Could you post the whole recipe, please?
I always make my chocolate mousse with eggs, but two possible causes are that your ratios could be off or your chocolate mixture is hot and the whipped cream is cold, causing the mixture to seize-up and deflate.
If you decide to make a more traditional mousse, the ratio is very simple: 1 oz baking chocolate per egg.
Here is a basic recipe:
Yields 4 servings
4 oz baking chocolate
4 eggs (room temperature)
Separate the eggs
Melt chocolate over bain-marie
Whip whites until stiff peaks form
Whip yellows until off white and thick ribbons form
Whip yellows over bain-marie gently so they expand
Gently fold chocolate into yellows in small batches
Gently fold whites into mixture in small batches
It is critical that the eggs are room temperature, because cold eggs will make the chocolate seize up - this will make mixing more difficult and the whites will loose their fluff.
This is a very simple, classic method, but, if you're specifically looking to make the mousse egg-free, you can still use these techniques to help with yours.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.517248
| 2017-06-25T15:00:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82632",
"authors": [
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
79442
|
Used Sweetened yoghurt in savoury dish - how to correct?
While making lamb and spinach curry, by accident I used sweetened natural yoghurt, instead of unsweetened. How can I disguise the sweet taste? I have added more spices, and also lemon juice.
How much yogurt did you use?
I used 5 tablespoons
You cannot disguise or remove the sweetness, once it is in there it isn't going to go away. You can balance it out with acidity, however if it is very sweet then you will need to add a lot of acid, and then the dish will be intensely sweet and sour, which probably is not what you want.
You aren't going to be able to regain the character of the dish, but you might be able to produce something tasty. I would try to add some bitterness, like fenugreek if you have it, and see if that makes it work. There is a point of diminishing returns where you can spend more time and effort adding more and more ingredients to rescue a dish than it's worth, at that point it's better to start over or feed it to people and tell them it's your grandmother's recipe - nobody will ever tell you it's bad then.
GdD, do you think lemon or lime is more effective to add acidity? I will add some fenugreek as well
I think either would do @KeenCook, lime is a bit stronger maybe. Be sparing with it, remember you can't remove that either!
Not entirely sure it works for sweetness, it should work for saltiness so it may help here, but add a whole peeled potato and let it cook in the sauce for a while but remove it before it gets so soft it starts to fall apart. It should hopefully absorb some of the sweetness (though you might need to rebalance other flavours as it will absorb saltiness and probably other flavours too).
Alternatively use acid to balance out the sweetness and then some butter to remove the bitterness or sourness (butter certainly works to fix bitter or sour gravy so I don't see why it shouldn't work for this)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.517373
| 2017-03-27T12:42:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79442",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Keen Cook",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55600"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44458
|
Confirming Fried Chicken is completely cooked
I'm currently involved in a food startup and we're refining our process for product quality. We fry Bone-In breasts, Dark quarters, Wings and Boneless breasts. The challenge I'm currently facing is ensuring chicken is fully cooked (165F) but not overcooked (170F for white, 180F for dark). My main issue is getting an accurate temperature reading:
Do I need to go with the lowest temperature reading? Sometimes I'll get ~140F in one temping, but another place on the same piece I'll get ~170F
What do I need to be careful of in order to ensure an accurate temperature? I know it's hotter closer to the surface than internally, but I've also heard I need to avoid hitting bones as they get hotter than meat; are there any other outliers like this?
How much might fried chicken increase in temperature after sitting. For instance, If I pull a piece from the fryer @155F can I expect it'll reach 165F after sitting 5-10 minutes?
What type of thermometer are you using?
It's digital, based on the descriptions at this site I'm guessing it's "thermistor" style. http://www.fightbac.org/component/content/article/2/128-types-of-food-thermometers
If it's digital the sensor is most likely located in the tip of the probe or just behind it, so you should be able to position it pretty easily. Make sure you wait at least a few seconds for an accurate reading. Repeat as described below and you should be able to narrow in on an ideal cooking time for this range. You may just have to eat some of the experimental batches - tragic, I know.
While not specifically an answer to your measurement question, you might consider cooking your chicken low-temp (sous vide) to ensure optimal doneness, then just quickly deep fry for crust formation. That would guarantee safety and specific temp. for specific parts of the bird. See here, for example: http://www.chefsteps.com/activities/sous-vide-fried-chicken
I'm definitely a fan of sous vide, the space we're in actually has a few industrial sized machines. Might have to give this a try, thanks!
I would suggest using a thermometer to ensure the inside temperature is 74°C (165°F). Try writing a process for frying the chicken, so this does not have to be done during the rush. (I am guessing you run a big kitchen). Make one or two tests noting the time needed to reach the desired temperature.
Make that 2-3 tests for each type of cut that you're serving. Be sure that you're measuring at the thickest part of the chicken for breasts and midway between bones and skin for quarters and wings. Make sure you know exactly where the sensor is in your thermometer because they do vary and you need to position it carefully. If you're using heat lamps, you can expect some carryover, but don't count on any more than 5 degrees F.
This is what I've been doing, I definitely want to be able to rely on time. I'll have to find out where the sensor is and I'll run more tests!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.517546
| 2014-05-27T17:39:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44458",
"authors": [
"Jen",
"Mia celestia",
"MidSouth Fence and Deck spam",
"PRICE KONG",
"Spammer",
"doris stewart",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104525",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104526",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104527",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104530",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104543",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25037",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"logophobe",
"two_OMind"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
74677
|
cake shrinks when it cools, becomes smaller than cake board
Is it normal for a baked cake to be smaller than the cake board after it is baked? My cakes are very good and moist, after they have cooled, I always have to trim the cake board not a little bit but a lot. Should I be using a smaller cake board? For instance should I use a 7 inch board for a 8 inch cake?
I don't know about others, but most of my cakes shrink to some degree. often before I even get them out of the oven. For me, the culprit seems to be the use of butter. If I need a cake to stay at lest reasonably close to a certain set of dimensions, I sub out half of the butter with grapeseed oil. There is still some minor shrinkage, but it is slight enough that I don't have to worry about remedial measures. Alternatively, invest in a paper cutter with a long, liftable, heavy blade. Expensive, but it gets the job done for trimming just about anything and you'll likely never have to replace it.
Often times the cake boards are a little larger. The reason is to allow room for icing and a border of decorated piped icing along the base. Otherwise use undersized rounds. Also plain cake rounds are right at the same size as the pan so unless you have mass shrinkage they should be fine and allow you to handle the cake without actually touching the cake.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.517904
| 2016-10-11T20:16:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/74677",
"authors": [
"Shalryn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43782"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
85816
|
What is the purpose of heavy cream in a mushroom duxelle?
I'm planning on preparing a beef wellington for the holidays and am following a recipe whose duxelle recipe is defined:
In a food processor, pulse the mushrooms until finely chopped. Then, finely chop thyme.
Over medium heat, melt butter in skillet. Add mushrooms and combine with butter. Add thyme. Using a garlic crusher, crush garlic and add
to mushroom mixture. Continue to combine over medium heat for about
10-15 minutes or until the mushrooms are caramelized.
Once the mushrooms are caramelized, add a generous splash of Cognac and stir to deglaze the pan. Add heavy cream and cook for several
minutes or until all the moisture is gone. You should be left with a
paté-like mixture.
Most of the ingredients make sense to me in their contribution to flavor and/or texture but I can't seem to figure out why heavy cream would be added to the duxelle. I thought the mushroom pâté would be thick enough alone, so I can't imagine the heavy cream contributing to the duxelle in that respect.
The heavy cream is basically protein and fat, with some water which you're cooking off.
I think the cream is there to bind, as the mushrooms will probably not quite "stick" well enough.
It also adds to the volume of the completed paté.
Last, but not least, I have been told that cream is tasty. It's there, among other things, to add to the flavour.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.518042
| 2017-11-22T06:55:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85816",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44581
|
What are "goes well with" recommendations based on?
I heard a lot about what food goes well with some sauce or drink. Why does someone say that? Based on what? Do they only try those foods together or is there any sort of property on the food that indicates what it goes well with?
This question is very broad, but yes there are some general principles.
Foods that grow together (geography) or ripen at the same time are often considered to go especially well together. Tomatoes, for example, are more often paired with basil or oregano than they are with other herbs. Pork and apples, for example, are not ready until the fall and grow in the same parts of Europe.
Some meats are richer and fattier than others and are often served with an astringent red wine or an acidic (lemon, wine, vinegar, ...) sauce for contrast. This doesn't just make the food taste better, it's often more important the effect on how the wine tastes after eating different foods.
Some proteins (such as fish) are softer and less chewy or crunchy than others, so they're often served with a crunchy starch - French fries instead of mashed potatoes, for example - or vegetable (coleslaw made with raw cabbage) for texture contrast. Others are chewy so they're served with mashed potatoes, again for a texture contrast.
Some fish is light and delicate while other fish is stronger and oilier. You would use a different sauce with each and drink a different wine with each.
Some combinations are traditional and people enjoy them whether there is science behind them or not - we put butter on mashed potatoes and sour cream on perogies, but there's probably no good reason we couldn't switch those pairings, for example.
Some foods have more flavor than others and can stand up to a strongly flavoured sauce or drink. This is probably why people make pepper-crusted steak, but not pepper-crusted chicken. Some need to be enhanced by adding more herbs, spices and other flavourings.
Generally the recommendations come from either experiencing that exact combination (until you've tried ground black pepper on strawberries, you just will not imagine that it could be good, but it is) or from experiencing half of it - this sauce was great on that cut of beef, I think it would be even better on a particular cut of bison (because I know the similarities and differences in the meat and can imagine that combination.) The more different kinds of food you eat, and the more you think about what you're eating and why it's yummy or not, the better you will be at knowing the likelihood a particular combination will be good.
They say this because it is statistically very likely that, when a person with the same cultural background as the sayer eats the combination, that person will like what they eat.
This is not a restatement of your question: "A goes well with B" suggests that there is some quality in A and in B which determines how well they fit. But in fact, whether a person likes a thing is much more dependent on the person than on the thing. So, whether two foods go together depends on the eater, not on the food.
Kate Gregory already listed a few things eaters tend to like, but you can already see that it is a very mixed list. For example, she already mentions in point 3 that contrast can cause a good pairing, but in the last point, also says that similar levels of taste are considered a good pairing.
If you want to know why people like what they like, you need to ask a psychologist, not a cook. I have actually done research in that area (but not with a food focus), but explaining it in detail will take us too far from the topic of the site. For food taste (in general; not just for pairings), my observation is that there are two major drivers. The first is biological value: sugar, fat and to some extent salt are always liked, bitterness (which in nature is mostly found in alkaloids, which are frequently poisonous) is disliked. The second one is familiarity. In pairings, familiarity is the number one factor, my guess is that it makes much over 50% of the final judgement.
Thanks for the answer. I get your point but Kate's answer was more what I wanted to know. Indeed the person tastes is what matters and everyone decide what is the best combination. But still food A goes better with B better independent of taste sometimes and how come someone could say this, that was my question.
@CassioCabral I think you misunderstood me. My point was that the assumption of "food A goes better with B independent of taste" is never true.
There are a lot of books/articles out there now that outline flavour pairings based on chemical components. While I agree with the original answer (great detail, carefully considered) I think food science (especially chemistry) deserves a bigger profile. Think of it like the periodic table of elements. There are only so many basic flavours, so you find matches in very strange places you wouldn't expect. Not a tasty example, but ever notice that cheap Parmesan smells a bit vomit-y? That borage flower (a common herb) tastes bizarrely like fresh oysters and cucumber-y? That's because they actually share important flavonoids. I guess chefs/food writers use this concept like painters use a colour wheel. If borage reminds tastebuds of oysters, maybe it would go well with the same ingredients that people traditionally pair with oysters, right?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.518191
| 2014-06-01T05:15:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44581",
"authors": [
"Candi",
"Care Business Bootcamp",
"Cassio Cabral",
"Derek",
"FOO TAI",
"Private Ultrasound Clinic",
"Ravi Shankar",
"Ronald yeater",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"eslukas",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104835",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104836",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104856",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104858",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104883",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131815",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22942",
"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
}
|
19984
|
Suggestions for convenient and safe methods of transporting a few meals without a vehicle?
I'd like to prepare a few meals for a cousin who recently gave birth. She lives about an hour and a half away, and I will be walking and taking public transportation to get there.
Does anyone have any suggestions or tips for convenient ways to tranport the food? I am looking for sturdy, easy to carry bags that will keep the food from sliding around and will keep hot foods hot and cold foods cold.
I think in general it is much safer to transport food cold (frozen, even) than hot. You can buy soft-sided insulated bags with straps - I see them in the grocery store - that should be ok for a trip of that length. I buy frozen food and then drive home for an hour with it, put it straight in the freezer, and would laugh at the thought of there being food-safety issues with that. So one approach is to make a lasagna, casserole, or the like in a disposable container, freeze it at home, take it to your relative's and put it in her freezer. Now she has a semi-quick (but at least easy) meal waiting for her.
(A side note from remembering my days with an infant: something that heats up FAST and can be eaten with one hand will be more useful than a serves-12-needs-a-fork-heats-for-an-hour option. In other words burritos (2 min in microwave, can eat while holding the baby) beat lasagna (60+ min in oven, you can forget and dry it out or burn it, then you need a plate and a knife and fork to eat it.) Samosas are good one-handers, too.)
If you want to take something that is ready-to-eat, you could use the same bag to keep hot food hot, but I would probably suggest heating it up again on arrival.
Thanks! I did not consider freezing it all before traveling, which is ultimately more convenient for transportation and for eating over a few days.
First of all, starting with a critical info; since 2 hours and above is very critical, in case your trip takes more than 2 hours please refer to the table in the following link
in order to see when to save / when to throw it out
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/factsheets/keeping_food_safe_during_an_emergency/index.asp
To keep cold foods cold; you need to create the same condition as your refrigerator by using cooler, ice/ice packs and thermometer. And you should check the temperature and renew the ice/icepacks when needed (especially during long trips). A quote from the below link may be helpful;
http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/foodsci/ext/pubs/picnic.html
“Keep cold food cold. Keep cold food at 40°F or colder to prevent
bacterial growth. To do so, pack cold foods in a sturdy, insulated
cooler with plenty of ice or frozen gel packs. Freeze your own blocks
of ice in milk cartons or plastic containers for use in the cooler.
Put cold foods in water-proof containers or wrap in plastic wrap or
aluminum foil and completely immerse in the ice inside the cooler. If
using frozen gel packs or containers of homemade ice, place them
between packages of food. Never just set containers of food on top of
ice.
The trunk of your car can reach temperatures of 150°F so it is best to transport coolers in the passenger area of the car.
Keep hot food hot. Keep hot foods at 140°F or hotter to prevent the
growth of harmful bacteria. Take-out foods or foods cooked just before
being transported to the picnic can be carried hot. Wrap hot food in
towels, then newspaper, and place inside a box or heavy paper bag.
Keep these foods warm on a lit grill or use within one hour."
”
I'd also add that if you want to keep liquid-y foods (e.g., soup) hot, a thermos (or, "vacuum flask" as Wikipedia calls it) would keep a soup poured in at 180–212°F above 140°F for well more than two hours. You could use one on small-enough non-liquid dishes as well.
Thanks for the information. This doesn't quite answer my question but is an important consideration for what does end up answering it, so +1.
Hmm.. First of all, if you're going to prepare "a few meals" why do they need to be kept cold/hot? Maybe the you'd like the first meal to be hot but couldn't the others be heated up? And if that's the case, couldn't you just heat them all up when you get there?
Basically, I'd solve the problem based on the tricky transportation. That is, I'd make things that are ok at room temperature and easy to take. Things like:
salads: green salads, grain salads, vegetable salads, fruit salads (combo salads)
breads: most bread will last just fine for many hours at room temperature and you can make incredibly hearty breads (think pumpernickel)
and, of course, dessert-y type things like:
cookies, cakes, pies
Good luck!
Welcome to Seasoned Advice. Unlike most forums, over here we expect responses to answer the question. If you want to offer tips or alternatives in addition to doing so, that's fine, but first and foremost, please try to stay on topic.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.518616
| 2011-12-26T17:36:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19984",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Chii",
"CubeJockey",
"DonPineapple",
"H.C.",
"Hakan B.",
"Jordan Wallwork",
"Mohd. Umar",
"coredump",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3637",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43625",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43633",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43637",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43819"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18141
|
Simmering split peas smell bitter - why?
Today while simmering split peas with a good meaty ham bone, the whole works smell so bitter. I'm wondering why. I love pea soup but haven't made it very often.
In the end it did taste fine but had a really bad smell like it was going to taste bitter. I added the onions carrots celery and garlic a bit later. I did have to use salt and that helped. Used 10c of water. It ended up fine... my husband had 3 bowls! I just thought it smelled off.
One of the first things that comes to mind is that you have some beans burned to the bottom of the pan. This is a common issue when cooking a large quantity of beans if they aren't stirred enough. Burnt food items omit a bitter flavor as well as smell.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.519003
| 2011-10-02T20:24:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18141",
"authors": [
"Monika",
"Pablo A",
"Sakura",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61709",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66219",
"standup75",
"user39181"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
34252
|
What is the "hot" and "cold" category that Chinese culture separate their food into?
I am unsure if this categorization of food exist only in Chinese culture or if it exists in other (Asian) cultures. In China, a lot of the food is separated into either "cold" or "hot".
Some examples of "cold" food types are:
most fruits (apples, pears, etc)
tea
some herbal remedies(gingseng, ram horn water, etc)
Some examples of "hot" food types are:
some fruits (mangoes, pineapple, etc)
deep fried foods
pan-seared/ pan fried foods
coffee
Generally since I was young, I've been brought up to eat a balance of the "hot" and "cold" food. I was curious if this "hot" and "cold" categorization can be quantified into anything concrete? Can this categorization be backed by any sort of food science that finds a similarity between all the "hot" foods and all the "cold" foods.
Not yin and yang?
@SAJ14SAJ hmmm it might be related but I am translating the "hot" and "cold" literally.
Chinese Food Therapy seems like what you're thinking of. In India, Ayurvedic practitioners separate food into 3 broad categories -- Sattvic, Rajasic and Tamasic -- and that sounds like something similar too.
Oh nice! Thanks for putting a label on what I was referring to! I just want to note that you didn't answer the primary question.
Per AsianResearch.org's article The Ancient Theory Behind Chinese Food:
Generally
speaking, foods that have a higher water content are considered cool,
or yin, in nature. These are often foods that are boiled or steamed.
Foods that have a higher energy content, particularly from fat, are
considered warm, or yang, in nature. These are often foods that are
fried or roasted.
[...]
From [Chinese traditional element theory] comes the idea of the five flavours −
bitter, sweet, spicy, salty and sour.
These flavours are subdivided into yin and yang. Sweet and spicy foods
are considered to be yin, while bitter, sour and salty foods are
considered to be yang. The five elements also correspond with the
colours red, yellow, white, blue and green, which are all considered
when choosing ingredients.
Ah that kinda makes sense. It explains why fried food is "hot" and why most fruits are "cool". It also explains why tea is "cool" (it hydrates you) while coffee is "hot" (it dehydrates you). I wonder why some of the fruits are "hot" though.
Add to this meats are classified as "cold" and "hot" interestingly as well - Fish is cold, then chicken, then beef, then lamb (all in increasing "heat")... There are links to Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), and the importance of "warm" or "hot" food to increasing ones health and balancing internal humors.
I'm guessing pineapple is "hot" because it is sour and the same may apply to the other fruits.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.519357
| 2013-05-22T14:47:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34252",
"authors": [
"Erik",
"Jay",
"Kyle Decot",
"Melonie A Cole",
"PricklyPete",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18411",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79729",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79783",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79793",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"stslavik",
"tariq abughofa",
"zus"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
27250
|
How come mere water buffalo milk and lemon juice mixture turn into yogurt?
Yogurt is produced by the fermentation of lactose in milk by the bacteria of yogurt-ferment. Without those bacteria it is not possible to make yogurt.
But surprisingly, water buffalo milk and lemon juice mixture turns into yogurt without any third ingredient. You may first boil the milk to sterilize it; the result doesn't change. The milk must be water buffalo milk, cow milk or another animal's milk doesn't make yogurt this way. One of my relatives made yogurt this way, so this is not a myth (if you didn't hear this before). Unfortunately I couldn't find an English recipe to share with you here.
Can you please explain to me this chemical phenomenon? Is fermentation involved in this process? Is this resulting "yogurt" actually a yogurt by definition in the perspective of cooking and chemistry?
This is not yogurt per definition, you are making a fresh cheese. You can actually use other types of milk for such a cheese, but the mouthfeel and taste will be very different and won't be as similar to yogurt.
There is a large class of acid-curdled cheeses, including paneer, tvorog, quark and many others. I don't know if yours has a specific name. I know that there are people who for some reason can't tell the difference in taste betwen quark and yogurt. But it is still cheese, even if it tastes similar to yogurt.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clabber_(food) for more on thick, soured milk.
@KateGregory Interesting. This "clabber" food is still a fermented product, so it falls under the class of yogurts. There is an error in the article; quark is not the spontaneously-soured milk, it is a cheese made by curdling this spontaneously-soured milk with additional acid (but no rennet). The soured milk itself is called simply Sauermilch.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.519608
| 2012-09-18T17:47:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27250",
"authors": [
"Barbara parkos",
"Kate Gregory",
"bob marly",
"edsong",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61354",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61358",
"ishan",
"rumtscho",
"xnau"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
10298
|
How can I recreate the dipping sauce for the cream cheese wontons served at Pick Up Stix?
The dipping sauce for the cream cheese wontons is delicious and I would like to duplicate it at home. Anyone have any luck reproducing this sauce?
This is a soy sauce based, not sweet-and-sour based sauce.
I think the sauce contains sesame oil, soy sauce, some very slight sweetener, and I think I detect a subtle acid and ginger flavor. Whenever I try to recreate it, the ratios don't seem right but I don't really know which to change. The soy sauces I've used so far are Kimlan and Kikkoman.
Welcome bmillare! Recipe requests are off-topic here although so-called "restaurant mimicry" questions are fine. I've edited your question so that it won't be closed; however, it would help a lot if you can explain more about the flavour of the sauce for the benefit of those less familiar with it, and would help even more if you can describe any prior attempts and how the results were "off".
Can't help you with this sauce in particular, but I can give you how I would approach it and maybe that will help you.
First, have some of the original around so that you can test against it. Testing against your memory will never work, although you may get some great results anyway. It just won't match the original.
Second, take good notes of each attempt. You're going to be working in one of two ways to create the recipe, either method requiring excellent notes if you are going to duplicate your success once you achieve it.
Third step you're doing right. What are the predominant flavors? What is the base, most likely? In this case you've identified soy as the base, and then sweet, acid and ginger. Ginger is fine (although you will have to decide if it tastes like fresh or ground), but the others are too vague. What could the sweet and the acid be? When you are trying to duplicate something, think of the cuisine. In this case we are talking Asian (although commercial Asian) so the sweet could be Mirin and the acid is most likely rice wine vinegar which is a mild vinegar. The Mirin would be a sure thing if this were not commercial Asian...odds are it is just white sugar and it only seems mild because the vinegar is mild.
Now you get to choose which method you want to work with. You can make several small batches, changing things with each batch, or you can make a single progressive batch, modifying as you go. If this was a baked good, you'd have no choice but to do each batch separately, but since this is a dipping sauce, you can modify a base batch slightly to get to where you want to be, and is how I would approach this.
Start with your base (soy sauce) and pick an amount that is reasonable. Since this is a dipping sauce I'd probably start with a quarter cup. Not too much, but not so little that I have to measure 1/16th of a teaspoon of the ginger, say. Taste the original sauce, taste the soy sauce. If the soy sauce is WAY stronger than the original sauce, they probably added some water to it. If needed, add water to your experiment, measuring and writing down each addition, until it seems a little stronger than the original.
Now go for the next major taste, probably the vinegar. Add a little at a time (measure, write down) until the basic acidity is right, maybe a little shy. Now balance the acid with the sugar (or Mirin) a little at a time, tasting yours and the original until they are close.
Now add your top notes (ginger and sesame oil). You should at this point be close, and can adjust. If you put in too much of something (say the ginger) you will need to add a proportional amount of everything else to bring it back to balance. This is why you wrote EVERYTHING down...you did, didn't you?
In the end you should have a batch larger than you wanted, but you'll know everything that went into it. Look at your actual amounts. Readjust all of the amounts to be something that you might actually make. If, for instance, you needed 1/8th of a teaspoon of grated ginger to make this taste right and you know you'll never get that right again, multiply everything by four, so you can do your ginger at 1/2 teaspoon. It's all about proportions at this point.
If, by the way, you wanted to do this as separate batches, you'd do the first batch as described above. Decide what is off (too much sesame oil? too much vinegar?) and rewrite the amounts the way you think the next batch should be and then make it.
By the way, if you believe that you didn't have enough of an item, you can always add it to the current batch to see if you were right. Not enough? Try adding it to the current batch. Too much? Either adjust the amount for the next batch OR using the progressive method above, adjust the other ingredients to bring things into balance and then proceed.
Note that in all cases I add less than I think I needed to get close, then sneak up on the amount. Once you go past any amount, you have to do a more major adjustment.
And measure and write. You will NOT remember the amount. Really.
And, finally, have fun. You may come up with something even better.
Thanks Doug, I'll try to duplicate it and post the results when I get to it.
I think they use Ponzu Sauce with the other ingredients. I do not taste Sesame Oil. I think it is Ponzu with a slight amount of mirin and a little water. I haven't tried but I do intend to. Love Pickup Stix sauce. I would love to use it with other things.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.519792
| 2010-12-19T18:01:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10298",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Amritanshu Prasad",
"AnDy",
"David",
"Ilya Shinkarenko",
"Pradeep",
"bmillare",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21019",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21021",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21031",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21032",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21033",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3899",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"ketaxmina",
"musubi"
],
"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
}
|
22245
|
Is it possible to create salty ice cream?
I have heard that in Japan people eat some kind of salty ice cream. Is it true? If it is true, does anyone know the name of the dish or how to prepare it?
Maybe I'm just missing something...have you tried adding salt?
If you're asking for a recipe for salty ice cream, that's off-topic for the site. Are you searching for the name of a particular variety of ice cream?
It's possible to create pretty much any type of ice-cream; I've had sea salt ice-cream before and it works surprisingly well.
If they can do Bacon Ice Cream and they do... they can do salty ice cream.
Not quite an answer, but related: we've recently made vanilla ice cream, and added some fresh green curry to it (using an ice cream machine) which was very strange but not all too bad. There was some salt in the curry as well, though not enough to make the ice cream taste "salty".
Apparently, in Regency England, things like Parmesan ice cream were all the rage.
I had dill pickle gelato in Italy. Frankly, I thought it was awful, but it shows you can flavor ice cream with pretty much anything.
Salt is an ingredient in most ice creams, and there are a variety of particularly salty ice creams. For instance, bacon ice cream is occasionally accompanied by coarse sea or rock salt. Specifically noted from Japan though Sea Salt ice cream is also a popular creation, consisting of a sea salt and vanilla flavoring in blue colored ice cream, allegedly made famous after Tetsuya Nomura of Square Enix fame tried it at a Tokyo Disney resort.
"Sea Salt ice cream" is the one I've heard about. It's literally flavored by sea salt. Online recipes are often themed around the game series Kingdom Hearts, in which a main character enjoys this treat. That ought to be enough to help your search :)
I've made miso caramel ice cream, salted caramel ice cream is a popular flavor in the Seattle area, and an uncle of mine tried an olive-oil and salt gelato at one of Mario Batali's restaurants, and I've had a salted peanut butter ice cream at a restaurant a few years back. There wasn't much adjustment required to accommodate the salt; unless you're using so much as to be unpalatable, it won't dramatically change freezing temperature or texture. If you're using less sugar, that can be a factor, but there are other coping strategies for that (alcohol, etc).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.520217
| 2012-03-14T00:58:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22245",
"authors": [
"B. Scholl",
"Carey Gregory",
"Cascabel",
"Cos Callis",
"Gisela Dávila La Rosa",
"Jeroen",
"Jörgen Lindell",
"Marti",
"Raymond the Developer",
"Stefano",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49859",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49861",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79671",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9453",
"jarbus",
"keith czarny",
"rfusca",
"stslavik",
"user2262511"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20310
|
Are edible skins of supermarket fruits safe to eat, or are residues a problem?
Ideally, if fruits are grown without chemicals and pesticides, all of them should be edible.
Here I am talking about fruits I can buy from supermarkets in US. If considering remains of chemicals imposed by human, including pesticides, fertilizer, preservatives,etc, are their skins edible? Here are some examples.
Berries' skins are impossible to separate.
Grapes' skins are not easy to be separated although possible, and are said to contain many nutrition.
Apples' skins are easier to peel. But the gloss from its skins are said to be from some artificial chemicals such as wax, and there may be remains of other things.
Considering pros and cons, would you suggest eating the skins of grapes and of apples bought from US supermarkets?
Wait, what source did you get the information about the shine on the apples are from wax? I find that really hard to believe... why would they take to time to wax each apple and make it worse of a product in the process?
Many people told me. Waxing for lasting long and for attracting unaware customers like you.
I see. Although there are many edible forms of wax that is nontoxic. Such as the kind used in chapstick.
-1 for question as I don't think it's relevant to this site: that said all those fruit are edible skin and all (a tiny bit of wax is harmless). Fruit and veg should be washed to be on the safe side.
Then are there reasons to eat things that do no good? @vwiggins: Do you wash with dish detergent? That adds a different kind of chemicals.
@Tim Washing fruits and veggies is not done with soap at all usually O.o I've never heard of using dish detergent to wash fruits.
Apple waxing: http://www.bestapples.com/facts/facts_waxing.shtml
"Apples are washed at the fruit packing sheds to remove dust and chemical residues. This washing removes about half of the original apple wax which is replaced by a natural coating.
The natural wax added to protect Washington apples is usually carnauba or shellac."
@Tim: washing fruit with dish detergant...? I can't tell if you are being serious or just being fecetious.
@Jay: I know some people do so.
The FDA page I linked to in my answer addresses everything that's going on in the comments here: wash with just water (not soap), wax is used to replace natural waxes.
The EPA regulates pesticides in the US, all the way from the use on the crop to the food you buy. From their website:
In setting the tolerance, EPA must make a safety finding that the pesticide can be used with "reasonable certainty of no harm." To make this finding, EPA considers
the toxicity of the pesticide and its break-down products
how much of the pesticide is applied and how often
how much of the pesticide (i.e., the residue) remains in or on food by the time it is marketed and prepared
EPA ensures that the tolerance selected will be safe. The tolerance applies to food imported into this country, as well as to food grown here in the U.S.
The site also includes other information, for example about the scientific evidence they require to make decisions.
So everything you can buy is safe in terms of pesticides.
The FDA regulates other aspects of produce safety, for example wax. They ensure that the food you can purchase is safe to consume (and not just produce). They have a summary page on fresh produce, which says:
Many vegetables and fruits make their own natural waxy coating. After harvest, fresh produce may be washed to clean off dirt and soil - but such washing also removes the natural wax. Therefore, waxes are applied to some produce to replace the natural waxes that are lost.
...
Waxes are used only in tiny amounts to provide a microscopic coating surrounding the entire product. Each piece of waxed produce has only a drop or two of wax.
Coatings used on fruits and vegetables must meet FDA food additive regulations for safety.
You should of course wash your produce to ensure safety - the FDA page also says this, and neither they nor the EPA claim your food will be safe if you don't. (A good washing will also generally remove the wax, as the FDA mentions.) But unless you actively distrust the EPA and FDA, you have no cause for concern, and you probably shouldn't trust anyone who tells you otherwise unless they have similarly conducted a thorough review of scientific evidence. (If you want to have a discussion about scientific evidence for safety/danger of a particular pesticide, this isn't really the right place.)
Thanks! How about regulations on residues of fertilizer?
@Tim: I'd expect that's under the EPA's purview as well, though they don't appear to have as obvious a page about it. Seriously, though, the US doesn't let companies sell you hazardous things to eat. It's just a matter of what agency regulates it. (Also, unlike pesticides, you don't try to put fertilizers on the produce. Only things that grow underground are going to get much on them.)
Most skins of apples and grapes and pears are expose to a chemical produced by The Dow Company while in shipment in containers or in a warehouse. This chemical reacts with the skin of the fruit to make it more plastic-like, so they will stay fresher longer. You can tell what's been exposed, since the skin is tough. I suggest to always remove the skin or grow your own. Not sure what to do with grapes.
Citation needed, unless this 'chemical' is wax, as described in my answer above. The only chemicals besides wax I know of that are used in coatings are fungicides (not universally used), but they're also safe in the cases they're used, and have nothing to do with making the skin plastic-like. If the skin is tough, it was probably that way to begin with, or it's dried out. (And drying out is more likely if the fruit isn't coated.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.520568
| 2012-01-10T15:12:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20310",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"DGM",
"Gassa",
"Jay",
"Julian",
"Tim",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"Yamikuronue",
"csx.cc",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2064",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44503",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44547",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99393",
"robin",
"scotty3785",
"user2497",
"user3650571",
"vwiggins"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
36847
|
Beer Battered Onion Rings -- what makes them look shiny?
I'm working on a beer battered onion ring recipe and I think I have the recipe part but the onion rings look dull as they cool. I notice at restaurants etc...that they are usually shiny.
Is it an ingredient I'm missing (I keep thinking egg whites -- which I am not using)? or could it be the oil? I did not use peanut oil and I don't think my home fryer hold heat really well.
Right now the recipe is just flour, beer and seasonings (with the onions coated in flour before they are dipped). It's for a fund raiser so I really want to wow the patrons if possible.
Maybe you could, right after frying, coat the onion rings in egg wash and bake for a few minutes. Probably make them shiny but I doubt that is what restaurants do.
The shininess is from oil that has seeped into your food. According to About.com, the temperature at which oil starts to seep into food is around 163˚C (325˚F). You need to keep the temperature above that to prevent it getting shiny. Remember to use an oil with a high smoking point so you don't replace the shine with a carcinogen.
The shiny part of the onion rings are the cooking oil. It really doesn't matter about how shiny your onion rings are though. Some restaurants deep fry theirs and the are more shiny than others. It all depends on how you cook them.
This doesn't make sense; if it were simply the cooking oil, all fried food, not to mention all deep fried food, would by shiny, and that certainly is not the case.
@SAJ14SAJ The longer you cook them the more faded the shine is.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.521038
| 2013-09-16T10:49:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36847",
"authors": [
"Jake Robinson",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Young Guilo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7303"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
36894
|
Looking for the name of a sweet green drink
A long time ago I tasted an alcoholic drink which was green and tasted very sweet (possibly like banana, definitely not mint), and it had a long french name, something like (pesong, pisang, ...). Does anyone know the real name of it?
It sounds like you are looking for Pisang Ambon, a banana liqeur, which is seethrough and green. It is popularly served over ice, mixed with orange juice for a Tutti Frutti kind of drink.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pisang_Ambon
Woohoo! You're batting 1000 tonight!
yess :D it's this one!
Originally, the name for the drink we call the Grasshopper was Tujague’s, named for the New Orleans bar. Is that what you are looking for?
possibly not, no mint in my drink.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.521207
| 2013-09-18T07:50:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36894",
"authors": [
"Ferenc Deak",
"Jolenealaska",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20272"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21444
|
How to make a cake less dense
So I've just recently started baking and I've tried a bunch of cakes using the basic combination of the following ingredients:
225g unsalted butter , softened
225g caster sugar
4 eggs
225g self-raising flour
They're coming out ok but are not really "light and airy", a bit too "dense" compared to a cake made by a pro. I've done some reading and I think I'm maybe not working the butter and sugar (eggs too?) for long enough and/or working the flour in too much.
Can anyone tell me how to make the perfect light and airy cake?
What you are making is a pound cake. Or maybe a sponge cake, depends on the order of mixing the ingredients. Of the two, the sponge cake is somewhat lighter, so if you have been making pound cake (cream butter and sugar, add eggs, then flour), you can switch to sponge (foam eggs and sugar, add flour and fat). But both are hearty homemade cakes, they are supposed to be dense.
The iced cakes you get in a bakery are much lighter, because they use a different type of layer. Most types of cake are lighter than pound and sponge cakes. Try making genoise, chiffon, or angel food cake layers, they are all light. And yes, using cake flour will help too, or replacing part of the flour in the recipe with pure starch (usually cornstarch or potato starch, you can also use wheat starch if you can get it. Tapioca or arrowroot aren't that well suited). For a real "pro" taste, also throw in some lecithine, it makes the mouthfeel softer and smoother - but if you don't feel like hunting around for lecithine, don't bother, a good homemade cake doesn't really need it, I only mentioned it because you asked about "cake made by a pro".
You are essentially correct. It is important to beat plenty of air into the butter/sugar/egg mixture initially, but you should mix in the flour until just incorporated to avoid over-developing the gluten, which will result in a dense cake.
You can also try using cake flour, a low-protein white flour that helps the cake stay light.
Definitely the issue is using the wrong flour. Self-raising flour = bready baked goods. Cake flour with less gluten will be much more airy.
self-raising flour isn't that much more gluten-rich. It's just AP with bicarb and salt. You can still get light cakes with SR flour if you don't overwork it.
The self-raising flour could be part of the problem. Chemical leavening can lose its power over time, especially if exposed to humidity. Consider using cake flour (which may make for a softer crumb, too) and adding your own baking powder. This lets you ensure that the leavening is fresh, and also lets you control the amount.
Also, if you really want light and airy, mix up an angel food cake. It's pretty much the ultimate in light and airy as cakes go, and very easy to make.
Try this:
200g of self raising flour
200g caster sugar
a tsp of baking powder
tbs of water and
four eggs
Whisk the eggs in a bowl. In another bowl mix all other ingredients together, then add the eggs add a bit of vanilla essence.
Whisk for 2 mins, then bake on the shelf second from bottom for 45mins at 150°C.
You will have a light, fluffy, moist cake. All you may need to do is trim off any crusty edges.
Duncan Hinez or Betty Crocker cake mix makes light cakes.
Hello! Please don't post your mail or similar personal information in answers. Also, please make sure you are helping the OP to solve his problem, instead of ranting about what didn't work for you. I'm leaving that as an answer, as it is possible that somebody can make a lighter cake from a box mix than from scratch, but I doubt that it will get much positive reaction.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.521308
| 2012-02-17T09:39:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21444",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"Isla O'Dowd",
"Jay",
"Judith Rochon",
"Loren St. Peter",
"Michael Lonsberry",
"Pablo Jomer",
"Surati Ivey",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142144",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47463",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76491",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"rumtscho",
"user76491"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25335
|
How do I balance the bitterness of raddichio in soup?
I made a big pot of soup and put a little of nearly everything I had in my refrigerator in it:
radicchio
fresh green beans
beets
potato
carrots
garlic scapes
scallions
tomatoes
yellow crookneck squash
swiss chard
I put a little apple cider vinegar & sea salt in it and it has been simmering. I just tasted it and it was so bitter that I don't think my family will eat it. I think it must be coming from the radicchio...
Can it be salvaged?
Two related questions: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13016/counter-to-bitterness-in-soup (Possible duplicate?) http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9292/does-putting-salt-in-coffee-really-remove-bitterness (I realize the second is about coffee, but I linked to some general info about dealing with bittereness)
Was the radicchio fresh? I'm not a big lettuce fan but I know a lot of greens can be bitter fresh (mustard greens, collards, calaloo) and can benefit from steaming, boiling or cooking first.
Actually this website has a load of tips for reducing the bitterness in greens: http://www.justhungry.com/counteracting-bitterness-greens
Loads of recipes call for adding sweet to counter bitter.
You can test by taking a bowl of soup and adding sugar until you are satisfied... or until you can't take neither the sweetness nor the bitterness.
Another option, in my experience, is adding salt. Loads of dishes improve greatly with the 'correct' amount of salt (correct is... whatever you prefer).
Basically, you should take a small amount of soup and test it. If you get it wrong, try again until you find the 'sweet spot'.
Also, if your soup does become too sweet, try adding salt to counter that...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.521622
| 2012-07-29T23:33:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25335",
"authors": [
"Charmain Lategan",
"Raj",
"The smartest answer ever",
"Tom Bean",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57986",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57987",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57988",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57989",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58008",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58020",
"talon8",
"user55558",
"user58020"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
108865
|
What does resting mean
I'm a little confused with what resting actually means.
I've typically seen this term being used where you move food (typically meat) from the oven/grill/heat and then keep it warm for "some time" (maybe 10's of minutes depending on the size).
What has confused me is Gordon Ramsay's burger video, where he is cooking burgers on a BBQ. He then moves the burgers to the "resting" rack (if that is the right term) within the BBQ. This rack is still above the heat. To me, this is not resting, this is cooking at a lower heat.
https://youtu.be/v191Y8AUk6w - He says this at 4:43 where also says "they'll continue cooking". AT 5:50, he closes the lid!
I'm assuming resting does not mean "left alone" because many recipes, such as a roast, call for us to put meat in the oven and leave it alone until cooked.
So my question, which may be a double question is: Is there a definition of what resting means and if so, what is it?
There is, as you've seen, no universally precise definition. Broadly, though, "resting" refers to allowing heat to diffuse through the food. Although the burgers are "still cooking" once placed on the higher rack, the amount of heat being applied is nowhere near as high as when they were on the grill, and following the resting the temperature differential will be lower than when they were first taken off the grill.
This is a good scientific approach to looking at the concept of resting meat.
Resting commonly means to remove the meat from the cooking surface and allowing it to sit, untouched, for some time. We do know that "carryover cooking" is real and that items continue to cook once removed from the heat. This needs to be factored into your preparation. I would encourage you to read the information I linked above. His bottom line:
Roughly speaking, comparable amounts of moisture evacuate during cooking as dribble out after slicing.
If the final temperature is below 130F, collagen barely shrinks and there is no difference between resting and not resting.
If the final temperature is above 145F, the rested meat will exude more juices than the non-rested, but...
Resting meat merely shifts when and where the juices are exuded- the total loss is about the same if you allow the juices to be reabsorbed.
Thicker meats benefit slightly from resting- mostly by making them easier to slice and resulting in a more uniformly cooked roast. But remember the thicker the meat, the more "carry-over", so adjust the cooking temperatures accordingly.
Don't waste the juices! Incorporate them into a sauce or sop them up on the plate.
All foods contain a certain amount of water, even meat. Those waters, when heated up through cooking, begin circulating through the food, faster and faster, raising the interior temperature of the meat(or whatever). This is called convection. When cooked food is removed from the heat source, convection does not just come to a dead stop; it takes a while to slow down, and then, eventually stop. All the while the meat's interior temperature continues to rise and the food continues to cook (this is called "carryover" cooking). If you cut into meat while this convection action is still happening, all of the waters (juices) swirling around come flooding out. This water loss results in dry, overcooked meat. By waiting for convection to stop, those waters are reabsorbed into the food and it retains it's moisture. Also, if you wait until the internal temperature of your meat is where you want it to be before taking it off the heat, carryover cooking will overcook the meat.
There's no significant water convection in cooking food (other than in something like soup).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.521783
| 2020-06-05T11:32:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108865",
"authors": [
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
84999
|
Where is oil going in grilled chops?
I grilled some fatty lamb chops hoping I could get the oil and use it as part of a sauce. However after cooking I relaised there was only a very little amount of oil in the lower pan.
Do you know what caused this e.g. too high temperature or maybe I didnt cook high enough, whats for sure though is the chops were cooked. Can you give me some guidance on how to extract all the oil from a protein to use as a sauce without making it disappear?
If you really want to render fat out of solid animal fat tissue, you need to cook it low and slow. There will be an initial period with a lot more bubbling and spattering as water is more rapidly released, then eventually it'll just be slowly cooking away, slowly releasing fat.
High heat methods like searing, broiling (UK grilling), and grilling (UK barbecuing) are pretty much the opposite of this. Everything just cooks fast, tightens up, and if you tried to cook long enough to release much fat, you'd probably just burn it all.
So I wouldn't think of fatty chops or steak as a good source of fat for this. You don't want to cook that meat low and slow, generally. So you'd probably have to trim the fat off to render slowly while you cook the meat on high heat, and there are way cheaper cuts of meat that you could get way more fat from, so why bother?
As mentioned elsewhere, fat is not evaporating. You might manage to burn a bit of it onto your pan, but given the above points, it's just that you probably just aren't getting a lot out of this.
A pan sauce is not so much about the melted fat, but, more importantly about the fond. In fact, too much oil is not helpful. The fond is the browned bits that stick to the pan. Water, wine, or stock is added to the pan. Using a wooden spoon, stir to release the fond and begin creating your sauce. Season with herbs. You can add some butter or cream...lots of variation from here...season with salt and pepper, etc. From your question, however, I see that you are grilling. I don't think a sauce is possible in that scenario. Maybe the better solution is a salsa for your chops.
Assume I don't want to make a sauce but just want a great amount of fat. It's not appearing. Most likely evaporating. Do you know why?
@JamesWilson It may seem like evaporation, but it's not. Oil doesn't evaporate like water.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.522120
| 2017-10-13T22:09:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84999",
"authors": [
"James Wilson",
"Jolenealaska",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7945"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24659
|
Had a small oven fire, how do i get the smoke smell out of the oven?
I was baking a buttermilk pie. I accidentally spilled it as i pushed the oven rack in. The oven caught fire. Now there is a slight smoke smell in the kitchen. I need to get rid of that smell.
Open the window?
Is the smell in the kitchen, or just the oven?
Bicarbonate of soda is the most effective agent for removing odours in my experience.
I've used it to detox a fridge that stank of fish after I accidently left fresh seabass in there before going off on holiday.
Just scrub it in using a scourer and warm water, followed by a thorough rinse.
It's also possible to fill a small tray with Bicarbonate and let it sit there for a day or so, it will absorb particles.
If it's the smell of smoke in the kitchen you need to get rid of, boil lemon (or other citrus) peel in water for about 15 minutes. That should clear the air. As noted by FuzzyChef, you'll also need to scrub out your oven so that you don't reintroduce the smell when you next use the oven.
You need to ventilate the kitchen. Open a window, and turn on your hood/ventilator fan if you have one. Run it for at least 1/2 hour, preferably an hour.
You're going to need to clean up the spill inside your oven, or it'll burn more each time you use your oven until it carbonizes completely. Wait until it cools and then scrub it with an appropriate solvent and brush or sponge.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.522332
| 2012-06-23T23:45:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24659",
"authors": [
"Philip Schiff",
"Tor-Einar Jarnbjo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40705",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
27313
|
My pizza crust is very hard and tough and not light and crispy, why?
I'm having trouble getting my pizza crust light , airy and crispy. I'm not sure if it's the mixing of the dough because I'm using a smaller mixer 20qt as opposed to my old 60qt. The bowl is not smooth and shiny and the dough hook doesn't appear to get close enough to the bottom of the bowl. It looks like the bowl was used to for everything except for making dough.
Do these sound like conditions that would cause my crust to be tough? The dough is stiff and is difficult to work with when I remove it from the refrigerated proofing box. It's elastic like.
This is frustrating because I owned a pizza shop a year ago; I had a recipe from New Haven and my crust was perfect: light, airy and crispy. I now reopened in a new location with a different oven and I'm still using my old recipe and the pizza crust is awful and I can't figure out why.
The recipe is as follows:
4-gal water
4oz yeast cake
12oz salt
50 lbs flour-gold medal bromated bleached flour full strength
The recipe is fine since I had a perfect new haven style thin crust using it for a year at my old location.
Could you post the recipe you're using?
Never used one of the large commercial machines, but it seems like the hook height ought to be adjustable. Maybe the manufacturer or distributor could tell you the proper hook/bowl clearance, so you could be sure if its right?
what temp is your proofing box at? what speed setting were you mixing each dough at? At what temp is the dough rising to before you work it? Are both mixers Hobart or something else? are you using screens or cooking on a stone or a metal shelf?
Your 60 qt mixer is going to mix dough at a much different rate than your 20 qt, even if their rotation speeds are the same. Your hook to bowl clearance shouldn't be an issue unless you're getting an excessive amount of crusty dough on the bottom of the bowl. The condition of the bowl is negligible too. Most likely your issue will be over/under development of your dough.
Does the dough from your other location pass a windowpane test? How about your new dough? Assuming your relative humidity, proofing box temperature, and oven temperatures are the same, its going to be dough development. Experiment with different mixing times until you find the sweet spot. Also, if you are scaling a recipe down, occasionally you'll need to adjust hydration levels just a touch.
He shouldn't need to scale the recipe down at all.
where is the oil? you are missing oil in the mixture, that dough seems awfully plain and very boring, I would add olive oil, and vinegar to the mixture, so this is ho wi would make it as follows,
4 gallons of water, 1/3 cup of sugar mix into water with a whisk, add your yeast cake, leave for 15 minutes, add the oil and vinegar pour in half the flour and all of the salt( never ad salt directly to the yeast solution ) turn on mixer at slow speed until ingredients are mixed together gooey like then add the rest of flour and mix for 15 minutes on medium speed. What the vinegar does is gives the crust a nice crunchy texture and inside will be very light and fluffy.
4-gal water
4oz yeast cake
1/3 cup of sugar
1 cup olive oil
6 TBLS of vinegar
12oz salt
50 lbs. flour
ad ingredients in that order.
I love my pizza, I make it at home every week, I also am a chef for the last 26 years and have fed a lot of people, I am told I make an amazing pizza. I have a special dough that I wont give out however the adjustments to your dough I just made will be extremely satisfactory and leave your customers coming back for more.
Hi Jaimie, and welcome to our site! We focus very much on efficient information here, and want our posts to be always to the point. We don't have any signatures or similar. As you see, your name and avatar appears below a post. People can click it to see your profile page, where you can write up something about yourself, if you like.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.522486
| 2012-09-21T02:38:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27313",
"authors": [
"Adrian",
"Avishek",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Jaylynne deLaroche",
"Juan Farrias",
"Miguel",
"Reazel San Buenaventura Nieva",
"Ryan Griggs",
"Steven Seuyaphanh",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120617",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120677",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61503",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61527",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61529",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61538",
"jillian",
"rumtscho",
"sarge_smith"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
85001
|
How to separate fats from liquid and where do unsaturated fats go?
If you have some liquid from roasting, stew or soup etc and you want to separate the fat, I believe the normal methods is to get a spoon and remove it from the top or let it come to room temperature, solidify and then remove it.
If it solidifies and you remove it, isn't it only the saturated fat you are removing while the unsaturated fats stay behind? How do you remove unsaturated fats also?
Problem is, unsaturated fat mix way easier with saturated fat than water. So when they make contact they won't have any separation. Think about petroleum industry to get an idea how hard it is to separate one form of oil from another.
Saturated fats (eg the white part of a steak or chop) are generally solid at room temperature while unsaturated (eg olive oil) are not. Generally the advice for getting fats out of soups and stews is to chill it so it all solidifies. Since it floats whether it is solid or not, there are also techniques like skimming, absorbing with a paper towel or bread, etc. (See How can I remove excess fat from stews or soups without refrigerating? for examples.)
The temperature at which something solidifies is a poor way to test whether a fat is saturated or unsaturated, and it's not an important distinction really. If it's important to you to get all the fat from something, then chilling and waiting is probably the most effective way. If you don't have time for that then you either eat a little fat (which for most people is fine) or you make a different dish.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.522901
| 2017-10-14T01:25:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85001",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54199",
"user3528438"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
34098
|
Potato and Macaroni Salads soak up all the mayo when I store them
When I make either potato or macaroni salad, I always have a problem the next day with the salad soaking up the mayo so it looks like there was no mayo added. I DO feel that I add a good amount of mayo.
I don't add a lot of ingredients, just a little salt and black pepper, chopped onion and celery and maybe a little parsley, never any eggs or mustard. I don't know what I'm doing wrong because I always let the potatoes cool before making the salad, and I always rinse my pasta in cold water after cooking and let drain for a while before mixing.
A deli near me makes potato salad and I'll have it for days and it will still look like it was just mixed with mayo; the potatoes in their salad (macaroni too) never absorb the mayo. Does anyone have a remedy to this problem?
Mayonaise is mostly oil. How much are your salads absorbing? Is there an oily slick at the bottom which would indicate the majo lost its emulsion?
It is highly likely that they simply add enough mayonnaise and other ingredients of their sauce that even after the macaroni or potatoes absorb their maximum amount, there is enough left.
I have the same problem. I don't want that much mayo (and calories) to soak a salad SO what I do know is I make my salad (toss the warm potato chunks in a bit of vinegar to give them some punch. Place all my ingredients in a bowl, and let them refrigerate until I am almost ready to serve. I then toss the ingredients (green onion, radish, hard cooked egg, and potatoes with mayo, until it is how I like it. Serve. Leftovers, yes, will absorb most of the mayo, if it is too dry, when having leftovers, I add a bit of mayo and give it another toss. Works well, and to me does not affect the taste. I find left over potato salad gets that watery stuff in the bowl (which I don't like). So this was my solution.
The kind of potatoes has the most impact on fridge stability over time in the refrigerator one it's been cooked... A Russet or Yukon Gold will will be looser or spongier (for lack of a better word) and will soak up great immense amounts of sauce. Red potatoes tend to stay a little more waxy (again for lack of better word) and will coat with a sauce more than absorb
Pasta, once cooked, very readily gives up or absorbs moisture. It's likely that you're draining longer than necessary and it ends up drying out. Draining manually, then tossing with a little bit of oil, then cooling in the refrigerator with a lid will let it cool down, not stick together, and stay moist.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.523045
| 2013-05-13T16:20:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34098",
"authors": [
"Naing Lin Aung",
"O Mitchell",
"O Mitchell ",
"Pat Hollowell",
"PythonSage",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79323",
"roach",
"stevenhaddox"
],
"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
}
|
34454
|
Cold Brewing coffee - does it use more beans?
Our Percolator is about to break down and we're in the midst of making a decision about our next coffee solution:
a universal percolator
a new percolator
a keurig (with our own coffee)
cold brew.
How coffee efficient is cold brew? I understand that one gets a concentrate from it and depending on the recipe it can vary greatly. However I want to know if we switch to cold brew and consume the same amount of coffee, will we be using more coffee (beans) as a result?
How feasible is it for a couple that consume 3 three cup servings+ each a day to have enough supply where we're making a brew once every say 5 days?
This is anecdoctal, but I would suggest trying to use your normal quantity of coffee and let it sit overnight, and see what you think of the flavor. Also, I've never heard of using cold brewed coffee for later reheating - only for making iced coffee because it doesn't transfer a lot of the harsher qualities of light-roasted coffee.
Obviously, this will depend on your personal preferences and how you brew the coffee.
The canonical measurement is about 2 tablespoons of coffee per 6 ounce cup, or about 2 3/4 cups of ground coffee per gallon of water.
Typical ratios for cold brew coffee, such as suggested Chow are 1.75 cups of coffee to 3 1/2 cups of water for the concentrate, which would then be diluted by a like amount of water for drinking. That is a ratio of 1.75 cups of coffee to 7 cups of water, or about 3 3/4 cups of coffee per gallon of water (I am generously assuming the ratio is based on measuring cups, not "coffee" cups).
So the cold brewing method uses about 1.35 times more beans than the traditional methods.
You will have to decide if you prefer the flavor of the cold brewed coffee enough to justify the increased amount of beans required.
As to whether you can produce enough, that depends on what equipment you have, how much trouble you are willing to go to, and how much storage space you have. There is nothing about cold brewed coffee that would prevent you from producing the concentrate in large quantities. At the volume you specify (assuming you mean a 6 ounce "coffee" cup, and it is three cups between the two of you), you would need about 45 ounces of concentrate for a week, which is about 1.5 quarts (or liters).
See also:
Bottling and Storing Cold-Brewed Coffee?
Concentrate should easily last you throughout a week, if you have room to store it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.523286
| 2013-06-02T14:31:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34454",
"authors": [
"Coronado Don",
"Dan",
"LimpingNinja",
"Marshall",
"Matthew",
"Mircea Stirbet",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80280",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80281",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80282",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8339",
"marshall",
"sharynn"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
26093
|
Why does my buttercream become runny overnight?
I made this very simple 'meringue' butter cream.
40 grams of egg white, mixed with 80 grams of icing sugar over an heated bowl until the nice peaks are there, like you want with meringue. Add a little bit of salt and then mix 120 grams of butter in.
I used a bit of vanilla extract and icing coloring.
It all went fine and I had the consistency I wanted and could work with it very well.
However I decided to do most of the cupcakes the next day. I left the buttercream in the piping bag in the refrigerator overnight.
When i wanted to use it the next day it was 'runny' when it was back at room temperature. It was turned in almost some kind of thick liquid. Mixing it again did not help. I red that storing in the refrigerator should not be a problem, however this was for 'normal' butter cream.
Where did it go wrong, and how can I prevent this next time?
Did I store it wrong? Or is the consistency wrong? Or should I handle this 'meringue butter cream' different from normal butter cream?
Thanks in advanced!
Meringue is a protein-based foam. The proteins form a semi-stable mesh with air bubbles trapped inside. The reason they are semi-stable is that they unravel a bit and hook into each other, Velcro-style. When you introduce fat, it lubricates and smooths the unraveled proteins, so they lose their hooking ability. If the fat is introduced before the eggwhites are beaten, there is a fair chance that you won't get a foam at all.
It is possible to mix the prepared foam with fat without destroying it, although it will lose some volume. This is usually done when the bulk of the mix is not the meringue, but some kind of creamy filling which gets lightened by the air added through the meringue. These fillings are usually set through baking (such as a cheesecake filling), or gelling agents (there are cremes which combine egg whites foam, fat-containing dairy products, and gelatine). As you did not set the icing in any way, the fat from the butter slowly worked itself into the formed hooks of the proteins, destroying the mesh and returning the eggwhites to their original form (a suspension of proteins in water). Eventually, if you overbeat the meringue a bit, you also got some weeping caused by the proteins slowly getting tight enough to expell some water from the structure, but if present at all, this is probably a secondary effect in this case.
Bottom line: the mix you made is inherently unstable. I wouldn't use it as an icing unless the food is eaten quickly. You should get a different recipe. If pure buttercream is too rich for your taste, you can try versions which add yolks or whole eggs (not foamed eggwhites). The lecithine in the yolks emulsifies the rest of the egg with the butter, so you don't get separation problems. Another option is to forego buttercream completely and use whipped cream, it still gives you a rich mouthfeel, but has much less fat per weight and whips to a higher volume.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.523508
| 2012-09-10T15:05:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/26093",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15838
|
Papadum sauces - making my own
In Indian restaurants you get usually Papadum as appetizer. It is often served with 3 sauces, one green sauce with a light peppermint taste, one red a bit sweet sauce and one very hot sauce.
These sauces seem to taste often (but not always) very similar regardless of the restaurant. I tried to copy them (especially the green one) but so far the results were a bit disappointing.
Does anyone have an idea what these sauces are called or how they are made?
They're called chutneys. You probably had cilantro or mint chutney (green), a tamarind one (red and sweet), and a red chili one (spicy). Also common are white coconut-milk and yogurt based ones (usually slightly sweet and not spicy).
The sauces are called chutney (plural chutneys).
The green one, called hari chutney in Hindi, is generally made with a mixture of coriander (cilantro) leaves and mint leaves. Hari means green in Hindi. The leaves (I have used them in a 3:1::coriander:mint ratio) are ground to a fine paste along with a tbsp of sugar, a pinch of salt, and about 2 tbsp of lime juice (to prevent oxidation of the ground greens and to provide a tangy taste). Some variations of this may add ginger (for flavor) or peanuts (as a thickening agent) to the mixture.
The red chutney, called imli chutney in Hindi, is very often made with the juice of tamarind (imli in Hindi). Tamarind is soaked in water, strained and mixed with sugar, rock salt, toasted and ground cumin, dry powdered ginger, and powdered pepper. Rock salt and dry ginger give this chutney its distinct taste. Very often restaurants add artificial red color to this chutney to turn the color from brown to red.
Some more additions to the the green chutney can be: grated coconut paste (for thickening) and green chilies. By the way, chutney is excellent with grilled kebabs etc.
There are some other chutney mixes that I had with popadoms/papadums such as mango chutney or mint and spinach chutney. In Scotland, most Indian restaurants serve papadums with 'spice onions'. This is a bright red coloured onion chutney which is both sweet and hot.
The standard chutneys served with poppadums in most Yorkshire and Midlands restaurants are usually mango chutney (sweet), lime pickled in oil (sour), chopped lightly spiced onion, and variations on the "mint and yoghurt" hari - if it is white, just mint and yoghurt, green, may be also with coriander but usually means it has been coloured, pink usually indicates that powdered chili has been added. If it is a classy place, you sometimes get fresh pomegranite seeds mixed with the chopped onion.
Y'know, everybody calls them poppadums, but what you usually get are pappads - real poppadums are much smaller diameter and lighter texture.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.523759
| 2011-06-29T12:00:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15838",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"D.Wheatley",
"David Caliri",
"Naomi Sommer",
"Reno",
"Sharon P",
"Zatoichi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33668",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33721",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33793",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"karmet",
"ok_"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
9113
|
Why does my minestrone soup end up with so little liquid?
I have been attempting to make minestrone soup recently and I find that by the time I finish cooking it, the "liquid to bits" ratio is not particularly good and there is not enough liquid to really call the dish a soup.
Is it ok to reduce the cooking time? Or increase the amount of stock at the beginning? Or can you suggest another method of ensuring that at the end my soup has more liquid.
please provide your recipe and the details of your proceedure.
Are you "simmering" or "boiling" the soup?
When preparing soup, especially from stock, anything above a very slow simmer is going to reduce the soup, so you end up with something that's more concentrated but - obviously - also much thicker.
What you should be seeing is just a few bubbles escaping to the surface every minute or so. That's it - that's all it takes to cook. If you're seeing more bubbles than that, you've got the heat turned up too high and your liquid is evaporating.
Nice job solving the problem (potentially) instead of providing a band-aid like I did.
You could also put a lid on the pot.
@user2215: You can indeed, but you have to use an even lower heat in that case, otherwise it will boil very quickly due to the trapped steam. I'd also recommend a heavy or tight-fitting lid, otherwise it'll wobble around and vent tiny amounts of steam that will condense again on your stove top, and you'll have a very messy cleanup job afterward.
Without knowing more, I'd say just add more of whatever cooking liquid you're using when you get near the end. The other liquid in the pot will be quite concentrated, so the extra liquid won't dilute things or make the soup seem weak. Give it enough simmering time that it gets cooked some and absorbs all that good flavor, and they it's soup. You might also consider just adding water, since that's all you've actually lost during the cooking process. The flavor part of stock doesn't much leave the pot, just the water. But if you're worried about diluting it, using stock instead of plain water is good insurance.
If your recipe doesn't call for it already, you can also try par-cooking any absorbent foods (beans, pasta) separately and add them in later in the process. This way they don't absorb so much of your cooking liquid. But they don't absorb all that nice flavor as much either. I'd look at this as a last resort if simply adding liquid late isn't getting it for you.
Whenever you are boiling something, you need to consider why you are boiling it.
The commonest and most obvious reason is to hold the stuff that's floating around in there at around 100 degrees centigrade, causing them to cook.
Another reason is to drive out water as steam, making the dish thicker and the flavour more concentrated. This is called reducing.
Which of those you're doing, dictates how you go about it. If your intention is to reduce, then you'll want the soup at a rolling boil, because every bubble represents some water being driven out. Cook on full heat, and watch carefully. It doesn't take long to lose a lot of water this way -- and eventually it will dry out so much that it sticks to the pan. And it will fill your kitchen with steam. There will be condensation rolling down the windows on a cold day.
If you don't intend to reduce, then any bubbles you see represent a waste of energy, and you don't want to lose water from your soup as steam. So get it boiling, then turn the heat right down, and put a lid on so that steam is caught in the lid and drips back into the soup. You want some very gentle bubbling, just to reassure you that the soup's at around boiling temperature.
With experience, you'll be able to get a low simmer easily.
It might be worth investing in an electric slow cooker; simmering stuff gently is what they do best, and they're really cheap now.
Two other things that might thicken up your soup:
Dry ingredients absorbing water -- e.g. pasta or lentils. You just need to add enough liquid to hydrate these ingredients.
Thickening agents such as flour -- either use less/no flour, or add liquid to compensate.
That sounds about right - many italian soups are supposed to be thick like that. Some are more like stews, or a a slightly damp salad! Of course if you want something 'soupier' or a little lighter, just add some more chicken or vegetable stock. If you just want to loosen it up a bit though, add a good splash of good extra virgin olive oil to your bowl (The best use ever for the good stuff, warming it through brings out the flavour - btw you don't want your minestone piping hot for the best flavour)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.524005
| 2010-11-14T20:33:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9113",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Ben Macpherson-Cramp",
"Chris Forrence",
"Damien",
"bikeboy389",
"dgrant",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152414",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18648",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18656",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"justkt",
"mk117",
"user2215"
],
"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
}
|
32162
|
How can I tell when the wax has been removed from citrus fruit?
This evening I tried different ways (taken from other cooking forums) of removing the wax coating from lemons.
Pouring boiling water over
In a bowl with (initially) boiling water for five minutes
Scrubbing with warm water and dishwashing liquid
Scrubbing with warm water and ascorbic acid
Scrubbing with warm water and baking soda.
After each trial I rubbed the lemons with a tea cloth. The methods involving boiling water produced slightly tacky, but less glossy lemons. The other methods made no obvious difference. No method really impressed me, and in the end I couldn't say if one method was better than another.
Before I experiment further, I would like to find a more objective technique for judging the results.
Some methods left the lemons looking as glossy as they were to begin with. Other methods left the skin feeling slightly tacky. Neither of these outcomes seems right to me, although I'm hampered by the fact that I live in a country where you don't see many lemon trees. I'm not quite sure how an unwaxed lemon looks and feels.
Is there some way that I can unambiguously tell whether the wax coating applied to prolong the shelf life of a citrus fruit has been successfully removed?
You can always boil it. Melts the wax right off.
@ashes999 Thanks for the tip. Although I did some trials with boiling water, I didn't try boiling the lemons together with the water. I'll give that a go.
@ChrisSteinbach that was something of a joke. I boiled an apple once and it turned white from melting wax. You probably don't want a boiled lemon.
@ChrisSteinbach are you sure that lemons without the wax are not glossy? I don't remember exactly the look of homegrown lemons I have seen, but I can assure you that a fresh unwaxed apple directly from the tree looks very shiny after a bit of buffing, even without wax. Maybe you removed the wax from your lemons and were not aware that it is gone.
@rumtscho I think it quite possible that unwaxed lemons are glossy. And yes, maybe I succeeded in removing the wax. The thing is, how would I know?
@ChrisSteinbach If you can't know if you've succeeded, why are you bothering? I mean, if you can't tell the difference in whatever food you're making, it seems like it shouldn't matter...
@derobert I didn't say that I can't know I've succeeded. The answer might be that there is no way, in general, to tell whether the wax is there or not, but I don't make that assumption in my question. And before this question is answered, I can't say whether or not it makes a difference to the food. If you are fishing for what triggered this question, I was following a recipe for lemon curd which specified unwaxed lemons. That meant a lot of lemon zest, so I figured it was a good time to get serious about removing the wax.
@ChrisSteinbach The recipe may well have been overspecific. You might try simply asking whether wax on citrus fruit actually matters for something like zesting for curd. (See also XY problems.) On top of that, the FDA says that it's just a drop or two of wax per fruit, and that it's required to be labeled. Unwaxed fruit may still be glossy, and even waxy - fruit produces it naturally.
The best way to remove wax from citrus is simply to wash it with dish soap under warm, running water. Don't obsess about how long you should wash the fruit; usually the wax application is very thin and quickly removed.
There is no easy way to tell whether you have removed the wax, so if you return citrus to fridge after removing the wax, you might want to add a sticker to the fruit, or somehow indicate in another way that it has been washed, so that you know to use that piece of fruit promptly.
The true indicator that you have removed the wax is that the citrus will spoil more rapidly :(
There is unlikely to be any single answer to my question since the coating can be any one of a number of substances including,
Natural or synthetic resins
Carnauba wax
Shellac
Tall oil
Paraffin
Oxidised polyethylene
Candelilla wax
Beeswax
Corn, soy or milk proteins
These may be disolved in a petroleum based solvent, emulsified with a detergent or modified with acids.
It seems that Lemons do indeed have a natural protective coating of wax that is removed during washing. A new coating is applied before packing, chiefly to improve shelf-life, but also to improve appearance and as a medium for post-harvest fungicides.
Coatings are differentiated by their shine, durability (preventing scuffing), ability to minimize fruit shrinkage, and how well the coating itself withstands drying out or breaking down.
A lemon that appears less shiny is not necessarily unwaxed, and it is difficult to say from outward appearances how easily the coat will come off. Needless to say, the coatings are designed not to come off, and some products will do a better job than others.
I tried out @ashes999's advice (which was given jokingly) and boiled a shiny waxed lemon until I was able to detect melted wax on the suface of the water. The lemon was still shiny and tacky when it came out of the water. Using dishwashing liquid and a scouring pad I scrubbed the hot lemon for a few minutes more and finally the tackiness was gone.
Comparing the boiled and scrubbed lemon to another I hadn't treated, I noticed no meaningful difference in appearance. There was however a difference to the touch. The untreated lemon left a slight waxy residue on my skin when I pulled my finger along its surface. The boiled lemon left no detectable residue.
My advice, for what it is worth, is to keep an untreated citrus handy if you are trying to remove wax, in order to compare results post-dewaxing. Compare by touch, rubbing a finger or thumb against the lemon surfaces applying a reasonable amount of pressure (say, enough to make 5mm depression)*.
* Note that there may be citrus coatings that feel the same before and after de-waxing. Or, alternatively, there may be coatings that impregnate the citrus skin to some extent and are never really removed. Like I said in my opening sentence, there probably is no single answer to this question.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.524419
| 2013-02-23T22:06:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32162",
"authors": [
"Alex M",
"Cascabel",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Jan Kubát",
"Koray Tugay",
"Muzer",
"ashes999",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74042",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74043",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74044",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74120",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
14279
|
The way to cook vegetables that keeps most of the nutrients
What is the way to cook vegetables that keeps most of the nutrients?
I prefer the microwave oven - you can cook vegetables in the quickest time in the minimum amount of water.
More taste even than steamed veg!
Generally speaking, steaming is best as the nutrients largely remain in the vegetables. Boiling them leaches the nutrients out into the water.
Of course, for maximum nutrition, don't cook them at all!
Cooking does eliminate a certain amount of nutrients but it also generally increases their bioavailability; most of the time you're not doing yourself any favour by eating food raw, unless you prefer the taste or texture that way.
@ Aaronut - While probably true, there is not a great deal of long term science on the whole "bioavailability" story. Every body is different, so there is not one diet recipe for all. Just studing the for GI levels for different diabetics you can see the huge variance. One man's poison is another man's cake!
@TFD for real? I see at least 13,500 studies related in some way to this topic. It's rather well-studied if your aim is to do specific research (as opposed to making generalizations like "cooking destroys nutrients").
If you're sweating about losing some nutrients, consider eating more of the vegetables in question to make up for this supposed deficit.
Nobody ever suffered malnutrition because they cooked their veg instead of eating them raw.
People have definitely suffered malnutrition because of overprocessing their food (see e.g. the story of beri beri and vit. B). There are indispensable nutrients which are destroyed by high temperatures (e.g. vitamin C), plus, for a given food, not every molecule and its effect on the body is known. So trying to keep as many of these as possible is a good idea. "eat more of the vegetables" isn't such a good advice, because after destroying some vitamins but none of the calories or trace minerals (which have an upper limit), you don't do your health any favors when eating more.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.524997
| 2011-04-23T07:14:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14279",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"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
}
|
6553
|
How long should dry beans be soaked before cooking?
I'm guessing there are different answers depending on the type of dried bean (pinto, kidney, navy, white, etc.) and I am interested in all of them.
So: how long should dry beans be soaked?
Should the water be just tap water, or salted?
Should the soaking water be discarded or used later?
Thanks!
"Should the water be just tap water, or salted?" is answered on http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20754/does-adding-salt-when-soaking-dry-beans-toughen-or-soften-the-skin-of-the-bean
Possible duplicate of Beans rated by cooking time
The proposed duplicate appears to be entirely about cooking times, not soaking times.
I found this article in the LA Times with detailed experiments suggesting that soaking beans is unnecessary and it takes away the flavor and texture.
I have always soaked beans because nobody wants to cook them all day long, steaming up the kitchen and making the house hot.
I am well aware that soaking is not absolutely necessary, but I've never noticed a difference in taste.
Overnight is ideal, but even an hour or two will help. If you don't have much time, you can speed the processs by using hot water. Tap water, and not salted - salt toughens the skin of beans if it used before they are cooked. Most folks discard the soaking water, as it is thought to produce flatulence. Also, if you have a pressure cooker, you can cook dried beans without a pre-soak and get great results.
Good answer. Also, the soaking water can have dirt in it, which you might not want to eat! That's an argument for at least rinsing your beans before you pressure cook them! (And in my experience, soaking beans before pressure cooking does improve the texture...)
do you know how many hours of soaking would be too many?
Regarding pressure cooker not pre-soaking: Americas Test Kitchen Pressure Cooker book states "Soaking beans before cooking is crucial for even cooking and to minimize busted beans." But yeah, I don't always presoak, and the pressure cooked beans always turn out acceptable.
This website has an excellent chart showing the soaking and cooking times for various types of dried beans. Some beans don't need to be soaked at all, while others need at least 8 hours.
I personally always discard the soaking water. I don't like the flavors, and in some cases, colors that the water adds to the food, not to mention the dirt/rocks that settle to the bottom. I normally soak and cook beans in filtered water, but that is only because the area I live in has lots of chlorine in the water and I don't like the taste. Throwing out the water also removes some of the starch so your beans don't foam so much when you cook them.
It depends on the beans: I soak garbanzo, kidney beans for 6-8 hours all others (pinto, navy, white, etc., I cook after 2-3 hours of soaking. Here are the answers to your other questions:
Should the water be just tap water, or salted?
Yes, just tap water will do. Let the beans be immersed in the water and you should be able to put your fingers till your second knuckle.
No need for salt.
Should the soaking water be discarded or used later? Discard the soaking water. this will make the beans less flatulent.
Welcome! I've edited your answer to remove the last paragraph as it does not answer the question and instead reads like and advertisement for that pot. It's one thing to make a recommendation of a product (if you disclose your relationship) when it's asked for but to post it here when completely unrequested, it looks like spam.
For most humans, it behooves the digestive process to soak beans at least overnight. Cooking beans w/o overnight soaking is asking for digestive malaise in most people.
Hello, and welcome to Stack Exchange. We look for focused answers that address the question; I've removed the unnecessary commentary from your post.
I always soak beans because I don't like having to steam up the kitchen or leave them cooking for a long time.
Another Answer Here has a great table for soaking times.
Salt or no salt really only has to do with your personal preference, but I never do it because you can always add salt after, but you can never take it away.
An alternative to pre-soaking is pre-cooking. I have 200g borlotti beans and tomato sauce in the oven right now in a covered casserole. After three hours cooking at 110C I'll take them out and leave them covered until I get home from work after which time they should be nice and soft.
I read an article once that said about 16 hours is the ideal amount of time--so 12 hours plus four more. (so if you washed and soaked them at 7 pm on Monday, ideally you would drain and re-wash and cook them at 11am on Tuesday). This is not always possible though, given everyone's busy schedules. I usually aim for 8 hours or more, and try to keep it less than 24 hours. Old beans may cook easier if you add a pinch of baking soda to the soaking water (rinse it away before you cook them) because it may help soften the skins and help the water get in there to soften them. Instead of using all the cooked beans right away I freeze some to add to baked goods like muffins (mashed before they go in the muffins).
I short-soak my beans in very hot water for an hour, and then drain completely. Then boil the fresh water with a teaspoon of added baking soda. This softens the "hulls" due to the acid-resistance of some beans; acidic products like tomatoes only prolong the water absorption. Result in simmering is much reduced cooking time. Try checking beans in half the normal time.
Tried only with Pinto and Garbanzo, however.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.525218
| 2010-09-02T02:06:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6553",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Daniel Griscom",
"Harlan",
"Jd A",
"Mien",
"Paulb",
"That One Actor",
"Tobias Schulte",
"amphibient",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132518",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580"
],
"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
}
|
7663
|
How long can I keep eggs in the refrigerator?
To keep eggs useful and healthy, what is the average time I can keep them in refrigerator? Can I freeze, and re-use them after melting, or will they be useless or not healthy to eat?
WARNING : the accepted answer is for UNWASHED eggs, which is not what you get the US unless you're raising hens yourself. See https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/1672/67
Back in the 70's, the folks at Mother Earth News performed an egg storage experiment. They stored them in a variety of ways, both refrigerated and unrefrigerated, to see how long they could keep. They concluded that unwashed eggs (aka, "hen fruit" or "cackleberries") stored in a sealed container, and kept at 35° to 40°F, were still perfectly edible after seven months:
(1) Unwashed, fertile homestead eggs seem
to store much better than washed,
unfertile agribiz eggs. Why? Probably
for the simple reason that they're
unwashed ... and not because they're
fertile. Hen fruit, as it comes from
the chicken, is coated with a light
layer of a natural sealing agent
called "bloom". And, while a good wash
may make a batch of eggs look more
attractive, it also removes this
natural protective coating ... leaving
the eggs more subject to aging and
attack by the air and bacteria in the
air.
(2) The very best way we've found to stash
eggs away for long-term storage is in
a sealed container at a temperature of
35° to 40°F. Their whites may become
somewhat runny looking over a period
of time, but even after seven
months—the cackleberries stored in
this manner smell good, taste good,
have a good texture, and—in short—seem
"almost fresh".
Update 2011-02-19: This discussion inspired me to do some experimentation of my own. We keep chickens, so I plucked two eggs on October 2, 2010 and put them in the refrigerator. I just pulled them out today. Here's a picture of one of them next to a fresh egg.
One of these eggs was laid yesterday and the other was laid 140 days (4 months 17 days) ago. Can you guess which is which?
Update 2011-06-05: I completed my eggsperiment today by cracking open two more eggs that I have had in the refrigerator since October 21, 2010. Here they are:
There was no trace of odor, but the whites were definitely lacking in firmness. I scrambled them. They didn't make for very fluffy scramblers due to the watery whites, but they tasted fine. So, I can confirm the findings of the Mother Earth News experiment. Fresh, unwashed eggs stored in the refrigerator were perfectly edible after 7 months 15 days (227 days)!
Excellent! This is the study that I read and couldn't find. Thank you.
Yesterday I cracked into some eggs that must've been in my my fridge for at least a month (from a farmer's market, w/ no age date on the carton), and the yolk looked like ones I get at the grocery store ... so I think you're on to something with the source of eggs being a factor. I know I've had eggs in the fridge well past 2 months that I have been fine. (I kinda go through phases ... lots of eggs for a while, then cold turkey for a while)
@joe- Eggs can be up to 30 days old before they get to the store and possibly age several weeks there.
Then why it is after about a month in my fridge, the shells get very brittle, and the eggs inside smells bad?
@Martin: Are they eggs from the grocery store?
@raven - yes, they are.
@Martin: Well, that's the problem. According to the article to which Sobachatina linked, http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Factsheets/Focus_On_Shell_Eggs/index.asp#38, eggs you get at the store can be up to 45 days old. Also, they are washed, see item (1) above.
Hm, the eggs I buy at the super market will turn runny and smell bad and do expire, why is that?
Please see the chart1 from the USDA:
The short version: 3-5 weeks in the shell.
Healthy
Any egg can go bad, of course, but undamaged eggs will last many weeks in the fridge and I've read studies that have even claimed to have edible eggs after a year at room temperature. I don't refrigerate the eggs that my chickens lay and have yet to see one go bad.
Eggs fresh out of the chicken have an antibacterial bloom and will keep for a ridiculously long time at room temperature. Commercial eggs are washed which removes the bloom and considerably shortens their lifetime.
Useful
All that said- there is a big difference between safe and useful. Useful depends on what you plan to do with it. As an egg ages its individual proteins break down. Eventually the egg white will be watery and the yolk flat and fragile. This can be a good or a bad thing. If you are relying on the structure of the white say for poaching or angel food cake you want the whites as fresh as possible. If you are going to boil them you want them older so the shell will come off more easily. If they are going in a cake mix you probably don't care either way.
With my chickens' eggs from 1-3 days old or so the whites are so sturdy I can pick them up by pinching with two fingers and boiled eggs are impossible to peal. After 4-5 days they are more like what I would get in the store and after a week at room temperature they start getting runny.
Freezing
I have done some experiments with freezing eggs as I get quite a few of them during the summer. I cracked the eggs into an ice tray and then bagged them after they were frozen. They thawed well in the fridge and were very usable. I used them for angel food cake and they worked very well.
One batch, due to my own negligence, got pretty bad freezer burn. They were basically dehydrated and had to be pureed in a blender with water to make them usable again. Make sure you seal them well in freezer bags and any other normal precautions to avoid freezer burn.
1 Egg Storage Chart. From: "Shell Eggs from Farm to Table". Food Safety and Inspection Service website » Food Safety Education » Get Answers » Food Safety Fact Sheets » Egg Products Preparation. United States Department of Agriculture.
Commercial eggs are washed in the US. In the EU, it’s illegal to wash hen’s eggs before retail sale (you can wash lower grade eggs being sold to food businesses). The situation for other countries will vary.
One rule of thumb that I have read in several different places: if the egg floats when you place it in a bowl (or glass?) of water, it is bad. There is an air pocket in the egg that grows as the egg ages - this causes the egg to float eventually.
Personally, I have used eggs that are at least 30 days past the expiration date - they were fine. I wouldn't think twice about using your two and a half week eggs.
To answer your question: there is not a magic length of time - I would discard after 5 weeks past the expiration date.
There's a food safety adage: "When in doubt, throw it out." If safety is the primary concern, err on the side of caution. That said, Jonathan's suggestion of floating eggs sounds familiar from somewhere in the back of my mind...
In a more general cooking context, eggs change as they age. If you are using eggs for their leavening properties, you want fresh eggs. As a binder, they can be older. As a breakfast-y item fresher is better, because you usually want fluffy.
In Spain, every egg has writen the last date you should eat it, so we don't have problems (if you buy the eggs in the supermarket, fresh eggs from the chicken are different).
If you are afraid the egg is not good, because it has been a long time in the frisge, you can put it in a cup of water, if it floats, is not good, if it sinks, it is ok.
Regarding floating eggs, just because they float, it does not mean they are bad! They are just older and they have absorbed air through their shell. I brought 2 dozen eggs home from the store and immediately put them in water to see what would happen. 11 of the 24 eggs floated! You can bet I was not throwing out fresh eggs just because they floated. I also had a dozen eggs that had been in the fridge for a month, only 4 of those eggs floated!
Regardless of the age of the egg, if you crack it open and it looks and smells good, it probably is good! Just, the older the egg, the more thoroughly you should cook it. I have read a household hint that says to lightly dampen a paper towel with vegetable oil and then lightly wipe each eggshell with it. That helps seal the pores in the egg, like it's original coating when it was first laid. This helps protect from moisture loss.
Define "floated". My month+ over-date refrigerated unwashed eggs stand on end, but don't lose touch with the bottom of a glass of normal tap water.
I wouldn't think twice about two and a half weeks old. Let me put it this way. Here in Thailand eggs don't have a sell by date. They are not refrigerated. They are simply put out in plastic bags in bunches. And they taste wonderful. My guess is that they are a little bit fresher than the eggs in US supermarkets, but even so. If the egg has a crack in its shell it might spoil faster. But if the shell is intact it'll last for a quite a while. We've kept eggs for a long time and they were fine.
If you're worried about it, crack one open and give it a sniff. If it smells bad, throw away the bunch.
Generally, I don't really care about the sell-by date, it's not a scientifically grounded datum by any means. I prefer to rely on my own judgement.
Specifically, when I'm unsure with eggs, I open them one at a time in a separate bowl or cup, to see if they look weird or smell bad. Putting them in water, to see if they float, just gives you an idea whether they are rather fresh or rather old, not whther they are edible.
Also, eggs stay fresh quite long, even without a refrigerator. I used to break up eggs and put them in a plastic bottle for easier transport on walking tours in the wild. Even like that, they never went bad on me. I'm told that they have enzymes protecting the yolk, by producing H2O2, but I've never verified that.
I have a flock of free range chickens and my unwashed eggs last over 6 months in sealed containers in the fridge. I had unwashed eggs at room temperature for over 3 months with no problem at all. I had 6 unwashed eggs out of the sealed container in the fridge for 8 months and they were good to eat.
Just fried up some whites from store-bought, brown, organic (I think), 3 month-old eggs, kept in a pretty cold fridge in normal paper egg-carton. They taste fine, and my cats had the same reaction they always do to the yolks, which is a couple of quick licks, then come back later when they've warmed up a bit. The taste may be a bit flatter than even the normal flat of egg whites, and possibly a little more rubbery, but this isn't a very scientific "sample."
My grandmother a long time ago lived in a village without electricity, she stored them in bread flour. That way they can keep for a long time because the flour blocks the egg's shell holes so air cannot get in. You can rub some around an egg and leave it in the container.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.525959
| 2010-09-28T18:17:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7663",
"authors": [
"Akixkisu",
"Andrew Leslie",
"Ash Jolliffe",
"Azi",
"Cees Timmerman",
"Chris Hanson",
"Craig Webster",
"Garrett Serack",
"HasanZayed",
"JBennett",
"Jessica Sanchez",
"Jin",
"Joe",
"Joey",
"Martin",
"Mike Scott",
"Sangita",
"Sobachatina",
"Sunflowerandcat",
"Zombies",
"ZynWoof",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14757",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15761",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15768",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17027",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17028",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17029",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17030",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17043",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20789",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2156",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4086",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89802",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91517",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93654",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9607",
"klce",
"liz",
"rabajara",
"raven",
"user17027",
"user2068022",
"yo'"
],
"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
}
|
8137
|
Can I use a Wok ring on a gas range?
I have just purchased a GE Cafe gas range. The user guide indicates:
Do not use a wok on the cooking surface if the wok has a round metal ring that is placed over the burner grate to support the wok. This ring acts as a heat trap, which may damage the burner grate and burner head.
Also, it may cause the burner to work improperly. This may cause a carbon monoxide level above that allowed by current standards, resulting in a health hazard.
However, I have read several times on the web that using a round bottom wok with a wok ring yields optimal results when cooking on a gas range.
What do you think?
Source: Use and Care Manual.
I find it amusing that your range warns you the cooking ring will work as intended. It's supposed to be heat trap, and focus heat on the bottom of the wok.
That said, they are also correct that it may discolor the burner grate. I can't really say what your grates are made from, and many cooking materials discolor at high temperatures. I think the main idea behind this paragraph in your manual is to save them from warranty replacements for discolored grates.
I also find it highly suspect that a wok could damage the burner itself. They are usually ceramic, in direct contact with open flame, and any pan traps heat to some degree. Burners get HOT and have to be able to take it. Although the little decorative cap on the burner might discolor as well.
All wok rings are not created equal; quality ones are made of cast iron.
Try to find one made specifically for your gas range: They are designed to lock onto the grate and function as an extension of the grate. A ring that is designed for your range makes cooking in a wok an absolute joy as the wok is steady and balanced and heats evenly without fear of wobbling, sliding or over heating your range..
I recommend going to the web site of your range manufacturer and ordering it, if it's an option. If your particular make of range doesn't have the accessory, try to find a cast iron one from another gas appliance company that's as close to your grate configuration as possible , but keep in mind, nothing will fit as good, and be as safe and steady as the one cut specifically for your own model. The wok ring plays an important safety role in cooking in a wok.
Our wok has become a permanent part of our gas range as we use it for everything. The convenience of having a big sauce pan/ bowl/ fry pan always on top and ready for fire makes a nice addition to our kitchen..
Melting of "wok" burners is common when flat bases pans are used. They reflect the heat back. Always follow the manufacturers directions!Useing a wok with a ring on the bottom will most likely damage the cooktop. A good wok on a good burner doesnt need such rings.
I have a Heartland Legend range. So far, the best technique I've found is to remove the grate altogether and balance a round-bottom wok directly on the burner.
I've tried wok rings but they have problems:
Not enough oxygen gets to the flame, and
Heat is trapped at the bottom and doesn't flow up the sides.
I'm thinking that a wire wok ring is the way to go. The only one I've been able to find is Joyce Chen's J31-0063 Chrome Steel Wire Wok Ring. I ordered one from Amazon and am waiting to see if it works better.
Does anyone else have experience with wok rings on high-perfomance gas ranges?
This is a great article on how to modify your stove for a wok, including the use of wok rings.
Here's the evaluation that I posted on Amazon for the Joyce Chen J31-0063 Chrome Steel Wire Wok Ring
Good wok rings have round sections cut out to stop excessive build up of heat and fumes.
I have used my wok and wok ring on my indoor gas range several times with no problem. The metal grates that usually cover the eyes are removable, and I always remove the grate on the eye that I use before placing the wok ring around the burner.
Keep in mind, it is preferable to use an outdoor propane burner as you will get the higher heat that is optimal for wok cooking and stir-frying. I use the wok ring on my outdoor burner as well.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.526945
| 2010-10-15T00:51:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8137",
"authors": [
"Joi",
"Jojomir",
"Nello Lucchesi",
"Rita Van Waard",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123084",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123108",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31518",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36471",
"rebecca michael",
"user36471"
],
"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
}
|
19507
|
How to prepare Spanish Migas?
Spanish Migas is a stale bread based regional dish. It's prepared with different ingredients all over the peninsula. The Portuguese have their own variant.
How can the bread be cut with the least amount of crumbles? (does it depend on the bread type, the time the bread has gone stale, should the bread be fresh or completely dry, etc)
How can you fry the bread in such a way that the outside is fried and the inside is moist? (is there an amount of water that can be measured, how hot should the pan be, which pan should be used, how much oil should be used)
Link to recipe? I'm not familiar with the dish by that name, and I do a lot of Spanish/Portuguese cooking.
@FuzzyChef: Do you mind Spanish recipes? There isn't much translated...
Regarding your questions:
1) How can the bread be cut with the least amount of crumbles?
Traditionally migas de pastor (shepherd's migas) were the result of rubbing a piece or very dry bread with a couple of rough hands. If you don't rough hands, another way is rubbing 2 halves (lengthways) of a bread stick. This way the migas are all crumbs, but those are traditional migas.
If you want to chop the bread and have dices of bread to fry: Traditional recipes call for dicing bread the day before you cook migas. I advise you to dice the bread (size of normal dice would be fine, bigger would be ok too) when the bread is still soft. Because, if bread is too dry can be even a bit dangerous to chop...
(does it depend on the bread type, the time the bread has gone stale, should the bread be fresh or completely dry, etc)
Type of bread: Tradicional recipes call for breads such as chiabatta / candeal. These breads have a strong crust. Nowadays, breads like baguette or, if you're living in Spain, the common "pistolas" are ok too (and easier to chop / dice too).
Time for bread going stale: it depends of the real quality of bread and your living location. Meaning: the more artisan the bread is, the longer time time would need to go stale. A common bread is normally not so good, so it really depends where you live. Regarding your location: If you live close to the sea, bread would go even softer, like chewing gum, don't expect like stone-stale bread. If you live in a drier environment, it will get dry and stale in a couple of days. I would wait much time, because believe me it is really difficult to chop and dice when bread gets very dry.
Therefore, experience is the key for every migas cook! I know it's not very exact, but that's the way it is...
About purchasing the bread fresh or not: In Spain, in places where migas are a very common dish, you can find diced migas ready to fry in a normal supermarket. Outside these regions, you would only find normal "fresh" bread.
How can you fry the bread in such a way that the outside is fried and the inside is moist? (is there an amount of water that can be measured, how hot should the pan be, which pan should be used, how much oil should be used)
Water and oil needed: Any spanish granny would say that there is no measure for this... crazy, huh? I found some recipes which call for 1 glass of water (250 ml) per half bread stick. Some recipes say to wait 12 hours to moisture bread, some others don't... Oil: this is really your choice. I advise to cover the base of a frying pan with olive oil and some garlic cloves, when it is hot, add the diced bread and cover bread with oil. If you see oil hasn't moisture all the bread in the pan, add some more, little by little. Greasy migas are not so good...
About the pan: it is better to use a pan like this, not so deep not so flat either.
Oh, and you didn't say anything about chorizo or panceta (fresh bacon). Without them migas are not real ;) Fried them before adding to the migas.
Hope this helps!!
Thanks Ana, I've described the methods that I've seen for making Migas see below.
I think Ana's answer is great for dicing the bread and general bread advise.
I've seen a number of migas' cooks at work and here's the extract. Which method would you use?
The anti-migas. The best migas I've ever had were/are made by a friend of mine. His method is modern and that's why I call it anti-migas. He fries the chorizo, bacon, garlic, etc. and mixes the grease and the rest of the ingredients with the bread until he gets it moist but not too much so. He then let's the mixture sit for some time. One minute in the microwave and done. (note: I do not own a microwave).
Dry on grease migas. This is the method described by Anna. The bread is cubed and can get dry afterwards. Then everything is fried and put apart. Then the dry cubes are put on top of the grease, water and more grease are added and stirred on a medium flame for about 10'. Second best migas by another friend of mine.
Wet on grease migas. This is the classic method as described by FuzzyChef. The cubes are soaked pretty moist the day before and are covered with a cloth. The rest is just as the second method, but it takes much longer to get them right. The wetter they are, the longer it takes. A Spanish aunt of my wife does that.
Dry on dry migas. The problem with method 2 and 3 (for me) is that the bread becomes stuck to the bottom of the pan. This method starts dry and adds grease and water after adding the bread to the pan. The grease and water are spooned onto the bread so the bread doesn't become soaked. My neighbor and I use this method... but my (neighbor's) migas are not at the top of this list :-(
Of course, any of these general methods depend on the amount of water added, the amount of grease and the size of the cubes.
Wow! I like the list you've made! Number 3 takes time but also makes wonderful migas! And number 1 is fantastic, just amazed me! I may try it in the near future ;)
To answer your questions. I have not actually prepared Spanish migas, but I have made numerous other dishes involving stale bread, fried, baked or simmered, including some Spanish dishes.
I would suggest using chewy bread with a heavy crust, which will hold together better through soaking and frying. Like a French batard or pain au levain, or even a baguette. I don't know Spanish or Portuguese breads well enough to suggest the appropriate loaf. Note that this will be quite difficult to cut once stale; I suggest using a medium cleaver rather than a bread knife.
Cut large cubes of bread and soak them with just a little salt water for a long time (this is what the recipe you linked specifies, as well). Then fry them with lots of grease on high heat so that the outside cooks quickly before the inside dries out.
It's hard to obtain good bread, and getting the correct point of chewyness is even harder. Next time I'll try with the cleaver. Frying on high heat is not recommended by the experts, they prefer low and slow, but it's a time consuming activity.
This is a recipe for Mexican Migas. It uses tortillas, pan fried, instead of bread, which may address (2). Another approach would be to look into deep frying techniques--some batters or cooking methods produce texture contrasts just like what you're looking for.
Re 1: Yes, it does depend on the bread type. I think dry bread tends to crumb up more...so I would cut it when it's fresher and hasn't gone stale yet. I feel obligated to mention my philosophy on cooking: that the most educational approach is to use leftover ingredients, or at least whatever is easily available, to learn to adapt to different conditions.
So while I think fresher bread might crumb less, perhaps you'll figure out a way to make dry bread easily sliceable without crumbs. Or maybe you can try out a nice side dish to use the small crumbs...or save the small crumbs for another time. There's a lot of room to be creative here.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.527367
| 2011-12-08T14:19:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19507",
"authors": [
"Ana_ILTdP",
"BaffledCook",
"FuzzyChef",
"Janet Costidell",
"Mark Smith",
"Simon Fraser",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42444",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47701",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47703",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8675",
"mhvelplund",
"sch",
"zigojacko"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4286
|
Can I reuse coconut oil for cooking?
I was using Coconut oil to fry up tostada shells and I was wondering if its safe to reuse the oil I used the night before to cook up more shells the next day?
For most oils, you can re-use them several times, if you're OK with (or want) the flavors the oil takes on from the food cooked in it.
The thing to watch is the smoke point. That's when the oil starts sending off whisps of smoke. For coconut oil, that's 350F. As oil is re-used, that smoke point starts to drop until it's no longer able to stay hot enough to properly fry food.
We're dealing with an oil that has a relatively low smoke point in the first place at 350F, as opposed to 450F for peanut oil, and proper frying needs to be pretty close to 350F in order to have the moisture in the food hold out the oil from rushing into the food like a sponge. That, unfortunately means that coconut oil isn't a great candidate for re-use.
Please see this question: Frying Oil Reuse. It's not explicitly about coconut oil, but I don't know why there would be any difference.
I fry sweet potatoes chucks in coconut oil and strain it through a coffee filter into a bottle. the next morning I use it again for the sweet potatoes. Has been working out just fine. I reuse it about ten times, adding new coconut oil to the pan as the old oil seems to gradually soak into the potatoes. It produces great sweet potato home fries every time.
I reuse refined coconut several times. I run it through a very small strainer and pop it in the fridge if I am not going to use it again in the next day or so. I use it mainly on veggies I put panko on the outside. The cooked veggies do not leave a very strong flavor in the oil. I cook them low and slow.
You could surely reuse coconut oil, but I suggest not to use the same oil for frying multiple times .Isn't a healthy option .
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.528108
| 2010-08-05T01:30:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4286",
"authors": [
"AlexVadzum",
"Javier López",
"Michael R. Bailey",
"aportr",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8054",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8055",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8056",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8078",
"stardiviner"
],
"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
}
|
3594
|
Cooking an egg without oil or butter
I like scrambled and fried eggs but the butter or oil probably add unnecessary calories. How can I fry an egg with no butter? I tried in a Teflon pan but it was a mess.
The calories from frying an egg in butter are so not unnecessary. They are delicious!
It's really not that many calories, unless you've been deep-frying your egg all these years.
Besides, fat doesn't make people fat. Sugar does.
@Carmi: Carbohydrates in general, assuming they aren't burned off.
Eggs already are about 10% fat (a 50g egg has about 5g fat, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egg_(food)#Cholesterol_and_fat), so if you're trying to reduce fat intake, your best bet is to avoid eating eggs altogether rather than making them 100% less delicious. That said, a little oil or butter isn't going to dramatically impact the total amount of fat consumed.
@Aaronut: Most carbohydrates are deconstructed into glucose and used by the body. However, there's something about certain sugars (fructose, and sucrose which is half fructose) that only gets metabolised in the liver. This goes straight to fat, and messes up your system to boot.
Exercise is to raise your metabolic rate so that you generally use more energy. The specific calories for one session of exercise are almost irrelevant. 20 minute run = 1 cookie.
Eggs might be about 10% fat by weight, but the calories are usually about 2/3 from fat and 1/3 from protein.
Well, frying means to cook in oil, so technically you can't. Fat also is delicious, so you'll lose something in the process besides just calories.
If you are using teflon, ceramic, or some other non-stick, don't bring the heat up too much. Scrambling your eggs with milk will make them more fluffy, and I bet less likely to stick. Use (sigh) PAM or another aerosolized cooking spray. Or just 'wipe' the pan with an oiled paper towel. It would impart minimal calories.
It's sad, but microwaving eggs will cook them without adding calories (or anything else). You can also make absolutely delicious eggs by soft-boiling them, which adds nothing at all.
My more general advice is to learn to love a little fat and to consume a variety of fresh, unprocessed foods which taste great. It's much healthier in the long run than just cutting away at a number. Better to go for some walks/runs/lifts then sacrifice flavor. And fat leads to fullness, which leads to less wasted calories on junk later in the day.
Ocaasi suggested everything I was going to.
Well said! The reason I ask is because my wife is on a diet and asks me to cook eggs without butter or oil and I can't help but think that the little oil I add will make much difference.
+1 for the soft-boiled egg suggestion (though I tend to mash my soft-boiled eggs with butter, salt, and pepper...) and +1 for loving a little fat and eating better.
I refuse to live in a universe that bad-mouths PAM. PAM rules! for us fatties that need to fry. (BTW for those over-eager editors out there, that non-standard punctuation was on purpose.)
+1 This is a great answer. Well written, answers the question and offers good, related advice. For my own part, I find aerosolized cooking spray far superior to wiping with an oily paper towel, from a non-sticking point of view. Not sure why, but I've tested it again and again with the same results. I've also started cooking eggs in a Debuyer iron pan, and the results are nothing short of amazing.
Also I just realized this is a necro-answer. Ocaasi hasn't been active here for 2 years.
Poached eggs are a good healthy alternative to a fried egg. In my opinion they are nicer than fried eggs but they must be cooked with fresh eggs.
+1 I love poached eggs. Eaten on toast with a bit of ketchup. :D
Do you mean to say that scrambled eggs can be cooked with non-fresh eggs? Or do you mean that poached eggs requires eggs much much fresher than scrambled eggs?
If your eggs aren't very fresh the white will spread out a lot when you're poaching it and more of it will float away. Fresher eggs hold together better. Same with fried eggs; a fresher egg will keep a nice neat compact shape better without spreading out across the whole pan. For scrambled eggs it doesn't matter since you're breaking them up anyway.
You can use a non-stick cooking spray like PAM. It's canola oil based, but if used properly in a very brief spray you'll only be adding about 3-5 calories to your egg.
You can also get pump sprayers to use other types of oil, but it doesn't have the surfactants of cooking sprays, so you might have to use a touch more to get an even coat.
I don't know if it's just a bad one but the pump sprayer I've used leaks oil all over the place and squirts rather than sprays. It's basically worthless. Have you had better results?
I have a Misto brand pump sprayer that works pretty well. If I over-pump it, it squirts rather than sprays. Same if I over-fill it. It doesn't spray nearly as well as Pam would, but it works passably well.
Every article about non-stick pans notes you shouldn’t use a non-stick spray with them as they degrade the life of the pan.
Just thought of an idea that might be interesting if you really wanted a scrambled egg, and didn't want to worry about scrambling. What if you "scrambled" the egg, while still inside the shell, would that even work? Well a bit of googling brought me to an instructables page detailing exactly that.
So apparently, you can! Summary:
Grab an egg, and a pair of nylons
Put the raw egg in the centre of one of the legs
grab either end of the leg with each hand and spin it around till the egg is twisted 20-25 times.
Pull quickly, and it should spin it back the other way rapidly.
You can verify that it worked, by shinning a light through it in a dark room. (Egg should appear an even red throughout, rather than yellow (you may even be able to see the yolk outline, if it's unbroken).
Boil as you would normally a hard-boiled egg.
Crack and Enjoy!
Doesn't answer the question but it's a good tip! I'm going to try this later.
Well your title specifies "cooking" and your question specifies "scrambled", so I thought this warranted being slipped in. :-)
No problem! Glad you did. Forgot I mentioned scrambled up there. I asked this question a LONG time ago.
Scrambed eggs can be done in the microwave and they can taste good. The important part below is to cook the eggs in the microwave for a short time, then take them out, stir/mash and put them back in.
Crack two or three eggs into a bowl or microwave safe container.
Add a splash of milk (no need to measure, but if you want, 1 tblsp per egg)
Crack some pepper and add a pinch of salt.
Mix together well with a fork.
Put in the microwave for 1 minute (not longer!)
Take out, stir contents, especially removing the partially cooked eggs from the side of the bowl.
Put in the microwave for 1 minute (not longer!)
Take out, stir contents. If you have more cooked parts now, take a fork and mash them up. It's important to get the consistency the same throughout the bowl now.
You may need to microwave for 0 seconds, 30 seconds, or 1 minute, depending on number of eggs or microwave.
It's also important to remove the eggs before they look done. And keep watching them while they microwave! Eggs can overcook so quickly.
Frankly, it's just so much easier to do them in a pan.
You can get round the issue of the oil by just using a small amount of water in the frying pan instead, not so much frying as shallow boiling. You will still end up with the fried egg look but without any of the added calories.
Not that I would recommend this as the oil or butter add to the flavour and look of the fried egg.
Shallow boiling is poaching.
I don't recommend it, in fact I recommend frying eggs in a little bacon grease, but if you want the eggs with almost no added fats consider getting a microwave egg cooker. For example, this well regarded microwave egg cooker listed on Amazon. It will probably need at least a few drops of oil to release the eggs. (Technically closer to poaching than frying.)
I have been cutting down on oil and butter as well, and have discovered a method for making the eggs tasty in the process: Dissolve a bullion cube in the egg and then fry per usual. I found it is best to keep stirring the eggs (I.E. scramble them) and to not preheat the pan.
How many eggs per cube? Isn't the flavouring way too strong? The ones here are packed with salt.
Use olive-oil spray (or some other PAM imitation) in a non-stick pan. For scambled eggs, stir frequently. For both kinds of eggs, the key is to spray the pan while it's hot and then immediately add your eggs before the spray burns away.
It's not as good as oil, but it will work.
Rex Stout (author of the Nero Wolfe novels) has a scrambled egg recipe with no butter or oil, where six eggs are stirred in a skillet from 20 to 40 minutes.
I've used this recipe a number of times and I can say that it although it took some time to get right, the end results are...almost worth it. The key thing to get right is temperature. On a gas hob, you need the smallest ring on the lowest heat and even then you may need an asbestos pad in-between the flame and the skillet. On an electric hob you mileage will vary; I've had electric hobs where you can turn down the heat so low that you can't even cook an egg and still others where you will once again need an asbestos pad.
The next thing is to stir slowly and often. You will need to sit there for the whole cooking period scraping the bottom of the skillet with a spatula. I recommend using a non-stick skillet and a heat-resistent, silicone rubber spatula. I stir about once every five seconds.
Rex himself says that 20 minute eggs are good enough to eat and 40 minute eggs are close to perfect.
Splurge on a small top-shelf non-stick pan. You can cook eggs with no fat at all, and nothing will stick.
Chef Daniel Patterson uses a poaching technique to make scrambled eggs:
http://food52.com/blog/3379_daniel_pattersons_poached_scrambled_eggs
I'd recommend this egg cooker from Lakeland. I've used mine every morning to cook 12 eggs and it saves messing around with pans full of boiling water. It can only do 7 at a time though and it's vicious because of the steam.
Fry the eggs into a very hot dry pan, turn off the heat with the pan still on, cover and wait a while. Then take the cover off and you will be able to pry the somewhat wet, but fried, eggs off using a decent spatula, with little to no egg stuck on the pan.
Here's what I think is happening.
The initial burst of heat provides a sufficiently high temperature to allow browning to occur, which characterises a fried egg and not a boiled or poached one. Later, the lid will trap moisture which will gradually soften the egg that has dried to the pan. As the pan cools, the egg will shrink slightly. At the same time, condensation will accumulate between the egg and the pan, allowing the egg to be pried off more easily, or in some cases slide around completely freely.
I could be wrong on the explanation, but the method works wonders for me.
I "fry" my eggs on a "dry grill" meaning in my ceramic pan with no oils or butter. On low heat and a lid, they come out just as tasty as the regular way.
"Fried" my eggs for years with no oil or butter I use a pan for pancakes works a treat slides right off... you just flip the egg once it's cooked on the one side.
Failing that, put oil in pan olive or rapeseed oil. apparently rapeseed is better for frying something to do with it being able to handle a higher heat I dunno you'll have to look it up.... anyways
Oil in pan just a drop, then spread it around with a pice of kitchen roll it removes most of the oil flip the egg as above and uncles your bob
I actually cook my eggs in a frying pan without any oils or butter at all. I just crack an egg into the frying pan (it has Teflon, but I think it would work in a regular pan too) and turn it on medium-low heat. After a few minutes the egg will start puffing up, and it might "pop" a few bubbles.
When one or 2 millimeters of the edge of the egg gets dark brown (the rest will stay white) you take a big shallow spoon or spatula (metal, plastic and silicone all work, metal is best) and lightly go around the edge of the egg to sort of lift it off the pan. Not the whole egg, just a bit of the edge. Go around the whole edge of the egg, then wait a little longer and carefully push your spoon/spatula all the way under the egg and flip it over. If you're using a plastic or silicon spoon/spatula you might need to use two so that you can pick it up without it breaking.
If you want the yolk to be fully cooked, at right after you crack the egg you should poke a little hole in the yolk and squish it a bit so that some of the yolk spills out over the white.
This is my favourite way of cooking eggs, and you don't get the extra calories from butter or oil. I hope you like it too!
There is no way this will work without Teflon (unless you have another kind of non-stick surface, like properly seasoned iron or a new ceramic pan). The advice to use metal on Teflon is very wrong, you will scratch the pan. Also, this won't work with scrambled eggs, and it sounds like you might be overcooking the egg white.
I just fried an egg and used a little spray butter on the pan...it is zero calorie and worked great and tasted good, too.
Really, there is a product called "butter" which is zero calories? I would like to see a link to it, intrigued what its ingredients could be. Silicone?
Quick, unscientific google search: http://strengthsystems.wordpress.com/2008/01/13/spray-butters-and-food-labels/ Are we talking about that? Definitely not 0 calorie if the article is accurate...
@rumtscho: If the article I linked is accurate, they can call it zero calorie, because their self defined serving size contains less than some semi-arbitrary amount of calories.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.528364
| 2010-07-28T17:00:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3594",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Adam Jaskiewicz",
"Andy",
"April ",
"Carmi",
"DanielOfTaebl",
"Dhiren Sahu",
"Doug",
"Dusty",
"In the Booley House",
"Joe",
"JoeFish",
"Jonnybojangles",
"João Vieira",
"JustRightMenus",
"KAGO MAOTO",
"Kevin Horvath",
"Kim Statham",
"Kymberly Sangalang",
"Kyra",
"Ladlestein",
"Mien",
"Muhammad Mumtaz",
"Ocaasi",
"RonJohn",
"Seiaeka",
"ShinyFox",
"Stephanie",
"Thomas Riley",
"Tim Gilbert",
"Tomas",
"Uncle Long Hair",
"bennymo",
"fahadash",
"hippietrail",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131877",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20795",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43239",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57150",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57202",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6506",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6510",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6527",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6529",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6556",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6577",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6695",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6735",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8087",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8522",
"nohat",
"olfek",
"quasistoic",
"rumtscho",
"tQuarella",
"talon8",
"tooshel",
"user57106"
],
"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
}
|
4835
|
What kind of frosting doesn't need to be refrigerated?
I'm looking for a frosting I can leave on the counter (under a cover of some kind) for a few days.
What kind of frosting (for a cake or cupcakes) would stand up to this?
Ideally, I would like this to be something that I could make from scratch.
I like this question. Most frostings are made with things that one would think microbes would love to eat, but are routinely left out at room temperature. Is this acceptable because the sugar concentration is so high they can't eat it?
Whipped vegetable shortening with powdered sugar. I can make it up a week in advance, probably even longer, and keep it in an airtight container in a cool place. And it has the advantage that it's pure white (if you use imitation vanilla extract, or lemon extract), so you can get vibrant colors on whatever you're decorating.
If you make too much, you can then make flowers and let them dry out, then store those for a year or more.
Here's the recipe I use, that I got from Jane who taught two of the cake decorating classes I took (and who decorated cakes professionally):
4 lb powdered sugar
1 TB cream of tartar
1 1/4 c. of white shortening (crisco ... the sticks are easy to measure)
a pinch of salt
1 TB extract of your choice
3/4 to 1c. of water (maybe more depending on humidity)
Put all ingredients except the water into a mixer. Add 3/4 c. water, and slowly add more to make the consistancy of your choice. Mix on low speed 'til mixed, then on #6 or 8 for 6 to 7 minutes. Consistency should be "creamy" -- like cream cheese when soft. Stiff icing should be creamy also.
If it's just for a few days, I'd use butter over the shortening as butter is definitely not going to go bad in that time frame and it will taste a zillion times better than crisco.
@Allison : I've been surprised at how many people comment on how good the icing is, even when I'm using imitation clear extract so I can match colors. I guess too many people are used to the stuff in a can at the grocery store. But it does have the advantage that it's a little more tolerant of heat than butter.
I guess it depends on the palate of the tasters and what they're used to... afterall plenty of people like "Cool Whip" even though I think it's revolting and don't understand how anyone could accept it as a substitute for real whipped cream! :) My experience is that at "room temperature", butter icing is fine, but if you plan to have your cake in a warmer environment or direct sunlight, melty icing might indeed be an issue.
@Allison : it's like American fast food -- if you put enough fat and sugar in it, people will like it ... I don't know if it's a physiological thing (you're naturally inclined to like those flavors, as they're useful for survival), or what. As for the Cool Whip -- there's some of us who can't do dairy, so I admit, I even had some the other day when whipped cream (admittedly, from a can) was an alternative.
If anyone is working in commercial qualtities, there are shortenings purpose made for cakes and icings that work great. One that comes to mind is Sweetex, but there are others. I've never found these specialty shortenings in retail.
I've never had a buttercream frosting consisting of nothing but butter, powdered sugar and vanilla (and often cocoa or coloring) go bad. Even when it's got a little milk in it. There are two reasons for this. One, it doesn't last long enough. Hey! Where'd that last piece of cake go? Two, though I'm no expert, I think it is the high amount of sugar as Michael alluded to. I've had the infrequent cake with a piece or two that have hung around for a week without any problems other than a little drying.
growing up we did not refrigerate our butter, we kept it in a butter dish in the pantry. Now, this was salted butter and we went through a stick a week, so I have no idea if it would eventually go bad. Butter is a pretty safe bet though
@Manako: People used to keep their eggs out on the counter, too. But they were going straight from the chicken to the pan within several days - not spending a few weeks who knows where. We keep our unsalted butter out now after having grown up on refrigerated butter and margarine. My grandmother used to keep a little container of bacon drippings right next to the stove (I keep mine refrigerated).
@Manako Traditionally, butter and eggs can indeed be kept at room temperature. The length of time does depend on temperature. Traditionally, bacon grease will last quite a while at room temperature due to its high salt content. Just be sure not to mix other oil/grease types with the bacon grease.
Homemade? A buttercream frosting made with water instead of milk will last for a couple of days.
I imagine the canned stuff you can buy in a grocery store will last longer due to preservatives.
As an alternative you could just make whatever frosting you felt like, and keep it refrigerated until you needed to use it.
If you have a buttercream recipe that calls for milk, substitute it with water, and if it calls for butter substitute it with shortening. Shortening is generally kept on the shelf, so it doesn't need to be refrigerated.
Basically whatever ingredients you add in, if they generally need to be refrigerated, then it can't be left out.
I would think any of the store bought icings (like Duncan Hines), which are basically 100% hyrdogenated oil + sugar would keep for a day or two once opened (maybe much longer).
Anything you make yourself using real ingredients, like butter, is going to go rancid pretty quick.
What is a "real" ingredient?
As opposed to imaginary ingredients, @Mike. Everyone knows that Unicorn Lard lasts forever, but it's hard to come by.
lol - uh, I meant in the general sense of "not-processed". If it's processed, like Hydrogenated Oil, it's usually designed to have a long shelf-life. So real = butter, eggs, milk, lard. Not real = high fructose corn syrup, guar gum, crisco, etc.
Not to be a pedant, but butter, milk, and lard are all "processed". Butter and lard via purification processes that extract the fat from the raw ingredients; milk via skimming, homogenization and pasteurization. Guar gum is no more processed than white flour. HFCS and hydrogenated oils are admittedly somewhat more processed than some other ingredients, but they are unhealthy not because of the processing, but because of result of the processing. "Natural" sources of hydrogenated oil wouldn't be any healthier.
Butter, especially salted butter, does not go rancid that fast and certainly not in the "few days" time frame stated in the question.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.529573
| 2010-08-10T23:38:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4835",
"authors": [
"Allison",
"Brenda D Moore",
"Dennis Williamson",
"Dotty L",
"Eclipse",
"Greg Debus",
"Ian Pugsley",
"JS.",
"James Pullar",
"Joe",
"Manako",
"Michael Natkin",
"Mike Sherov",
"Paulb",
"Rake36",
"Richard Midgette",
"Sergey",
"Shog9",
"Vytenis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9325",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9329",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99",
"kevingessner",
"mick kemp",
"user9291"
],
"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
}
|
16964
|
What is the critical ratio of eggs to potatoes between an egg salad and a potato salad?
It's probably not a one to one ratio. Do you have any suggestions?
Pretty pointless question, especially because there's a rather large range of "potato and egg salad" in the middle, and because most people don't put potato in their egg salad.
Interesting; while I've had many varieties of potato salad with egg in it, I've never had egg salad with potatoes in it...
I'm with @matthias on this one, if I'd put a potato in my egg salad I wouldn't think of it as an egg salad anymore.
1 potato to three eggs for egg salad with potato in. Reverse for potato salad with egg in.
This seems more like a joke than an answer; it's best to say things like this as comments (once you accrue enough rep to do so).
Are you asking at what percentage of potatoes does a formerly egg salad become potato salad and vice versa?
My egg salad recipe does not call for potatoes, but I believe my mom puts maybe two hard boiled eggs for every 6-8 potatoes in her potato salad.
My egg salad has a ratio of 100% eggs, 0% potatoes. My potato salad has a half dozen eggs to 2 1/2 kilos/5 pounds of potatoes, I chop them fine. Sometimes I will make pretty eggs and put them on top though, usually sliced thin or quartered, then I use 8 eggs.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.530239
| 2011-08-18T18:36:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16964",
"authors": [
"Alex",
"Barshan Das",
"Cascabel",
"Jason",
"Tai Harris",
"WeirdestQuestions",
"countryanne",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36336",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36337",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36338",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36653",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40719",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6143",
"matthias",
"takrl"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
14341
|
why is cooking in oil or fat considered dry heating?
Why is cooking in oil or fat considered dry heating, while cooking in wine is considered moist heating?
Oil is dry heat because oil contains no water. Wine does.
The "moist" in moist heat really means water. In moist heat cooking, water acts as a solvent and actually dissolves much of the solid matter in the food - hence the reason why steaming and boiling tend to make food rather soft or even soggy.
Oil, on the other hand, is very rarely a solvent. There are certain food compounds that are fat-soluble, but most are water-soluble and oil, being hydrophobic, actually blocks any contact with water, thus preventing any dissolution, and generally making the food crispier as well as promoting the Maillard reaction (which can only occur with dry heat, due to the low boiling point of water).
It may seem counterintuitive, but oil isn't wet. It just looks that way.
wine contains water and oil doesn't? i'll ask a chemist friend. I didn't think they added water to wine
if I squeeze juice out of a grape, would you say that contains water? What other things don't contain water? Just oil and fat? how would you test for that? how about 100% ethanol?
@barlop, that is a messy question, many different things you regularly drink contain a large amount of water. Wine, fruit juice, soda. Oil is by definition a lipid, heat it up and add water to it, you will get to see how little water can dissolve.
@barlop: Yes, grapes are mostly water.
@barlop: They don't add water to wine, it already has water in it. Most wine is in fact 75-85% water. Most liquids in general (milk, juice) and many solids (meats, fish) are composed largely of water. We are mostly water.
@Aaronut How can you test for that? to see oil has no water, grape juice has water.
@barlop: This is honestly what I would have considered common knowledge. If you really feel the need to test it, then mix it with water. If it dissolves, then it's likely water-based. If not, then it is (or contains) some other immiscible solvent, such as lipids (oil/fat). You can also heat it; if anything starts to boil off at or very close to 100° C, then it's probably got water in it. Oils and fats can be heated to several hundred °C before they start to smoke and eventually ignite (they never boil).
(There are several exceptions to the miscibility test - for example, alcohols are miscible in water, but it's pretty easy to tell when something is alcohol-based by the smell. Really the test is more effective the other way around; if it's immiscible in water then it clearly has no water to begin with.)
Wikipedia reports the following text for the olive oil: "Olive oil is composed mainly of the mixed triglyceride esters of oleic acid and palmitic acid and of other fatty acids, along with traces of squalene (up to 0.7%) and sterols (about 0.2% phytosterol and tocosterols). The composition varies by cultivar, region, altitude, time of harvest, and extraction process." As you see, it doesn't report olive oil contains tracks of water.
To build on Aaronut's answer, one issue with cooking in a "moist" environment is that it limits the temperature.
In dry-heat cooking, such as roasting, searing, frying, grilling, etc., the flavor from the Maillard reaction (to which Aaronut alluded) is a very important result.
In moist cooking, such as braising, poaching, steaming, etc., the temperature cannot (with the exception of pressure cooking, but there are other issues there) rise high enough to allow your meat to become browned. You can also have flavor and nutrient loss, as well as texture issues.
Consider a steak, for example. Whether it is pan-seared or grilled, it will be browned on the outside. Imagine if, instead, it was boiled. Personally, I would not want to eat that gray lifeless mass of meat.
Or another example: french fries. You can put potatoes in hot oil, and you get a crispy delicious snack. Drop them in boiling water, and you get.. boiled potatoes?
This isn't to say there is no value in moist cooking; just to illustrate the difference between moist and dry.
Just to clarify, unless the ambient pressure is increased, water will not generally heat above its boiling point (around 100C/212F) since all of the hotter water just escapes as steam. The Maillard reactions do not begin to occur until much higher temperatures. Steam can actually get much hotter---even hot enough for Maillard reactions---but that usually requires high pressure (e.g., steam engines can get up to 350C+). Air and oil can of course be heated to much higher temperatures at STP that are in the Maillard range.
Good explanation, although neither air nor oil can be heated to high temperatures at STP... or else it wouldn't be STP.
Heh, good call. By "STP" I guess I really meant "SP" (i.e., average air pressure at sea level).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.530396
| 2011-04-25T21:58:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14341",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"ESultanik",
"Kortuk",
"Ray",
"avpaderno",
"barlop",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5866"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16884
|
Chicken Stock alternatives?
I want to make a barbecue sauce which has chicken stock in its recipe.
This is the first time I needed chicken stock for cooking; somehow, I didn't come by it up until now.
Anyway, neither me or any of my roommates ever buy chickens with bones; we always buy clean chickens or clean wings (nothing to create stock with).
I understand I could buy a chicken with bones for the sake of making chicken stock, but I was wondering whether there is an easier, alternative solution that could substitute for chicken stock in my sauce. Think of "chicken stock for students."
Well, I'm not going to discourage you from making chicken stock, homemade stock is great...but is there a reason you can't just buy some stock?
Considering the sheer number of rather strong ingredients in that recipe - if it were me and I didn't have stock and didn't want to make or buy any...I'd substitute broth as a first option and salted water as a second option.
Rule number one with sauces: don't miss an opportunity to add some flavor. The worst thing you can make is a bland sauce, and while I doubt a little water or watery store-bought broth would bland this one up, I'd use whiskey myself. It's liquid, the flavor should be compatible, and I've never seen a college student who couldn't lay his hands on a bottle.
Bullion cubes/granules are fine, but, again, I'd probably add booze instead of water to hydrate them.
+1 - I can't not upvote a recommendation for whiskey in bbq sauce. But stock is a bit salty, so you'd need to account for that.
YES! you do kno what you'r talking about! In the end I add a cube dissolve instead of chicken stock, but I added half a cut of Jack Daniel's. Boy did it add some flavor into that sauce...
Sometimes it's okay to use store-bought chicken stock/broth. To get a little extra flavor in it, chop up some mirepoix (carrots, celery, onions in a 1:1:2 ratio) and boil the stock with the vegetables for an hour or so.
Yes, store-bought stock is pretty awful compared to homemade, but there are so many flavorings in that recipe that you can get away with it. In a pinch, vegetable stock with a few bouillon cubes in could even work.
In that recipe, I'd substitute water, or omit entirely. There's plenty of flavor in the other ingredients, and it doesn't seem to be for texture. (If it was, a little gelatin would do the trick.)
If I don't have any stock ready or chicken bones to hand then I just reach to the cupboard and open a stock cube or granules.
On a side point, stock freezes very easily so if in future you buy whole chickens, you can make stock with the bones and then pop it in the freezer for later use.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.530806
| 2011-08-15T01:57:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16884",
"authors": [
"B.I.",
"diana",
"hizki",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5550",
"rfusca",
"suzanne"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15408
|
What are the most common uses of piri piri sauce (other than with chicken)?
I have experimenting in the kitchen. I decided to use some extra hot piri piri sauce with some bacon on a Stottie cake. It tasted magical and I am tempted to repeat the process sometime soon. What else goes with piri piri, other than chicken? What are the most common uses of piri piri sauce?
This is very general and out of the scope of the Culinary-Uses tag; try referring to the higher voted questions from there and see if you can tighten up this question
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the question. It was answered exactly how it was intended to be. Try spending your time more productively by observing such simple facts.
the reason you to tighten it up goes as follows by way of parallel; Q: "What are some other uses of [a bechamel]?" reasons to close (1) too general, trivial - google it yourself, (2) recipe request, list of x, too broad - no objective way of analyzing any given answer for acceptance. By "tighten it up", I just meant ask in such a way as to address those two concerns; show that (1) you have googled it but ran into some [limitation with results] and/or (2) give criteria for selecting a "right" answer worth accepting. In (2) I would ask, what made you select "[use it with mussels]"?
I had a friend that made Mussels using the piri piri sauce. I also think that it might be tasty if you use that sauce on a nice burger!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.531041
| 2011-06-12T17:28:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15408",
"authors": [
"Angelika",
"LoudMicro",
"Phil Helix",
"Snail-Horn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5749",
"mfg",
"spoorlezer"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
10481
|
Can you sharpen a ceramic knife?
Can you sharpen a ceramic knife?
Ceramic blades can only be sharpened against something that is harder than it is. I would recommend sending it back to the manufacturer for sharpening if needed. Typically it is done using a very hard abrasive wheel because of the risk of the blade breaking, you do not want to do this without proper safety equipment.
+1. An alternative: on a trip to Japan, I bought a ceramic knife, and the salesperson tried to sell a special ceramic blade sharpener device with it. So presumably you could get one of those and sharpen it yourself - but not using a regular sharpener (for metal knives). (I didn't buy the sharpener, so I don't have any experience with it.)
While ceramic knives will stay sharp for quite awhile, there is no such thing as "never needs sharpening". In our knife shop we use a diamond system that we developed to bring these knives back to their original sharpness. (or sometimes sharper!) One could try one of the diamond block type, sharpeners on the market but the ceramics are difficult to get the edge right.
If you made the investment as I did for a professional diamond wheel electric knife sharpener as you saw the chef point out in the video above, I can tell you that this will indeed sharpen ceramic knives. I was reluctant to try this and possibly damage the sharpener, but I was otherwise going to toss out this "starter" ceramic cooks knife. I was also concerned that I would not be able to sharpen my expensive Henkle knives if the ceramic knife damaged the diamond wheels. I went about the job rather gingerly and found that the ceramic knife took longer to produce a sharp edge, but otherwise it was not much different than a steel knife. I hope this answers the question.
You can definitely sharpen a ceramic blade and do it by yourself. But due to the fact that the ceramic is super hard material you'll need more patience than with steel. Get a DMT or Lansky sharpening guide and diamond stones. You can use the diamond stones on either type of knife and the guides will keep you at the correct angle on both side of the blade. You can find several guides at this site http://www.sharpeningsupplies.com/Knife-Sharpening-Guides-C16.aspx
Yes ofcourse Cary. Try using diamond steel, and check out this amazing video from Chef Phil for some more detauled instructions on how to do such. Hope it will help.
You actually can sharpen a ceramic knife with a diamond wheel sharpener. There's 2 sharpeners that can sharpen ceramic knives. Kyocera has a battery powered one (DS50)
http://www.amazon.com/Kyocerca-DS-50-Electric-Diamond-Sharpener/dp/B002R90N7W
But based on the reviews it's designed mainly for Kyocera knives, and it's battery powered so it doesn't generate enough force to restore the blade to factory sharpeness.
This one sounds more promising it's an electric powered ceramic knife sharpener: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00S0BEUIY
Shenzhen Knives has an eletric powered diamond wheel that can sharpen and hone the blade (2 stage sharpening settings)
Basically, no.
Ceramic is super hard, harder than sharpening steels, and most sharpening stones.
I guess diamond is harder, and you probably could sharpen on a diamond stone or diamond sharpening steel. But thats a very tricky skill to master, and a very delicate operation, not for the unskilled hand.
The whole point in buying a ceramic knife is that you don't have to sharpen. With proper care ( e.g. Dont drop) it should last you a lifetime for home use.
Most ceramic knives won't stay even sponge cutting sharp after a month of cooking enthusiast's use :)
You can absolutely do it yourself. You will need:
A clean cloth
A ceramic knife
An electric knife sharpener–with diamond abrasives–specifically able to handle ceramic knives
Heavy gloves for protection (Kevlar or thick work models–optional but recommended for safety)
Source: https://bestazy.com/how-to/sharpen-ceramic-knives/
Check the source for more tips on how to do it and care for the ceramic knives.
Wash and dry the knife. You’ll want the best contact between its surface and sharpener’s abrasives. Also, you’ll want to keep the electric knife sharpener’s internal machinery clean and free of food debris. Read and follow your electric knife sharpener’s instructions carefully to know which slots to use, since they will vary between makes and models.
I'll let you know soon. My guess is yes, more easily than many believe. And yes, it's more necessary than many believe. They do get duller with use.
I've had a good set of Kyocera knives I bought a year or so ago. I take good care of them but they're definitely less sharp than when I bought them, especially the big chef's knife I use most often. In a way that's good. These knives were "dangerously" sharp when I got them. I nicked my fingers a few times. Not while cutting, while cleaning them.
That's the Kyocera's. I broke one using a twisting motion while separating chicken quarters. They are very fragile. I've also noticed different brands can be more or less sharp. I bought a replacement for the one I broke, a different brand, and it was not as sharp as the Kyoceras.
I had a ceramic sharpening "steel" (rod) a few years ago which I loved. It did a much better job a sharpening my old steel knifes than anything else I've ever used including fancy-schmancy (expensive) multi-stage electric diamond wheel sharpeners. These also have a major drawback of distorting the shape of the edge because they are very aggressive.
A couple days ago I ordered another, very well reviewed, ceramic rod made by Messermeister for $20. I know this will work great on my steel knifes and I strongly suspect it will work well on my ceramics as well, we'll see. It certainly can't work any worse than the "fancy-schmancy" electric sharpener I got (and returned) from Kyocera which claimed to sharpen steel knifes but didn't well.
I believe this will work because, like different grades of steel, I imagine different ceramics have different hardnesses as well. Messermeister claims this sharpener is "very hard" and while I can't find documentation to back it up yet, it makes sense to me that manufacturers would want to make sharpeners out of harder material than most knives. If this one is harder than the Kyoceras, it oughta work. I'll know soon and hopefully won't drop this one anytime soon :-).
I don't find shipping knives back to Japan for sharpening every year or so an acceptable solution so for $20, I'm trying this out with good expectations.
This isn't an answer... Also, a couple issues. our ceramic rod wasn't there to sharpen anything, it's designed to simply straighten the steel of a knife which is prone to "curl" over time. This isn't an issue with ceramic as it won't curl. The problem with sharpening it is the ceramic is harder than steel and probably most sharpeners made for steel blades. It's actually very unlikely, I'd theorize that the sharpener is hard enough to sharpen a ceramic knife. It would likely be marketed specifically as a ceramic sharpener if it was possible.
I think this is an answer, just not a terribly good one as it's not based on experience, which unfortunately as talon8 points out results in it being wrong. So I'm not going to delete it - it does attempt to answer the question.
As for the correctness issues: people often call those things "sharpeners" or "sharpening steel" but really they're honing steels - that should be a sign that they won't work for sharpening.
@Paul That's true of some ceramic steels, but not all; most things are indeed just honing steels.
Sharpening of ceramic knives can be performed either manually (with diamond stones/rod) or with the professional tools. Manual sharpening is time consuming and can cause more harm then good (as ceramic is very fragile). The best tools for ceramic knife sharpening are electric sharpeners (for example Work Sharp - it's universal tool for steel/ceramic knives).
Why does this post have a "spammy" aura....
@Stephie It does feel spammy, and it has a flag to that effect. I'm going to dismiss that flag for now, but I'll be watching.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.531238
| 2010-12-24T18:44:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10481",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Ellen Colegrove",
"Erik P.",
"Flavio Cachucho",
"GoinBackToCali",
"Grégoire",
"Jeffy",
"Jeremy",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kelly",
"RituG",
"Stephie",
"Suzette Mckenzie",
"counterbeing",
"double.emms",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147778",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21396",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21397",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21400",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41397",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80945",
"rackandboneman",
"rlms",
"talon8"
],
"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
}
|
16965
|
Should steaming water be used for stock/gravy?
Should I use water from steaming to make stock or gravy?
Does it depend from what I have steamed (e.g., potatoes or vegetables)?
I'm not sure there would be any advantage, since the water in steaming doesn't actually touch the food being cooked, and therefore can't take on any flavor.
Possibly somewhat tangential, but my grandmother always used some of the water she boiled potatoes in for her pan gravy when making fried chicken or chicken fried steak. I'm not sure how much starch would get into water used to steam, rather than boil potatoes though.
In general I would not reuse steaming water to make gravy. As devin_s said you are unlikely to get much flavor from there. Depending on what you're steaming (e.g. spinach), however, you are likely to pick up some bitterness or other off flavors.
Water used for boiling, on the other hand, can be very useful. For example, if you have boiled shrimp with aromatics, that water can be very useful as a flavor foundation for a soup or stock. Pasta water (or potato water, I suppose) could be useful as a thickener. For example, I will often add a splash of pasta water to loosen up a thick pesto.
It shouldn't matter if you re-use the water you used for steaming or use fresh water. I would only use it in a few situations:
You want to season the gravy with whatever flavors ended up in the water
You want some of the starch in the water to help thicken the gravy
You want to be frugal and reuse the water and not pour it down the sink
The benefits of one and two are mostly negligible because the amount of flavor or starch isn't going to be that much.
Situation three is really the only reason I would reuse the water, but most of the time cooking water ends up watering the plants.
Just as my Mother did, I use potato and steamed vegetable water in gravy, why waste any flavour and nutients in the water.
As noted in the comments to the original question, the water left in the pot is unlikely to have gotten any flavors at all, as it hasn't actually touched the vegetables in question.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.531872
| 2011-08-18T18:47:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16965",
"authors": [
"AaronN",
"Bill Stidham",
"Kian",
"Martha F.",
"Masseytruth",
"Spammer",
"Zerion",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36344",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36465",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6688",
"razumny"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
3080
|
How to make home-made butter?
Has anyone tried it before and how was the result?
What are the steps and what ingredients and kitchen tools do I need?
As there's specifically the restriction on machinery, it's not an exact duplicate, but it might as well be, as the jar technique (minus the item to agitate that @sqillman mentioned) was described there, so it's effectively answered.
Take double cream (you want a 48% milk fat, which is hard to get in the U.S. outside of a specialty market; heavy cream has a 30-40% milk fat content) and shake it. Forever. To be more specific, after sealing your double cream in, say, a jam jar, shake it until you hear the sloshing sound of butter forming (which will take anywhere from 15 minutes to an hour); drain the liquid off and then rinse the butter until the water runs clearly over it. Squeeze your butter (I use cheese cloth or a linen napkin for this) to rid it of excess liquid (excess liquid can lead to rancidity), shape it into a block, and wrap it with wax paper.
A traditional way that I learned while growing up is to do it in a jar, but it yields smaller quantities so you might have do it more often.
Basically, you fill a glass jar (canning jar or something similar) with heavy cream and put a small marble in it. You can use anything that will stay clean, it's just to provide agitation. Shake the jar for a while. After a little while you will see it start to form as the butterfat and the buttermilk separate. Continue shaking until you have a solid mass of butter. There will still be liquid, that will be buttermilk. The rest will be butter. You can add a pinch of salt if desired. Once you have a single solid mass of butter poor the buttermilk out. You can save it and use it for other recipes (pancakes, biscuits, etc). Using a pint of cream it took 10-15 minutes for the butter to form completely.
I'm sure there are other ways to do the agitation. I mixer on low speed will probably do the trick but you'll obviously need to watch out for splash.
If you have a Kitchenaid stand mixer (or I suppose any kind of stand mixer) with a "paddle" attachment (like the "K" thing in a Kitchenaid; something that's not like a whisk), you can make butter in that at the lowest speed. It'll splash around at first of course.
In my experience, butter made with store-bought heavy cream doesn't taste as special as you might think. Good-quality "cultured" butter, if you can find it, tastes a lot more buttery.
Now if you can get double cream from a local dairy (which in the US may be questionably legal, if you care about such things), then I'm sure it's possible to make really good butter.
I get unpasteurised cream from a local dairy farm. It says it's double cream, but it's thick enough not to spill if you invert an open pot, so I think it's a good deal more than 48% milk fat. And it makes pretty good (if expensive) butter.
Go to see the farmer and tell him to sell you some cream extracted from fresh milk.
At home, shake it with a kitchen robot, as long as it needs, but at some time, the texture will change to butter. You may add some salt or not.
That's the traditional fashion to make the best authentic tasty butter. Anything passed by any factory will never taste like that.
Be sure to process in a cool area, and keep your butter in fridge : it won't last as long as the supermarket one.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.532073
| 2010-07-24T11:25:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3080",
"authors": [
"BenjaminB",
"Dave Clemmer",
"Emthigious",
"Joe",
"Mike Scott",
"Rob Bell",
"Simon Whitaker",
"Wh1T3h4Ck5",
"Xencor",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5570",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5578",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6676",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9607"
],
"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
}
|
13902
|
How to pasteurize eggs in a sous vide machine (in the shell)
I have a Sous Vide Supreme machine and I like raw eggs (in the shell). I've made a few batches by simply boiling them at 134 oF for 2-4 hours, but I have 2 problems: Some of the eggs crack and most of the eggs begin to coagulate. Are there better ways to do it?
There are commercially available Davidson's brand pasteurized eggs, but after checking 5 stores in Manhattan and Brooklyn where they were supposed to be stocked and weren't I've given up.
I have no first hand information on this, but I remember reading good articles about boiling eggs: http://www.seriouseats.com/2009/10/the-food-lab-science-of-how-to-cook-perfect-boiled-eggs.html and http://blog.khymos.org/2009/04/09/towards-the-perfect-soft-boiled-egg/. Maybe these will help.
Davidson's was apparently bought by Bob Evans. They appear to no longer sell the eggs, at least to consumers.
The definitive source for Sous Vide information on the web at the moment is Douglas Baldwin's wonderful A Practical Guide to Sous Vide. It has wonderful safety information and goes well beyond the 'recipe' side of Sous Vide. It's pretty much the bible (since Modernist Cuisine is too expensive).
Based on the information he has on pasteurizing eggs, I would suggest trying a shorter period of time. He says that 75 minutes at 135F will be sufficient. If you read through his stuff, you'll see that he doesn't play fast and loose with safety / times, so I would trust that time / temp. That's significantly shorter period than you are doing them. Hopefully that's your issue.
I'm not sure how much your white is coagulating, but this is what he has to say about it:
While the properties of the egg yolk are unaffected, the egg white is milky compared to a raw egg. Whipping time is significantly longer for pasteurized eggs, but the final whip volume is nearly the same
Update: There was a culinary research paper released in January that I think resolves this issue (or see this blog post for a more accessible overview). It turns out that the protein coagulation in eggs is a function of temperature and time, rather than just temperature as was commonly assumed. So leaving your egg in to pasteurize for longer than the minimum required time will affect the texture. So use the minimum time of 75 minutes and you should see a significant difference.
Well, killing bacteria is a function of both temperature and time, so leaving it in longer probably will increase safety. E.g., if the 75 minutes is a log6 reduction, somewhat shorter will give a log5 reduction and somewhat longer a log7 reduction. If you check the citation, it actually gives numbers, including a table showing how time matters: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2672.1997.00253.x/abstract
@derobert, you are correct. Edited accordingly.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.532772
| 2011-04-09T03:15:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13902",
"authors": [
"AnimatedLime",
"Jeff Axelrod",
"Mark 4alarmfire Foery",
"Peter",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29119",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29121",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"jmoneystl",
"rumtscho",
"yossarian"
],
"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
}
|
3205
|
Can you make a sauce with beer?
Usually when there is alcohol in a recipe, it's wine. Why isn't there more beer? I've only ever seen it used in beer batters. Can beer be made into sauces or other uses? Do ales, lagers, or stouts have different uses?
I have a fridge full of steak and Sam Adams. Can I turn this into something amazing?
You can also get sauced. Then anything will seem amazing.
Isn't beer a classic ingredient in sauce served with Toad In The Hole?
What is toad in the hole?
toad in the hole is great! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toad_in_the_hole
Sam Adams isn't bad for a lager, but there are lots more flavorful beers than what you find in most lagers. I wonder what a more flavorful, lightly-hopped beer would taste like instead of a lager.
I use beer a LOT for my cooking. As the others have said, you need to watch out for the bitterness, which can intensify when you cook and reduce it down. As such, I often cook with different beers than I drink.
You can use the IBU (International Bitterness Unit) rating for a beer to get an idea of whether your favorite beer will be a problem.
Personally, I use Guinness and other dark beers when red wine is called for in a recipe. The flavors are definitely different than the red wine version, but it usually comes out good. I also cook quite a bit with wheat beers and the kind of beers that people describe as "nutty", like porters.
America's Test Kitchen looked at beers for cooking at one point and a "non-alcoholic" beer actually did really well: O'Doul's Amber. I agree with them and tend to keep it on hand for cooking, even though I never drink it. It stays mellow and away from the bitter flavors when used for cooking.
So, what do I cook with it? Like most of the others, cooking bratwurst before grilling and cheese fondue, but I also use it for lots of other stuff.
I have a baked bean version that uses 4 cans of beer and a couple of shots of whiskey and sits in a crock pot on low for 24 hours. I've made this with all different kinds of beer and each brings something different to the results. (Recipe for J's Drunken Beans)
I also like using beer in most of my stews. Throw beef chunks, veggies and beer in the crock pot in the morning and it's a tasty stew when you get home.
It works well as the liquid for braising pork or beef. In the winter, I'll often throw a pork shoulder roast into the crock pot with a bottle of beer and let it slow cook all day. When it's completely falling apart, I pull it out, shred it and add back as much of the beer as the shredded mess will hold (which turns out to be far more than you thought). What results is a juicy sandwich option, which is really good, topped with mustard or bbq sauce. It comforts me when it's too cold to deal with slow smoking pork (I live in MN).
I'll also often take some of that shredded "drunk" pork to my baked beans and give the beans some extra dimension.
We do a version of "bangers and mash" that I use beer in the gravy/sauce that I like.
Beer and self-rising flour make for a really quick quickbread that has an interesting flavor profile. I particularly like using wheat beers like Leinenkugel's Sunset Wheat, as the wheat flavors work well in a bread.
Beers (and hard ciders, which I actually REALLY like) work well for marinades.
Beyond that, I tend to find myself just tossing a few ounces of it into a lot of other liquids/sauces to add some flavor.
@J Wynia: Definitely need a link to that baked beans recipe as well us those others. Please post links to them.
Glad to help, @Sam.
I added the bean recipe as a link. Most of the rest I don't really work off of a recipe. Mostly just wing it. The beans were that way too, until I got asked too many times for how to make them.
Yes. Keep in mind though, that strong / bitter flavors may become unbearably strong / bitter in a reduction. That said, I use beer in sauces, marinades, as a braising liquid, mixed with broth in risotto, and as lubrication for the cook.
I have a fridge full of steak and Sam Adams. Can I turn this into something amazing?
Marinate the steaks in beer for several hours. Pat dry, sear, slice thin, serve with pickled beets.
Fry up a couple of onions. Deglaze the pan with a bit of lightly-flavored beer, reduce, season, serve over steaks.
Bring the steaks to room temperature, lightly season, sear, and serve with frosty Sam Adams. Simple can be amazing...
Beware: CUI is a serious offense in some parts of the world.
What does CUI mean?
@nalply: I suspect he meant, "Cooking Under the Influence", a play on "Driving Under the Influence (of alcohol)": a criminal offense in some places (and a Saturday Night in others).
Beer in sauces or marinades works best if it's flat. Carbonation generally doesn't do anything good for a sauce.
Beer also works well with any of the following additions:
Worcestershire sauce
Mustard (preferably dry)
Hot peppers (or hot pepper sauce)
Honey (or, as we do it in Canada, maple syrup)
Garlic and/or ginger (surprisingly)
If you want more of a sauce as opposed to a marinade, just reduce it.
Beer is great in some cheese sauces, and my husband like to use it with brown mustard to marinate/simmer pastrami for his hot pastrami sandwiches and bratwursts.
Beer cheese soup... Mmmm...
esp the brats; beer makes a great glazing agent when you're pan-frying (pre-cooked and not) brats on cold winter nights when your grill is covered in snow
Belgian Beer Stew! One fantastic use of beer. Caramelize onions in a enamel cast iron pot, set aside. Brown off stew beef, dredged in flour with S&P, in same pot. I use butter, you can use oil of choice. Set the beef aside. Deglaze the pot with one to two 12 ounce beers - based on the amount of beef. When all the bits are blended into the beer, add the reserved onions and beef. Place into oven set at 325 degrees. allow to bake for 2 hours. I finish the stew on top of the stove with dumplings. This is a family favorite.
This sounds delicious! I'm going to try it.
(Under other uses:) Beer makes a good liquid for reducing your initial spices in the bottom of a pot of chili. The nice thing is if you are doing all your own spices and you know your beer you can make some really interesting combinations. Also, you are never limited to a certain type of beer for the chili. If you go for a roasty, toasty winter chili throw in a maltier beer; if you make a white chili with pulled chicken and lime and habanero go with a Dos Equis.
Basically, even after using the beer in the initial phase of seasoning the pot (after garlic/onions/spices; before adding tomatoes, etc) its pretty easy to add an entire bottle of beer and not worry about it hitting the palate too rough as long as you are cooking for an extended period (3+ hours). With Sam Adams you might try an Adobo and flank steak chili.
+1 for using beer in chili. My favorite chili recipe is a steak chili that uses beer as it's main liquid. I think it works nicely.
@Al Crowley: which beer/steak combination do you use?
The marinade that I use for left-over crap beer is three cloves of garlic, one sprig of rosemary and one can beer into a gallon ziplock bag for about two hours if I'm in a hurry or over night if i'm thinking ahead (I never think ahead except the first time I made it). Then I either throw them on the grill with some squash or corn, or sear them in a pan and finish them off in the oven with a few onions.
You can also use it to make beer bread, which you then slice and toast for steak sandwiches.
'Leftover crap beer' - Never thought I'd see those words together
Is this for steak? Your first paragraph doesn't seem to say what it is you're marinating...
sorry, you can use the marinade on steak, pork or chicken but time is going vary according to aplication, about an hour and half for pork and about thirty minuted for chicken
Beef in beer: Put steak on a large piece of foil in a baking dish. Tip a packet of dried French onion soup mix over it. Pour a bottle of beer over it. Wrap foil up loosely over steak. Bake in oven at low temperature (140 C) for 2 to 3 hours.
I use beer in my shepherd pie. It gives it a really good ale taste. In terms of using beer I tend to use it for adding something of a bitter, warm taste. Goes well in bolognaise too. It is not an alternative to wine but it does add something really good and different.
There are some very good cheese fondue recipes that use beer for the main liquid instead of wine. You can find a number of them by searching for Cheese Fondue Beer.
Pancakes with beer batter is one other example.
Also: belgian beer and food combinations link.
The Hairy Bikers have made a Beer Sabayon before to serve with seafood. They had to be very delicate with the use of the beer because it is such a strong flavour. The link to the recipe is currently down but I'll post it again once it is working.
Edit
The link to the recipe is working. Dover sole and beer sabayon with seaweed and pommes noisettes
I made a sauce from what was left in the can after making beer butt chicken. It turned out delicious.
Unfortunately, this site is not translated into English yet (Dutch). It contains a nice collection of different beers/recipes. Perhaps google translation and the likes can get you started.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.533059
| 2010-07-25T21:27:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3205",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Al Crowley",
"Alex Miller",
"Ben McCormack",
"Brian Tol",
"Doug Porter",
"Douglas S. Stones",
"Eric Falsken",
"GalacticCowboy",
"J Wynia",
"Josiah Peters",
"Karl Glennon",
"Kris",
"Lex Viatkine",
"Miss GF",
"Nick",
"Paul McKenzie",
"Pointy",
"SamAlterman",
"Shog9",
"T.J. Crowder",
"Tom Gullen",
"bmargulies",
"brilliant",
"cotroxell",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1377",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1394",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1414",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5810",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5811",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5813",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5824",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5836",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5934",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5936",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5955",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5957",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5969",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6014",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7997",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8021",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/850",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/999",
"mfg",
"nalply",
"redShadow",
"sapfou",
"sarge_smith",
"tvdb",
"udushu",
"van"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
106
|
Sniffing out a rotten egg from the dozen
Is it possible to tell if an egg has gone off?
I am not referring to those eggs that have been especially brined to look like they've been sitting around for decades, but to fresh eggs you want to use and not feel like being punched in the face with a sweatier-than-thou sock.
Is there a trick to detect if an egg is rotten before opening up the shell?
And man, there is nothing worse than actually cracking a truly rotten (not just slightly old) egg. Last time that happened to me I couldn't get rid of the memory of the smell for days.
Yep. Rotten eggs float, fresh eggs sink.
This is because eggshells are porous, so over time water vapour and gases leak out, reducing the egg's mass.
A fresh egg will lie on its side on the bottom of a glass of water. The older the egg, the more it sits up, until it's floating.
Yep. I see even Harold McGee agrees this is good advice.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.533794
| 2010-07-09T19:44:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/106",
"authors": [
"Joel in Gö",
"Lurah",
"Michael Natkin",
"Narayan",
"chrisbtoo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/205",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/232",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36467",
"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
}
|
6856
|
When basil gets brown spots, is it still usable?
When I store basil in the fridge, sometimes it gets brown spots. Is it still usable? Is that valid also for Thai basil? Throwing it all away after 2-3 days seems such a waste. Also, how can I prevent this from happening?
You can store it with the stems in a glass of water, like a bouquet, preferably not in the refrigerator. A few black spots that aren't moldy or slimy doesn't make it totally unusable, but it isn't very appealing to eat.
This is actually precisely the reason why it's not recommended to refrigerate fresh basil leaves.
I would not recommend consuming basil that has turned brown/black, especially if it is "slimy" to the touch. Even though a few brown spots are probably safe, it will be bitter and, well, slimy. Throw it away - and consider using some of the storage methods discussed in the link above.
This might be the brown/black rotting type issues, but it might also be the brown spots from drying out. (I sometimes find this on live plants towards the end of the season, or in hot weather). Dried spots are just fine to use, no off taste that I’ve noticed
If you have leftover basil you can also freeze it so it doesn't go to waste. It won't be that nice for salads or drinks, but it will still be perfectly good for putting in pasta sauces or pesto.
If it's only been a few days, there's no sliminess or weird texture, and the smell is still fresh and basil-like with no hints of unpleasant decomposition, then what I've found is it's just a matter of presentation. It won't be very good for garnish, but if all you need out of it is its flavor, then it's fine. Blended into a puree or simmered in a sauce at the last minute, it still tastes fine to me. Even just by themselves, the mottled leaves have tasted fine, just a little rougher texture. So it's not necessarily a complete waste.
yeah, im washing and eating them, tastes fine and no health issues so far!
I just finished making a pesto with my brownish basil leaves. It tastes good to me,just like "regular" green basil leaves, only a little browner.
As long as they are NOT slimy and well cleaned use them. I blend in food processor with fresh garlic, olive oil and a bit of good Parma just so it sticks. Take a large tray or cookie sheet, cover with waxed paper drop by large spoonfuls (they spread a bit) and freeze. When frozen take off waxed paper and freeze in ZIP lock bags. You have a good beginning pesto for use in soup, stew/goulash pasta or risotto. The sky is the limit. I make this frequently in summer and again winter when I run out!!
My garden harvest just turned half black while leaving it to soak in water. I quickly blanched it ...this will stop the blackening reaction. I’ll make pesto tomorrow. NYT Cooking recommends blanching the bright green basil for pesto, as it will keep the final product very green. It true.
Stays green if you freeze it in cubes too. I make a gallon or two, spread into ice cube trays, freeze, then bag. Flavor lasts at least a year. Basil isn't all that fond of late summer weather, plus you get to many flowers. I usually harveast early August, before the bugs, heat waves, and cold snaps have time to work on it. Often I get a second harvest late agust. Not always.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.533953
| 2010-09-06T22:12:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6856",
"authors": [
"HaveAGuess",
"Joe",
"Michelle Robles",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119962",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22556",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37235",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37309",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"intcreator",
"user37309"
],
"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
}
|
3459
|
What good substitutes for saffron exist?
I am a big fan of paella, amongst other uses for saffron. However, it can be a very difficult and/or expensive spice to obtain.
What good substitutes exist?
"Luckily" you don't need all that many strands, and you can get good deals on it if you mail order.
You know, you can grow your own saffron, it comes from a specific crocus mutation. You know you have saffron crocus when it blooms in late summer rather than in the winter. If your crocus blooms in the winter, do NOT eat it. It's toxic.
While this isn't a substitute, you can get better deals on saffron and make it go further.
First of all, do not buy it at a normal grocery store. It tends to be very expensive there. Instead go to a farmer's market (not one that happens every Thurs evening at the local church, but rather the big store). I'd imagine most major cities will have one or more. Atlanta has at least 4. Saffron is much, much cheaper at the farmer's market.
Second, thoroughly grind the saffron before using it. This will help the saffron more completely flavor a dish, requiring a smaller amount of saffron to get the flavor.
A quick Google suggested Tumeric, but I can't really imagine that working, nor did a lot of the comments on the internets.
I hadn't thought of grinding it myself, nor of alternate sources: the only places I've found it are Trader Joe's and Lowes Foods (neither of which has it in large containers, nor for [relatively] low prices... thanks!
Using tumeric is only for color, not flavor. Tumeric is more basic and bitter and less fragrant (though very healthy and good in some dishes).
Well turmeric definitely does have a flavor, but of course it's nothing like that of saffron. That very debate: whether turmeric could or should be considered a "substitute" for saffron - was the cause of one of the first great Usenet flamewars I can remember from the early 1980s.
I am totally and completely baffled by what is meant by "not one that happens every Thurs evening at the local church, but rather the big store". What is "the big store"?
@nohat: We have two types of farmer's markets that occur near us. The first is a group of local farmers and small businesses (organic soap, local meat, food cart) that gather once a week to sell their wares, usually in a parking lot. The other type is a huge warehouse with many of the same elements as a standard grocery store, including meat counters, seafood, cheese, etc. They generally have huge selection and less common ingredients than you'd find at a grocery store (lots of mushrooms, rare spices, ethnic foods). Here's the one I go to: http://www.dekalbfarmersmarket.com/ydfmtour.htm
@yossarian I have been to places like that in foreign countries (e.g. http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=paloquemao) but didn't realize they were common in the U.S. Do you know of a directory of such places? I wonder if there are any in the San Francisco Bay Area. Maybe I should make question for this...
@nohat, if you do it will almost certainly be closed as too localised : http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/376/what-defines-too-localized
@Sam Holder: I guess we'll find out: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3502/finding-a-farmers-market ;-)
As for flavor, there really isn't a substitute.
Infusing saffron strands in a warm acidic liquid such as white wine will help extract the maximum flavor.
Whole saffron while more expensive than ground is a better use of your money as you know you're getting only saffron. Ground saffron, while not usually found in stores in the U.S. may be sold by mail order or overseas and is usually less expensive because it's being cut and blended with other spices such as turmeric but won't have the same flavor.
The simple answer? None.
If you want to get the reproduce the color of saffron you can use annatto or turmeric. These will change the flavor of your dish though.
There is no replacement for the flavor of saffron. This is one of the contributing factors to it's high price.
This isn't an ideal solution, but I recommend giving safflower a try. The dried flowers, not oil.
Using dried safflower in combination with a small quantity of both turmeric and msg, you can somewhat reproduce the effect of saffron as far as color and flavor enhancement. This can work in chicken soup / chicken pot pie. Do it when you're in a pinch for money, don't have saffron on hand, or if you want to try a slight variation on a recipe you already like.
I'm mildly surprised no one else has mentioned safflower. So, I'm posting this answer more to contribute information than to try and win in the best answer contest. Because, truly, there is no good substitute for saffron - especially when you're talking my favorite dutch pot pie recipe. Which (there being no good substitute), is I assume why so many vendors get away with charging so much for saffron. That, along with an involved production process.
Supposedly, (wikipedia, etc) some refer to safflower as "bastard saffron". But, safflower is far less strong, has a sage-y presence (imo) rather than savory like saffron. Hence my suggestion to use it with Accent/msg if you're trying to reproduce that savory flavor with meats. The main thing that's nice about safflower is the similarity in color and (somewhat) appearance of yellow-orange-red fibers which is similar to saffron, perhaps especially when cooked in a wet dish like soup or saucy meat.
Aside from the issue of mimicking saffron, in my experience, using dried safflower is best when cooking Mexican dishes - such as shredded chicken for enchiladas and burritos. This would be more for a yellow/red effect with paprika and green chile, and not for a full green salsa verde recipe. Safflower has become a staple ingredient in my cupboard. In the Western USA, it's available in many grocery stores in small 0.25 oz packets. For other regions, it looks like you can order it on Amazon (in bulk).
I made a lovely Paella tonight with Laotian sausage, paprika-and-salt dry-rubbed chicken drumsticks, and a 1/2 pound of shrimp (shrimp added to rice mid-simmer). Finely diced garlic, red onion, heirloom cherry tomatoes and a red bell pepper and jumbo carrot was used to make a sofrito in the meat drippings after deglazing with Marsala. I had some tomato and cream soup in the cooler, and used that and some water as liquid for 12oz. of long grain rice (start with 3 cups liquid total, add a little more to further soften the rice if needed). As I did not have any saffron on hand, I used SICHUAN OIL instead (one table spoon). The flavor profile of Sichuan is a hint of lemon zest, and a mouth feel of mild numbness combined with the perception of phantom saltiness which leads to a rounder, meatier flavor, much like Umami.
A few other flavors that are part of my typical bouquet came from some dashes of fish sauce, and leftover soy sauce and capsicum chili oil I had used to marinate raw tuna slices as a snack while cooking. Waste not, want not, and it made things even MORE delicious!
Try the Sichuan oil, available at many Asian stores and online. Dry berries are less effective, and fresh are not available Stateside. You will find yourself adding it to MANY things!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.534252
| 2010-07-27T17:35:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3459",
"authors": [
"Alan Barber",
"Escoce",
"Ken",
"Kerrizor",
"ManjotSingh",
"Ocaasi",
"Penny B",
"Pointy",
"Sam Holder",
"captncraig",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1352",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1461",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23560",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6270",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6274",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6275",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6276",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6282",
"milkmood",
"nohat",
"she sheila",
"warren",
"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
}
|
3101
|
How long can I keep pureed root ginger
As the title says, how long can I keep pureed root ginger in the fridge?
If you have a lot or don't anticipate using it in the next 5 days, then freeze it.
If it's already minced or pureed then simply measure it into quantities that will be the easiest for you to use and then freeze them on a tray lined with plastic wrap. Once frozen, remove and put into a self-sealing bag and keep in the freezer for future use.
Whole ginger can be frozen simply as it is. Just put it a bag in the freezer. Galangal for example, is commonly sold frozen in asian markets You can pull it out and grate what you need on a rasp style zester while frozen. I never even peel ginger as most uses for it require it to either be minced finely or strained out all together. A little gingerroot skin is just more fiber for the diet.
You can also freeze ginger pretty well for at least a few months - if you spoon out tablespoon-sized chunks onto a cookie sheet til frozen, then you can use as needed. Not quite as good as freshly grated, but easy in a pinch.
I don't think preservation is the issue you want to worry about, it is taste.
As with most fresh vegetable matter, you should have no trouble telling if that ginger has become unwholesome. It's not like canned goods, where you have to worry about botulism. If it's bad, it will look and smell bad.
Long before it's bad, however, it will be off.
Personally, I only grate what I need. You can always grate a bit more if you're low.
If for some reason you are sitting on 250g of grated ginger due to an overenthusiastic assistant or something, I'd personally try to turn it into gingerbread within about 2 days.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.534795
| 2010-07-24T15:59:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3101",
"authors": [
"DavidMasters84",
"Diane Thompson",
"Jorgesys",
"MeLight",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5612",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5754"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5702
|
How does salmonella get into eggs?
Since a few hundred million eggs have been recalled, I'm wondering how salmonella gets into eggs in the first place.
Is it getting on the shells from the environment (or the hen)? Is it inside the egg?
This is mostly a curiosity/science question, so please don't take it as fear mongering, FUD, or any such non-sense. I realize that many eggs are perfectly safe.
in addition to the (good) answers, it should be noted that the vast majority of such recalls are based on unfounded scares. People get infected with salmonella, turns out they had eggs a few days earlier, THEREFORE eggs are bad. Salmonella is found on a fried egg in the garbage, this is considered proof even though there's no way to know whether the contamination is primary or secondary (iow, the egg may well have gotten contaminated in the kitchen or garbage bag by something else).
There are two basic mechanisms:
the salmonella is on the shell and when the egg gets broken the interior gets contaminated; or
the chicken's reproductive system is contaminated and lays an egg with contaminated interior.
To reduce the very common (a few percent) shell contamination, eggs sold commercially have their shells treated (typically washed). After washing only about 50 in every million eggs will still have some shell contamination. The shell contamination may have been there when the chicken laid the egg, from fecal matter, or as a result of plant processing.
In some rare cases the surface salmonella can make it to the inside without breaking the egg: if it was there while the cuticle dried, if the egg is stored at room temperature, or if the environment is moist.
From LiveScience:
The bacteria, Salmonella enteritidis can invade an egg in several ways. One way is by the contamination of egg shells with fecal matter. The bacteria are present in the intestines and feces of infected humans and animals, including chickens, and can be passed to the eggs when chickens sit on them... Salmonella also silently infects the ovaries of healthy-looking hens, contaminating the eggs inside the chicken before the shells are even formed...
External contamination may be exacerbated by the hen sitting on the egg, but eggs and fecal matter both pass through the cloaca so if the chicken's feces carries Salmonella the shell may be contaminated as the egg is laid.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.535060
| 2010-08-21T14:51:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5702",
"authors": [
"Christian",
"Dennis Williamson",
"Sharon",
"abc",
"albertjan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5770",
"jwenting"
],
"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
}
|
3226
|
I would like to make my own Chicken Stock, any suggestions?
I am tired of using canned broth/stock and would like to make my own - any suggestions as to the proper technique and parts to use?
Note that for maximum benefit I am answering the question regarding chicken stock first and at the end have included information on other stocks such as fish and brown chicken and veal stock.
Properly made stock is made from bones only. If you cut up your own chickens then save the backs and wing tips in the freezer and use for stock. You might ask at your grocery store or butcher and be able to purchase backs from them if you want to make stock but don't have enough. Chicken feet are rich in gelatin and can be added to the pot to help add body to the stock.
Place chicken backs/wing tips in a large stockpot (about a 3-4 gal. stockpot). Cover with cold water and place on stove. Bring to a gentle simmer for about 10 minutes. This is known as "blanching" the bones and is done to help dissolve the blood and other loose proteins from the soft bones. These proteins will form a gray scum on the surface. Once the scum has formed, drain off the water disarding it in the sink. The more clear a stock is the longer the shelflife as it's the additional proteins making a stock cloudy that also cause it to spoil much more quickly.
Return bones to the pot and cover again with cold water. Add a sachet (cheesecloth pouch containing a couple of bay leaves, about a teaspoon of whole peppercorns, a handful of parsley stems, and 8-10 thyme branches or a teaspoon of dried thyme) that's been tied up with some string. Bring the pot to a very gentle simmer once again and allow to simmer for about 3 hours.
After 3 hours add the mirepoix (carrots, onions, celery). Plan on 1-2 lbs. of mirepoix (combined vegetables) per 8 lbs. of bones. I also like to add leeks as they not only add flavor but are supposed to help in clarification of the stock. Continue to simmer the stock for 1-2 hours. (If you're not going to be around to add the vegetables at that time they can be added with the bones but need to be cut in large pieces to avoid cooking down and disintegrating. I would typically start chicken and veal stock at night before leaving the restaurant and allow it to simmer overnight until the next morning.)
Strain the stock through a fine mesh strainer or several layers of cheesecloth.
Cool the stock in a metal container (another pot) in an ice bath until cool to the touch and then place in storage containers and refrigerate or freeze.
Once the stock has chilled the fat will have formed a solid layer on top of the stock. Carefully remove and either discard or use for sauteeing (such as duck or chicken fat).
Additional Notes:
The same process would be followed for white veal stock (not frequently used)
If preparing a brown stock (roasted chicken, veal, beef, lamb, duck):**
These stocks are made by first rinsing the bones and then roasting in the oven at about 400 F degrees until medium brown (think iced tea color).
Once bones are browned, smear them with a tablespoon or two of tomato paste and roast for another 5 minutes or so. Be careful as the concentrated sugars in the tomato paste can cause it to burn and create a bitter tasting stock.
After bones and tomato paste have roasted, place them in the stock pot and add the mirepoix to the roasting pan, tossing to coat with the fat that has rendered out and roast the mirepoix until lightly browned. Add the mirepoix about 2 hours before finishing the stock. Be sure carrots are cut rather large to avoid having them disintegrate and adding a strange excessively sweet taste to the stock.
Recommended cooking times for stocks:
-Fish: 30-45 minutes. Use lean white fish bones and heads. Lobster/shrimp stock is made from the shells and will usually yield more flavor if first roasted. Remove gills and eyes from fish heads to prevent clouding the stock. Do not use carrots in mirepoix or it will color the stock an orange hue. Use onions, celery, leeks, mushrooms, and sliced lemon.
-Chicken/Duck: 4-6 hours
-Veal/Beef/Lamb: 8-12 hours (knuckle bones of veal will have the greatest amount of gelatin since the bones haven't hardened as much as those of beef)
Stocks should not be seasoned with salt as one of the primary purposes is for them to be a "stock" item that can be used for a variety of needs: soups, sauces, rice, etc. The salt is added to the final preparation not the stock. If stock is salted and then used for a reduction sauce the resulting sauce will be too salty.
Good answer... I would add mine but I think you have it covered!
I find whole chickens to be cheaper than the parts (wings, backs, whatever), so I regularly buy a couple whole birds, chop the breasts out (saving for later use), and then make stock with the remaining meat/bones/skin.
Place the chicken in a stock pot. Add a couple onions, carrots, celery stalks and some peppercorns. Cover with cold water. Bring to a bare simmer and cook for 2-3 hours. For ease, I usually bring the pot to a boil on the stove top, and then transfer to the oven at 250.
Strain the stock, chill, and then freeze for later use.
I hack up the bones before making stock ... any of the larger bones (wings, legs, etc.) get cut in half; maybe thirds if using turkey. (and I hadn't thought of the oven thing)
I've also found that I can buy whole chicken carcasses 3 for a dollar at my local grocery store.
I serve rotisserie chicken once in a while - I save the bones in the freezer until I have enough to make a big batch of stock. I also save the tops and bottoms of celery stalks and other trimmings when I make veggie trays. The veg may get mushy from freezing but it still has great flavor to add to your stock. I find that for home use freezing the stock in 1-cup increments works great.
I'd also add that if you have access to a pressure cooker, you can make stock more quickly and have the added benefit of it staying more clear instead of getting cloudy. I also personally think it tastes better.
We had this problem when my youngest started having food allergies. The quick and dirty method I use, which is easy, but not as fancy as some of the others here, is as follows:
buy a 10 lb bag of chicken leg and thigh quarters. put in as big a pot as I can and cover with water. Add 1 tblsp. of poultry seasoning or Mrs. Dash original. Bring to a boil then reduce heat and simmer for about an hour. pull the chicken quarters out reserving the liquid, strip the meat, which should come off easy. Toss the bones back into the pot with the reserved liquid and some of the skin and simmer for another hour or 2. Strain and portion into 1 cup units and toss in the freezer.
The chicken I pulled off I use for things like chicken salad, barbeque chicken sandwiches, and for a comfort food like chicken and rice.
for the chicken and rice: 1 cup frozen chicken broth(or stock, or whatever), 1 cup rice, enough liquid to make the up the difference in liquid for the rice. When the rice is done, add 1 cup chicken, salt and pepper to taste. You can add a can of cream of chicken soup as well, but It's fine without.
Good luck!
edit side note, I have taken to using a pair of shears to cut the long bones in half before taossing them back into the pot. I think it deepens the flavor
Darens' recipe sounds lovely, if you are after a proper stock.
Here is a quick cheap alternative.
Freeze the bones and skin of a roast chicken once you have finished with them.
When you need some quick stock, put the bits into a pan and cover with boiling water.
Simmer for half an hour or so and then use a sieve to keep the bits behind..
In general, the parts of the animal to be used in making stock depends on the animal:
For chickens, different people will recommend different parts of the animal, but simply chopping up an entire chicken works fairly well.
For beef, pretty much any tough piece of meat will work; try looking at shoulder or butt.
As for other suggestions, be creative! Almost anybody can make a basic broth by boiling a chicken, but making one that is truly fantastic takes time and work. Try adding different ingredients. For starters, try things that you are familiar with. For example, vegetables and herbs like garlic and basil can improve any broth. From there, try things that are more creative, like sesame oil, miso paste, or perhaps ginger.
One suggestion I would add is to freeze your stock in ice-cube trays, or in other small portions, so that you can parcel out the amount you need when you need it.
We start with our older laying hens & roosters. remove Head, dip in boiling water pluck chicken. Next gut. Place aside giblets. Wash in cold well water. Place in large pressure cooker. With salt, onion chopped, garlic, pepper, morening leaf. Feet may be left on. Cook 4 to 6 hours till meat falls of bones. Cool. remove grease from top. Remove all bones. Large chunks of chicken cut up. Taste broth. You may wish to add more spice. Put pot back on stove boil to reduce till you have flavor you wish. Cool. Put in bags. Remove all air. Use masking tape & pen to label bags. Freeze till needed. The secret to good chicken stock is to not use fryers or bakers but your older chickens free range ones.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.535283
| 2010-07-26T00:32:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3226",
"authors": [
"Chris Cudmore",
"Jean-Philippe Leclerc",
"Joe",
"Macromika",
"Michael Hetton",
"Peter Sankauskas",
"Rex Kerr",
"ahluka",
"askvictor",
"chris",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5847",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5848",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5861",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5881",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5958",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5971",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8045",
"lital maatuk",
"logicbird",
"nicorellius"
],
"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
}
|
3103
|
What's the difference between Salami and Pepperoni?
What is the difference as far as content-pork, beef?
Pepperoni is a variety of Salami. Salami is a dried sausage which can be made of pork, beef, veal, horse, donkey, poultry or game. Different spices, smoking and vegetable ingredients give the different salame their particular taste.
Pepperoni limits its ingredients to beef pork and poultry and belongs to the more spicy varieties of salame.
So a pepperoni is always a salami but a salami isn't always a pepperoni?
Yes @KateyHW. Salami is the category, pepperoni is one of several things in that category.
Pepperoni is simply a variety of hot salami, derived from Italian salami (soppressata from Calabria or spicy dry sausage from Naples). If there is any difference in the pork/beef ratio, that is not what makes the difference between salami and pepperoni; some variety would use more beef, but that is just a regional difference.
Salami is a generic name used for a product made of ground meat, seasoned and then cured (or smoked). There are countless variations of Salami (here in Italy for example, i think every region has more than one traditional Salami).
They can differ from each other on the meat used, the granularity of the grinding process, spices, use of just air or smoke as a method of curing, additional additives and preservatives (usually in industrial produced salmi), curing time..
Pepperoni is simply one of those variations and usually it's smoked and spicy, with a fairly fine grain.
Salami is a catch-all term for a wide variety of dried/cured/smoked force-meats made from pork, beef and poultry, originating in Italy. Every region, and even every city/town/village (and even family in some regions) makes their own variety of salami. They can range from mild (like Genoa salami) to spicy (like sopressata salami).
Pepperoni is actually not an Italian creation. It's an Italian-American creation, just like pizza and spaghetti with meatballs. It's basically just sopressata salami that is even spicier and more thoroughly dried.
In Italy, salami is most often served/consumed at lunch. In the US, pepperoni is most often served as a pizza topping.
Salami is meat. Pepperoni is dried meat.
Salami is a type of dry sausage. Pepperoni too. Also, "dry meat" is somewhat misleading when you are talking about dry sausage, it's normally reserved for pastrami style dried meats.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.535995
| 2010-07-24T16:24:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3103",
"authors": [
"Brian Webster",
"Caitlin Quintero Weaver",
"Ian George",
"Katey HW",
"Michael Thorley",
"Nathan Feger",
"Rachel",
"Three Diag",
"Tomalak",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138598",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15025",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36431",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5616",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5617",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5618",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84002",
"revdrjrr",
"rumtscho",
"user36431",
"에이바"
],
"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
}
|
3924
|
Is there an inexpensive substitute for truffles?
I recently had a hamburger whose main ingredient was Truffle shavings ($50.00 btw) - I loved the flavor, but can't afford to buy the real ones, any substitutions with similar flavor?
The idea of putting truffle in a hamburger kind of kills me... :P
I'm pretty sure the main ingredient was actually ground beef. ;)
Kobe beef, there are several NYC places that are serving these $50 burgers :>)
+1 for truffle oil.
Don't go for chinese truffles, they are tasteless and despite their low price are still a waste of money.
They're so expensive because there really isn't anything else with the same flavor, and they can't be cultivated.
However, they do take some of the smaller ones to make truffle oil, which is much more reasonably priced, and more easily available.
Actually, contrary to popular myth, truffles can be cultivated! They are grown in orchards of truffle-inoculated oak trees.
I suggest you to use not the oil, but the butter. I think it's much more pleasurable. I don't know if you can find it where you live, but if you have a chance, go for it.
Another possibility is that you spend the money for a small truffle and put it in oil. If you are passionate about risotto, put it into a small jar with some rice. It will get the flavor and at the same time it will not let it escape, thus wasting it.
Costco was selling truffle butter in a small pack for $2 a couple of years ago, although I don't know if they still are.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.536233
| 2010-08-01T15:00:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3924",
"authors": [
"AttilaNYC",
"Fleeps",
"Stefano Borini",
"The Dirty Calvinist",
"Trey",
"Zipo Bibrock 5e8",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7332",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7336",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8693",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9842",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9894",
"justkt",
"kevins",
"shilantra",
"w00t"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
85
|
Wok preparation and caring
What is a good technique for initially seasoning a wok, keeping it seasoned, and preventing rust?
Dunno if it's a language barrier but I don't get how seasoning can be connected to the rust issue?
Perhaps edit the question title - How to prepare and care for a wok
@jacob, Good point. Much clearer.
@cyberzed -- "seasoning" a pan refers to a treatment where you create a coating on steel or cast iron through oil and heat. See : http://www.wikihow.com/Season-Cast-Iron-Cookware
@Joe thank you, just never heard the term in that way :)
Make sure to seriously wash the wok before initial use. Scrub it with hot soapy water and dry thoroughly.
After drying, place the wok over the stove on high heat until it starts to smoke. Rotate the pan so that all parts of the inside are exposed to high heat. Then rub the wok with oil on a paper towel.
After this, try not to scrub the wok. A rinse and rub down are usually all that is needed to clean it up. Always rub the wok with a little bit of vegetable oil after washing/drying. That will help to prevent rust.
And the most important factor of seasoning a wok is to use it. It's definiteily my most used kitchen item, and it's just getting better and better with each use!
I've heard using peanut oil instead of vegetable oil can be good because of its higher smoke point. Have you always used vegetable?
I think it depends on what I am cooking. Either should work just as well for seasoning the wok, though.
Also, avoid soap when cleaning after you've seasoned the pan -- it can ruin the seasoning, as can strong acids (or weak acids over long periods of time).
@statenjason Generally, you want to use an oil that'll take the heat of cooking pretty readily. Peanut is good, so is tea and grape-seed oil if you need to cook for the peanut-sensitive.
if you find you have things stuck to the inside of the wok that you might be tempted to try and scrub off, you can instead flip the wok upside down over the flame and allow the deposits to be burnt off. Once they have been burnt for a while the ash should come off easily with a wipe (don't forget to let the wok cool first!) and this helps avoid the scratching and keeps the wok seasoned
Thanks for this answer, I am having a devil of a time keeping things from sticking to my wok.
Good guide to seasoning a wok.
The wok may be seasoned like any cast-iron pan, by brushing the surface with cooking oil and baking in a moderate oven for an hour. However, because of its shape and center of gravity, oil tends to flow down and gather in the center, resulting in an unevenly seasoned surface. For this reason, I prefer to do the seasoning over a burner on top of the stove.
Probably the best fat to use is lard – traditionally when you bought a wok you were given a piece of pig fat to season it. I have also used peanut oil. Polyunsaturated oils are not recommended as they can make the wok very "gunky." When using lard you can carefully brush the lard directly on the wok, all over the surface. Palm oil also works well.
To season my stainless steal wok I used pork fat.
First wash the wok thoroughly and place on burner to dry.
Cool the wok.
Cover interior of wok with pork fat.
Remove battery from your smoke detector if you don't have a range hood.
Heat wok directly on flame, rotating to get all areas of the pan smoking hot.
Add chives and push them around the pan.
Cool wok, wipe with paper towel, and oil the interior of pan (I used sesame oil).
If you have to wash bits of food off the wok, a teaspoon (or half tsp of each to clarify) of oil and coarse salt work well.
Each time I wet the wok I heat it over the burner to completely dry it out.
It took a few days of consistant use for my wok to become nonstick, I varied my seasoning approach... cooking bacon in the wok, then smoking up the pan after I finished using it, smoking up the pan with sesame oil and garlic, as well as repeating the pork and chives method.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.536417
| 2010-07-09T19:37:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85",
"authors": [
"Bala Clark",
"Graham Clark",
"Jacob R",
"Joe",
"Jon Galloway",
"RegDwight",
"Sabrina",
"Trefex",
"Varuuknahl",
"charisis",
"cyberzed",
"goobering",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1362",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/166",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7087",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/798",
"statenjason",
"sysadmin1138",
"tunnuz"
],
"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
}
|
89442
|
Tips for cooking pasta twice
I would like to cook pasta twice, with a cooling phase before the second cooking. Unfortunately, I’ve found that reheating pasta isn’t easy: I would like to keep it al dente and prevent tangling/sticking. It is also important to heat it all the way through both times, and to cool it down completely in between.
So far I’ve tried simply cooking the pasta again, for a short time. But unsurprisingly it becomes soggy. It also became bland (I didn’t add salt the second time). Is there a better way?
(For what it’s worth, this is for store-bought, dried pasta; I rarely have the time to make fresh pasta, and I wouldn’t want to ruin it by cooking it twice.)
If anybody is wondering why cook it twice, it’s a matter of nutrition.
Does the second cook have to be boiling? I bet there are interesting applications with, say, fried or baked pasta...
@senschen It doesn’t, but I would like the end product to be similar to cooked pasta. So frying and baking are out for now (they are of course both delicious in their own right but that’s a solved problem). In this question, I want to find a healthier way of cooking pasta.
Yes, but you can also bake (not so much fry, I'll admit) in sauce or with whatever you were planning on serving your pasta with-- think lasagna. That's still regular cooked pasta, but with the boil-first noodles it is twice-cooked.
Hi Konrad Rudolph, nutrition is off topic. The core question is on topic, but your wording at the beginning was going too deeply into the health side of things. So I reworded, leaving just a minimum of info to prevent people from asking "why are you doing such a strange thing".
@rumtscho Fair enough.
related : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/7067/67
In college, I would oil the pasta lightly after cooking (so it didn't turn into a giant lump), then would steam it 'til it was warm, and add it to hot sauce. I was typically working with linguini or other strand pasta. I'd start it in the steamer for a bit, then turn the mass over. As it softened up, I'd lift it with a fork or tongs to re-distribute it, and try to break up any lumps.
These days, I'm more likely to use a microwave than steaming.
You can also portion it out into oven-safe containers w/ some sauce, maybe a cheese or breadcrumb topping, and reheat it in the oven. This works well for any size/shape of pasta (although I admit I've never tried angel hair or similar size, as I hate cooking them). Reheat covered at 300 to 350F, then once the middle is warm, uncover and brown under the broiler
The technique you are referencing is the standard practice in almost any restaurant. Par cooking, then finishing at the time of service is how any good (and not so good) pasta you have had in a restaurant is prepared.
To get this technique right, you have to experiment a little. For a pasta that has 9 minute cooking time (many dried Fettucini), start by cooking some and stopping 3 minutes short. Now drain and run cold water over the pasta until cool and not clumpy. In restaurants, this pasta is then oiled and portioned into bags.
When I do this I like to drain into another pot, so I do not lose that cooking water. Some of it is good for the reheat of the pasta and sauce. Regardless, get water to the boil and season it, then plunge the pasta back in. This will finish the cooking and hopefully accomplish your goal. This can also be done right in the pan with your sauce or sauteed veggies, etc. Just have enough liquid to finish the pasta cooking.
Really comes down to time and temperature control and a little experimentation.
That part is very definitely not the same where I live. I go to a restaurant, I expect fresh pasta. Fresh pasta takes 2-3 minutes of cooking in total, so you very definitely do not par-cook it.
Good point. I am speaking about mainstream USA restaurants. Thank you. Restaurants that 'get it' about pasta will make or have fresh...
Pre or par cooking is commonly used by restaurants.
When the water returns to a full, rolling boil, cook the pasta for
exactly two minutes, then drain, shock in ice water, and drain again.
Note: Strand pasta like spaghetti or linguine will be brittle, so
handle them with care. Place the pasta in a container large enough to
hold it, then add enough olive oil to just coat each strand. Cover and
refrigerate until needed. Parboiled pasta will keep, refrigerated, for
four to six hours.
I imagine that you can cook your pasta normally, perhaps slightly under done, cool, then place in a bag and reheat using a water bath and immersion circulator. You will not get to 100C (212 F) because most circulators will not allow a boil, but you can get within a few degrees. This will allow you to precisely control your re-warming step, and also avoid a rolling boil, which might be contributing to the pasta breaking apart. If you don't have a circulator, you could reproduce the effect with careful monitoring on the stove top. This could be an advantage for homemade pasta.
Alternately, and perhaps more simply, the article states that the pasta was just re-heated. If you are using store bought, dried pasta, why not cook to a minute under-done, cool in ice bath, then add to the pan with your condiment to reheat and finish cooking? You could even save the pasta cooking water to finish the sauce in your pan.
I do have an immersion cooker. That said, I think your second advice might actually be more practical.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.536788
| 2018-04-27T11:10:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89442",
"authors": [
"Galastel supports GoFundMonica",
"Joe",
"Konrad Rudolph",
"MarsJarsGuitars-n-Chars",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho",
"senschen"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
78223
|
Why is my sourdough too sweet?
I’ve been feeding my 40g sourdough starter with 40g water and around 45g wholemeal flour (for a firmer consistency, as I’ve had bad experience with liquid accumulating on top) each day. It initially started smelling quite acidic and yeasty and started bubbling nicely.
From what I had read online, I was afraid that my first bread would be way too sour. But in fact the opposite was the case: after a few days, my starter stopped smelling sour altogether and started smelling almost unbearably fruity-sweet instead. The starter was still good however, so I made bread from it, using a variation of the beginner’s sourdough bread from The perfect loaf. The bread came out alright but rather than tasting sour, it tasted fairly sweet.
I don’t mind the taste that much but I’m still wondering what’s causing my nicely active sourdough to smell and taste distinctly sweet and not the least bit sour. From what I’ve read, the opposite should be the case: my firm sourdough should be more acidic.
For reference, the sourdough jar is standing next to a radiator but my house isn’t heated during the working hours, nor between midnight and 7am, and will get down to 16 °C. To compensate, I’ve wrapped a kitchen towel around the jar.
Lack of sour indicates more yeast activity over the souring lactic acid bacteria (LAB), and using a firm starter from that link favors yeast and not LAB. For more sour, increase the water content. There's a bunch of other dials you can fiddle with, Ken Forkish in "Flour Water Salt Yeast" indicates that a "warmer levain cultures encourage lactic acid production", your 16 °C favors acetic acid production. Keep the temperature around 26C to 32C to favor LAB. (Perhaps use an insulated box to help avoid the nighttime temperature swings?) Another point would be what temperature water are you hitting it with; tap water during winter could be quite cold (I use room temperature water that has stood to evaporate off the municipal chlorine). Other things to experiment with might be adding small amounts of salt (though this will slow down the ferment) or changing the flour or mix of flours used; whole grain vs. not, rye vs. wheat, etc.
A notebook may help; track ambient temperatures (min/max), temperature of the water used, amount, type of flour, plus any notes on what the starter looks and smells like.
Thanks, I guess I’ll have to fiddle with the temperature. Just to be clear, though, you are saying that the linked article is wrong? — At any rate, I think I’ll need to get Flour Water Salt Yeast … I was already eyeing that.
I didn't see anything in the article at odds with not-LAB conditions; "fruit" smells can be had from either a yeast or LAB according to what I've read, so I'm guessing yours was a yeast dominated mix.
If possible, get a small heating pad of some sort, or even a hot water bottle, and try to increase the temperature environment for your starter. 16*C (60*F)is a bit too chilly, try to warm it up 10-15*, and then wrap a towel around it. I have also microwaved towels to heat them a bit, and hospitals will do that also.
Although the ASH content of flour is not anything that is normally part of a discussion in any home, try to find out from online the amount of ASH in the flours you are using. It is really telling you (basically) how many minerals is on the flour. When they test for calories../per serving..., they burn some quantity of that product. For example, they may burn 1 c. of flour, and, you can look up the test results of a flour. King Arthur Bread Flour quotes 0.48% ash, and its other protein amounts:
King Arthur Unbleached Bread Flour
12.7% Protein • .48% Ash
Milled from hard red spring wheat from the northern Great Plains.
12.7% protein – higher than ordinary bread flours.
Never Bleached. Never Bromated.®
Contains no abscorbic acid (a yeast stimulant), letting the baker choose whether or not to add ....that (optional ingredient).
I was extremely disappointed by my starter, at first, and part of that was it seemed too thin, and too sweet. I decided to experiment with it, since it about totally quit on me when I started it, and I changed completely the ratios told. Instead of basically equal parts of flour to water, I doubled the amount of flour to water, by weight. I changed it's eating habits! The amounts came out to roughly 1 c. flour to 1/4 c. water, which I didn't measure very, very carefully, I just knew I had to feed it, thicken it!
If I could describe to you what I added, I would say...it was so thick, that it would not fall off of my wooden spoon by itself, I had to push it off with my fingers! It was so thick, I found out that it was best if mixed in a separate bowl first, and once all the flour was totally moistened, then I would add it to the starter and mix it into that. It was even a bit hard to mix it up!
I also did not reduce the amount of my starter for a 2 days, and fed it twice a day on both days...with no reduction of starter. Then, I reduced it some, but probably only by... 1/2 of the total starter accumulating. I did not go back down to ...1 c. starter to... normal weights and measures. I wanted MUCH action in there, and wanted it to start smelling sour, which it did! I have a great starter now, with (to me) the perfect amount of sourness in a loaf. Fairly sour! Enough that it is tasty when mixed with 4 c. of flour into a loaf of bread.
This reply is getting lengthy, but would like to add one more thing: a longer ferment will add a bit more sourness to your goal, be it bread, pizza dough, etc. Now, if I could only learn how to do a real 'artisan' style loaf and learn how to handle soft, sticky dough!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.537341
| 2017-02-08T15:59:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78223",
"authors": [
"Konrad Rudolph",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37981",
"thrig"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
8215
|
Advantages of using vinegar as a salt substitute for enhancing flavor?
I read a short blurb in Cooking for Geeks that said vinegar can be used as a substitute for salt, as a flavor enhancer, to make food less bland. I plan on experimenting, but I don't know where to start.
From Cooking for Geeks:
We were reading Thomas Keller, and he
talked about how salt is a flavor
enhancer, and he mentioned that
vinegar does a similar thing. It
doesn't add a new taste, but it often
alters the taste that's there.
What are the distinct advantages of using vinegar over salt as a flavor enhancer?
The advantage would be cutting some sodium out of your diet. If you are like many in the western part of the world, you probably get more than your daily allotment of sodium regularly. By making sure to cut sodium where you can, you gain the health benefits of a well-balanced diet.
Since salt is a flavor enhancer, a low-sodium diet can often seem bland. Many look for alternatives. Vinegar brings out flavors in a different way and adds a significant flavor of its own. I'd start small, using just a bit of vinegar.
... at the risk of speaking about health, I would suggest cutting down on salt, even "where you can", only if you know your salt intake is high. Having too less salt can also cause problems, and assumptions can be tricky - this is the sort of thing doctors need training for.
Vinegar has a definite taste. It does also function as a flavour enhancer (like say, lemon juice), but it also has its own flavour. They are not simple substitutes.
It's not about salt "over" vinegar. Salt and vinegar both enhance flavors. Acid, fat, salt, sweetness all help to balance the flavor of something. If something is to rich, cut it with a little vinegar and see what happens. Like with a red sauce. People often add a little sugar because it is too sour.
Please don't try to replace salt. Salt is amazing.
Thomas Keller is amazing too.
Keller wasn't implying that vinegar (and acids) is a substitute, just that it can be used to make things taste better- or more complex.
Sweetness and bitterness can also be used in this way.
We have taste buds for different kinds of things. When we taste these things we salivate more, this gives us enzymes that immediately react with the food ( to digest it), breaking down sugars and such.
The added moisture also makes us think the food is more moist ( think the squirt of saliva you get from eating a juicy salty cut of steak).
The moisture also dissolves more water soluble flavours, making us taste more of the food. Hence the food is tastier- a flavor enhancer.
Well, the obvious one is that vinegar gives a sour taste, as opposed to a salty one.
I'm not sure this is an advantage, although it is a definite difference.
I have used small amounts of vinegar successfully as a replacement for salt. The key is small amounts. There is a different taste between the two, so to avoid the distinctive taste of vinegar you must use it sparingly (unless of course you like the vinegar flavor). But used sparingly, in many dishes, it can successfully replace salt with hardly any vinegar taste.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.537802
| 2010-10-17T14:30:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8215",
"authors": [
"Avadhani Y",
"Megha",
"Shimon",
"Theis",
"Throsby",
"Tim M.",
"bdesham",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16891",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16892",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16900",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16903",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16904",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22375",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2895",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"justkt",
"mraaroncruz",
"stantont",
"user16900"
],
"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
}
|
7576
|
How to bake a chicken?
I've been using a rotisserie oven to bake my chickens for a while now. However, it's no longer available to me.
My first attempt at baking a chicken in a long time:
Purchase a chicken that's approximately 5 LBS.
Removed the innards of the chicken and washed it.
Marinaded the chicken with Johnny's Seasoning.
Place the chicken on a deep baking tray, resting on a grill.
Let the chicken sit for 2 hours at room temperature.
Baked the chicken at preheated 400 degrees on middle rack for 1:20:00.
Allow the chicken to sit for 20 minutes, then cut it into pieces for consumption.
My results: The chicken was nearly done, but one thigh was a little bloody at the joint. The other was very bloody at the joint. I microwaved the bloodier pieces and ate them anyway. The rest of the chicken was cooked pretty well.
My questions: How can I improve upon my process? Should I be baking the chicken at a lower temperature (350 degrees) for longer? Should I be baking at 400 degrees for longer? Should I raise the temperature to 425 degrees?
I've considered using a meat thermometer, but it seems daunting to me and I haven't had a lot of lucky in the past. Maybe my thermometer is just bad?
Any advice is appreciated, but if you can provide reasons for why you advise things, I would be most grateful.
Update:
I've tried some variations with lower temperature and higher temperatures. The method that has worked best for me is a simpler one adapted from this link:
http://thepauperedchef.com/2006/06/kafkas_simple_r.html
Purchase a chicken that's approximately 5 LBS.
Removed the innards of the chicken and washed it.
Marinaded the chicken with Johnny's Seasoning.
Let the chicken sit for 2 hours at room temperature.
Place the chicken on a deep baking tray, resting breast-side down on a grill.
Baked the chicken at preheated **500** degrees on middle rack for 50 minutes (10 min/lb).
Allow the chicken to sit for 10 minutes, then cut it into pieces for consumption.
As the link warns, there is lots of smoke. The breast is tender, the thighs are juicy and cooked. It's the best chicken I've ever made.
I'm curious to know why you let the chicken sit outside for two hours before baking it. I usually put mine straight from defrosting into marinade then into the oven.
One thing I wonder is if your oven temperature is accurate? An oven thermometer helps there. As well as a pizza stone to maintain a steady temperature. Also, how big was your chicken? Maybe you didn't cook long enough for the weight.
The method I use is this: Pre-heat the oven to 450. Clean bird, remove innards, truss. Salt (Tbls or so) and pepper or otherwise rub on marinade. Place the bird on a large cast iron skillet and cook for 1 hour. Remove bird and let rest for 10 minutes and meanwhile make a sauce utilizing the remnants in the pan. The skin is brown and the meat is juicy. This method is in Michael Ruhlman's, 'Ratio'. I find it to be a great method for basic roasted chicken.
I usually use a 4 - 5 lb chicken and haven't checked the internal temps since the first few times of using this recipe except for when I'm at or over the upper end.
I think this works well for a chicken without stuffing, this is similar to this method here: http://www.deliaonline.com/recipes/main-ingredient/poultry-and-game/chicken/fast-roast-chicken-with-lemon-and-tarragon.html
Is the iron skillet a key component of the recipe you describe? When I bake my chickens, I place them in a deep baking tray with the chicken resting in a grill. Something that looks like this: http://imghost.indiamart.com/data/C/0/MY-465187/big-backing-tray-with-grill_250x250.jpg
@Arlen - I don't think so. I've also used a roasting pan without the grill and the result was fine. However, the thing about the large skillet is that after cooking, you remove the chicken, and bring the pan to the stovetop to make a sauce right in the pan.
Cooking times for whole chicken's vary by weight.
350 or 400 degrees would both be fine (although you need to change the times depending on which you picked)
Next time try:
• 190 C, 375 F, Gas Mark 5.
• 20 minutes per lb(500g) plus 20 minutes extra.
When it reaches the time pull on the leg, if it isn't wiggly leave it in, if it is pull the leg away a bit, if the juices run clear you're done if not leave it in until they are. Every oven is different so this is the only definitive way to time a chicken.
What are the advantages of using 350 versus 400?
@Arlen - higher temperature has a general correlation with crispier skin, although it can also lead to dryer meat. That's why CI/ATK when looking for both did a low temperature finished off with a high one.
In terms of recipes for baking a whole chicken in the oven, there are lots of options in terms of temperature. Different variants will produce crispier skin, more moist meat, etc.
I've used recipes from America's Test Kitchen that call for varying the temperature from 350 to 500 at different times for different results, flipping the chicken in the roasting pan, and more.
A thermometer is one of your best tools in the kitchen. You should absolutely get one and use it - at some point you may become good enough to learn to tell doneness by touch and sight, but until then absolutely rely on a thermometer. Make sure to get into the center of your meat without touching bone.
What you need to do is check your chicken in a variety of places with your thermometer. Make sure that your thigh reaches at least 170 degrees F (as opposed to 165 degrees F for the breast). Measure the breast and both thighs before removing.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.538094
| 2010-09-24T07:50:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7576",
"authors": [
"Arlen",
"Ben",
"EM-Creations",
"I. Rothschild",
"Ikaso",
"John J. Camilleri",
"John Neville",
"JohnW",
"Sono",
"Tina",
"Tom",
"ashes999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1497",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15559",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15560",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15577",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15585",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15589",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15603",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5714",
"justkt",
"tonylo",
"wdypdx22"
],
"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
}
|
32469
|
Can I "re-caramelize" meat after a failed braising attempt?
I am cooking a meat stew with a delicious, fatty bunch of oxtails. Initially when browning the meat, I didn't get a sufficient amount of caramelized glaze around the oxtails and none of the fat melted into the stew.
Is it possible to pull out the meat for a second sear, browning it thoroughly then reducing with the stew? Are there better ways to "save" the stew?
do you mean second sear by 'second braise'?
Well, I thought about that, but I think I want to sear the meat thoroughly this time, and then add the stew and cook to allow those new flavors to infuse. So I'm repeating the entire process again.
tricky with oxtail, you could easily make them dry if you sear them for as long as you normally would. I'd run them hotter for less time. The second time around the tissue is different.
I gave it a shot! I took the oxtails out and seared them in a cast iron pan underneath the broiler in my oven. Once they were pretty much blackened on all sides, I dropped in a bit of the stew and simmered it down very briefly using residual heat from the cast iron. It was a surprise how quickly it infused with the caramel flavor from the meat. I added the reduction and meat back to the original stew and it has a decent, robust flavor like I'd hoped. Not ideal, but a good way to compensate for expenses in "cutting corners".
The one downside is that my "fast braise" in the cast iron seemed to have diminished the seasoning slightly. I rinsed and wiped the pan dry then coated with some oil and put it back under the broiler briefly.
Glad it worked out for you! It would have been a shame to end up stuck with a dish you were unhappy with.
In theory, it should work out okay. I've never tried it, personally.
If you are going to pull them back out and attempt to heat them directly again, I would suggest patting them dry first, so that other components of your stew that may be stuck to the meat do not char and add a burnt taste.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.538541
| 2013-03-06T18:10:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32469",
"authors": [
"AdamO",
"MandoMando",
"Preston",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19458
|
Gas or electric oven with gas stove
Always have I wanted a gas stove top. Now is my chance. I had envisioned years ago the best combination in the kitchen would be a gas stove and electric oven. I don't bake often except for old world breads and holiday birds. What would be my best combo? What are the advantages and disadvantages of gas and electric ovens?
I'm not sure it's really about a combination; assuming you're building the kitchen and won't have problems getting gas and electricity where they're needed, they're pretty much separate choices.
A lot of electric ovens can be programmed to run when you're away, and most gas ovens don't allow that.
I have used gas ovens with gas hobs, electric ovens with electric hobs, and electric ovens with gas hobs. By far the best combination is gas hob and electric oven. I'll break the pros and cons down:
Gas Hob
Pros:
Heats up quickly
Heat changes quickly - when you turn it off, it's off.
Fine control over heat
Cons:
Can create 'hotspots', but this is why you have different sized rings
Can be fussier to clean
Obvious danger of gas leaks, but modern safety systems mitigate this
Electric hobs are pretty much the opposite. They can be slow to heat and react slowly to heat changes (so if you want to go from a boil to a simmer you have to plan 20 minutes ahead). They also have the disadvantage of remaining hot even when they're turned off, which can be dangerous. Their only advantage over gas hobs is a more even heat across the pan, and being easier to clean.
Electric Oven (preferably fan)
Pros:
Quick to preheat
Even temperature throughout the oven
Precise temperature control
Cons:
None that I can think of
In contrast, gas ovens are slow to preheat, have marked zones of different heat (cooler at the bottom, hot at the top) and have coarser heat control. Also, because the flame is generally at the back of the oven, you can end up burning larger dishes that butt right up to it. All this builds up to make an unreliable oven (in terms of cooking results).
In conclusion, a gas hob/electric oven combo is the best because it gives you ultimate control over your cooking.
I think the OP had already decided on a gas stove, but thought that the combination of oven and stove might have some importance.
Additional con of gas stove: more heat is wasted out the sides. This can heat up things that shouldn't be heated (like the handles on a pot) and is inefficient. Note that this means that a gas stove with the same power output as an electric one probably takes longer to boil water. (Of course this problem can be solved by getting a more powerful stove.) Also, 20 minutes is a huge exaggeration. You can go from boil to simmer in more like two minutes, and it can be even faster if you pull the pot off the burner briefly.
I said plan 20 minutes ahead, not actually change temperature 20 minutes sooner :) Also, if you use the appropriate sized burner for the pot you are no more likely to waste heat up the sides than you are if you put a small pot on a large electric ring.
Hm, but with the burner fully covered, I think there's much more convective heat transfer out the sides with gas than electric.
-1 (virtual downvote) your stated negatives for an electric hob mostly apply to the traditional coil models. Halogen or even newer induction models are very different.
I disagree, at least on the halogen front, which I have used: they are markedly slower to change heat than a gas hob.
Possible regional difference in gas ovens shows up here - every (USA) gas oven I've ever met has the flames under the bottom center of the oven (and a broiler rack below that.) Never seen one with the flame at the back.
@sdg: absolutely correct. Induction us as fast as gas, more efficient, dead easy to clean and doesn't explode your house on a defect.
When I switched over to a gas stove, some years back, I noticed that it took considerably longer to cook food on my new (Gas) stove. like 6 min on the electric stove vs 10 min on the gas stove for boiling about 2L (7 Cups) of water (for making Tea). Then, it made me suspicious if gas stove really saves me any money that I thought it would (Gas, based on Lower Calorific Value LCV, being 40% cheaper than Electricity, per unit of Energy, at that time).
I tried experimenting at home with a 0-150 degrees C thermometer and an average size pot, filled with 2L of water.
What I found from my experiment was that using electric stove, about 60-65% of the energy was going into heating the pot and the water in it; and in the case of gas stove, it was a maximum of 40% (based on LCV and optimizing the flame for minimum heat loss vs cooking). Adjusting the pot height from the flame, for maximum heat transfer efficiency, I was able to get almost 50% heat transfer to the pot and if the pot was higher than the manufacturer supplied base, heat transfer efficiency quickly dropped to 20-30 %.
As gas cooking was less efficient in my cooking experiment, the cost advantage for Gas, for factory set pot height, disappeared if cooking was the primary objective. But, for optimized flame to pot height, the cost advantage was back.
Also, if the stove is being used in the winter months when home heating is ON anyways, 100% of the heat value (both Electric or Gas) is used in heating the house, cooking the food along the process. In this case, cost advantage of Gas is achieved again. (Keep in mind the reverse effect in the summer months).
Recently, I replaced my old gas stove with a new modern gas stove and have observed (no detailed experiment) that it took even longer to cook, than on my old gas stove. Quickly noticed that the modern looking stove grill places the pot higher than in my old stove. Bringing the pot lower, reduced the cooking time back to as was on my older stove.
I wonder, if the Gas stove designers/ manufacturers try to maximize the heat transfer by optimizing the pot height or exploring ways for more efficient heat transfer to the pot.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.538987
| 2011-12-06T20:00:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19458",
"authors": [
"Alex Bridges",
"Cascabel",
"Ecnerwal",
"ElendilTheTall",
"JDelage",
"JoyPatch",
"Sharon Lima",
"eckes",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142877",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5014",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/835",
"sdg"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20599
|
Troubleshooting a soufflé that collapses during baking
I am trying to make a cheese soufflé to surprise my girlfriend on her birthday (24 Jan). After several cooking trials, I still face a key problem: my soufflé collapsed after baking for 25-30 minutes.
What did I do wrong? Here are the steps to the recipe;
boil equipment
grease butter to the renakin, place into the freezer
separate egg whites (no yolk mixed)
add a little salt to egg whites
add a little sugar to egg whites
using a hand mixer, whip the egg whites adding more sugar during whip
melt 40g butter (100C)
Whisk 40g all purpose flour into melted butter
pour 250g milk slowly and whisk util it mixed
wait until it cools down
re-grease butter to the renakin, place into the freezer
beat the egg yolks to a creamy consistency, then pour into the milk mixture
add 1/3 of the mixture to the base, continue to add the whites folding very gently.
Preheat oven to 200C (5-10 minutes)
pour the mixture into the renakin
add the cheese on the top
bake at 170'C (with heat select="lower")
After about 25-30 minutes and a 2cm rise, the soufflé collapses prior to removing from oven.
updated 19 Jan Evening :
I do
buy better hand mixer
use more flour (50g)
move egg whites whipping process to last steps
reduce whipping time to 5 minutes
bake with heat select="lower" about 15min after that change to "upper and lower"
sit in front of oven and see the soufflé every moment.
result:
at 20mins: the soufflé raise about 3.5 to 4cm (from 5cm height renakin)
around 25mins: it collapse about 0.5cm, so I immediately remove it from oven (T-T)
after than it collapse very fast. (I guess it is common)
Thank you very much @jefromi and @KatieK for your comments and links. I plan to buy oven thermometer this morning because I have no it yet.
updated 21 Jan Lunch :
Yesterday I found problem on the oven temperature. When I set temperature to 170 C, real temperature is 150C or below (because it keep going down). So today I try to keep in range of 160-200C and no collapses now.
Thanks you very much to everybody again for kindly help.
Soufflés are about more than ingredient lists - posting the entire recipe might be helpful. When you say it collapsed after baking 25-30 minutes, do you mean that it rose while baking, then collapsed at that point? Or after you removed it from the oven?
it rise about 2 cm and it collapsed before removed from oven.
A couple related questions: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10177/collapsing-souffle and http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6295/could-you-describe-the-souffle-technique
There are two likely causes of soufflé problems.
1) Egg foam. Be sure that you're whipping them to peaks (soft peaks, as I recall) when you first whip them. Then, when adding the 2 mixtures together in 3rds, be sure that you're properly folding in the whites; this is a very specific technique, and easy to over-do.
2) Oven heat. Use an oven thermometer to check your oven's temp - it's probably wrong. Put some extra mass in that oven (like a baking stone or brick) to reduce wild temperature swings during baking.
But, as in the linked questions in the comments, all soufflés fall to some degree.
Thanks very much for comments and links. It is great video. I have no the thermometer yet so I will buy it today.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.539476
| 2012-01-19T05:15:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20599",
"authors": [
"Bhavana",
"Cascabel",
"John",
"Mega man",
"S. Mike Bruce KM4JLX",
"Spammer",
"StarryG",
"force of love",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45239",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45240",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45265",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45284",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45379",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8785",
"illiquent",
"trent",
"treyn",
"user13601"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21325
|
Make microwave popcorn in the oven
Have anyone tried making microwave popcorn in a oven? What temperature is preferred? For about how long does it have to be in?
I know I could just rip the bag and pop it a pot but if it's possible to do it in a oven I would try.
I'll come out and say "no, you can't make microwave popcorn in a conventional oven."
For popcorn to pop, the kernel must reach a temperature well above boiling (which builds up steam, causing the kernel to explode). It must do so very quickly, otherwise the moisture will just slowly evaporate out, simply drying the kernel rather than popping it.
Microwave popcorn works because the microwave is primarily heating the kernels directly (because they contain the most water), and quickly. Air poppers don't use the oil, but they do get very hot, and the forced air heats the kernels very fast. And stovetop methods use the heat built up in the oil to heat the kernels quickly. Even fire-popped corn (a fun prospect) relies on fast heat.
Unfortunately, ovens are anything but fast. In the time it would take to heat the kernels, they would just dry out, and possibly start to burn the bag.
If you want popcorn without a microwave, stovetop popcorn is quite easy, and very tasty. I like using a wok, because it's shape is well suited for popcorn (sloped sides keep the kernels in the hot spot, while allowing popped kernels space to expand).
Might manage something with the use of a baking stone for quicker, more direct heat - though I agree it's likely more trouble than it's worth.
I did try it:
At 500°F the bag caught fire.
Seems like a partial answer, could be written more clearly - at the kind of temperature you need to pop corn, the bag catches on fire, so it doesn't work.
yeah, it doesn't wok.
This is in disagreement with Asimov's Fahrenheit 451: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_451 Paper making techniques have likely changed since 1953.
Disagreement or agreement?
Below answers suggest popping popcorn in conventional oven at 450F or 446F (230C) led to popping success and no ignition of paper!
I did this just now but it took too long. Short answer: not worth the time. This became a 2 step process. I put the microwave popcorn bag in the oven, baked on about 400 degrees, long enough for the oil to melt. Once the butter melted inside, the bag got a little puffy, while still in the oven. I removed the bag, opened the bag and dumped the contents into a stove top pan, slid out like magic. Popped as usual on top of the stove. It tasted great.
I tried the convection mode thinking it would seal on moisture. At 500 degrees F the kernels did start to pop. However, letting the bag stat that hot so long made the plastic melt and the paper seams unglue. Sort of worked, but the burnt plastic smell was awful and probably chock full o' dioxins.
Try opening the bag, scraping out all the popcorn and oil, put in pan with lid, and pop on the stove.
That's really the best way to pop bagged popcorn without the microwave.
My answer is:Yes, you can make microwave popcorn in an oven.
I personally tried it and it worked! I hope I helped some pepole with this who don't have a microwave but do have an oven. I used top bottom selection at 230C° for as long as the popcorn keeps popping. If the popping stops for more than 40 seconds then that means that it is done. Easy, medium speed, and delichous! Also put the bag on a tray in the oven and if you want, then put tinfoil under it, but it isn't necessary.
Rip open the bag and transfer contents to a makeshift aluminum foil pouch. Seal the pouch except for a small opening for steam to escape. Cook at 450 about 15 min or until popping stops
Have you done this yourself?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.539880
| 2012-02-13T22:35:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21325",
"authors": [
"Brandon Robinson",
"Cascabel",
"Craig Douglas",
"Félix Gagnon-Grenier",
"John Ugoji",
"Megha",
"Rod-Brenda Uting",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140153",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55347",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91439",
"milo",
"paiger406"
],
"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
}
|
24375
|
Haddock Falling Apart
I coated a haddock filet in flour and then fried it in olive oil. I let it reach 120 degrees Fahrenheit. When I went to flip it it fell apart and broke into sections. What do I need to do to cook a fish so that it binds together? What chemical processes cause this to happen? Why did my fish not bind?
Your fish didn't "bind" because cooking fish actually breaks down the muscle fibres. Some fish have denser flesh that holds up better to frying and grilling. Tuna and swordfish are two common examples. Other fish have a flakier flesh such as haddock and red snapper.
Haddock is a good fish for deep frying. You can also bake it to have it maintain its form. If you wish to fry it you need something thicker than a coating of flour to help it hold together. You can coat it in batter or do a flour/egg wash/corn meal coating. If you really want just a flour coating you should probably start by cutting the fillets in half.
In terms of equipment and technique you should have a wide fish spatula and, with the fish lying lengthwise across the pan, you flip the fish away from you. You can even stabilize it with your fingers as it rolls over.
Alternatively, you could pan fry a fish more suited to the application.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.540215
| 2012-06-12T03:50:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24375",
"authors": [
"Alisha",
"EightyEight",
"Jo Korppi",
"Olav",
"Robbie Dee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55484",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55646"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23036
|
Name the vegetable from Nilgiri hills
I bought this in Ooty market and was told that it is a Nilgiri hills specific vegetable. It is pink on the outside and white inside with two hard black seeds in the upper half of it. It tastes sour, very similar to unripe strawberry.
Now, I'd like to know what the name of this vegetable is and whether it can be used in any dishes. Until know, I've been eating it as a snack, just like I would any other bite sized food.
Probably a language barrier when they said it was a vegetable.
I think it is a fruit called Chambakka.
There are a few recipes for chambakka achaar, which means pickled chambakka.
But I would try this chambakka jelly recipe. It looks delicious!
Great, that seems to be the one. Cheers!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.540353
| 2012-04-15T12:37:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23036",
"authors": [
"Bailey",
"Harry",
"Tabitha Mikailu",
"havlock",
"hello",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52071",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9921",
"rlab"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23312
|
Bacon substitution
I do a great simple dish that involves bacon so I'm interested whether there is a vegetarian substitute for bacon. It would be quite useful having one since I use it all the time.
Here's the recipe:
I make small ball doughs that I boil for a couple of minutes until they are a bit firmer. In the mean time I fry bacon pieces (not slices but small square pieces) and eventually add dough balls to bacon and add sour cream.
Personally I would substitute the vegetarians instead of the bacon. You could substitute them with... more bacon!
Bac'n Bits are, in fact, vegetarian. They're a passably good crunchy garnish.
There's also Bacon Salt; which has many variety and spin-off products. It's vegetarian and kosher!
I am looking for the texture and the taste. Bac'n Bits might be what I'm looking for. Check my other reply to see what the actual dish is.
If the bacon is just for flavor, go for anything that has a lot of umami flavor. If you want it to taste specifically like bacon, you could try bacon salt (I've never had it but it's vegetarian and is supposed to taste like bacon) - but remember that a lot of vegetarians might not want things to taste like meat. Otherwise, there are a ton of options with plenty of umami - for example, some types of mushrooms, ripe tomatoes, parmesan, seaweed (nori), or even straight-up MSG. There's actually a question about vegetarian sources of umami with extensive lists.
If you're looking for a textural substitute too, I'm guessing you've got crispy pieces of bacon. At that point, pretty much anything crunchy/crispy that doesn't clash with your recipe would work, and it can probably be separate from the source of umami. It's hard to say much without knowing what you're actually making, though.
Finally, it's not too glamorous, but if you want something like crumbled pieces of bacon, storebought bacon bits (e.g. Bac-Os) are vegetarian - they're basically flavored fried soy cracker pieces.
Good to know what I can use for the taste. Well, the recipe is as follows - I make small ball doughs that I boil for a couple of minutes until they are a bit firmer. In the mean time I fry bacon pieces (not slices but small square pieces) and eventually add dough balls to bacon and add sour cream. Very very simple yet delicious. Now you know so you might have another idea to share. But Bac'n Bits seems adequate since nothing really can replace bacon as such!
There are several good substitutes. It's not the same, but you can get smokey, chewy and/or crispy. All of these work well for BLTs or veggie bacon cheeseburgers, things with bacon in them. But they don't all work great as standalones like real bacon.
Tempeh bacon. I'm surprised no one has mentioned tempeh bacon yet - that's by far the most common alternative. You can find tempeh
bacon pre-made by Lightlife or Turtle foods (Tofurky), usually available
at Whole Foods or other supermarkets and health food stores in the refrigerated mock meat section. But it's easier/cheaper/healthier to make it yourself by marinading and frying thinly
sliced tempeh. Google tempeh bacon to find a marinade recipe - I usually use a simple marinade
with liquid smoke, maple syrup and soy sauce.
Tofu bacon. If you take thin slices of tofu, marinade in a similar mixture (might add miso for extra umami and so it sticks to
the tofu) and then bake for 45-60 min it will get chewy and be a
decent substitute. Vegan Yum Yum has a good recipe that I've made several times.
Commercially made bacon substitute. Lifelife's Smart Bacon is my favorite of these and it's vegan. Find in the refrigerated mock meat area of
the supermarket. Morningstar farms makes a frozen one that's also
not bad, but it contains eggs it's so ovo-lacto, not vegan. There are others that you can find on vegan catalog websites as well (for example).
Coconut bacon. This is one of the newest kinds on the scene. You need large coconut flakes, or if you have a fresh coconut you can
make into longer strips with a peeler, sharp knife, or maybe a mandolin. The idea is the same as above, soak in a
smokey marinade and then fry or bake. It's got a great texture and
sounds like it would work well in the recipe you mentioned above. Also good in salads. Again, google for lots of specific recipes.
Baco's/Bacon Bits. As mentioned baco's are often vegan. The brand Frontier makes a "bac'un" bit that's organic and maybe healthier than the others?
In general, the idea is to use a smokey/sweet/umami marinade on something vegetarian that can give you a similar chewy or crispy texture. Seitan (cooked wheat gluten) would probably work as well. I haven't tried it for bacon, but it's good for making vegan bbq "ribz".
Bacon provides 3 things to any meal:
Flavour
Texture
Fat
I typically use bacon when roasting a pork tenderloin, as it's an extremely lean meat, and needs the extra fat.
Substitutes:
Flavour -- Try this http://www.baconsalt.com/ I don't know if it's any good, but it's worth a try.
You want something a bit crunchy I'd try some sort of fried potato slices.
The potato will add some fat, but depending on the application, you may need to baste the dish with vegetable oil while cooking. Cheese can also help here.
Thanks, potatoes won't work since it's a dish with cooked dough. Check my other reply for a dish recipe.
For your specific recipe, and for a lot of other dishes where you fry the bacon separately and then add it into the dish, halloumi is a great vegetarian substitute for bacon. It has a lovely salty flavour which has a lot of similarities to bacon, and it also provides a nice crisp but chewy texture.
I signed up specifically to answer this question. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloumi
Halloumi cheese, fry this and I swear to you they will not be disappointed. I am amazed that this is not recommended here, is it available in the states?
Some vegetarians, such as myself, are put off by the taste of meat, even if it's just simulated. Make sure that you don't offend any of your guests.
I would recommend tofu as it is probably one of the closest things to meat.
tofu is a meat substitute for vegetarians but to get that bacon-ish taste, you might want to make thin slices of tofu and deep fry it with over low flame until it is very crispy.
Have you ever tried this? I doubt that tofu can be made to taste like bacon. Unless you mean that by crisping it to the point that it is a tasteless husk it gets a similar mouthfeel to bacon which has been crisped to the point of being a tasteless husk.
Bacon has a very strong flavor, and that's almost certainly what the OP wants. If he just wanted something crispy there are tons and tons of things he could use.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.540477
| 2012-04-25T08:01:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23312",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Dogs",
"Joseph Cameron",
"Kef",
"M Ives",
"MrEction",
"Sobachatina",
"Sue",
"Terry",
"Xavon_Wrentaile",
"gaazkam",
"gazza",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52781",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52783",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52789",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52800",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52802",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52803",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52964",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9921",
"rlab",
"rumtscho",
"user52781",
"user52783",
"user52802"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
53567
|
What is the difference between genoise sponge and victoria sponge?
Just wanted to find out the differences between Genoise sponge and Victoria sponge. In particular, I was interested to find out which one turns out softer.
Here are the 2 recipes for comparison.
Genoise sponge - http://eugeniekitchen.com/chocolate-swiss-roll/
Victoria sponge - http://utry.it/2013/11/decorated-coffee-swiss-roll-with-step.html
The Victoria sponge recipe has you mix the egg white (albumen) mixture separately from the yolk mixture and then fold them, while the Genoise sponge has you beat the eggs whole. I was under the impression that the Victoria sponge method would turn out a much softer sponge because of how much air is worked into the whites. Is that true?
I'm not an expert at these things, so I had a look at the wikipedia articles as well as a couple recipes and promptly got very confused about exactly what each is supposed to be. Could you describe or link to the methods you're asking about, just to be sure?
@Jefromi: I've edited the question with 2 recipes that I saw
All the recipes for Victoria sponge cake I've seen use baking powder (or self-rising flour instead of all-purpose flour). Almost all of the recipes for Genoise sponge cake I've seen do NOT use baking powder.
If I recall correctly the differences are slight, but significant.
Both have a subtle, delicate flavour with an exceptionally light texture.
The Victorian is usually regarded as the healthier, lighter of the two, but I believe this is mostly due to the Génoise usually being rendered as a layer cake with a lavish buttercream filling, though if I remember right it can also be used as a base for madeleines and ladyfingers. The Victorian can be baked thin and carefully rolled with cream for Swiss rolls.
The main difference is the Victorian slices disorderly and 'crumby' while the Génoise retains its form neatly.
Both are accompanied well by, and are traditionally served with hot beverages namely tea and coffee.
The Italian creation is undecidedly the more complex one to prepare.
You're right about separating the egg whites and beating them separately aerating the mixture further, but I'm not certain if it would make a noticeable difference in case of sponge cakes but I'd love it if someone could comment on this.
You posted this a year ago, but I think the other difference is that the genoise is heated while beating the eggs, while the other spongecake is not.
Good call! That is certainly a difference in the recipes. Welcome to Seasoned Advice!
Both the Genoise and the Victoria can be made by various tweaks to their individual methods but the real difference is very simple. Genoise sponges are made without fat.Consequently, the Genoise has a much shorter shelf life due to the lack of fat.
By aerating almost any application of baking that calls for such method, the end product is almost always going to be more delicate if done properly.
Here are a couple of tips I learned in Culinary school on how to beat egg whites:
Use clean utensils (of course right).
let the egg whites come to room temperature (OR you can let a blow torch "lick" the outside of the bottom of the mixing bowl while the machine is running to raise the temperature of the stainless steel bowl or glass to body temperature, 'No hotter', this is how confident experienced professional bakers do it).
Once you start to whip the egg whites, don't stop unless to briefly check the consistency of the product (soft, medium, or hard peaks).
use can also use a 1/2 tsp. to 1 tsp. of cream of tartar to every 5 to 10 oz. (weight) of egg whites, to help facilitate the whipping process as well as the structural integrity of the final product.
If you are trying to incorporate sugar, at approximately the halfway point of whipping the egg whites (this will take experience to know when this is) add the sugar "slowwwly" (literally a light dusting along the sides of the mixing bowl as the machine runs until almost the end of the process).
Also by the way, each egg white of a large egg should weight just about 1 oz. (weight) and the yolk is about 0.66 oz. also weight.
Now to help answer your question:
In school I also learned a saying called "Mise en place" which in French (depending on the dialect) means: "Everything in it's place." I say this because, before you invest all your undivided attention into the process of whipping those egg whites. You are going to want all of your other processes/tasks/steps in the recipe to be complete and ready (in their place) preserving as much of the whipped egg whites as possible.
Next and probably the most important (if you're already skilled at whipping egg whites) is; the process of folding the whipped egg whites into the other part of your recipe.
Here is a link to www.craftybaking.com that explains how this is done.
I hope some of this information is useful and helps you out in the baking department.
I think the question wasn't written as clearly as it could've been (so I fixed it up some) but the OP was trying to ask about the difference between these methods, not how to successfully accomplish them. So the first sentence of your answer does indirectly address that (it indicates which one should be more delicate) but the rest of it is about how to successfully make the recipe, which while useful, wasn't really part of the question. So in terms of answering the question, you only have an indirect answer - might want to edit.
You might also want to search around for a question about beating whites, or a question about folding, to find a better place for all this advice. (If you can't find one, post one!)
This answer doesn't even mention the two types of cake the question is about... I'm glad you're here and willing to share your knowledge but I feel you regularly fail to actually answer the question that's asked, preferring to spout semi-relevant facts that don't actually answer the question.
Sorry just trying trying to help, I will try harder to keep my advice more relevant to the context of the question at hand.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.541002
| 2015-01-13T07:05:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53567",
"authors": [
"Amandaplay",
"Anthony Beal",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Chef_Code",
"Dario Segui",
"Dave Collier",
"Debbie Oxner",
"Diane Collini",
"Divi",
"Elra Wisner",
"Jolenealaska",
"Lisa Evans",
"Mark Kelly",
"Sonny Bradley",
"SunnySide Garage Door Repair",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125891",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125892",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126196",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130807",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133121",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133139",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159965",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34383",
"pacoverflow",
"sascha van der spek"
],
"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
}
|
26069
|
Removing hair from pork belly
I bought some pork belly yesterday and I was just about to cook it when I saw thick hair on it. I tried to cut it with a sharp serrated knife but it didn't budge. I was really put off and put the pork back in the refrigerator. Can someone please save my pork belly and let me know how to get rid of the hair?
+1 for Can someone please save my pork belly?!
If you have a blow torch or a brûlée torch, just burn the hairs off.
If this is not an option, I've heard that you can use a normal safety razor. In this case I would definitely choose a razor without a lubricating strip along the top.
I used the blow torch
Would a gas stove work in a pinch?
@Jack Probably, depending how high you can crank the flame. A gas broiler would likely work too. The blowtorch will give you more control though, and reduce the amount of inadvertent cooking you're doing.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.541497
| 2012-09-09T01:27:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/26069",
"authors": [
"Divi",
"Hikazu",
"Jack",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106788",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"logophobe",
"nico"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
87583
|
Visual standard for gas flame levels
Is there a generally accepted notion of high/medium/low flame that can be expressed visually?
I ask before concocting my own guidelines for peewee chefs, 8yrs+. Because there is wide variation in stove tops (Esp internationally), I want clear direction easy to remember.
For example, maybe high flame licks the grate, while low only curls around burner head. Or maybe something about the color of the flame?
Anything that can help define medium is most useful since the knob establishes highest and lowest flame.
An issue you'll have to deal with is diameter. A high flame on a smaller ring may put out more or less heat than a low flame on a bigger ring. While you might think the pan size would cancel that out, a big pan may need to go on a small ring for a gentle simmer. The height between the burner and the pan rest isn't exactly standardised either.
You might do better to think in terms of the pictures on the dial: big flame, little flame, and halfway in between. Even then you'd have to normalise for pan size. Perhaps assume a pan a bit wider than the biggest flame that ring delivers. Even the amount of variation between max and min is quite variable.
As for colour, if it's not blue, turn it off. That's a simple message for kids but it's a good starting point.
The nice thing about gas for this scenario is that it adjusts quickly, so you can just adjust if you realize that it's barely cooking or burning everything. That means that giving clear recipes may be more important than precise definitions of "medium".
@Cascabel very much so. We might want our onions to be sizzling gently but our pasta to be boiling vigorously and our sauce to be only just bubbling
yup, picking the right pan and the right burner are important. Just trying to establish a high flame from a med or low as a starting point
Flame height will vary by stove design. Height relative to grate will vary. Most knobs have a low medium high.
Young (and old) chefs need to recognize temperature, how it effects the food, and adjust as necessary. What is nice about gas is you can adjust heat immediately.
my Chinese low was my U.S med-high. I might just arbitrarily call low 1cm and med 2cm etc until they recognize from experience as you say
And a 2 cm could be less heat than a 1 cm.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.541603
| 2018-02-06T18:52:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87583",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Chris H",
"Pat Sommer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
87918
|
Should I scrape out portobello gills to avoid sogginess?
I am not worried about the dark staining of everything else on the plate; rather, keeping the caps from going soggy.
Yes, a hot pan and a bit of salt helps, but does scraping make much difference for sogginess if the gills are newly opened and rather dry? How about older, moister gills?
From my online research, I don't think that the gills themselves have an impact on the texture of cooked portobello mushrooms. It appears folks scrape them to avoid the discoloring issue that you mention, and also to remove any potential grit that might be captured within. Why not try an experiment and report back to answer your own question?
Will do next available caps
That's the exact reason. It's the discoloration and to clean the dirt out of the mushrooms. I was always taught to clean the mushrooms prior to my Alfredo sauce to keep it as white as possible.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.541805
| 2018-02-22T00:14:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87918",
"authors": [
"Kevin Fischer",
"Pat Sommer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
52186
|
what size foil squares to wrap chocolate truffles?
So much leftover chocolate truffle base that I better package nicely and get out of the house:
Is there some ratio or rule of thumb to spare me from experimenting on the right size and shape of bon bon to fit either a 3, 4 or 6" square foil?
Closest answer I find is from foil ordering site stating 3" is for small, 4" medium size candy etc. Whatever that may mean.
Cube, ball or flat-bottomed egg are all fine by me; typically my portioning is not more than an inch thick.
Sorry if this post is more geometry than cooking but appearances count too
Some basic math, assuming spherical candy and the type of foil that fits snugly w.o. twisting the ends (like thin aluminum foil):
3" foil -> covers 0.95" candy w.o. overlap -> aim for scant 3/4" balls
4" foil -> covers 1.27" candy w.o. overlap -> aim for 1" balls
6" foil -> covers 1.91" candy w.o. overlap -> aim for 1.5" balls
I figured 3.14 for Pi would be precise enough, and the formula is:
circumference = diameter * Pi
For cubic candy:
circumference = 4 * side
For other blocks (or close enough, e.g. egg-shaped):
circumference 1 = 2* (height + lenght)
circumference 2 = 2* (height + width) -> use the bigger value for square foil
Of course, you'll want to have a foil slightly larger that the circumference, as you need some overlap - just add 1/4" - 1/2", depending on how precise you wrap.
If you are using the plasticy type of stiff foil that is to be twisted, add at least 1-2" per twist, up to 3" for a more "flashy" effect.
Thanks, that puts it in the ball park. Too much overlap looks sloppy so under 1/2" works. Looks like I'll be stocking up on 4" and a few 6" sqs
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.542014
| 2015-01-02T04:38:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/52186",
"authors": [
"Outdoor Classrooms Ltd",
"Pat Sommer",
"Sell Buy To Let Property LTD",
"Shireen Kempf",
"Spammer",
"Szymon Kozlowski",
"chloé roult",
"diana zahira",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123843",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123844",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123845",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123847",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123851",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123854",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
76487
|
How do I make prepared seitan (gluten) more tender?
The 'chicken' Twinkie-sized logs from Chinese grocer are roughly the texture of firm silicone.
I sliced them thinly and braised for 1 hour. Not noticeably softer.
How do I tenderize them? Would meat tenderizer work? I'm assuming no but I reckon I will get some other good tips!
Some meat tenderizers will very likely work since they are proteases, some of which work on plant based proteins too. Try on a small piece and compare.
Frying and simmering will both cook it to an even more firm state (maybe it would eventually cook to mush if you cooked it for days... but one way to MAKE it involves a 3-4 hour simmer :).
I am assuming it is not actually rubbery due to being undercooked - in that case your 1 hour braise should have improved it.
Bromelaine or papain?
just found: "Gliadin, the other protein, is a densely packed protein with a low surface area to volume ratio (6, 7), making it difficult for enzymes to encounter. In addition, gliadin protein has a large amount of amino acids that are especially difficult to digest. These difficult to digest amino acids are proline and glutamine (8)."
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.542182
| 2016-12-15T01:41:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76487",
"authors": [
"Pat Sommer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45285
|
Keeping crawfish alive overnight?
I'm going to buy Crawfish this Friday night at 9 or 10 and boil them Saturday at noon. Is it possible to keep Crawfish alive overnight? If possible how does one do so?
Oh you're fine. For maximum freshness, follow the advice from (this one is better, no spurious exclamation points!) this online FAQ
How do I keep crawfish alive until I boil them?
Keep them in the sack and cool with ice, but not submerged in water. A large ice chest works great with the drain spout open and the lid cracked for breathing. Properly wash the crawfish by submerging 2-3 times in clean water. Let them soak for 20-30 minutes the last time. Use of salt on final cleaning is best.
I'm not contradicting because I don't know, but I'd be wary of information that uses so many exclamation marks ...
How uncanny i was about to buy from this company. Too bad they are out.
@setek I think the information is probably reliable and correct, but I sure understand what you mean about the excess exclamation marks.
Yes, there is that. I'll look for a better one! :)
link From the master himself. I seem to recall him saying on that episode that you can leave them in water overnight, changing it occasionally, to 'flush' the digestive tract. Don't quote me on that though...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.542295
| 2014-07-03T02:41:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45285",
"authors": [
"Carey Gregory",
"Christy Owens",
"IA Meracap",
"JSM",
"Jatinder Singh",
"Jolenealaska",
"Lecifer",
"Ming",
"North Texas Hand Center spam",
"Yasmine Chica Amada",
"chrisjlee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107821",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107822",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140762",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
33229
|
How can I make a raw vegan shrimp paste substitute?
I would like to make a raw vegan shrimp paste substitute. I have seen people suggest using mushrooms -- yes, but.. how would you make it taste like Thai shrimp paste?
Very related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12351/what-is-a-good-vegetarian-source-of-umami-flavour - shrimp paste is mostly used to add umami and salt. The remaining bit of distinctive seafood flavor is pretty much impossible to replicate without seafood anyway - though nori gets partway there.
As far as I know, shrimp paste is ground shrimp fermented with a lot of salt. You may have a hard time replicating this exactly with easy-to-find vegan ingredients, but I think what might work well as a substitute is a mixture of miso and dried seawead or kelp powder. The seaweed would give you the fishy taste and the miso - which is salted, fermented soybean paste - would give you the funky salty part.
I'm not sure if you consider miso raw, because it's often pasteurized, but you might find unpasteurized miso at a health food store or Whole Foods. It wouldn't be as "safe" as pasteurized and might have other stuff growing in it. If you want to make sure it's raw, you could also make the miso yourself. I won't tell you how to do that here, but there's sources online. You can also get you sick if you ferment it yourself and don't pasteurize it.
Another vegan alternative, but not raw - is to get some Taiwanese meat substitutes. I live near an importer in NYC that sells tons of stuff online, include shrimp and other fish substitutes. In my experience they are very fishy tasting, but that might work for this application. Here's a link to their seafood section. http://www.maywahnyc.com/SearchResults.asp?Cat=1819
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.542457
| 2013-04-04T00:35:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33229",
"authors": [
"Arnelle Rawpi",
"Cascabel",
"Jason",
"Rufus Masters",
"TheBird956",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76964",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76965",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76966",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76967",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76971",
"noemiee"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35814
|
Are there any general principles of ingredient substitutions?
When trying to determine if an ingredient can be substituted in a recipe, are there any general principles or guidelines that apply?
Yes, there are a number of things to think about, although in the end experience, intuition, and a deep understanding of the science of ingredients will be your best guide.
What does the ingredient do in the dish?
The first question to ask yourself, is what role does the ingredient play in the dish?
There are three main roles, although some ingredients can play more than one of these roles in some dishes:
Structure or backbone. The ingredients that form the main structure or contribute to the chemistry of the dish.
Examples would be flour in a cake, or chocolate in a ganache.
In savory cooking, the flour used to thicken a sauce would be contributing to the chemistry.
Signature. A signature ingredient is key to the identity of a dish—it is why the dish is what it is.
Examples would include basil in a pesto recipe.
Accents and garnish. These are ingredients that compliment the flavor or texture of the dish, but aren't the core identity, or essential to its chemistry or structure.
Examples include chili flakes sprinkled on pizza, or potatoes in a stew.
Signature ingredients
If a dish is defined by a certain ingredient (such as the rum in rum balls), then substituting for the signature ingredient really isn't practical. You would be creating a new dish, or changing what its core is.
If for dietary, religious or other reasons, you simply cannot use the signature ingredient in a dish, you would often be better served by looking to make another dish whose main ingredients you can enjoy.
On the other hand, this can be a jumping off point to invent new dish. For example, instead of making rum balls, you might make bourbon balls—but they wouldn't be rum balls.
Structure ingredients
Substituting structure ingredients can be very simple or very tricky, depending on the application or restrictions involved.
First, ask yourself what role the ingredient plays in the recipe, and what the ingredient is principally composed of.
Some common roles are:
Fats. Most fats can be substituted for one another fairly freely, although the flavor or texture may change slightly.
In very sensitive recipes, the water content of butter or margarine (about 20%) may be a favor.
In other recipes, the saturation of the fat, which controls whether it is solid (saturated fats) or liquid (unsaturated fats) at room temperature is important. If the fat is used mechanically, as in biscuits or laminated pastry, you need another solid fat. This also applies to the creaming method—the fat must be solid in order for air to be incorporated.
When used as a frying medium, for very hot frying like searing or deep frying, the smoke point of the oil may matter. For routine sauteing it is not terribly significant as the food itself will cool the pan.
Sugars Most sweet ingredients can be substituted for one another fairly freely, with a couple of considerations.
Liquid sweeteners like honey or syrup add water, and tend to be even more hydrophyllic than plain sugar. Additionally, in candies and other applications where controlling sugar crystallization is important, the fact that they may inhibit crystallization can be either an advantage or a disadvantage.
One case where liquid sweeteners cannot be used is cakes or baked goods made with the creaming method, which rely on the sharp edges of the sugar crystals to cut air into the fat medium.
Finally, some brown sugars or unrefined sugars bring a small amount of acid, which may change the acid balance of a recipe. This is mostly important in baking, where the acid from the sweetener is used to activate chemical leavening.
Otherwise, the major issue is what flavors in addition to sweetness the ingredients carry.
Pure Starches. Many starches have the same role in recipes, and perform similarly.
The issue to look at is if they are stable under heat or acid ingredients, and whether they gel transparently or cloudy.
Flours. Flours are an exceptionally difficult category, especially when the flour to be substituted is wheat flour, which has special charactaristics due to gluten. This is one area where looking at the entire recipe, and multiple ingredients is appropriate.
Acids Many acids are used in cooking to brighten flavor. In this case, many of them including citrus juice, various vinegars, and so on can be freely substituted to taste.
However, in baking, if the acid is meant to work with the chemical leavening, or in any curing type application, the absolute amount of acid or the pH of the recipe must be considered.
Bulk ingredients. Bulk ingredients--often starchy vegetables or grains like potatoes, rice, barley, carrots, noodles, and so on form the body of some dishes.
The main issue here is usually flavor balance, or texture and consistency, and how it participates in the entire dish. For example, a stew or sauce could be served over mashed potatoes, pureed turnips, noodles, rice, or barley without changing the stew, but the overall experience would be changed.
Accent ingredients
Finally, there are accent ingredients, which do not fall into the previous categories.
These are the easiest to substitute or play with, as they don't change how the recipe works.
For example, using parsnips instead of potatoes in a stew, or garnishing cookies with chocolate sprinkles instead of coconut.
In these cases, you are looking for comparability of flavor and texture, as well as avoiding changes that would affect chemistry or structure of the dish.
So you would not substitute potatoes with tomatoes in many applications, because the tomatoes can be much more watery and more acidic, which may have an effect.
Conclusion
When deciding how to substitute, the main issue is understanding the role of an ingredient in a a dish, and finding another ingredient that can help play the same role.
Of course, if your goal is to make something good, not necessarily exactly what the recipe is for, then the line between signature and accent ingredients is pretty blurry.
@Jefromi I think I addressed that, saying it was a great starting point for new dishes. :-)
I'm perhaps trying to push a little farther and suggest that when someone asks for substitutions, they'd often be quite happy with the answer "nothing exact, but things like this would make a good, similar/related dish" and much less happy with "no you can't replace it".
As far as sugars go, my understanding is that in baking recipes which call for creaming the sugar and fat together there is an important mechanical effect of the sugar crystals which would be lost if using a syrup or a much sweeter replacement (e.g. pure stevia).
@PeterTaylor Quite true, I missed that one, although it is a large scale mechanical effect.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.542608
| 2013-08-05T02:56:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35814",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Jaki H",
"Jehu",
"Peter Taylor",
"REM505",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Tom Resing",
"citxx",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83904",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83907",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83908",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83917",
"john main account",
"o15a3d4l11s2",
"user9442851"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
34670
|
How do I know if food left at room temperature is still safe to eat?
If I left food out of the refrigerator for some period of time, is it still safe? If I left it out too long, can I salvage it by cooking it more?
Pro tips: bookmark this so you can find it when you want to close duplicates, and since the answer here is very general, consider adding a comment with specific advice when you vote to close!
When in Doubt, Throw it Out!
You cannot always see or smell bacterial contamination. Mold that appears to be growing only on the surface may grow invisible roots into softer foods. Do not rely on a visual inspection or "smell test" to tell you whether or not a food is safe. It's not worth the risk - food poisoning can be much, much worse than an upset stomach.
The Danger Zone
Per the USDA guidelines, potentially hazardous food that stays in the temperature "danger zone", 40-140 °F (4-60 °C), for more than 2 hours should be discarded. For temperatures above 90°F (32°C), the limit is 1 hour.*
Potentially hazardous foods are those foods that spoil most easily, such as unshelled eggs, raw meats, fish, shell fish, dairy products, almost all cooked foods.
This time is cumulative, so it includes time bringing the food home from the grocery store, time before cooking, time after cooking, and so on. The reason is that while cooking may destroy bacteria or other pathogens, it doesn't always destroy the toxins that they have produced.
In general, regarding perishable foods like meat, most dairy, unshelled eggs and shell eggs (in the US), cooked casseroles, and so on: if the food (or its perishable components) have been at room temperature for more than two hours, you should discard that food.
To avoid the danger zone, keep cooked food hot until ready to eat, then refrigerate immediately. Separate large items into smaller containers to help them to cool more quickly. If you’re defrosting something, do it in the fridge or under cold running water.
If you can be certain that the food was not in the danger zone, then yes, it is safe. For example, if you left a large chunk of frozen meat out and it is still frozen solid (including the surface) when you come back to it, it was not in the danger zone.
Why is it so strict? / Why didn't I get sick?
These guidelines are about making sure you don't get a foodborne illness, i.e. reducing the risk to where it's so small as to not be an issue. So if you break the rules, e.g. eating food that's been left at room temperature for 8 hours, that doesn't mean you will get sick, just that you're taking a risk.
Why does cooking not completely "reset the clock"?
Some bacteria leave behind harmful protein toxins that cannot be "killed" (denatured) by cooking. Cooking food is only effective against live organisms, not their toxic waste products. Spoiled food cannot be cooked back to safety and must be discarded.
Cooking is pasteurization, not sterilization. Pasteurization means killing most microbes, so as to render the food safe for human consumption. Sterilization methods (e.g. pressure-canning and irradiation) are the only safe methods for longer-term room-temperature storage. Otherwise, the danger zone rules always apply.
Even sterilized food can only remain sterile under an airtight seal, e.g. when properly canned or vacuum-sealed. Once it is opened, it is no longer sterile. Air contains countless bacteria and molds, and their spores, which will readily re-colonize any suitable environment they encounter. Cooked food tends to be an ideal medium for growth.
What can I leave out longer?
For foods that aren't potentially hazardous as described above, there's no solid rule, but things are generally safe for much longer than the 2 hours given above. For example, things which are sold at room temperature (e.g. fresh produce, bread, or cookies) are most likely safe at least all day or overnight if not for days or even months. You can find guidelines for common things at StillTasty.
Regulation and Risks
Follow the guidelines set out by reputable regulatory agencies, especially when serving others. Local organizations include:
FDA Food Code (USDA)
CFIA (Canada)
Food Standards Agency (UK)
Other regulatory sources apply in other parts of the word, but major food safety organizations usually agree in essence (if not in complete detail) on most issues.
Failure to follow reputable guidelines is irresponsible if you are serving guests, and failure to follow your specific local codes is likely to be illegal if you are serving customers.
Health codes tend to be very conservative, to fully protect the community. You have the right to take risks on yourself by ignoring their recommendations, but please do not risk the safety of others.
Again, When in Doubt...
Once again, if you suspect spoilage or contamination, please, throw it out.
* Note: this is the USDA's rule. Other agencies may have variations on it. Additionally, government agencies generally make very conservative recommendations - they're trying to make sure that no one who follows the rules gets sick. Breaking the rules means maybe taking on some risk. That's up to you - just remember, eventually someone gets unlucky, and food poisoning is not fun.
Helpful Resources
Wikipedia: Food Safety
USDA Fact Sheet
Still Tasty - has information on storage methods/times for almost every food.
Further Reading/Frequently Asked
Why is it dangerous to eat meat which has been left out and then cooked?
How long can I store a food in the pantry, refrigerator, or freezer?
What Do I Need To Know About Temperature and Food Safety?
Is there a problem with defrosting meat on the counter?
How long can cooked food be safely stored at room/warm temperature?
Is it safe to cook a steak that was left out (raw) for 7 hours?
How long can eggs be unrefrigerated before becoming unsafe to eat?
Should I refrigerate eggs?
It's also a good idea to keep a thermometer in your fridge. They typically don't have built-in temperature readings, and you may be inadvertently endangering yourself and your guests. The appropriate temperatures are discussed here: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12013/what-is-the-ideal-fridge-temperature
I strongly disagree on dairy. In many European countries cheeses are sold at room temperature and are absolutely fine to eat, and you can definitely keep it out of the fridge for more than two hours with no issue whatsoever. Preserved meat (salami, ham and in general Charcuterie) can be kept in a cool place outside of the fridge for months with no problem. In summary, you cannot generalize.
@Steve absolutely! My fridge went on the blink last month, but it didn't stop working it just sneakily got warmer. Our first clue was milk kept spoiling. I now own two fridge thermometers, for fridge and freezer. ~$5 each, well worth it.
Perhaps this answer should be clarified to point out that the "danger zone" applies to the food's temperature and not to the ambient temp around the food. For instance, if you set some frozen meat out to defrost at room temperature, it hasn't gone bad after sitting for two hours. It's probably still frozen solid at that point. The "danger zone" timer is only ticking when the food's internal temperature is between 40 and 140°F. Similarly, putting warm food in a fridge/freezer doesn't immediately stop the clock, as it takes some time for the food's internal temperature to drop.
Rules like this are devoted to big distribution, food industry, public restaurants etc. That a bowl soup is dangerous after a couple of hours in my kitchen is ridiculous. They are kinda laws and have regulatory purpose. It is not a kitchen book. Still the answer is good as for it provides guidelines. But it should be taken with one, even two, grains of salt.
@nico I agree that this answer is totally irrelevant concerning questions about food preservation methods. "How do I correctly and safely determine how long food preserved with X method will last" is not in any way answered by "put it in the refrigerator".
The question was: "If I left food out of the refrigerator for some period of time, is it still safe? If I left it out too long, can I salvage it by cooking it more?"
Answer: It depends ...
How long did you leave it outside the fridge?
What kind of food are we talking about?
What is the moisture content of the food and the humidity of the air in the room?
Is the air reasonably clean. Did you put it on a clean or contaminated surface?
Is it raw or cooked food?
These are just a couple of questions so you get the general idea that it really is impossible to give a generalized answer to the question.
Considering that only a surprisingly small percentage of the worlds population actually has access to refrigerators and people still eat I think it might be obvious that refrigeration is really not the only way to store food for later consumption.
For a more in depth study of the topic I recommend:
Food Safety: The Science of Keeping Food Safe By Ian C. Shaw
As a more general tip I would stick to common sense. e.g. any food containing raw eggs (Mayonnaise) or food that must by its nature be considered contaminated (store bought raw chicken / raw meat) needs to be handled in a reasonable matter (you should be able to find the correct advise about handling these kinds of foods in any good cookbook) to avoid colonisation to an unhealthy (when eaten - even after cooking) point. On the other end of the spectrum leafy vegetables or fruit bought fresh from a farmers market actually comes with its own protection in the form of beneficial bacteria on the skin and is therefore less likely to be easily (meaning in a short time) colonized by pathogenetic organisms. Learn about your food and learn how to cook and you probably will be safe.
Anecdotally, I routinely leave (vegetarian) dishes out, not just for two hours but overnight, and have observed that they're always fine. Unless they've been exposed to human saliva, in which case they're furry in the morning, or it's the middle of summer and the house isn't cooled, my observations lead me to believe that a lot of dishes are fine sitting out to cool. (I developed this habit when I had a fussy and ancient fridge, which would labor whenever hot foods were placed in it.) I would never leave, say, fresh homemade mayonnaise out, but a pot of curried chickpeas? No problem.
If I left food out of the refrigerator for some period of time, is it
still safe?
It all depends on measures you have taken to prevent spoiling. There a fair few types of charcuterie that is aged for anywhere from a week to several months. So in a general sense yes CERTAIN foods can be safe to eat even when not refrigerated. The thing is these foods have been prepared in a manner that prevents harmful bacteria from growing.
Salami for instance uses salt to cure the sausage and then also adds further acidity to the environment by the addition of wine. This ensure that harmful bacteria is unlikely to grow.
Biltong and to a lesser extent Jerky as well is pieces of meat that is cured in salt and then to remove the salt a vinegar bath is used to also add further acidity and reduce water content of the meat.
These examples seem to be the exception though as it seems you want to know if food that is not specifically prepared for long term curing is safe to leave outside and to that I would say a resounding NO.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.543179
| 2013-06-13T21:36:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34670",
"authors": [
"Aghaveagh",
"Alchimista",
"Angel Ramirez",
"Barbara Hartwig",
"Benoit Esnard",
"Bob says reinstate Monica",
"Cascabel",
"Catherine Guida",
"Dawn Isaksen",
"Guitarzan ",
"Hejoi",
"Him",
"James_pic",
"Kevin Palmer",
"MARYANN GARCIA",
"Mariette Baker-McDermid",
"Mark Allen",
"Mark Soulby",
"Matthew Cline",
"Michael Stack",
"Morpheus",
"Patrik",
"Rafalon",
"Rebecca",
"Rebecca J. Stones",
"Richard King",
"Spammer",
"Steve",
"Thetodor",
"Trachyte",
"Village Talkies spam",
"Vipra Fauzdar",
"aroth",
"cait moore",
"enositis26",
"goblinbox",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117904",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132619",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134746",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141525",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141605",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141606",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39256",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80845",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80847",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80848",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80850",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80859",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80861",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80865",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80868",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80875",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80878",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80880",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80881",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80883",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80884",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94962",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94963",
"ioana mascas",
"kladhest",
"nico",
"theblang",
"user80882"
],
"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
}
|
34764
|
What stabilizer can be used in non-dairy ice cream with alcohol?
I am making coconut milk ice cream with alcohol. I'm using 28oz of coconut milk, fruit macerated in 1/4 cup of alcohol, another 1-2T of alcohol, and 1 1/2 tablespoons of arrowroot. It tastes great, but it melts way too fast. What can I use besides xanthum gum, guar gum. Could it be the freeze time? Or the tupperware containers I use in the freezer? Any suggestions are appreciated.
Is your freezer cold enough? Stabilizers will keep it softer (less icy) when frozen, but it'll still melt when it warms up.
I'll check. Must it be on the coldest setting? The ones without alcohol freeze really well.
Well, how much alcohol are you using? Maybe just post your whole recipe? Alcohol is a great way to soften ice cream and sorbet - but if you add enough it won't freeze.
I went ahead and edited your clarifications into the question for you, so people will see them more easily - you can edit your own question too!
Assuming a few things about your recipe - your coconut milk is full fat, your alcohol is a liquor at 80+ proof, it sounds like you're just adding too much stuff that doesn't really freeze. You've got a total of maybe 3/8 cup of alcohol, when just 2T is enough to soften ice cream noticeably. Ice cream made with just cream is already plenty soft, so adding that much alcohol can make it really soft. You didn't mention sugar, but that would make it softer as well. This is the opposite of the normal problem of too much water, not enough fat/sugar, making ice cream freeze too hard.
The simple solution is to just add more water, in whatever form suits you. Since you're using fruit, I'd suggest simply adding more of that! You could also try using light (reduced fat) coconut milk so that you have less fat. I suppose you could even reduce the booze - just slowly simmer it until the volume is reduced, so it'll have less alcohol, but retain flavor.
Otherwise you're going to have to dilute things - use less coconut milk or alcohol and add something more water-based that freezes harder. For example, you could replace alcohol with some kind of flavored extract, or replace some coconut milk with milk.
(The arrowroot isn't making your ice cream melt. It'll thicken it a bit, and stabilize it (keep the fat and water from separating), both of which are fine things. The stabilization is probably good, since coconut milk does separate eventually.)
Your statement "coconut milk has about twice as much fat as cream, and ice cream made with just cream is plenty soft". Is incorrect. Coconut milk has 24% and 'cream' used for ice cream is not 12% fat, as that would be near half and half (10%). Real ice cream (like hagen daaz) has about 20% milk fat. And by adding stuff to her coconut milk, she's in the right ballpark.
@MandoMando Sorry, I looked at the wrong number; I'll fix that part. The fact that the ice cream is over-softened is unchanged, though.
Guess i can't map soft and hard to freezing temperature right now. I do know that if she removes the fat an replaces it water, she'll have the same problem of melting too fast. I also know that some LN2 will fix this problem in a shake of a tail ;)
Alcohol lowers the freezing point (and melting point), you can use this calculator to figure out the melting point.
For other additives, you can use the turkish ice cream method with gum arabic and salep to give it more strength.
That calculator isn't going to do you much good when there's also a ton of fat from the coconut milk, and also some sugar from the fruit (if not added sugar).
@Jefromi it'll do a lot of good. She can choose the right alcohol percentage to freeze properly. It's a limoncello calculator, so it's assumed the balance is sugar. The coco-fat actually helps raise the freezing point as added bonus.
Fat raising the freezing point isn't a bonus, it's an enormous systematic error in the calculation (depending on how much fruit there is, her ice cream might be 20% fat!), which makes it melt more easily, which is the problem the OP is trying to solve.
@Jefromi i knew we were going to have another physics debate. When you put ice cubes in the fridge they melt, tell me what happens when you put coconut oil, or even chicken fat in the fridge? It Goes solid. And particularly coconut fat remains solid (frozen) at temperatures above zero. 20% is near ideal for ice cream. Manufacturers cheat by putting less cream and upping the thickening agents so that their ice cream doesn't melt faster. You may wish to buy cheap ice cream and a hagen daaz and compare for yourself.
I don't see how this is a debate. Her ice cream doesn't freeze solid enough and melts too easily; it has too much fat and alcohol so the freezing point is too low. Providing a way to calculate the freezing point for something with an entirely different composition doesn't really help you find the freezing point of the ice cream, so it doesn't help you keep it from melting.
See op's comment re "The ones without alcohol freeze really well." The fat actually helps here. The alcohol needs to be reduced and calc gives a decent idea of how much alcohol is needed to reach freezing point of say -10C (freezer is -16 normally). She can fine tune from there.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.544188
| 2013-06-19T03:13:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34764",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Ceep",
"Javi Ramírez",
"Julie",
"Kevin",
"Kristan L.",
"MandoMando",
"SickofSamrtasses",
"Willeke",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18813",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81091",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81111",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81227",
"iAmNoah",
"michael kanyi",
"michele"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
36172
|
What are proper methods of cooking stovetop lentils?
I've had lentils that are cooked through but retain their form, as well as lentils that are cooked down into an almost blended substance.
What's the origin of each type of preparation, and when is it best used? Are certain kinds of seasoning better for either method?
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! The seasoning tips part of your question doesn't fit our site as well - we avoid broad questions with a lot of possible answers, especially more opinion-based ones. I'll go ahead and tweak that a bit, but you're probably better off searching for recipes, or you could pop into [chat] and see if anyone has any thoughts.
You're asking for quite a lot of information here. The consistency of cooked lentils has a lot to do with the variety of lentil you use (French green lentils hold their shape well, split red lentils are that blended texture you mentioned), but the final texture depends on the preparation style as well. This is just too broad to be answerable right now. If you say what texture you're going for, we might be able to suggest a type of lentil and/or cooking method to achieve that, but it's too much to ask for all possible types and methods.
There are many different kinds of lentils, each of which have unique properties when cooked. Some lentils, like French lentils, will hold their shape very well when cooked. Most whole lentils will actually hold up fairly well unless severely overcooked. Frequently for the dishes with a more homogenous texture, split lentils (frequently masoor dal) are used. In addition to being split, the seed coat of the lentils has been removed, so if they are cooked thoroughly there isn't really anything holding them together.
Usually they are just simmered in a liquid until tender. The seasonings are up to your personal taste, or the recipe you are using. The one advice that I would give is to taste as you go. If you want the lentils to remain whole, be sure to avoid overcooking them. Conversely, if you want a smooth texture, cook them until completely tender.
Also, a lot of the dishes that you refer to as having a blended texture may in fact be blended.
Lentils with a husk retain their shape, but huskless they become mushy.
I use the huskless red lentils for dal, which is very common. It's sometimes thick and sometimes sloppy. I usually use tumeric at the start of cooking, and I usually add a tarka of spices at the end. I have it with rice, it's wholesome, filling, and delicious. Dal is, of course, from the Indian sub-continent.
I use puy lentils (with a husk) in salads or in stews, generally not spiced, more commonly with Mediterranean or middle eastern flavours.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.544606
| 2013-08-20T20:10:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36172",
"authors": [
"Anton Strocel",
"Cascabel",
"Filipon",
"Laura",
"N Lakra",
"Timur_O",
"an3",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84829",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84831",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85489",
"joe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
36290
|
What water temperature should be used for instant coffee?
I just put instant coffee in my cup and pour the water. My question is, what temperature should that water be?
In that case, I think it is completely up to your preference so long as the coffee gets dissolved. You might want to call the consumer question number on your favorite brand to see what they say, but I suspect they will tell you the same thing.
Personally I prefer putting the milk in first, and I usually let the kettle cool down for about 30 seconds before adding the milk. Just seems to taste better that way.
This is the NY deli trick: sugar and cream at the bottom, add coffee. Stirring is automatic :-)
You have quite a bit of leeway with Instant Coffee. You can brew it using water of your desired temperature. I would recommend using water just below boiling point though, around 95-99 degrees Celsius. You could use 85-95 degrees Celsius water as well; it won't make a big difference in terms of extraction of flavour, and here is why:
How instant coffee is prepared in the factory:
Coffee beans are roasted
They are ground very finely (0.5 mm - 1.1 mm in diameter)
The ground coffee is mixed with water in percolation columns which reaches 155 - 180 degrees Celsius. This is the extraction process.
This mixture is then concentrated and/or dried using vacuum evaporation, freeze drying, or spray drying methods.
The result from this is what you get in the store.
Conclusion:
All of the very particular factors that one must consider when trying to make great coffee have already been decided for you. You have no control over roast, grind, time from grind to extraction, extraction time and temperature, or time from extraction to consumption. All of this been decided for you.
It is up to you. Brew it at whatever temperature you like to drink your coffee at.
However, it may be slightly harder to dissolve the coffee and get good flavor at cold temperatures. Keeping it on the hotter side may be better. That's just chemistry though.
Sources:
I am a professional barista and coffee connoisseur.
Instant Coffee Wikipedia Article
For anyone interested in a dedicated coffee SE site, check out this area51 proposal: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/44633/coffee
Personal experience - Using just off the boil led to bitterness with a new style of instant coffee (https://www.suddencoffee.com), which is prepared differently than traditional instant coffee. The combination of dissolving the instant grounds in a few tsp of cold water, then adding hot water 1 minute off the boil was much better.
You may know that you can buy special kettles that heat the water to 92 deg c to avoid scalding the coffee. These are expensive and unnecessary.
Here's an idea that I came up with.
Boil the kettle.
Pour the water into the mug/cup whatever.
Because some of the heat energy is transferred to the mug, which has a fairly high heat capacity, the temperature of the water falls to the perfect heat range.
Now add the instant coffee. Then the milk! You'll be amazed at the difference! Happy coffee drinking!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.544858
| 2013-08-25T10:26:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36290",
"authors": [
"Africaddicted",
"Audrius Meskauskas",
"Christopher Stephens",
"ElendilTheTall",
"GMK",
"Norma Christian",
"Patrick Sebastien",
"S Williams",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Stephanie",
"Taylor D. Edmiston",
"aunlead",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85150",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85309",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85311",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85314",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93745",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93752",
"samyar safaei"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37581
|
How can I make my cheese sauce creamier?
I made my cheese sauce with pre-shredded cheese (first problem I know), milk and butter. I tried to make a roux but without the flour I think I made it fail.
To make the cheese sauce, I put milk and butter in a pot and brought it to a boil. When it frothed, I mixed in the cheese, then stirred it every so often.
When I took it off the heat, the cheese was separated, with a milk and butter mix at the top. I strained it over my pasta and it was in chunks. (I'm keeping the milk and butter mix for my next cooking adventure, but I'm not sure what yet.)
Where did I go wrong, and what can I do for next time? I'm trying to keep it relatively cheap. I thought doing homemade would be more cost-effective than buying Velveeta or a million boxes of macaroni and cheese.
I know it seems that mac 'n cheese should be a simple thing for a beginner cook to make. It isn't. Without a solid recipe, even experienced cooks can royally screw up mac 'n cheese. Generally it starts with a bechamel, also known as a white sauce. You're right, that starts with a roux which requires flour, or at least some kind of starch. Once you've got a good white sauce, then you add the shredded cheese. You're right again, pre-shredded cheese is not a good idea. Pre-shredded cheese is covered with cellulose so it doesn't clump up in the bag. That doesn't make for smooth melting.
Alton Brown's stovetop recipe is about as simple as homemade mac 'n cheese gets. I would recommend mastering this then moving on to (written and highly rated) recipes that start with a bechamel. And grate your own cheese. AB's Stovetop Mac 'n Cheese.
One more thing - Cheese sauce for mac 'n cheese is one application for which high quality (read that "expensive") cheese may not be your best choice. High quality, expensive cheeses tend to be aged, making them melt with a texture you might consider grainy. Some people go so far as to use (gasp) American cheese or even (double gasp) Velveeta for smooth melting. I'm not sure that I'd recommend going that far except for pre-teen palates. For me a happy medium (so to speak) is store-brand medium cheddar. AB's recipe calls for sharp cheddar, but he has other ingredients that ameliorate potential graininess.
A sort of cheaty way to make a smooth cheese sauce is to melt cheese into evaporated milk. The reduced water content of the milk helps keep it smoother and more emulsified. I usually pour all but 2 tablespoons of the milk into a pan, heat it up, whisk in the cheese until it's completely melted. I then add some starch to the saved milk and make a slurry to thicken the sauce (if needed).
I've also made a roux with butter and flour and used the evaporated milk, and that works as well.
Another key to keep in mind is that not all cheeses will melt equally. Cheeses with lower water contents can become grainy and greasy in a sauce, so you're better off using softer cheeses (or using less of harder cheeses).
Evaporated milk commonly contains Potassium Phosphate which is an emulsifier and will help keep a grain from forming.
The starch in a cheese sauce is not just for thickening; it also helps maintain the emulsion of the cheese, keeping the sauce smooth and creamy.
Without resorting to modernist cuisine methods (sodium citrate), your best approach would be to make a traditional bechemel sauce (roux, cream), and then add in shredded cheese.
You should find countless recipes by googling cheese sauce recipe.
Sodium citrate. It's not some crazy scientific chemical, you have it in plenty of other foods. I've made and messed up a lot of mac and cheese in my day and sodium citrate is the way to go. This page is very helpful.
If you don't have some on hand mix a bit of vinegar and baking soda together until they no longer react and add a bit at a time of that solution until consistency and texture is to your liking.
Just be careful when using it at first because it can make your sauce seem bitter and or salty. I would not suggest using strong IPA if you're doing a beer cheese sauce - I speak from experience.
In addition to the other responses, you should take the sauce off heat before adding the cheese. Heat (and acid) will cause the cheese to separate.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.545398
| 2013-10-14T05:48:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37581",
"authors": [
"Linda Robin",
"Mother Rachael Kennedy",
"chenjesu",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155506",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155507",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81386",
"robert gordon"
],
"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
}
|
38265
|
How much sugar and corn starch is in commercial icing sugar?
If anyone knows about the percentages of sugar & corn starch to make icing sugar for commercial purposes, please let me know. How important is it for these percentages to be accurate?
Check out this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-kN7aCVGz0
Since the OP never returned, I'm editing the title to match the body of the question, and adding in what I think was meant by the title.
Powdered sugar (as it is known in the US) is approximately 3% cornstarch by weight.
See, for example, United Sugar's website. This is typical of all manufactuers, however.
I tweaked the question slightly, if you want to add anything about how important it is to make it with exactly 3% cornstarch.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.545728
| 2013-11-08T06:07:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/38265",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Chiara Sophia",
"Christoph Schmidpeter",
"John Texan",
"Jolenealaska",
"Margaret Zyskowski",
"Meli",
"Morten",
"Sally",
"THEODDLEV",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90144",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95332",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95333",
"rur"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
73082
|
Why did James Bond heat up the knife for his foie gras?
I was reading Fleming's Casino Royale and ran into the following curious detail, when describing James Bond's meal:
Later, as Bond was finishing his first straight whisky ‘on the rocks’ and was contemplating the paté de foie gras and cold langouste which the waiter had just laid out for him, the telephone rang.
...
Bond shook himself, then he picked up his knife and selected the thickest of the pieces of hot toast.
He dipped the knife into the glass of very hot water which stood beside the pot of Strasbourg porcelain and reminded himself to tip the waiter doubly for this particular meal.
Now, from the text, it seems he's about to put foie gras on a toast. As far as I'm aware it's quite soft and not hard to cut with the knife and spread.
What exactly is the point of dipping the knife into hot water then?
Keep in mind the high amount of fat in paté de foie gras, around 43%. Fat melts with heat. Thus the saying, “like a hot knife through butter”.
"Bond was finishing his first straight whisky ‘on the rocks’" is the odd thing in that quote. :-) It's either straight (aka "neat"), or it's on the rocks; it can't be both. If it were his third straight whisky 'on the rocks' we'd know it was the third one he'd had in a row without drinking something else in-between. But with "first," it just doesn't make sense. Must be why he switched to martinis.
"spread"? You don't spread foie gras, you cut a slice and deposit it on your bread.
@T.J.Crowder "Straight" doesn't even mean that, although it is sometimes ambiguously confused with "neat". However, since what it does mean apparently isn't what Fleming describes either, in this particular case I would hardly be surprised if typical meanings of these colloquial terms had changed since the book were written. A good one for ELU, perhaps?
@LightnessRacesinOrbit: Perhaps. I've never heard straight used for the chilled meaning described there, nor apparently have Merriam-Webster (who do list the "neat" meaning of it).
@T.J.Crowder That's a dictionary for the American offshoot dialect, no? Has nothing to do with you, me or Bond :) (Notwithstanding that, as explored earlier, it appears to be wrong anyway)
@LightnessRacesinOrbit: That's an interesting point. Leaving aside whether American English has any influence on British English (it does, has for decades, and does more now than ever), it pertains to me as I mostly grew up in the U.S. despite being English-on-paper and living here the last couple of decades. Now I have two questions for EL&U. :-) Oh, and Collins lists the "neat" meaning, too.
@LightnessRacesinOrbit: When you said "doesn't even mean that," what were you referring to? Think I misunderstood.
Drinking whisky on the rocks isn't a sign of actually good taste anyway, imo..
From this link
The key to slicing and portioning foie is to treat it like a rich
mousse-cake: Make sure to heat up your knife under running water in
between every slice. A cold knife will catch and stick in the foie,
causing it to tear or crumble. A hot knife will melt the fat as it
goes through, leaving you with clean, smooth surfaces to sear.
Only problem with the answer is that Bond is eating pate de foie gras not foie gras. Nothing to sear, and you're basically smearing the pate on the bread anyhow. I suspect Fleming just got that one wrong in the details.
I think the importance of the clean cut is still there, even if you aren't searing it, even if you smear what you cut off. I think if you have a loaf/mass of pate, it would probably be considered rude to leave a sloppy looking pate loaf behind. Of course, I've never had it, so I'm speculating.
I think it helps the knife to pass through the foie gras quickly without anything sticking to the surface of the knife blade, making for cleaner cuts.
Enjoying foie gras
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.545858
| 2016-08-12T15:37:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73082",
"authors": [
"Basil Bourque",
"Lightness Races in Orbit",
"PoloHoleSet",
"T.J. Crowder",
"TaW",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26757",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44316",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49753",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5836",
"njzk2",
"user2397191"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
40603
|
Can I roast nuts in a convection microwave oven?
I am looking for a new microwave. I heard a lot of good things about convection microwave ovens. I am wondering if I could also use one for roasting nuts or any kind of seeds, so I don't have to buy another appliance for roasting nuts and seeds.
Agreed, duplicate.
just toast them in a saute pan on low to medium heat youl achieve the same effect.
if you must use your microwave convection, you shouldn't use the "microwave" aspect of it and simply the convection. Any use of the convection will increase your electricity substantially.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.546206
| 2013-12-27T00:26:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40603",
"authors": [
"Alberto Verlicchi",
"Eugene Motley",
"Lion Heart",
"Meowmere",
"Need Inspiration",
"Preston",
"Rick",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94470",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94480",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94581",
"mabelle ramos",
"user41252",
"user94469"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
39963
|
Can I defrost chicken to separate then refreeze?
If I buy a large quantity of chicken frozen together, can it be thawed, separated, then refrozen safely?
Technically if it was defrosted in safe conditions you could refreeze without too much fear of
contamination, but that's not the main issue - quality is. Refreezing meat usually results in a horrible, mushy texture, because of the cell damage caused by freezing. Look for individually vac-wrapped parts if you can find them.
As ElendiTheTall says, the problem here is quality. If you must defrost, separate, then refreeze, defrost the big block as little as possible to pry the necessary pieces apart. You're better off causing some cosmetic trauma pulling partially frozen pieces apart than allowing them to completely defrost and then refreezing.
You can thaw, separate and refrozen the chicken, but from this, the quality of the meat will become worse. Usually, I try to separate the meat before freezing and then take only the piece.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.546318
| 2013-12-04T15:43:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39963",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44106
|
Why does the pasta I make with my extruder always stick together?
I've tried a few times now to make pasta with my Kitchen Aid extruder and EVERY time it sticks together and tears when I try to separate the strands. What am I doing wrong?
I am new to homemade pasta and although I've tried several times I've never actually gotten an edible product. I started with 4 eggs 2 cups "pasta" flour but the dough didn't end up picking up all the flour. It wasn't sticky and I let it rest about 30 minutes before putting it in the extruder.
More details and some photos please
Usual reasons are dough too wet, not kneaded enough. For fine pasta try a hair dryer blowing perpendicular to exit point
Do you have a food processor?
When trying out new kitchen appliances and tools, it’s generally a good idea to use whatever recipes come with the device a few times until you get a feel for it.
Fact is, it takes a bit of practice to find just the right hydration. I find that 35 - 38% is good.
This does not provide an answer to the question. Once you have sufficient reputation you will be able to comment on any post; instead, provide answers that don't require clarification from the asker. - From Review
@sneftel This actually DOES answer the question. 35% hydration means you use roughly one part liquid to three parts flour... but like they said, you might need to adjust depending on your exact conditions (like how humid it is, your exact machine, etc)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.546431
| 2014-05-13T22:17:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44106",
"authors": [
"Gill Beale",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Joseph Scovell",
"Karen L",
"Sneftel",
"Spammer",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103570",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103574",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44947
|
How do I brew longjing tea?
I want some knowledge regarding the longjing tea.
I have not tasted it but want some more knowledge about it and also the brewing method of it.
I'm sorry, we don't deal with health questions here. We can certainly address the brewing of the tea, but not anything having to do with potential health benefits.
I edited the question to remove references to health benefits. That done, I also retracted my vote to close.
@Jolenealaska, must be a tough place to work when according to their profile they're a manager at the above store and they don't get a cup to try.
Longjing tea is a green tea. So the general principals of brewing green tea apply:
The tea leaf to water ratio: Around 3 g of tea leaves for 150ml of water.
Water temperature is very important to bring out the best in a green tea. Not sure if you've had green tea before, but if the water temperature is too hot or boiling, the tea will brewed bitter and will lose much of its delicate aroma. On the other hand, if it not hot enough, the brewed tea will not be full flavored.
For the first and second steeping, the tea leaves should be brewed in hot water at 70°c - 80°c for 1 minute. You can always experiment with the length to find out your desired flavor.
For subsequent brewing, if reusing the same leaves, increase steeping time and temperature.
Notes, the easiest way I personally find to reach this desired temperature (75°c), at least in a cup, is to fill 3/4th cup with hot water and 1/4th with cold water, a tip shared by a tea shop employee.
Brewing method is pretty standard, like most green teas: 80 deg Celsius, let it steep for a few minutes.
Even this is too hot for many good quality green teas. A reasonable longjing releases more interesting flavours if steeped at 60-70°C; 80°C destroys some of the more subtle notes. Try several different temperatures to see which works best for the specific tea.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.546682
| 2014-06-18T04:34:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44947",
"authors": [
"András Salamon",
"Arshak Aivazian",
"Beverly Mellor ",
"Brandon Snider",
"Cody Freisinger",
"Dr. Banjadebaje",
"J W",
"Jolenealaska",
"LMF5000",
"PeterJ",
"Rod Smalls",
"Scott Vinson",
"Smokin Aces",
"Spammer",
"Suthan Bala",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106871",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106872",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106878",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106880",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106914",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107647",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107648",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107884",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5041",
"my kitchen mart"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
52329
|
Is it feasible to cook a gourmet tasting menu in a home kitchen?
This is not a question about cooking per se, but about professional cooks outside their day jobs. I have seen a few movies where chefs have a restaurant-grade kitchen and kitchenware at home, all ready to use on a regular basis. For example, in Chef, the titular character quits his job at a fancy LA restaurant after an argument with the owner, then goes home and proceeds to cook the same gourmet tasting menu he was planning to cook at the restaurant.
Is this a realistic depiction? Could he likely cook that menu at home, or would he likely need things present only in a professional kitchen? I understand that chefs might want to invest on high-grade hardware for their own homes, but I wonder to what extent they actually need to have everything they would need in their work kitchen.
I'm guessing that restaurant-grade equipment is likely cheaper than the high end stuff they try to sell people for home use. (Le Creuset, All-Clad, etc.) The exception might be in gadgets and specialty items (cream whippers, high end blenders, anti-griddle, gear used just for molecular gastonomy)
I don't understand the question. Are you asking whether a chef is likely to have professional grade equipment at home, or whether a chef is likely to prepare a gourmet menu at home?
I agree it's quite believable. Most restaurant equipment is more about cooking in bulk than being particularly specialized things you can't get at home. So it's extra durable/stays sharp longer or is just big (like a fridge).
It really doesn't take much money to make good food though. A lot of the gadgets and gizmos that you see on TV can be replaced with 1 good knife kept sharp...and a lot of chefs prefer a knife for the control. For example I have a mandolin. It cuts my vegetables very rapidly and saves me a bunch of time when I make vegetable stew, which I make a lot-- but it doesn't cut my vegetables evenly, which in a gourmet restaurant could be a problem for presentation. (Actually I'm going to get rid of my mandolin soon, too. I've gotten faster with a knife by now from practice.)
Another thing to think about-- being a chef is a hard job. If you're a gourmet chef you're probably passionate about cooking, so it makes sense to spend money on that hobby for at home as well.
I saw this in action at my brother in law's wedding. His uncle, who is a chef on a ship, prepared the wedding meal in the inlaws' home kitchen. He was actually used preparing food for a ship's company in a much smaller kitchen. The only thing he did that was "different" equipment wise was he spent some time sharpening the knives before he started. It was fascinating to watch him work.
If you look at the MasterChef kitchen, everything in their kitchen is available to the home cook (except maybe the liquid nitrogen, but really, how many professional chefs use liquid nitrogen on a regular basis?). The pans are mostly the heavier grade stainless, with the occasional teflon coated skillet used.
With that said, I would really like a professional style flat top and gas burners. My home range doesn't quite have the "oompf" to keep the pan hot when I'm trying to sear more than about one serving of meat at a time.
Most restaurant equipment meets particular safety requirements or durability requirements. While there are some fancy pieces of large equipment that do specialized things (deep fryers, combi ovens), the vast majority of restaurant food can be reproduced at home with typical home kitchen tools. While made for entertainment, the scene you described is believable.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.546898
| 2015-01-06T12:35:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/52329",
"authors": [
"Asbestos Roof Replacement LTD",
"Bekithemba Ndebele",
"Chitra Moloye",
"Gulam Mitha",
"Indya Walker",
"Joe",
"Jon",
"Mars Bainbridge",
"Paul Isaak",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124228",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125629",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
47090
|
So much water in cake, how to fix?
My mango chantilly cake has fallen, due to too much water inside the plastic storage. Now, assuming that I don't have an oven what are the practical workarounds that I can try to fix the cake?
So far this are the things that I did:
Removed all the water, but still the cake is watery and not good looking.
I tried to put it in a rice cooker then while trying to pre-heat the rice I put the cake in a steamer then put it in the rice cooker, but it's still damp/soggy.
If you have a stove: Put a pan on the stove and use low heat to "toast" your cake.
If you only have a rice cooker: The rice cooker is only for "wet-cooking" like cooking rice or steaming. I don't know whether toasting food in the rice cooker breaks the cooker. Therefore I don't know how to fix the cake then. :(
It is okay, at least we can have a way for fixing messed up cakes. :) Thanks a lot Ching Chong!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.547196
| 2014-09-13T06:50:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47090",
"authors": [
"Brandi Bruch",
"Camille Davidson",
"Cary Bondoc",
"Dianna Rushing",
"Gareth Stroud",
"Jeannie Forrester",
"Luandri de Lange",
"Megan Santella",
"Nicola Windsor",
"Terrance Hobson",
"Terri Robinson",
"allan moorhouse",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113644",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113703",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113739",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113794",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113796",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115541",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27126"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
86635
|
How do I keep track of how old food is?
I've been paying more attention to food safety but I don't understand how people remember exactly how long a given item has been sitting in the fridge.
If I want to make sure to stay safe, do I have to just write down what I bought/cooked/took out of the freezer and when? I have started doing that but I never used to and doubt that most people do that. Or do I just label everything?
I don't know if my question would be considered a duplicate of this one: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17458/how-should-i-manage-my-fridge
But I still wonder if most people just estimate how old something is.
Are you asking for methods/systems for remembering or keeping track down to the exact day, as your first sentence suggests? Or are you asking how people in practice keep track well enough for decent food safety purposes? Both of those seem like solid questions. The more general question of what people do and how much they actually care about super-careful food safety is more of a poll, and less of a good fit as a Stack Exchange question.
Some people actually do label everything with a date. I can't say I am that diligent, but "mm/dd" on a piece of masking tape doesn't really take all that much effort for people who get into the habit of it.
Just wondering because I seem to lose track of how old things are although in the past I wasn't too bothered. It seems that food safety guidelines are quite precise but without labeling or logging dates it's difficult to remember. I guess that I am asking the second question, how do people keep track well enough for food safety purposes?
Thanks for clarifying. I've edited your question to try to match. Please edit further if there's anything you see to improve; I'm just trying to prevent getting even more answers that say "well here's what I do" rather than giving recommendations and explanations that meet your needs.
In US, most things with a best by/use by label somewhere on the package. I just threw away a can of tomato soup from 2012.
Label everything with the date it goes in the fridge. That's about all there is to it. In my house we keep a marker and a roll of painter's tape in a drawer near the fridge, which makes labeling food easy; then you just stick to the system, religiously.
Incidentally, if it's not instantly obvious what's in a container (e.g., you have a container with opaque sides, or similar-looking substances like gravy and soup), put that information on the label as well.
In commercial kitchens there are even handy rolls of "day of the week" labels (printed and color-coded) with space for the date - perhaps overkill for home use.
We write the date on every item we put in our freezers. Even better is to have a document (especially a spreadsheet) with all the freezer's contents and dates so you can look for things that are getting close to their date and use them prior to it.
For the refrigerator, if it's anything that might go bad before you use it, then yes, write it down if you can't remember. If I anticipate something won't get used before it goes past its time, I will freeze it if freezing is appropriate for that food.
One of the big advantages of meal planning (which for us just means writing meal names on a list) is that it helps you remember when leftovers are from. Did we make macaroni and cheese Monday, or Tuesday? Check the list.
In most cases you only need to remember for a few days. Things you cooked and put in the fridge are not good for longer than that, so you don't have to be able to remember whether it was 9 days ago or 10, either way it's going to be thrown out. Sometimes I will put mashed potatoes in the fridge and see there are some from an earlier meal already there; I throw those out immediately so there isn't confusion about which ones are from last night and which ones are from over a week ago.
When it comes to items you buy, either it has a best before on it (milk, cheese, sliced meat, eggs) or you can tell by looking (vegetables, fruit, bread.) As a result I see no need to add labels. The one exception is eggs, which I get from the farm in reused egg cartons, meaning the best before on the carton means nothing. I keep a little slip of paper on the fridge, and when I buy eggs I note the date and a description of the carton on the paper. (Eg "blue Burnbrae CSA Jul 7th.) CSA stands for Community Supported Agriculture and it's where I get my eggs from. I would rather not write on the carton, because it's going back there when the eggs are finished.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.547365
| 2017-12-23T04:39:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86635",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Ecnerwal",
"Lorel C.",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"padma"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.