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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
45389
|
Can vegetable juices stop bread from rising?
I used vegetables juice for the additional liquid ingredients in milk bread, and it didn't rise. I think there is something in vegetables juice that killed the fermentation of dough.
This is a study, a food experiment. I used radish, mustard green, ginger, onion, garlic, beans, tomato, squash, eggplant, winged beans, winter melon, bitter melon, mexican turnip, and sponge gourd juice. The first step that we did was, we mixed first the yeast, milk and the juice. After mixing all the ingredients the dough become sticky, and it didn't rise.
In our first trial, we have done it right by using the extract of vegetables. And in our 2nd trial, we used the process of juicing, we actually use a juicer to get all the juice. and after all, the juice had an effect in our dough.
Can you add a bit of detail to your question like what kind of vegetable juice you used and your trouble-shootting: i.e. why you suspect it was the juice that stopped fermentation? Did you you proof the yeast, etc?
First, this is a study, a food experiment. I used radish, mustard green, ginger, onion, garlic, beans, tomato, squash,eggplant, winged beans, winter melon, bitter melon, mexican turnip, and sponge gourd juice.the first step that we did was, we mixed first the yeast, milk and the juice. after mixing all the ingredients the dough become sticky, and it didnt rise.
is there any difference of getting the extract or juicing the vegetables? Because in our first trial, we have done it right by using the extract of vegetables. And in our 2nd trial, we used the process of juicing, we actually use a juicer to get all the juice. and after all, the juice had an effect in our dough.
Interesting. This should all be part of the question.
ohhhhhh hmmmmmmm
I think we still need a little more information here. Did you use all those vegetables in one bread? Or a separate bread for each vegetables? What do you mean by "extract" -- can you describe that technique? Finally, what's your motivation for doing this?
I've edited what you've said so far into your question (you can do this too - click the 'edit' link underneath it) but it's still unclear, as others have said. What's a vegetable extract (as opposed to juice)? Did you make a blended juice of all of those things? Did you use the same amount as you would have water? And what's your base recipe?
See also: Ginger and yeast - specifically if you're using enough dry mustard you can indeed inhibit yeast activity, but mustard greens aren't nearly as strong as dry mustard, so I'm not sure that's what's going on here. With all those different vegetables, it could be almost anything...
Did you taste the juice before it went into the dough? I once juiced an onion in a gazpacho, I though it would kill me because of the low pH. (tip: DO NOT JUICE AN ONION).
I wish that I knew whether you are trying to make a hokkaido milk bread, or an Ayurvedic-bread-bomb with a basic white bread recipe...like this :http://www.vegrecipesofindia.com/white-bread-easy-white-bread/
I am going to answer this like you're making a more nutrient-dense plain white bread.
There are probably a combination of things going on in your veggie-slurry with respect to either pH or bioactive compound inhibition, and possibly with stability of bubbles formed(if any) in the dough.
It would be useful to know if the dough or slurry exhibited any yeast activity...small bubbles...something? I am also assuming that you are using Saccharomyces cerevisiae for yeast.
A pH less than 4 can inhibit activity in bread yeast strains. Get a pH reading of your veggie maceration prior to adding it to the yeast. ** consider using a sourdough starter yeast mix, if for no other reason than variety...yay bacillus!
Some of the bioactive compounds in your veggies could be impacting the yeasts function.
Evans et al notes in their research that linoleic acid hydroperoxide, a result of the linoleic acid in the plant fats undergoing free-radical oxidation (happens when exposed to light or heat) is toxic to Saccharomyces cerevisiae even in small amounts
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC106912/
Cauo et al found that in EtOH fermentation, carbonyl compounds like pyrogallol aldehyde and o-phthaldehyde inhibited the glucose to ethanol conversion activity. My personal feeling is that some inhibition is occuring due to a larger presence of those active compounds from the veggies.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24401115
On that phenolic note...Marjorie Murphy Cowan in her review of plants as anti-microbial agents mentions that hydroxylated phenols are toxic to microbes(more hydroxylated the phenol is, the more toxic it is to microbes) through non-specific protein interactions and oxidized phenolic reactions with sulfhydryl groups.
http://cmr.asm.org/content/12/4/564.full
All that said, look up phenolic compound distributions for each of the extra tasty veggies you used and see how many are hydroxylated and to what extent. Pubmed is your friend.
Sideline, the catechol and some of other hydroxylated phenols are thought to act as quarum sensing molecules which are detected by the yeast when there are peroxides being generated(like an overcrowding signal that the yeast use to "talk" to one another). Because of that, I also wonder whether a huge load of those phenols might stop or "fake out" the yeast before they got going.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3716134/
Lastly, your dough may not be holding bubbles formed by the yeast. If any of the little bugs are up and working, is there perchance an ungodly amount of fat in it to block their effective action?
Try treating your veggie slurry with some GS transglutaminase to see if the enzyme action will help with the bubble stability. The enzyme is inhibited at low pH's, so watch out for that.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.580154
| 2014-07-07T14:29:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45389",
"authors": [
"Anamika Hossain",
"Captain Giraffe",
"Cascabel",
"Josh",
"Keirasings _",
"Ratingviews",
"Robert Cartaino",
"Russell Hankins",
"SamBobb",
"Spammer",
"Yamna Ettarres",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108144",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108150",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25525",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8",
"user25782"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
49933
|
How do I bake chocolate chip cookies like Subway?
I want a chocolate chip cookie like the ones Subway has. Those cookies have a smooth top and chewy texture.
I have a recipe for 3/4 cup fat, 0.5 cup sugar 0,5 cup brown sugar, 3/4 cup flour, 1 egg, 2 tsp extract. I get a semi stiff dough, but also an airy cookie, not as dense like Subway. I use room temperature margarine.
I have tried to bake cookies with 2 eggs and with 1 egg, but they always come out wrinkly on top, not as stiff. Is it possible that using an egg and a yolk would work? (But wouldn't that waste a lot of whites if that's how they do it?)
I think as part of this I want a stiff dough, that'll leave the bowl clean, to minimize spread and keep the tops from getting wrinkly as stiffness will keep the the cookies from expanding and contracting. Is that true? If so, I'm afraid that if I add more flour to stiffen the dough will make the cookies cakey - is that the case? How would I avoid that?
Check this out: http://sweets.seriouseats.com/2013/12/the-food-lab-the-best-chocolate-chip-cookies.html He suggests that baking powder should give a smoother top, baking soda a more craggier top.
..thank you..yes you are right.. but it seems like majority of the commercial cookie companies use baking soda. i noticed that mixing soda and powder give good results..
@NRaf : if you read through the whole thing, the likely issue is actually that they have corn syrup in their recipe. Scroll down to 'Cookie Fact #10'.
@Joe it seems like if the dough is stiff, the cookie won`t expand and contract.it wont give a craggier top. i think when you minimize spread, you get a smoother top.
@Jefromi My bad - didn't see this before I answered the other question. This seems to have more info about the OP's intent so my vote would be to consolidate into this question. I can simply move over my answer if that's the way to go.
Thank you for editing some. I've cleaned your question up, added in some of the information from comments elsewhere that was still missing, and tried to phrase things as questions, rather than assumptions. It's possible there are other important things scattered around in comments that I missed. If so, please edit them into your question, so people can see right there everything they should address.
@logophobe You could probably move your answer now - not sure if it might require revisions too.
It would help if you could supply a complete list of ingredients (including the type of flour you used) and the temperature you are using to bake your cookies and even what shelf in the oven you are baking on. Were the cookies wrinkled when they came out of the oven or did they wrinkle as they cooled?
A lot of different factors determine how CCC's behave in the oven. Wrinkly cookies usually mean that the cookies expanded during their bake time then contracted either inside or outside of the oven. What causes that behavior could involve how much fat is in your cookie dough or how much egg white vs. egg yolk you used or how much leavening you use (more leavening doesn't necessarily mean more rise - sometimes if you have too much leavening your cookies can over-expand then collapse leaving a wrinkly top). There are other possibilities, but it's hard to make a useful recommendation without knowing the rest of your cookie equation.
Thank you.. i use a convection oven with 4 racks.Since the fan blows strong, i lower the temperature to 285 degrees fahrenheit, i cook for 13 min. its an A/P flour . i use the middle rack. yes the cookies expand in the oven , i use 2 1/4 cups flour with 1 cup of sugar-brown and granulated mixed..3/4 cups room temp. margarine.1 egg. i tried with 1 tsp soda and 1/2 tsp soda with same wrinkly tops.. i add little water too..the tops seem smoother with egg and yolk. when i use the egg and yolk recipe. i want to increase the temp, but then burning tops is a problem:)
So compared to the traditional Nestle Toll House recipe you are using less sugar, margarine, and egg. I would recommend increasing your sugar to 1 C brown + 1/2 C white (at the very least, increase the ratio of brown to white sugar for whatever you use) - that will give you a softer cookie with less spread. And instead of adding a little water, I would recommend adding an extra egg white for 2 eggs total and chilling your dough for several hours before baking. Your convection temperature sounds very low and your cooking time long - consider a 300°-315° oven with a shorter bake.
If all else fails, you can always just add more and more flour until your cookie has enough structure to prevent falling and wrinkling - but the more flour you add, the more you get something kinda cake-y and less cookie.
Thank you. Ok i will try also adding the extra sugar, the extra egg white too.when i compare the commercial cookies, with the one i bake, i notice that they are more white than yellow. i tried adding one egg and 2 yolks but that makes the cookie very yellow. Iam trying to get a stiff dough, but also, dont want to cut the fat too much. i notice that if the dough is stiff, the cookie doesnt get to wrinkly.
You actually would want your cookie dough to be less firm, that way when they are baking they spread out. Whenever they are done baking, you can hit the pan (carefully) against a counter top and it will give them a more wrinkled look.
This doesn't answer the question as it addresses how to make the cookies more wrinkly. The OP is asking how to get them to come out smooth and not wrinkly.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.580587
| 2014-11-20T14:44:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49933",
"authors": [
"Bianca",
"Brenda Oechsner",
"CanvasSalonLahore",
"Cascabel",
"Cindy",
"DNK Health Hospice Consulting",
"Doris Addison",
"Joe",
"L Girouard",
"Low Carbon Solar Installers",
"Mark Johnson",
"Mary johnson",
"Milly Kirklin",
"NRaf",
"Rob Kleihorst",
"Stephen Eure",
"Womens Haircut NYC",
"carmen anderson",
"christen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119314",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119315",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119316",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120462",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120463",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120465",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120466",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120538",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29420",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46110
|
What is ganache, and how it is used in truffles? Does it differ from chocopaste?
I need to know what ganache is and how it is used in different truffle recipes. Also, how it is different from chocopastes?
I've never heard the term chocopaste. Does it mean something specific, beyond just a generic paste made out of chocolate? People will have a hard time telling you how ganache is different if they don't know what it is.
Ganache is a mixture of cream and chocolate, made by heating the cream and mixing in the chocolate until smooth and fully incorporated. Butter is then often added to give the final product a characteristic "shine". Ganache can be used as a filling or as a coating/topping in truffles and is a frequent component in other desserts.
I've encountered "chocopaste" at an Indian grocer before, and it is essentially a homogenized mixture of chocolate and milk with other ingredients. It has a similarity to ganache in that it contains chocolate and dairy combined. The commercial chocopaste I've seen have also had other ingredients (added fats and/or sugars, stabilizers, preservatives, etc.), unlike ganache made at home which would contain only cream and chocolate. In this way chocopaste is somewhat like Nutella, the chocolate-hazelnut spread. In fact, the chocopastes I've seen came in similarly-shaped jars.
Chocopaste appears to be used as everything from a dessert topping or filling to a base for making chocolate drinks.
Here is an example of chocopaste, containing the following ingredients:
Sugar
Hydrogenated Vegetable Fat
Alkalised Cocoa Powder
Milk Powder
Permitted emulsifiers
Added flavors
In terms of substituting one for the other, the added stabilizers, sugars, and flavors in chocopaste may affect the final product. Hydrogenated vegetable fat isn't the same as butter either, so mouthfeel and flavor will not be the same.
I would expect different chocopastes to potentially vary in terms of flavor and sweetness. For uses as filling/topping/etc, I would just try out whatever products interest you and compare for yourself.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.581069
| 2014-08-05T04:34:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46110",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Danica",
"Daniel Jarquin",
"Elizabeth Huntley",
"Harpreet Bansal",
"Jdnnsvcs Ieksnsnssod",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110029",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110030",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110031",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110033",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110048",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"ramizan raof",
"spammer"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
84734
|
How can I easily peel baby round potatoes?
I was planning to try out a recipe for roasted baby potatoes, but I have noticed that most of the recipes involve slicing the baby potatoes in half and roasting them with their skins on. They turn out this way:
However, I want to peel them and roast so they turn out like crispy, roasted potato balls.
Does anyone know how to appropriately peel baby round potatoes bought fresh and with skins from the market?
I thought of blanching them and then pulling their skins off, but I'm not sure if they will work well with this variety.
(The above image is from https://www.weightwatchers.com/us/recipe/roasted-baby-potatoes-oregano-and-lemon-1/5626a63ca6d5b39610701a16)
It's perfectly feasible to peel them with a regular vegetable peeler.
The industrial process used to peel the potato is not something easily duplicated at home due to the pressures and temperatures involved. The machines cause the skin to separate from the underlying layers with steam. If you are using a regular peeler you could do it if you want but it is a whole lot of work.
Did you by any chance ever try blanching? I'm curious how well it'd work, and you can totally answer your own question if it does!
Try blanching and see how easily the skins come off.
As the skins are quite thin, use a (new) green kitchen scrubber. This would give the same result as the potato peeling bowl for a Kenwood, and a whole lot cheaper. Enjoy your potatoes...
Usually, tiny potatoes are used unpeeled (probably because it would take so much trouble to peel them). If you want to peel the potatoes, select very large ones so the peeling is easier. Then chop up the potato into smaller dice.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.581258
| 2017-09-29T15:40:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84734",
"authors": [
"Batman",
"Cascabel",
"RudyB",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11332",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
50355
|
Does using egg+yolk in a chocolate chip cookie recipe make a big difference?
Some recipes I've seen use an egg + yolk combination. A lot of them just use one egg. Does it make a big difference, as long as there is enough liquid in the batter? Would big brands use egg + yolk for a chocolate chip cookie? Wouldn't that waste a lot of whites?
Why does it matter what big brands do? Is there a specific style of cookie you're trying to get? I notice that you've posted several questions about this topic, and added a lot of miscellaneous information in comments here and there. You will get much, much better answers if you'll simply state up front what problem you're trying to solve, and what you've tried so far (what recipe you're using).
Also if one of your questions is put on hold, editing it and asking for it to be reopened (as you did) is the right approach. There's no need to delete and repost it; that makes things confusing for those of us trying to sort through what's happened.
I've closed this as a duplicate of your first question, now that most (?) of the relevant information has been edited into it.
The main reason that you'll see recipes use a specific part of the egg is that the whites and yolks have a very different composition. The whites contain a large number of structural proteins (which is why they can be whipped into stable foams) while the yolks contain most of the fats in the egg. Fats and proteins play very different roles in baking.
So, if you see a recipe that uses a whole egg plus an additional yolk, the yolk is there to add fats without adding the additional proteins that the white would bring to the party. This affects the structure of the batter and the texture/flavor of the finished product. Generally the extra fat will contribute extra softness and richness, from its composition and of course extra moisture. Here's a good question with related information.
In regards to commercial production, I'd be really doubtful that large commercial producers are using anything like whole eggs. Based on scale alone, they're more likely to be using pre-separated eggs from a supplier, or perhaps some kind of horrifying egg substitute. Not to mention all sorts of stabilizers, emulsifiers, preservatives, and so on that all perform functions similar or complementary to the chemical action of the egg.
As for extra whites, there's any number of uses for those. Powdered egg white is a surprisingly common food additive because of its thickening and emulsifying properties, and it's possible to find packaged, pre-separated egg whites in cartons. The same producers that make these are likely supplying the commercial baking operations too. Don't go imagining that the Chips Ahoy factory is full of a bunch of enterprising bakers cracking and separating eggs all day long, casually chucking out extra whites. If there's waste, it's further up the supply chain, and most likely the supplier is finding something to do with those extra whites.
Thank you.. as you have stated extra yolk gives a richness. would that also give me a stiffer dough? as per the commercial usage,, you are right.. they probably buy the yolks and whites seperately..so no waste..
@christen more yolk won't give stiffer dough, it's more likely to give you softer dough if anything.
@christen Less egg and less moisture will produce a stiffer dough. Richness and softness would be the opposite of what you're asking after. A higher ratio of egg white would start getting there too but the result will also be "fluffier" because of how the egg emulsifies and captures air.
@logophobe Thank you.. i have a recipe for 3/4 cup fat, 0.5 cup sugar 0,5 cup brown sugar, 3/4 cup flour,1 egg , 2 tsp extract.. i get a semi stiff dough. but also an airy cookie. Ok then i have to try a recipe with little bit flour but also an extra yolk. to get a dense cookie.
@jefromi I am trying to create a cookie like Subways. which is dense.. thats the target i am trying to achive.. thank you.
@christen You should really edit all the information into one question, probably your very first one: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49933/i-want-to-get-smooth-top-on-chocolate-chip-cookies-how-do-eggs-impact-this-is. Right now people trying to help you have to look at the comments you've posted on three different questions to figure out what you want and what you've tried ("like Subways, dense" here, "smooth top" somewhere else) - which basically means no one is going to know, so you won't get good answers.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.581417
| 2014-12-05T20:17:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50355",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Donna Latham",
"Lilian Hickling",
"Paula Dobson",
"Peter Marcuzzi",
"Roxymary Garcia",
"William Mcintosh",
"christen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120497",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120500",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120564",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29420",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"logophobe",
"rumtscho",
"user278411"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
77313
|
Is the miracle thaw safe?
I have a miracle thaw from my mother from many years ago. It works fantastic but I would like to know if this thing is safe? Does anything penetrate into the meat?
It's certainly safe in terms of food contact. See How does a Miracle Thaw work? - it's really just a sheet of metal. It's not very much different from just putting your food on a baking sheet. Just be sure to clean it between uses as you would with anything else that touched raw meat.
However, you do still have to be careful about general food safety: it's not safe to leave meat in the danger zone (40 to 140°F) for more than a couple hours. The miracle thaw speeds things along, but it doesn't change that. So if it makes your meat thaw enough in half an hour, awesome. If it still takes 6 hours, you need to find another safe thawing method to use instead.
A thawing tray is basically a heat sink, a device that helps facilitate moving heat energy from one object to another. Metals are good at this, some more so than others. As Jefromi states, a simple baking sheet will do the same, though with less mass it will not do it as well. The more mass of the same type of metal, the more of a thawing aid it will be, and being less reflective such as the black finish they put on most thawing sheets often helps with the heat transfer.
As long as they are kept sanitary and the safe temperature rules are followed, they can improve food safety a bit by allowing the item to thaw more quickly so they do not stay in that danger zone for too long. But, if you do not get the item, especially meat, off the tray and cook it or store back below 40F promptly you are then exposing raw food to that danger zone needlessly, and I would call that an issue. If the item is too large to thaw in a reasonable time, the tray can then start to actually slow the thawing process. I have also known people to warm the trays. I would consider this a very bad idea, about equal to thawing in a heated pan, not particularly safe nor likely to give you the results you want. The general idea of using a heat sink is to gain some of the benefit of higher temperature thawing without actually using the higher temperature and its associated risks. I think the half hour Jefromi mentioned is likely a good guide. If it takes more than half an hour to thaw, then time to get the item back into a cooler environment, the tray is likely no longer helping the process.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.581868
| 2017-01-10T01:14:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77313",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
77366
|
Which chili peppers does one use in arrabbiata sauce?
I want to make an infusion in whiskey with these peppers. I can't find which peppers are used. The peppers described are dried, long, and thin.
Can you define abbiachiatta sauce? I can find no reference to it on the web.
Do you mean arrabiata sauce? (Sometimes spelled with 2 t's.)
Yes, I may have the wrong spelling. It is an Italian chili pepper sauce used mainly on pasta.
I went ahead and edited for you - arrabbiata is certainly the common spicy tomato sauce in the US, and sounds kind of like what you originally said.
"Arrabiata" is the Italian word for angry...angry sauce,which is the literal translation for sugo all'arrabiata the spicy Italian tomato based sauce to which you refer. The spiciness comes from dried red chili. In Italy these red peppers are often referred to as peperoncini. You would likely get the effect you were looking for by using good quality dried red pepper flakes.
This question and response addresses Italian peppers.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.582087
| 2017-01-11T17:57:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77366",
"authors": [
"Brenda",
"Cascabel",
"Cindy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53611",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46929
|
What are the benefits of whisking when making muffins?
What are the benefits of whisking when making muffins?
We're going to need more context than that. Primarily, what are you whisking? Oh, I see the tag now. You're whisking muffins? Hmmm. That almost seems like your instructor might be asking a trick question.
I've edited muffins into your question, but it's still a little unclear what you're asking - more context would definitely help.
Although people are going to pile on with the 'whisking is bad' for muffins ... they didn't say they were whisking the liquids into the dry. I occasionally whisk the dry ingredients to get good aeration and make sure the leavening is well mixed before I stir in the liquid.
I think your question is been answered here
"Over mixing batter forms gluten, which in turn hardens the cake", @Theindependentaquarius.
"There's a difference between "don't overmix" and "don't mix" - you're supposed to mix enough to incorporate, just don't try homogenize it", @Aaronut.
Can you explain what whisking has to do with over/undermixing? (Given that muffin batter tends to be too thick to effectively whisk, it's kind of hard to say...)
Whisking muffin batter.
... affects the entire leavening or raising process because no baking powder is used....
This allows a greater number of cells to form and the cells contain a larger amount of air.
Loss of aeration results in a smaller product with a coarse texture.
Aeration is only successful if the air remains in the batter until it is baked. For large mixes, stabilisers and emulsifiers (or fats) are added during the whisking stage.
(Source: Cakes > Whisking Method)
Whisking batter makes it smooth, silky, fluffy and free of lumps
I'm sorry, but I seriously doubt you can possibly whisk enough air by hand into muffin batter to leaven them.
@Jefromi so by your "opinion" I'm wrong? Nobody said it was by hand. Whisking is also known as whipping, which is either by hand or mixer. Don't down vote my answer because of your opinion. I answered the question.
In isolation, "whisking" definitely implies using a whisk to mix by hand. If a mixer is required, a recipe will generally state it. (And even with a mixer, you really can't replace leavening. You could beat egg whites and fold them in to add a little fluff, but even then it won't do the same thing as baking powder.) In any case, I downvoted because I don't think this is a useful answer: this is not a good way to leaven muffins, and though the OP hasn't provided much context, it's most likely the question is simply about using it as a mixing method.
Also, though I'm happy to discuss with you, please do not respond like this to any other users who are kind enough to explain their voting. Everyone is welcome to vote how they like, and it's polite and helpful to explain in a comment. If they do and you disagree, by all means, explain why. But they were trying to help, so please don't be rude about it.
@Jefromi the questioner stated "benefits of whisking", in which I satisfied the answer. Just for FYI, Kitchen Aid mixer comes with a whisk.
Let us continue this discussion in chat.
Answer now edited
The cake whisking method described in the source you cited is specifically intended for the egg portion of a batter. Not sure that can be extended to whisking any batter generally.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.582209
| 2014-09-07T00:29:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46929",
"authors": [
"Caroline V",
"Cascabel",
"Erica",
"HasH_BrowN",
"Jc Curr",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Linda Stringfellow",
"Nathan Jones",
"Paul Schunemann",
"Ruth Strub",
"Shannon Krecklau",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113213",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113340",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113371",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"sarah spong"
],
"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
}
|
43542
|
What size are small, medium and large tomatoes?
Many recipes call for a tomato of a certain size. How do you know the difference between small, medium and large tomatoes?
USDA requirements for measurements used by the Fresh Market tomato industry
**Size** **Size**
No Pass Pass
inches inches
see note #1 see note #2
Small 2 1⁄8 inches 2 9⁄32 inches
Medium 2¼ inches 2 17⁄32 inches
Large 2½ inches 2 25⁄32 inches
Extra Large 2¾ inches
note # 1. Will not pass through a round opening with this diameter when the tomato is held with its greatest diameter parallel to the plane of the opening.
note # 2. Will pass through a round opening of this size; the tomato may be held in any position for the test.
As SAJ14SAJ said, there's not really a true answer here. But insofar as there's anything at all official, it's probably the sizes the USDA uses for nutrition. They're still a bit arbitrary, but hey, everything will be.
large whole (3" dia): 182g
medium whole (2-3/5" dia): 123g
small whole (2-2/5" dia): 91g
plum tomato: 62g
cherry: 17g
Here's the full nutrition table on the USDA site. You can also get this kind of stuff just by googling "tomato nutrition" and looking in the knowledge panel on the right (there's a dropdown to pick serving sizes).
Obviously tomatoes do get plenty bigger than that, but I don't think most people write recipes expecting you to use a 5" beefsteak tomato.
It is going to be very context dependent. A small beefsteak tomato is probably larger than a very large Roma tomato.
That said, a recipe that is not precise about the type of tomato, nor the size of tomato is unlikely to be critically dependent on the exact quantity of tomato.
Still, one could estimate that a small tomato in the abstract is lime sized, a medium tomato lemon sized, and a large tomato orange to grapefruit sized. I realize this is no more concrete--there is no absolute standard.
I think limes and lemons are too close in size, suggest an apple to be a medium size tomato.
Apples are hugely variable too :-)
IMHO a medium sized tomato is somewhere between a large lime and a small apple.
then you need to add a jumbo class for beefsteak tomatoes
Looking at it from the point of view of a recipe, your last paragraph is probably what's meant - they'll ask for a small tomato (without specifying a variety) and expect that you'll probably use a smaller variety (maybe a roma?) or half of a bigger one.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.582524
| 2014-04-16T14:45:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43542",
"authors": [
"AnnieM",
"Cascabel",
"GdD",
"Inez",
"Kaelen Evans",
"Prabhat",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Tara Christie",
"Tor-Einar Jarnbjo",
"a_sid",
"crstamps2",
"crys catharine",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102042",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102043",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102044",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107223",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
78412
|
Safety and quality of low-price imported beef sold in US supermarkets
As a recent resident of Southern California, I noticed in a supermarket very impressive looking sirloin strip steak for $4.99 per pound. Regular prices in other markets range from 10.99 to 29.99. The beef at this incredible price is from Mexico.
Is this beef safe? Does anyone has experience with the quality of Mexican beef?
I often have difficulties understanding the accent when it talks to me, but other than that I'll eat beef regardless of where it comes from. Obviously there are different welfare standards but if it's been approved for sale by the supermarket I doubt they'd want to sell questionable beef (in terms of food safety). That would be a commercial disaster.
Buy as much as you can while it can still cross the border!
Has it been inspected by the USDA?
It is inspected by US to be imported. I eat it.
Question is bit too broad on 2 counts: 1) What safety standard Elain considers as safe? The USDA standard for example, or something else? 2) As with US meat, there is possibly a lot of variation on "Mexican beef".
Millions of Mexicans eat it every week...
Eat it as long as it's still legal in your country!
Someone more knowledgeable than me in US food law should put an answer up about why safety should be a given with a reputable store, residual risk as usual...
The wording of this question crosses the line of prejudice, unintentionally I am sure, but nonetheless potentially offensive to some.
@user110084 I think it's better with the edits, and if there's anything else to edit, go for it. I'm not inclined to take any other sort of action - if anything, having this question answered helps demonstrate that such prejudice is unwarranted.
@Jefromi, totally agree, having the question and answers visible is important.
@user110084 - given the well-documented history of safety issues with cheap, imported human and pet food products, I don't think asking if a very inexpensive imported product has a decent safety protocol at the source is offensive, in any way. http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/10/news/economy/raw-ingredients-food-imports-safety-seafood/
@PoloHoleSet, the title you see now is post editing with the more contentious original parts modified. There are bad players in many nations across several continents and including North America, Europe, South America, Asia and Australia, not exclusive to just one in Central America.
@user110084 - I read all the original text and subsequent edits before posting. The user questioned Mexican beef, specifically, because that's what he/she saw in the store. If I see cheap Mexican beef, and want assurances that they have decent safety standards, the safety of prawns from Thailand aquaculture farms is really pretty irrelevant to my immediate concerns. That's not about crossing an offensive line by asking a question based on a specific, hypothetical randomly selected national prejudice, that's about the specific instance and an actual product being encountered.
Exporting meat into the United States is not a simple or easy matter.
From the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS):
Checklist for Importing Meat, Poultry and Processed Egg Products
This checklist is provided as an overview of the steps needed to be taken when you want to import meat, poultry, or processed egg products to the United States.
Products must originate from certified countries and establishments eligible to export to the United States.
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services (APHIS) restricts some products from entering the United States because of animal disease conditions in the country of origin. For information on restrictions related to animal diseases and information about APHIS, contact the APHIS Veterinary Services, National Center for Import and Export.
Countries and establishments become eligible following an equivalence determination process by FSIS.
Imported products must meet the same labeling requirements as domestically-produced products.
After filing the necessary forms for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and meeting animal disease requirements of APHIS, all imported meat, poultry and processed egg products must be presented for inspection by FSIS at an official import establishment.
Mexico is one of 33 countries that can legally export meat to the US. In Mexico there are 74 companies authorized to export to the US (As of May 3, 2017).
USDA Source
Also from the USDA Website:
So, in the United States, beef from Mexico has been determined by the US Government to be as safe as domestic beef.
The problem is that "certification" does not necessarily mean they meet the standards that seem to be implied by that certification. A dated, but relevant article - https://www.citizen.org/media/press-releases/trading-away-food-safety-implementation-trade-rules-allows-usda-bypass-us-food
The answer provided by @Jolenealaska is comprehensive on the question of 'safety'. As one who has raised beef cattle I will address the 'quality' question you raise.
In the US and Mexico there are a wide variety of beef cattle breeds However, the Mexican ranchers 'lean toward' hybrids that are Brahma crosses because these are heartier (physically) breeds that can more easily withstand the climate (as Brahman). Often you will find that Mexican beef is tougher and introduces a 'gamey' quality to the flavor of the meat.
IMHO while you can rely on Mexican Beef to be 'Safe' (by USDA standards) it is not necessarily of 'high quality' for your table.
For a more detailed review of the Mexican Cattle Industry see http://www.gbcbiotech.com/bovinos/english/bovinos.html
The other answers and links here cover the safety issue sufficiently for me. As to quality, here is my offering.
I have found a small market near me that sells beef quite a bit less expensive than the chain markets, or Costco, and Sam's Club. I have been getting very nice looking porterhouse steaks for $2.99-3.99 lb (sold as family pack 2-3 per package). I suspected they were Mexican beef, but I didn't ask till today.
I've been buying meat for many, many, years, and I'm a pretty good judge of what good meat looks like. These steaks are usually pretty well marbled (you have to look closely, it varies) , nice color, and when cooked (I like no more than medium rare) are as tender as any other steak with similar appearance.
The flavor is quite acceptable to me, and I don't consider it "off" in any way.
I'm going to continue buying these Mexican steaks.
It is safe as U.S.D.A inspected. I do wonder if it is from tougher breeds of beef? Beef can be aged at 27f to 29f in shipping. To age it. Make it tender. As bacteria works on it at that temp. Tenderizes it. So some what different than American grain fed beef. Little different texture & taste. But safe. I am more familiar with Australian beef that is shipped that way to Europe & Asia.
I live in Mexico and the beef here is generally better than what I had in the US. Tenderloin for unknown reasons is one of the cheaper cuts. I've been buy the entire tenderloin for $20~30 (4~6 lbs) and cutting it myself to use as fillet mignon, Chateaubriand, birria, etc. In the last few years the stores have been using US cuts like rib eye, New York, Porterhouse, t-bone, etc. Never had any issues with bad meat from known stores.
It should be good. They're not excellent cuts, but great for marinading.
Mexican beef has always been a cheap, but easy to work with choice for me.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.582781
| 2017-02-14T17:53:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78412",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Lyall",
"NKY Homesteading",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Robert",
"Ron",
"eckes",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44475",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"paparazzo",
"rackandboneman",
"user110084"
],
"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
}
|
56682
|
How to make sure teapot is safe after being on fire without water
I left my teapot on the stove for about 30 minutes by accident. By the time I noticed, all the water had boiled out. So, I turned off the stove and let it cool.
When I went to put water in it again, black flakes began to come off the bottom of the pot on the inside, but I could not scrub out all the flakey stuff easily.
I have a stainless steel teapot. Are these flakes hazardous? How do I clean my pot to make sure it's safe to drink from again?
What counts as overdoing it?
It's probably just limescale stuck to the bottom of your pot that blackened. I don't think burnt limescale is harmful, but it shouldn't be too hard to remove. You can try cleaning it using standard means to remove scale from kettles, like using vinegar.
I would speculate that the black colour comes from dried tea components embedded in the limescale. With no impact on the safety aspect, though.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.583344
| 2015-04-14T17:56:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56682",
"authors": [
"Athena",
"Brad Lunsford",
"Ian Glover",
"Just me",
"Major League Roofing",
"Matthias Brandl",
"Seth",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134802",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29269",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76013"
],
"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
}
|
78578
|
How do I prevent curd from getting sour?
I usually take homemade curd in lunchbox to work. Since there is almost 4-5 hours gap between the lunch break and time when I get my lunch packed. I don't have refrigerator or any cool medium to store it at work.
Just because of that long gap, curd usually gets sourer and becomes almost hard to consume.
Is there any particular method so I can prevent curd from getting sour?
@Jefromi Aren't curd and yogurt two different things?
Yogurt is a broad category; there may be differences between typical curd and typical American yogurt, but yogurt the most reasonable umbrella term in English. And it doesn't seem worth trying to distinguish between the two in tags; most things about one apply to the other, and people are inconsistent about which they use.
There's a difference at all? I have lived in both India and the US, and have never noticed any difference between curd as it's termed in India, and plain yogurt as it's termed in the US. I make my own yogurt in the US following pretty much the same process as I did for curd in India, with the minor difference that the lower temperature in the US makes incubation necessary, whereas in India I could just leave it out on the countertop to set. Also, in Indian grocery stores in the US, tubs of yogurt are labeled "dahi" in various Indic scripts, which is the same term used for curd in India.
As you already said yourself, cooling it will be easiest. Either use a cooled lunchbox with an ice pack insert, or, if taking it out of the refrigerator at morning, carry it in a thermos flask.
Alternatively, you have to get it out underfermented and let it ferment properly during these 4-5 hours. If you are taking just-ready room temperature curd, you can instead start the curd later, or start with cooler milk, or use less starter. If you are taking it from the fridge, you can start putting the curd into the fridge before it's done, so it reactivates and finishes fermentation in your bag. In any case, you will need lots of experimentation until you have the process such that the curd is properly done by the time you eat. Also, a few degrees Celsius difference in your environment will make it necessary to tweak the parameters.
Theoretically, the third option to try would be to kill off the culture when the curd is done, by heating it. But too little heat and the culture will survive, while too much heat and you will end up with quark. So this is only used in industrial settings.
The efficiency of modern thermos-types of containers is pretty amazing.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.583483
| 2017-02-20T17:15:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78578",
"authors": [
"A J",
"Cascabel",
"PoloHoleSet",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53136",
"verbose"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
83580
|
What are Japanese rice seasoning packets called?
While I lived in Japan, I would often buy little packets of seasoning that were carried in every supermarket. I believe their purpose was for seasoning things like fried rice (チャーハン) and rice balls (お握り). What are these packets called, and is there an easy way to buy them in America? Or better yet, does anyone know how to make them?
The packets were typically salty and had bits of colorful seasoning/particles in it, like nori (海苔) flakes, sesame seeds, spices, etc.
Three letters for you: MSG
@GdD perhaps it had MSG in it, but the packets I'm talking about were a blend of lots of spices.
I don't know if I've seen it as packets in the US, but I've gotten small shaker jars of it before. The one in my cabinet is labeled 'Nori Komi Furikake' from Ajishima FoodsCo.,Ltd. I think I got it from Wegman's, but it might've been World Market. And there's no extracted MSG in it, but there's seaweed, which has naturally occurring MSG.
This seems like a question just for a question's sake. If you type "japanese rice seasoning" into any search engine it comes up with 145 pages of furikake. Are we going to have a question for every definition of food, now? "What are those battered hotdogs on a stick called?". "What about that flat round dough with sauce and cheese?"
@BradWerth I assure you it is not. I think I have been mistakenly connecting it with chahan for years, so I've never been able to find it. but you are right, now that I search that it does turn up furikake. Even if it was, though, those types of questions can be useful. That's why you're allowed to answer your own question.
If you are interested in casting your flavour net a little wider, any Dutch grocer (Southern Ontario is covered with them, with one in nearly every town of any size) will carry Indonesian spice packets from Conimex (and other suppliers) for making Nasi Goreng and Bahmi Goreng.
@BradWerth - Because this actually isn't furikake!
@William-Rem Perhaps you could post an answer with what you think it is. Currently, the two most highly voted answers both suggest it is, and does the description of furikake itself...
@BradWerth - I just did. Amazon even carries it, translated and everything: https://www.amazon.com/Nagatanien-Fried-Combination-84-Ounce-Units/dp/B001AYD674
I thought it is noritama(のりたま).
I've eaten a few of these before and while it sounds like furikake to someone who hasn't had them, I don't think that's what you're looking for in this case. Furikake is primarily used for seasoning white rice to be eaten otherwise plain, but I'm almost sure you're looking for something like this:
(from http://jpninfo.com/22660)
I don't think there's a special Japanese name for these seasoning packets and the front just says "Shrimp Fried Rice", "Salmon Fried Rice", "Crab-flavored Fried Rice" and so forth. I would call it a seasoning packet, much like I would for taco seasoning. I wouldn't be surprised to hear a Japanese person call them paketto or something similar loanword-y.
Oh, the plot thickens. I may have combined this and furikake in my mind after some years.
I for sure used these though, and I believe this is exactly what I was thinking of.
We call this チャーハンの素(it is written so, though).
@TakahiroWaki - Thanks! These are scrumptious and I'm definitely going to pick them up next time I'm at a Japanese grocer.
I think it's called furikake. Per Wikipedia:
Furikake is a dry Japanese seasoning meant to be sprinkled on top of cooked rice, vegetables, and fish. It typically consists of a mixture of dried fish, sesame seeds, chopped seaweed, sugar, salt, and monosodium glutamate.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.583708
| 2017-08-08T14:59:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83580",
"authors": [
"BlackThorn",
"Brad Werth",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Pieter Geerkens",
"Takahiro Waki",
"William",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55723",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60794",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
76484
|
How do I get the right amount of heat from Carolina Reapers in cookies/brownies?
I want to bake some really spicy cookies/brownies. I've got some Carolina Reaper and I want to use them somehow to achieve a really hot flavor in cookies/brownies. I need to calibrate the heat level, so that it's the right level of really spicy. How do I do it?
Are you asking how to add a pepper to a cookie or brownie, or how to calibrate the heat level?
@Jefromi I want to calibrate the heat level, preferably with a Carolina Pepper. I know that I could simply use a sauce,but I want to do it with the pepper.
Easy! You'll need to first make "Carolina Reaper powder"
Dry them by running a fishing line or thread near the stem and hang
them in a dry place for 3 days.
Once they are dry, remove the stems and place in a spice grinder or food processor.
Place the powder in a spice container.
One you have made your Carolina Reaper powder, you can proceed to make your brownies as normal, and add a pinch to the batter. The Scolville Units of your peppers will vary based on your plants vs someone else's, so it's difficult to recommend a precise amount of powder to use. That will also depend on how spicy you want these devil brownies to be!
To calibrate the right level of spiciness, this jalapeno brownie recipe offers a good baseline. Based on some rough math, the recipe calls for 1 Million Scolville units. A single Carolina Reaper contains roughly 1.6 Million Scolville units. So you could use about 2/3 of one whole pepper, or you could use the amount of powder you get from 2/3 of a pepper.
EDIT: Based on some rough math below, approximately .04 dried peppers would be needed to accomplish the level of heat in the recipe above.
Are you suggesting calibrating by just guessing an amount of powder and baking a batch?
@Jefromi thanks for pointing out I didn't do a good job of covering that. I added a reference to my response that should cover it.
Thanks! I'm a little confused, though. The Scoville scale is roughly about concentrations, not absolute amounts of heat, so you need to take into account the size of the peppers, not just the ratings. Also, Wikipedia lists jalapeños at 1000-20000, not 1 million, but Carolina Reapers at 1.6 million as you've said.
That recipe uses 5 jalapenos and I assumed 10,000 per based on wiki and 6-8 Birds eye chilis, which I assumed roughly 150,000 per based on wiki, roughly totaling 1 million Scolville units. If Scoliville units are measued in heat/gram then we need to multiply the 1M Scollville by the mass of the jalapenos + birds eye. Say that's roughly 150 grams. So the recipe has 150M units of heat. If the reaper is 1.6M Scolville then we need 150M/1.6M grams of Carolina Reaper. So we need ~95 grams of Carolina Reaper. You could mess with the calculations a bit but that seems like a good starting place.
They're an approximation for heat per unit dry weight. (Note the dry part - it's based on drying the peppers then taking a unit weight of that powder.) You need to take that into account weight when you're combining the jalapenos and birds eyes, not after. Of course all of this is total guesses, since peppers vary and the scale isn't very rigorous.
That's ~70 grams of jalapenos and only 15-20 grams of birds eyes. If you assume that the water content of all the peppers is the same, so you can use the fresh weight (I'm not sure that's true...), then that's 7010000+17.5150000 = 3.3e6 scoville units * grams / unit weight. If the reapers are 5g (couldn't find a real number, but they're similar to habaneros), they'd similarly be 5*1.6e6 = 8e7 scoville units * grams / unit weight, so you'd need only 3.3e6/8e7 = 0.04 of a pepper to get the same heat as the jalapenos and birds eyes.
My math must be way wrong somehow because I intended to implicitly assume the fresh weight would be the same ratio as the dry weight for all the peppers. So somewhere I went wrong if I was off by a factor of 100! I edited my answer to include you 0.04 pepper answer as an approximation.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.584121
| 2016-12-15T00:53:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76484",
"authors": [
"Caleb",
"Cascabel",
"ClassicEndingMusic",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52836"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
76722
|
How do you dry fruit slices in a humid environment?
In a humid environment, with an abundance of fruit at certain times of the year, what is the best method for drying fruit slices for later use? I don't want to use any type of equipment that needs power/active heating (like an oven)... is it possible to simply slice the fruits and leave in the sun/air?
See this question for sun-dried tomatoes: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6059/sun-drying-tomatoes
Marti helpfully edited your comment about equipment in (not everyone would've noticed it down down there), but it's still a bit unclear: are you ruling out even solar dehydrators, which are basically glorified boxes that you put in the sun?
Do you really mean zero new equipment, or minimal cost/bulk/power consumption? If the latter you could probably make a solar dehydrator from a clear plastic box with a few vent holes top and bottom, and a reflective/insulating layer on the north side (northern hemisphere, swap in the southern hemisphere).
...a dehydrator.
Unless you have some other constraint you've failed to mention, it's what they are made to do. When we had a gas oven with a standing pilot, that kept the oven warm enough to use as a crude dehydrator; now I just use a common electric heat & fan model.
images are examples, not endorsements.
Great thanks for that, but and I apologize I didn't make myself clear... I don't want to use any type of system, convection or oven etc... is it possible to simply slice the fruits and leave in the sun/air?
You specified humid, so it will probably just rot, not dry, in that case.
Well, if you're on your boat, and the island has a wet side and a dry side, you might be able to load up on the wet side and sail around to the dry side to "sun-dry" stuff. Otherwise... @Jefromi - feel free to find another image - don't know what's up with that.
Something about indexed color gifs. I just manually put in white background and it's okay now.
ok, obviously not a sailor, meteorologist and geologist, but hey who cares. Yes i understand that as it is often humid it will rot, that is why I wanted to know how to dry things, obviously come to the wrong place for an answer
@Hoooray If you ask for something that's difficult or impossible, and the first answer you get is that it's indeed impossible, that doesn't mean you're in the wrong place. I get that you're not happy with this answer, but please try to avoid criticizing the site or the author because of it.
Unless you have a bonafide functioning magic wand that you can wave at your fruit while intoning dehydratous you are left with the real world. In the real world, you need to either start with favorable drying conditions, or to create favorable drying conditions. Since you don't have the former, you need SOMETHING to create lower humidity around your fruit - that is "how you dry things" which you want to learn. Adding heat to air is the easiest way to do that, and is what a dehydrator does. You can also remove water from the air, but that's a higher complexity approach.
I saw an episode of Good Eats where Alton Brown uses a regular box fan and air conditioning filters to dehydrate jerky. Looks like the same can be applied to fruit according to his Food Network Post. Not sure if this would work in a humid environment though.
Special equipment: 1 box fan, 4 paper air-conditioning filters, 2 bungee cords, 6 (14 by 14-inch) plastic dehydrator sheets
In a large mixing bowl, combine the lemon juice and water. Set aside until ready to use.
Peel, core and dice the fruit into 1/2-inch cubes, with the exception of the strawberries. Slice the strawberries 1/8 of an inch thick. Place the fruit into the lemon water and allow to soak for up to 2 minutes. Remove and drain thoroughly.
Lay 1 (14 by 14-inch) plastic dehydrator sheet on 1 of the air-conditioning filters. Place the fruit on the plastic dehydrator sheet and cover with another plastic sheet. Repeat this process with remaining plastic sheets and two more filters, stacking on top of the first one. Top these with the remaining empty filter. Next, lay the box fan on its side and lay the filters on top of it. Strap the filters to the fan with two bungee cords. Stand the fan upright, plug in and set to high. Dry for 42 to 48 hours. When dry, the fruit should be pliable but not sticky. You should not be able to squeeze moisture from the fruit. If using a commercial dehydrator, follow the manufacturer's directions.
Remove the fruit from filters and store in an airtight container in a cool dry place.
Recipe courtesy of Alton Brown, 2007
Read more at: http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/alton-brown/dried-fruit-recipe.html?oc=linkback
#Gitmach thank you, I will try a slightly revised version of your idea, and report back, it seems this might be the way forward
Wait, so you are okay with some equipment? Could you please edit your question so people can tell what you are and aren't okay with?
@Jefromi I think Hooray doesn't want to use equipment that uses heat. He stated that he didn't want to use "any type of system, connection or oven etc"
@gitmach Probably? Or active heat, i.e. something that needs electricity or flame? But it might also be that bulk is a concern, and they like your suggestion because they already have a box fan. Anyway, that's why I asked a few times for them to just edit the question and tell us.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.584737
| 2016-12-22T14:57:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76722",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Chris H",
"Ecnerwal",
"Hoooray",
"John Feltz",
"gitmach",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52986",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53062"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
92733
|
How can this kebab have so much protein and so little fat?
All my life I've been told that kebab (the meat, not the dish) is high-fat.
However, I was in the market the other day, and I found the following pack of frozen kebab. Below is a picture from that market's website. You can see that it's got 166kcal per 100 grams, only 6 grams of fat, and a whopping 25 grams of protein.
That sounds ... super high protein, and relatively low fat, to me. Not as much so as chicken breasts, but it's close.
What's going on here? Is this fraud, are they lying? Or can kebab really be like this?
Note that I've found similar packs of frozen kebab in other stores, and never did they have 25 grams of protein per 100g, and the fat content was always higher than the protein content.
Nobody is lying, different Doner meats have different fat contents, that's true of the ones in the stores as well as the ones in restaurants. Doner is a processed meat product made of ground meat and fat mixed with spices and usually preservatives. Sometimes fillers and binders are added as well. There's no rule saying a doner must have a specific amount of fat, it's all up to the manufacturer and the product they are trying to produce.
A "lite" doner may sound like a contradiction in terms but someone more health conscious may pick it because it has less fat and calories.
As a note, Yogurt also contains a lot of protein.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.585147
| 2018-10-08T11:47:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92733",
"authors": [
"The Netty Professor",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50171"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
73767
|
Butter crunch French bread topping
Does anyone know what's in the topping that gets baked onto butter crunch French bread? I think that it is cheese but I'm not sure.
Can you provide an image and description? Is it something from a specific store/bakery? I'm not familiar with this, and Google (web search or image search) shows all kinds of different things, so I'm not sure what you're asking about.
I know you didn't say this, but you aren't by any chance thinking of "Dutch Crunch bread", are you?
yes I think that's what it might be called. my local bakery calls it butter crunch but i'm pretty sure it's the Dutch one
If it is Dutch crunch (which is particularly popular in the SF Bay Area) then it's also known as tiger bread in the UK. Either name will get you tons of recipes (and images), which should be enough to confirm whether it's what you're thinking of.
Does your bread look like this (photo)? From your comments, it seems that you think your bakery's "butter crunch French bread" may be the same bread which is called "Dutch crunch," among other names. Since no one else is answering this question, I'll take a stab at it even though I have never baked any of this bread, & tasted it for the first time just now.
In my supermarket, they call it "Dutch crust," and the topping's ingredients are called out separately: Rice Flour, Palm Shortening, Sugar, Active Dry Yeast.
Semifreddi's Bakery website http://www.semifreddis.com/products lists all the bread's ingredients: Enriched Flour (wheat flour, malted barley flour, niacin, reduced iron, thiamine mononitrate, riboflavin, folic acid), Water, Safflower and/or Sunflower and/or Expeller Pressed Canola Oil, Sugar, Rice Flour, Sea Salt, and Yeast.
Wikipedia describes Dutch crunch bread as having sesame oil and rice flour in the topping, although neither of my examples mention the sesame oil, just the rice flour... But no cheese in any I see. Any cheesy topping is probably not the same as what I am thinking of.
it doesn't taste cheesy it just looks like baked cheese to me... I'll give this a stab and see the results. thanks
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.585285
| 2016-09-06T21:48:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73767",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Lorel C.",
"eTag",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50386"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
83219
|
Are rare burgers safe?
On a recent trip to France, I had a burger that was still pink in the middle. I know this is incredibly common in France (and it was delicious!) - but, as I understand it, it would never be allowed in the UK.
I'm aware that common wisdom is that mince needs to be cooked all the way through as any exposed surface area can harbour dangerous bacteria (so almost all of it, in the case of mince/burgers). Do the French take any special precautions when preparing food in this way? Is eating this particularly risky?
I get pink burgers in the UK all the time, you just aren't going to the right places.
If the place is grinding their own meat (daily), and keeping it cold, I'd trust it way more than American grocery store-ground meat. But then again, I'll eat kitfo.
@Joe: Never been in the US, but I'm with you, as I have the same disposition towards minced meat sold in supermarkets here: Pink snot, ground from whatever bits they had lying around, greasy (even the beef mince), and nowhere close to fresh. One step down is the "pre-seasoned" mince, where the meat is already "brought up to taste" with a "spice mélange", which usually boils down to lots of salt, and lots of any red or yellow colored ground spice that will hide the actual state of the meat. Brrrrrr.
Storage is everything - good beef can be eaten raw.
From a good butcher, ground/minced meat can be some of the best cuts they have, but you must know the butcher. Mega market meat in the US is typically low end meat that was ground days in advanced or at chain places often ground and shipped. None of those options would I sere under 160, which means I don't make burgers from it ever. But butchers will save trimmings to grind, tails from steaks, edges from rib roast and so forth and add enough chuck or sirloin as needed to fill out. That is good stuff they eat themselves and if fine at a good mid rare.
Comment from Germany: we distinguish minced meat meant for raw consumption (tartare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steak_tartare, Mett https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mett) which is prepared and shipped according to particularly strict food safety regulations from meat that must be cooked. You may consider Mettbrötchen to be a variety of raw burger. In addition, people working in food preparation need to have a food safety certificate that includes knowledge of food hygiene. Part (if not all) these rules are the same for the whole EU, so I'd expect the situation in France to be silimar.
... In conclusion, the concern would not be whether it is allowed or not, but whether the restaurant obeys the rules of what is allowed (and safe). But a rare burger does not imply that the restaurant does things that are not allowed.
I had a burger at this restaurant chain yesterday, and medium rare is definitely pink on the inside. Not affiliated blah, blah, blah.
In the UK a lot of places are scared of being sued/etc and will quote Health and Safety to justify the fact they don't/won't sell pink beef. But as far as I know there is nothing saying this is actually the case. Check out the Food Standards Agency's website. I have had French friends eat in UK pubs be a bit disappointed at how well done their meat was (or that they couldn't have it rare), whereas in France you can really choose from 'almost-nuked' to completely raw. Even staff canteens in France will serve steak tartare: raw beef, raw egg and various vegetables, which the consumer then mixes.
@Rich: There is recent regulation (March 2017, I think). Before that some local authorities were threatening restaurants over what cooking as necessary for meat from particular types of supply, but I'm not sure what the regulatory basis was. The FSA says, "To find out more about the legislation governing these products please ring the FSA policy correspondent Liz Stretton on 020 7276 8357". Which I can't be bothered with, but perhaps you can :-)
So it's not (just) that they were scared of being sued by a customer, it's that their local authority's health inspectorate had given them very specific instructions which they were scared of disobeying. AIUI, the new regulation removes any doubt there might have been as to whether those instructions actually were legally binding. The Caterer lays out the requirements, although since that's an industry source you might believe it's being over-cautious.
Beef can be eaten just about raw. It's the ones that have pork added you have to watch.
No. They're endangered.
I looked at a meatball once and wondered: How many animals contributed to this meatball? The answer turned out to be over two-hundred. Unless you grind your own steak in a clinical environment, you might want to edge on the side of caution and cook it a little bit longer.
To add to @cbeleites, Mett isn't even beef, it's pork...
I saw this question on the Hot Network Questions and I got myself wondering what would Common, Uncommon, and Mythic Rare burguers be.
Applying USDA standards (which may or may not be the 'same' as elsewhere, but (IMHO) serve as a reasonable standard for "Safe") Hamburger must be cooked to an internal temperature of 160°F [71°C] in order to be 'Guaranteed Safe', which is typically defined as 'well done'.
On the other hand hamburger may be perfectly safe at medium rare to rare (120°F - 49°C) depending on how the beef was raised and processed. Actual cases of serious food borne illness from even raw meat are fairly rare (or should I say uncommon? ;) ). As far as I can tell the French are doing nothing 'special' to neither decrease nor increase the risks involved.
Many restaurants (in the US) will specify on their menu some thing like:
All burgers cooked med-well unless otherwise requested
A variety of circumstances from acid levels in the meat to the application of dyes may cause meat to appear 'pink' but be perfectly safe, ground beef may also appear to be brown, but may not be safe at all. Pink is not necessarily a good standard.
Since you are unlikely to get an 'accurate reading' carrying your own food thermometer with you where ever you may go (if your food sits on the counter for a while before getting served the temp by the time it gets to you will be less), the best test to apply in a restaurant is 'cooked' vs. 'raw'
A quick Google search "Hamburger Rare vs. Raw" will display a myriad of images from which you may discern what you are comfortable with.
By 'serious' food borne illness I am referring to things which might
require a doctors care or put your life in jeopardy. While lower-grade
illness maybe 'unpleasant' they are not necessarily 'unsafe'
"As far as I can tell" denotes the inability to prove a negative.
Having looked through the Anses website, particularly their
section on 'nutrivigilence' and 'animal nutrition and welfare' looking
for any exceptional methods (radiation treatment, quarantines,
chemical therapies etc) that might have the goal (even if not the
effect) of making the beef supply more safe...I found nothing to cause
me to believe that they are actually doing anything exceptional (over
and above US or EU standards)
Your conclusions might still be correct, but I'm not wild about using things like "Actual cases of food born illness from even raw meat are fairly rare" as evidence. Very few people eat raw meat, and most don't even eat rare burgers, so we wouldn't expect many cases of foodborne illness even if there is a decent risk.
@Jefromi I'll put it this way, incidents of food born illness from raw or rare hamburger are infrequent enough to not be worth my time to get the specific and accurate numbers
@Jefromi I thought steak tartare was not that uncommon in France. That link claims that the risk is low if proper care is taken and sites a reference.
@Lilienthal ...or perhaps a detailed and cross reference statistical analysis wasn't required to actually answer the OP's question.
I guess that would depend on the OP's definition of safe... Is skydiving safe? absolutely. Is skydiving 'free of risk'? No. My answer addressed the notion that pink = unsafe, as implied by the phrasing of the question, that a 'better standard for safe' would be 'is it not raw' (others here have shared an opinion that raw is even 'safe', still others disagree). If you consider the risk of foodborne illness to be 'severe' I'm guessing you are in the 'always 160°F camp'; still I leave it others to decide what level or risk they are willing to take with their hamburger.
I'm pruning some comments about predators eating meat in the wild. Humans are not wild animals, and have rather different food safety standards - and that is what is on topic on our site.
Good answer, but as far as I know food-borne diseases from raw meat are incredibly common: Most people eating meat will get them several times a year. It’s just that they usually manifest in stomach ache or other harmless, if bothersome, GI problems. Had diarrhoea? You can almost certainly blame the cleanliness of the food you had before (not necessarily meat, of course).
@KonradRudolph, you make a good point. I was thinking in terms of more 'serious' (life threatening) illnesses as opposed to the more common low-grade (well, when your the one with diarrhea it isn't 'low-grade') food borne illness. However, even with that, it is a risk scale for each person to decide how much 'risk' they are willing to take.
USDA cooking standards might assume the meat was only prepared to USDA standards.
@CosCallis If you're dismissing "minor" illness, you might want to note that in your answer. I'm pretty sure the usual meaning of "safe" means you don't get that either. For example, people generally would be unhappy with a restaurant that risked giving them noticeable GI problems the next day.
@Jefromi see recent edits.
Taeniasis - generally can only be removed by cooking beef well but it is unlikely to appear in US/EU beef. There are also equivalents for pork.
Depends on the meat-grinding process. Is it some large production facility where scraps and sub-standard meat portions are thrown into a vat and ground up, with a lot of opportunity for contamination (eventually being sold in large plastic tubes as cheap frozen ground beef)? Lots of danger there.
Your local butcher shop, done by hand on equipment that is cleaned every day or even between batches? Or done on demand? Much less risk there.
The main worry and danger of ground beef is the fact that usually, with a cut of meat, the outer surface might be at risk for some bacterial contamination. As you get a lot of cuts/scraps, that's a lot of "surface area," which then gets ground and mixed, as opposed to a solid slab of beef, where the vast majority of the interior of the meat isn't exposed.
So, if I take a big chunk of chuck roast, cut it into smaller chunks and immediately grind it, myself, in my kitchen, the bacterial risk isn't going to be that much different than that of the chuck roast, itself, if my equipment is cleaned using appropriate methods for keeping kitchen equipment bacteria-free.
By the way, if your burger is pink in the middle, that's probably medium, not rare.
I think this is right on. I recall a case of a man dying from Trichinosis from eating a rare hamburger because the cutting grinder had not been cleaned grinding pork.
@JimmyJames - my mom used to make the people at the meat counter crazy. She liked to use stew beef for burgers, so she'd have them grind half a pound (to clear out whatever was still in the grinder), would look at it, say "I don't want that," then have them grind whatever amount she wanted to buy. Not exactly "cleaning," but she was more concerned about the quality than safety, per say.
Your ability to decipher mostly incoherent comments is noted. Must drink more coffee...
"So, if I take a big chunk of chuck roast, cut it into smaller chunks and immediately grind it, myself, in my kitchen, the bacterial risk isn't going to be that much different than that of the chuck roast, itself..." is incorrect. The important difference is where the bacteria are. In a chunk roast the bacteria are on the surface where they are most rapidly killed during cooking. Once the beef is ground they are distributed through the meat where they are more protected from cooking. It is this redistribution that is important not the number of bacteria.
@JackAidley - it matters how much of the meat has been contaminated for how long. The problem with poorly processed meat isn't that the bacteria is inside instead of on the surface, it's that it's inside outside, and widely distributed throughout, and given plenty of time to contaminate all the other meat it comes into contact with. If I grind it and use it, and keep my equipment and surfaces properly cleaned, then it's not heavily contaminated. Sometimes people take fear of any bacteria to absurd levels.
@PoloHoleSet: you have no idea how much bacteria is on the surface of the meat when you start. Maybe it's enough to make you sick (and, remember, Campylobacter infections can be started by a few hundred cells or less), maybe it's not, but by changing the distribution of the bacteria you change the effectiveness of cooking in killing them
@JackAidley - I've heard that it isn't the bacteria itself, but the toxic by products they create, which are the problem... that's why heating can't make unsafe food safe. That matches PoloHoleSet's assertion that the safety of the freshly ground roast (assuming a reasonably clean grinder) isn't much different from the safety of the original, un-ground roast. And even if the bacteria gets folded inside, it shouldn't have time to create those toxic by-products unless it's left for long enough the original would also be unsafe.
@Megha - It is certainly possible to get poisoned by toxins produced by bacteria that cannot be removed by cooking. However, it is also possible to get infected by bacteria on the food itself; and it's this later kind of infection that is the bigger risk from raw meat and it can be removed by cooking. With ground beef the bacteria have been spread through the meat so it needs to be cooked all the way through in order to kill them whereas with a chunk of beef the bacteria are nearly all on the surface so can be killed more easily.
@JackAidley - the main form of contamination in undercooked beef is e.coli, which is dangerous because of the toxins, which makes my take more applicable than yours. Campylobacter gets into the food stream mainly through fecal contamination, which can be minimized by looking at the food source and how the meat gets processed and handled and making appropriate consumer choices. If I can exercise that kind of control, I'm going to be comfortable with a less than cooked-to-hockey-puck burger. If not, I'm cooking it well-done.
@PoloHoleSet Campylobacter is most common in chicken, sure, but it also occurs in beef. As for E. coli, it depends on strain, O157:H7 strains cause gastroenteritis by infection, for example. The mechanism of action is through the Shiga toxin but it enters the body through infection by live bacteria.
@JackAidley Redistribution is not the most important factor. The single most important factor is the length of time the food has been sitting at a temperature favorable for bacterial growth. The quantity of bacteria present is directly dependent on that time.
Are you asking if it is safe for you to prepare it this way, or whether it is safe to have it at a restaurant?
Here's a useful guideline for restaurants, as a complement to other answers:
Is this way of cooking common and accepted in that region? Is it how the chef and the waiter would prefer that burger? In France, the answer is yes. In many places you would explicitly need to ask for it to be well done, otherwise they assume you want it rare. Steak tartare is popular too.
Since rare burgers are so popular in France, the appropriate safety procedures and regulations are in place for the whole production chain, and people know how to prepare such dishes in a safe manner. A mistake would immediately affect many customers and would make the news.
In a country where such dishes are not common or traditional, I would be much more cautious. For example, in China even things you might take for granted, such as a glass of cold water or raw vegetables may be unsafe (depending on the place), because the locals never eat such things (they will boil the water and cook the vegetables). The chance of accidental mishandling is much higher.
If you're at a nicer restaurant - or nowadays even a midlevel restaurant, perhaps - you may be eating food that was cooked sous-vide. Sous-vide is helpful not only for letting the restaurant pre-prepare food without a loss of quality, but it allows substantially more rare preparation with no additional risk of foodborne illness.
While a 160°F/71°C hamburger is the FDA requirement for a quick-cooked burger, if you cook for an hour or so you can cook it to 145°F (medium), and two hours for 130°F(rare), and still have the same anti-bacterial effect as cooking to 160°F for a few seconds.
You can read more about sous-vide burgers at the Food Lab's page.
Beyond that, I suspect you simply are seeing a cultural difference. The French tend to choose better-tasting food even if there is a small risk of foodborne illness.
or rather the French know how to store, prepare, and serve food safely that in many other places would not be safe... Or they're more pragmatic and consider the one in a hundred million chance of something being bad to be acceptable when the overlawyered US culture regulates against it.
If you look at data France have less death by foodborne illness than USA. :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foodborne_illness#Comparison_between_countries
I suspect that's partially based on the small time period of those numbers (. Over four times as many people were hospitalized in France(per 100k); fewer died but not by much (note those stats are not exactly identical, as French statistics only included the major sources of infection and the cases that had a known vector, and so could be much higher compared to the US stats which included all known or unknown vectors).
And for the specific known vectors that were listed in both, France was higher in each - three times as many deaths from salmonella per 100k, half again as many from listeria. I don't know why e. coli was not listed, unless I'm wrong that it is a higher cause of death at least in the US.
Never heard of pasteurization being applied to meat before, very interesting. I wonder about "cooler" slow cookers now too. They quote: *beef can be safely pasteurized at temperatures as low as 130°F if held for long enough. At 130°F, it takes 2 hours to safely pasteurize beef, while at 140°F, it takes only 12 minutes. Remember—these timeframes begin once the center of the burger reaches pasteurization temperature, so it's a good idea to add an extra half hour to those times for any burger you plan on pasteurizing.
Pasteurization cannot safely take place lower than 130°F...*
Indeed. (I note that 1 hour for 145 is appropriate not because it's necessary for pasteurization, though probably 45 is when you consider 'warm up' time, but because it tends to produce the right texture of end product.)
"The FSA has now created and published a list of establishments approved to supply minced meat and meat preparations (rare burgers) intended to be eaten less than thoroughly cooked. "
From March 2017 The Food Standards Agency has introduced a specific
requirement for establishments supplying minced meat (MM) and/or meat
preparations (MP) intended to be eaten less than thoroughly cooked
(LTTC) to be approved by either the FSA or their Local Authority.
Specific approval of this activity is seen to be an important step in
delivering a high level of public protection. The continued upkeep and
publication of a definitive list of establishments approved for this
activity will assist FBOs at catering establishments to identify
approved producers of MM/MP which are suitable for use in the
production of burgers intended to be LTTC.
Source: https://www.food.gov.uk/enforcement/sectorrules/meatplantsprems/approvedmeatplants
There was also achange similar to this a couple of years ago. I'm not sure whether it was to a lower standard than this (although higher than before), or whether it was regional (maybe just London local authorities), but various restaurants at the time started refusing to serve rare burgers. So this is the right answer but maybe needs more expansion. To directly answer the question at the end: most of the French quite possibly don't take any more precautions in preparation than most of the British, it's just that the Brits have recently banned those who don't from selling rare burgers.
For FSAs viewpoint you may be interests in: from May 2016 https://www.food.gov.uk/business-industry/guidancenotes/meatregsguid/less-than-thoroughly-cooked-beef-burgers and from February 2017 https://www.thecaterer.com/articles/497150/new-regulations-on-cooking-burgers-come-into-force
While OP asks if the 'French do anything special...?" No, but the Brits are at least trying.
Link no longer works (so thank you for copying relevant part)
As a French resident, I've always eaten rare or even raw meat, I'm 23 y.o. and still alive ;) If you are concerned about the quality of the meat served in restaurants, here are some things you should know:
From the animal to the steak, your meat will have had to respect a lot of regulations. That has resulted in France having only a few cases of E. coli bacteria infections that were actually due to bad conservation of the meat that was the responsibility of the supermarket stores that sold this infected meat. It resulted in the biggest meat scandal in France since the Mad Cow disease in the late 90s.
Except for pre-cooked meals containing meat that are allowed to be made from gross parts of the "meat" (very greasy parts, drops of meat when cutting the steaks etc.), every piece of meat you can eat in a restaurant or buy in a store is processed according to the same regulations so it's safe to eat rare steak even if it's minced as it is with beef carpaccio.
Be only careful if you go to fast food restaurants, where they are allowed to serve defrosted meat. In fast food outlets always be sure that your meat is well cooked or else ... you're likely to suffer a bad case of diarrhea.
The only time it can be considered safe to eat undercooked minced meat, is if you minced it yourself (and treated the meat properly prior, of course), or if you trust the establishment in question to have done the same thing.
E.coli, which is often considered the most prominent risk factor in minced meats, at least in Europe, stems from the bowel of sheep and bovines. Transfer of e.coli to meat typically happens during slaughter. For this reason, steaks are fine to eat medium or even rare, since the entire area of possible contamination is heated. Minced meat however carries the risk of having mixed any bacteria originally sat on the surface area of the meat into the middle of the patty.
E.coli infections don't happen very often, and even those who eat infected meat don't always catch the bacteria themselves, but due to wild strains of antibiotic resistant bacteria and the potential severity of certain types of e.coli infections, it is always advisable to ensure that the meat has been heated up to a core temperature exceeding 165F.
Do you have a reference at least for what "proper treatment" of meat is that would be safe even if you minced it yourself? What exactly is it we'd have to trust a restaurant to do?
@Caleb, for home preparation, it starts with what meat you buy. If you buy a cut that is contaminated, nothing in an ordinary kitchen will kill those bacteria (except heat treatment). So assuming that you've done your homework and bought from a good shop, proper treatment is basically vigilance with kitchen etiquette - store the meat as cold as possible as soon as possible, keep a clean place of work, don't "mix" tools between ingredients, etc. As for the restaurant, you'd be trusting them to do these things - origin of the meat and storage would be the biggest points imo.
Thanks, but please [edit] that info into your answer. That will make it far more useful and correct than its current form.
In France??? Undercooked meat?!
How about Steak Tartare which, in France and other countries, is made with the same raw, uncooked ground or Laguiole-cut beef or horse meat used for hamburgers and is perfectly safe to eat due to the rigorous veterinary control in the French slaughterhouses: every single animal gets checked for parasites and diseases and removed from the food chain if infected.
Furthermore, in professional kitchens there is no difference between handling raw meat for Steak Tartare and ground beef for hamburgers: all meat is kept in a special meat fridge, the "hot isle" and the "cold isle" have to be separated by the "work isle" with minimum distances from one another, yellow sponges are for utensils, blue sponges are for floors, red ones for toilets, ... The law in France is quite stringent about hygiene...
Nowadays it is still advised for pregnant women not to eat raw meat due to some bacteria, but if you're in perfectly healthy condition, there is no risk whatsoever.
And as you're from the UK: Mr Bean - Steak Tartare :-)
Steak tartare is not ground meat. They are not the same thing.
@Catija Have you even read the article? Ping me in chat after you did
It's irrelevant. If your entire answer relies on a link to another site, then it's not an answer by definition. Please improve your answer and include the relevant content of the link here in a quote box. Links die or get changed. Link only answers are insufficient. Please see: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/225370/your-answer-is-in-another-castle-when-is-an-answer-not-an-answer?s=1|3.0476
The OP is from the UK and is intimately aware of the words "Steak Tartare" and if he's not, the link is just there to explain what it is as the dis itself is the answer to his question. @Catija
@Fabby Please don't give people a hard time for asking you to write full answers. Your original answer indeed was link-only, and Catija was doing you a service by asking you to elaborate rather than just flagging it. It's clearly much improved by your edits - though it's still not entirely clear if the meat used for steak tartare is the same quality as the meat in hamburgers!
OK, making too many assumptions, as I've lived in France, it's obvious to me that it's the same meat and that everyone knows what Steak Tartare is... There is no "Steak tartare ground beef" and "hamburger ground beef"... there's just "ground beef" and a different preparation method. Answer updated. @Jefromi
Eating that is not just risky due to bacteria. Since bacteria is not the only thing bad thing found in undercooked meat, you can get Toxoplasmosis parasite infections from undercooked beef too.
If you have any health conditions where a parasite infection would be unsafe for you, then eating such things would be highly risky and not recommended.
That pink burger patty might have been totally raw in the center. If your burger was a tartare aller retour... yeah it's basically raw beef.
Any idea of how common that is from beef?
This does not really answer the question that was asked ... it's a comment on related matters but not an answer.
I'm a little confused how this is only "related matters" or doesn't answer the question. Mentioning a specific risk of eating undercooked beef (i.e. a reason it's not safe) seems like an answer?
In the UK it is possible to get burgers rare. Davy's wine bar appealed Westminster councils ban on serving rare meat and won in 2013. From memory it does however require the meat to be traceable back to the supplier and minced on the day (There is a really good pdf on the requirements somewhere but I can't find it).
This does mean that if you're selling burgers rare you'd better be prepared for a bit of a fight with council inspection teams.
I don't know what your specific safety concern is, but the WHO (World Health Organization) was in the track of various health problems related to dietary patterns before the 70's. Of course, there is an ongoing struggle with the industry.
This has gotten to the point that the WHO declared meat a carcinogen type
I in 2015. It is not that it produces cancer, meat promotes it. Which is quite different. You can check their Q&A here for more info.
Notwithstanding the fact that meat, white bread, free fats, fried potatoes and most burger ingredients are linked to more than one health concern.
There's more publicly available (and amicable) research on cancer.org (HCAs, etc.) and other reputable sources, but I can't publish more links due to my status as a new user.
So, no. I wouldn't call it safe, just edible for those who feel so inclined.
I think the point of the question was "raw", not whether burgers are safe in general.
I believe I'm providing adequate information even on that specific topic. Did you check the Q&A or the whole study?. To quote a bit: "Processed meat refers to meat that has been transformed through salting, curing, fermentation, smoking, or other processes to enhance flavour or improve preservation." . Thanks, @Robert
@MarioG. Welcome and thank for presenting an interest bit of information. However, your answer does not address the question presented as it does not distinguish between varying degrees of finish on the meat. OP possess a question about 'rare' (vs. well or at least 'less rare') mince (ground beef). Your studies make no such distinction. Hamburger is no more or less 'dangerous' (according to the studies you presented) based on how well it is prepared.
Here in Canada sounds a lot like the UK: We cook our hamburger until well done, all the way through. Most restaurants are also held to that standard for food safety reasons.
However, in the United States you can get medium or even rare burgers much more frequently.
This is because of the food safety guidelines in the country. Not just for the people cooking the meat, but for the factories producing the meat. If guidelines are stricter on the production of ground beef then the risk of cooking to medium is reduced as well.
There are restaurants in Canada that grind their own beef, and are therefore able to serve it however they wish. Or serve beef tartare which is raw, and do so safely.
So, in order to make it a safe option either the food regulations in France or the restaurants practices themselves make them feel safe serving it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.585549
| 2017-07-24T13:49:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83219",
"authors": [
"Bob Tway",
"Caleb",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Cos Callis",
"Dave",
"DevSolar",
"Fabby",
"GdD",
"Gyncoca",
"Jack Aidley",
"JimmyJames",
"Joe",
"Joe M",
"Jon Hanna",
"Konrad Rudolph",
"Maja Piechotka",
"Mario G.",
"Mast",
"Megha",
"OldCurmudgeon",
"PCARR",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Rich",
"Robert",
"Steve Jessop",
"T. Sar",
"Vegard",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"Xen2050",
"barbecue",
"cbeleites",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12842",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12892",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41724",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52880",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55553",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60453",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60516",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60521",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60548",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"jwenting",
"l0b0",
"user20637"
],
"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
}
|
45932
|
How can I store wonton wrappers in the freezer?
I have found that authentic frozen egg roll wrappers from an Asian food store work well for canneloni and ravioli. Just thaw, fill, and roll. You can cut them to any desired length. Also, frozen wonton wrappers work exceptionally well for ravioli. While I haven't tried it yet the wonton wrappers should be ideal for tortellini/tortelloni.
But I don't always have these on hand and the nearest place I can get them is about 30 miles away. I have tried buying extra and keeping them frozen but they seem to get freezer burned quickly, with the edges being too dry and brittle to use.
I'm wondering if anyone has any tips on how to keep them better. Or does anyone have any other alternatives that would be as easy to use?
Cannelloni can be crepes. Pasta cannelloni are just as common.
Have you tried thawing them in the fridge? I've had refrigerated ones that last for weeks in the fridge if you don't open the package.
Comments removed - the question seems all sorted out now.
I happen to have watched a TV show the other day about this very problem and they suggested making a big batch of whatever filling or fillings you are thinking of using (presently or in the future) and go ahead and make them all up and freeze them ready to cook. They were making several kinds of ravioli that day. They made them all up and placed them on cookie sheets to freeze and then placed them in ZipLock bags and they had a nice supply to pull out of the freezer whenever they were ready to cook them. They didn't have a problem with brittle wontons once they were filled. They used beaten egg to seal the edges so the filling wouldn't ooze out. You can use this same method for any shape or filling....doesn't have to be ravioli, of course.
Hi Nancy, welcome to the site and thanks for your answer. Look here to get a better feel for the site. +1 for a good answer. Someone will probably come along and edit out your signature, just because we don't do that here, but the substance of your answer is helpful and just the kind of thing we want here.
Freezer burn is due to water sublimating out of food, in this case wonton wrappers. The process usually becomes apparent after two weeks of being frozen.
This is a tough process to stop, but it can be slowed down by not giving the water anywhere else to go.
Ways to do this remove all air space around the food before freezing by either:
1. packaging in vacuum sealer bags
2. tightly sealing in and removing all air from a zip lock type freezer bag, avoid the ones with sliders
3. tightly wrapping in cling wrap, then tape or put in a normal plastic baggie to keep the cling wrap from coming apart
How about putting them in a freezer bag full of water ,then put them in the freezer.Works well for freezing fish.
Probably not the wisest route for flour-based items like egg roll wrappers. Might be a good idea for fish, though.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.588027
| 2014-07-28T10:44:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45932",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Collin Josef",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Gemini Geeks Tech. Pvt. spam",
"Georgie Porgie",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Jonas",
"Josef Demangeat",
"Judy",
"Mika Mel",
"Queen Lotus Ameena",
"Saraline Fashion Studio spam",
"Scott Lewis",
"Spammer",
"Stephen Stamper",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109507",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109508",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109510",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109574",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109589",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109625",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109711",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"user109579",
"vanillahotram"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
57573
|
What is the shelf life of gelatin sheets?
Earlier this year, I found a package of gelatin sheets in my cupboard, which looked extremely old. I couldn't exactly tell how old, but the packaging mentioned a refund procedure with the refund price not in Euro, but what I think was either Dutch Guilders, or Belgian Francs, although the price was quite high, mentioning something around 200 of the currency. I assumed that this meant that the package predated the Euro, which meant it was over 10 years old.
I tried to use it in a recipe I learned in a cooking class, but the packaging was already completely broken, making the gelatin exposed to the air. The recipe wasn't that successful, with shreds of undissolved gelatin littering my chocolate mousse. I later was told that the only reason we used gelatin in the cooking class was because we didn't have enough time to properly set the mousse.
Does gelatin keep 12-13 years?
In a sealed package, (not getting into what date may be printed on it for "expiration") practically speaking, sealed and dry, it appears to keep "essentially forever."
Once opened, not nearly so long, though that is not something I've done much personal experimentation with.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.588358
| 2015-05-17T18:40:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57573",
"authors": [
"Brenda Van Inwegen",
"Catherine Winsor",
"Deanna Hill",
"Jack Weller",
"Miguel Cardenas",
"Stephen Brown",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136997",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136998",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137007",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137008"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
54761
|
Why is the rice in my mushroom risotto always very hard?
I'm a fan of Italian mushroom risotto and I love to cook it from time to time, but cooking the arborio rice well seems impossible to me if I follow traditional recipes. Last time I pre-cooked the rice in water before boiling it in cooking wine but this didn't seem to help. No matter for how long I boil it, I end up with very hard rice at the end. Does anyone know the best way to cook risotto to avoid this?
How long is "No matter for how long I boil it"?
@Stephie There is this, and to this day I have not figured it out. http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44847/why-would-a-rice-seem-non-absorbent I've even bought that brand again and not had a problem. Weird.
Boil risotto? I've always simmered slowly, adding stock a ladle at a time till the rice was just before the texture I wanted. Allowing for it to carry on cooking between pan and table. The key is to 'fry' the rice in butter till it turns transparent.
@Doug You mention a better way to say what I was trying to say in my answer. Edited.
Glad I could be of assistance :-)
You don't boil risotto rice, you fry it and then simmer it in the cooking liquid (usually wine and broth).
possible duplicate : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/6391/67 or http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/54/67
I love risotto. A few things might help.
Use a saucepan, not a skillet. I had never really noticed a difference until ElendilTheTall (another user here) pointed it out. It makes a big difference. So you should have 2 sauce pans on the stove, one for your simmering broth, one for the rice.
Brown your aromatics and your mushrooms well in butter and oil and include your dry rice. The rice should get quite translucent before you add wine to the pan. The wine should sizzle and boil dramatically.
The old idea that you need to stir constantly is silly. Add your broth a big ladleful at a time (you can add larger amounts of broth for the first couple of additions), keep the heat high enough that it maintains a low boil and keep an eye on it, stirring occasionally. Add more broth well before the rice seems dry.
Each batch will vary regarding exactly how long it will take and how much broth it will need, so be prepared for today's batch to take longer and need more broth that last week's batch, even if everything seems the same. But shouldn't take more than about a half an hour as long as you've kept it at a low boil (high simmer?) and haven't let it dry out.
That's it. Add Parmesan when the rice is done, and true arborio is worth it.
EDIT: Oh and BTW, cooking wine is nasty. Use real wine, your rice may just be insulted by "cooking wine". For "cooking wine" they add huge amounts of salt to bad wine to make it undrinkable, so that they can legally put it on grocery store shelves and sell it to minors.
Stirring constantly is something left over from the inconsistent heat source and crap pan era, to stop the rice sticking to your pan and burning, tainting your food in the process (like with a bechemel). Still a good idea if you have cheap thin bottomed pans if you ask me.
@Doug Certainly if you have crappy pans and a cheap stove! :) Which, of course, some of us do. Ah, college days.
you should see the stove and pans I have at work... Sometimes I feel I'd be better off with an open fire and bean can...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.588509
| 2015-02-15T08:44:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54761",
"authors": [
"Asha Ananda",
"Chadd Schroeder",
"Daniel Young",
"Doug",
"James Anglin",
"Joe",
"Johan van zyl",
"Jolenealaska",
"Keith Randall",
"Kenneth Wood",
"Paula Miller",
"Phillip Cumbee",
"Preston",
"Stephen Harris",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128970",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128971",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128988",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129019",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129044",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129057",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"sara walter"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
55143
|
Are there accurate meat scales which interface easily with a computer?
I raise duck and sell to the local restaurants. I have a digital scale that I use that does not interface well with computers. The only way to interface with it is via an RS-232 port. I would like a scale that I can connect to a computer, preferably via network (wireless card or Cat 5 (LAN)) but bluetooth would be great, or even USB. Does anyone know of an accurate scale that I can use for such a purpose?
If you are wondering I am also a software engineer. Please advise if this is an inappropriate forum for this type of question.
What's your weight range? What about Bluetooth? http://www.amazon.com/ReFleX-Wireless-Bluetooth-Smart-Scale/dp/B009WX55P6 There are lots of consumer grade Bluetooth scales if that's an option.
If you're comfortable with the software side there's quite a few RS-232 to Ethernet adapters that can be connected to with a Telnet style connection, and some others have virtual serial port drivers. At ~$100 it might be a lot cheaper option if you're otherwise happy with the scales.
Your title says "interfaces easily" but then in your question you restrict the interfaces, notably excluding USB. Was that an oversight or do you really need it to be specifically a network interface?
I need to measure from 0.005 to 15 pounds. And yes Bluetooth would be great.
@Cascabel, Perhaps I should have been more clear. The reference to network interface is just an example. USB would work but network connection is preferred.
What would a network-attached scale even do? You'd have to configure it to report to something, or have something else poll for it (and then you'd still have to configure it, either via DHCP, BOOTP or similar to set its IP address). It'd be a security nightmare, as it'd be like a network attached medical device (or old printer) that never gets updates to deal with security vulnerabilities. Some sort of a serial connection like RS-232 or USB is just plain safer in this situation.
... and there are plenty of USB digital scales, as they're used by companies to weight packages & print out postage.
The only reason to not go with USB might be distance limitations (5m for USB 2), but you can get USB over Cat5 'extenders'. (which would then meet your 'cat5' cable requirement ... but you can also get DB9 (or DB25) to RJ45 adaptors, if you just want to run 232 over cat5)
(I'm a programmer/sysadmin at a US government agency so it's possible that my security concerns are a little higher than most other people's. Even if you keep it on an isolated network to only talk to the terminal, odds are that the terminal is going to need to be updated at some point, and you risk it getting infected. Even if they exist, it's just not worth the trouble. And yes, I do know about the attacks via USB devices)
I'm a information security consultant and I'm not even worried about the threat from a network attached scale @Joe! I think he'd be all right on this one, the likelihood is very low.
@GdD : I work in a place where it's taken me 2 weeks to get machines allowed to connect to the internet when the security folks didn't like that I had a system allowed external people to upload files (and someone uploaded a picture that said 'I've hacked your system'). We've had worse cases where men with guns come in a seized our computers for an investigation. So I'm a little bit more paranoid than most. If network-enabled scales exist, they're going to be used for postage and checkout, and that means financial accounts, and a target.
Bottom line is I need to interface with my weight scale in a digital fashion. Currently in order to get the information from the scale into any other system, i.e. invoicing, inventory, I have to manually enter that data into another (OMG) NETWORKED computer!! As far as security goes call me thick here but what is anyone going to do with this information anyway, sell it to my competitors? If I want I can find out what their weights and prices are by asking around a bit. This is not a huge market. I already know their information. I don't need to hack any system for this.
@JohnAschenbrenner : Ohaus, Dymo, Weightmax and Metler all make USB-connected scales. As they're typically for posage, I would assume they have to be pretty accurate, although the precision may be a function of the scale's maximum (eg, a 100lb max may not have 0.1 gram precision). The local farmer's market has a scale that directly connects to a label printer, but you might also need some inventory tracking. Also see http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-Connect-an-Electronic-Balance-or-Scale-to-a/
I have completed several government retail scale interface certifications. Any weighing scale that is certified for commercial use has to show the data cannot easily be tampered with. For this reason it would be difficult to certify a scale with a network or wireless connection. Hence they are all serial interfaces, usually RS-232 or RS-485. In theory a USB interface would achieve the same level of trust, but given the added complication during certification of driver support for a wide variety of connected hardware, i doubt any manufacturer would bother. If you really need network capability, your best bet is a RS232-to-virtualCOM-over-ethernet adapter.
** UPDATE 2023/06/08 **
Just checked and the major manufacturers latest models now offer USB options.
I was just going to mention the issue with certifying the scale, looks like you've got it covered!
If you have an RS232 scale you have a couple of very decent options for getting the data out of it. You could get an RS232 to USB adapter and write a script of some kind to request and pull the data - probably the easiest option - however it would not have network access, just access from the wired computer. If you genuinely want it to be on the LAN then I'd use a LAN or WIFI enabled Arduino to interpret the RS232 data and convert it to whatever format you want. You could have it do a HTTP push to a server or have it run its own web server so the data could be pulled.
I wouldn't be surprised if most USB scales show up as a RS232 serial port, anyways. Either that or keyboards, otherwise they'd need device specific drivers.
So what you want is something that can attach to a network, weigh your duck, tell someone something about the weight of the duck, and have it all be above board so that you don't have to be afraid of fleecing your customers?
The only thing that I have personally used and have had any experience with that fits your bill is Digis systems.
This seems like a good fit for what you want
While I have not used that specific solution myself, I have used their weight + wrap + label stuff before, and it works as advertised, more or less. Never had it die on me either.
I'm sure that there are competitors to digi, but I have only used their stuff professionally, so I cannot comment on them.
Hope this helps.
I haven't looked but there probably isn't a networked meat scale. Most equipment like this is attached to a cheap computer that can packetize the data coming off the serial connection. If you have an old pentium computer you just haven't thrown away yet, you could probably roll your own Linux system and write an app in ASM or C to just transport input from the serial port and drop it on the lan via either SNMP or SMTP or other messaging mechanism or even drop it on a mounted share drive.
HOWEVER, this question is probably more appropriate for one of the tech forums such as electrical engineering g, Unix, or programming.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.588947
| 2015-02-26T04:06:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55143",
"authors": [
"Abhilash Gandreti",
"Alan Burgess",
"Amy Fisher",
"Arctiic",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Dodo Dee",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"John Aschenbrenner",
"Maggie Goodman",
"PeterJ",
"Pieshifter Egbert",
"Ronnie",
"Ross Ridge",
"Sharon Nash",
"Vivien Linney",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131009",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131011",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131033",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131153",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33811",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43720",
"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
}
|
53895
|
Does whole milk or soy milk spoil faster? Why?
I'm doing a science fair project and I need some help. My question is does whole milk or soy milk spoil faster? Does anyone know which one spoils faster or if they spoil at the same rate? Please explain why.
If you submit a science fair project without an actual experiment you're going to do very poorly. Why not pour 2 glasses and monitor their progress over a day... or you could do a really good experiment and have a control group that rests in the fridge and put another group that stays on a table and another group that sits on a window sill...
Good idea, but my science teacher tells us to research...which is why I am asking...3 questions and then turn them into him so he can decide which questions I can do and which ones I really shouldn't do. So if you have any experience, will you tell me your results and why they were like that?
Look at the expiry dates on the containers. That should give you a good idea.
You'll probably want to take into account shelf-stable products versus fresh (refrigerated) types, and also pasteurization (e.g., "UHT") or other processing techniques. All that said, we collectively seem to like (e.g., view, upvote) experiments (examples such as this one or this one or perhpas it's just @jolenealaska... ;-)); if you end up doing an experiment, please do submit a self-answer!
possible duplicate of Why does soymilk take longer to expire?
This actually sounds like a great science fair experiment, particularly if you test various kinds of cow milk (e.g. "raw", skim, whole) and soy milk (e.g. unsweetened vs. sweetened). The challenging part will be establishing a standard for "spoiled" and measuring it. Good luck!!! :)
@Erica and OP, I agree that the challenge lies there. This is of interest, as is this, some of those may not be completely out of the realm, as far as expense.
Interesting additions: compare pasteurised and non-pasteurised. Also special lactose-free (but still from a cow) milk doesn't go off as fast as regular milk :)
Both soy and regular milk are supposed to be consumed within a few days of opening. You have to consider that not all spoilage is visible. In milk it's obvious. In commercial soy milk, which is often sweetened and contains stabilizing and thickening additives, it's less obvious.
While both milks are chemically similar, they are biologically totally different, it's an "apple to oranges" problem
Not sure about why, but in my experience cow's milk spoils much faster than soy milk.
They're all good for about a week past the date on the carton, according to this link for milk substitutes and this link for milk. Of course, shelf life for milk depends almost completely on the method of pasteurization.
It's worth noting that "spoiled" milk is almost always related to natural milk bacteria, rather than a food borne pathogen: they out compete almost everything else. We eat various varieties of spoiled milk on a daily basis, and I would be a lot less concerned with milk past its expiration date than any milk substitute.
The "natural milk bacteria" part is true for raw or low temperature pasteurized cow milk. ESL milk and UHT milk 1) lose the innoculation with lactic bacteria from the udder, and 2) provide a different milleau which promotes the growth of other bacteria, not the original lactobacilii. The new colonies are not necessarily pathogenic, but can't be assumed to be safe, and also don't taste good.
Soy milk doesn't last 7 days after the date on the carton, but 7 days after opening.
If it is the kind of soy milk that is pasteurized like UHT milk, so it can be stored in an unopened carton on the shelf. There are brands of soy milk that need refrigeration. And the advice given on the packaging for soy milk and soy yoghurt tends to be pessimistic, I have seen soy milk last 2 weeks opened in the fridge (it won't always!)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.589555
| 2015-01-22T21:06:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53895",
"authors": [
"Brian Begley",
"Brian G",
"Delia Cortez",
"Erica",
"Jolenealaska",
"Jon Story",
"Mr. Mascaro",
"Shelley Kaniss",
"TFD",
"Tressica Thomas",
"alberto aichino",
"hoc_age",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126732",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126733",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126735",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126748",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32907",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33399",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho",
"shadowtalker",
"trlkly",
"yinyang1092"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
54194
|
How do I practice piping icing without wasting icing and money?
Is there some cheaper alternative to real icing so I can avoid wasting good icing and money while practicing? Or can I avoid having to throw the practice icing away? I do not want to waste good butter just to practice my piping skills =)
Without more precise parameters, the quality of an answer is likely to just be subjective. Rephrase?
I think this is a great question. I've edited it to try to clarify a bit, but the core meaning isn't changed, and there's nothing wrong with there being more than one way to solve a problem.
If you're just practicing piping, you can just pipe onto parchment paper (or a clean counter) and then scrape it off with a spatula and save the frosting. That way you can actually practice with the frosting you'll be using and not be thrown off by different textures and consistencies.
ETA: This is what we've actually done in a few bakeries where I've worked. If you had an odd request, you'd mark a section of the counter the same size as the cake and pipe the outline or lettering onto that to check sizing/kerning etc before doing the actual cake.
or: a piece of glass, a plate, ... I would say.
Yeah, pretty much any smooth surface will do. If you were practicing borders, you could do it on a round tin or something. The sky is the limit!
not all smooth surfaes are the same -- some are too smooth, and you have difficulty getting the initial touch to stick, making it difficult to write. (as you touch down, lift up to sort of stretch the segment, then come back down to afix it, so you have perfectly straight lines)
When I took a cake decorating class (Wilton I through III), in the course kit they had a series of instruction cards that you'd place inside a plastic slip cover (also in the kit), so that you could work on the plastic, then scrape it off and reuse. The different kits also have flower nails, tips, etc. (the only things I haven't reused much is the oval pan that I think was in kit #2, the fake flower stamens, and the plastic clown heads)
@Joe That's a good idea. I've usually done it straight on a butcher block or marble slab, but piping definitely isn't my strong suit anyway. I'm more of a "cover it in ganache and call it good" guy.
Option 1: Canned frosting is a lot cheaper than making your own. It doesn't taste as good, but that doesn't really matter if you just use it to practice.
Option 2: Make a batch of very simple buttercream frosting to practice with. After each practice session, scrape it off, and freeze. Defrost it before every use (it may need to be whipped for a couple of minutes to smooth it out). It can be reused >10 times if you are careful, which would save a lot of money.
Curious, Re the canned frosting, I've never used it because it's disgusting but I see fails on the web where people tried to frost with the canned stuff and it is too thin to really pipe cleanly. Is this a concern? Is there a way to make it actually usable? Are there some brands that are better than others?
@Catijah I don't use it for actual cakes either, but Betty Crocker's whipped cream cheese frosting works really well to practice piping skills in my experience. I haven't really tried other brands, so it could be that some other ones are too thin.
No personal experience but:
Cake making site recommends making your buttercream with crisco instead of butter. It's cheaper but it's not going to taste good at all. It can also be reused and stored repeatedly.
A recipe - Source: Cake Central Forums:
1 cup vegetable shortening
2 to 4 Tbsp water
1 lb confectioner's sugar
1 Tbsp meringue powder
Beat for 8-12 minutes. Store the icing in an airtight container with a
plastic lid. It will keep for 2 months. No need to refrigerate. Yeilds
3 to 3 1/2 cups.
Alternate recipe without meringue powder - Source:Cakes and More
This is the recipe as given in The Cake Bible by Rose Levy
Beranbaum. She says this 'butter cream' can be stored at room
temperature for one year and indefinitely in the fridge.
Solid vegetable shortening / Dalda - 1 1/2 cups - 287 grams
Powdered sugar - 4 cups - 452 grams (lightly spooned into the cup)
Water - 2 tablespoons
Light Corn syrup - 1 tablespoon
Procedure: Note: All ingredients should be at room temperature. In
a large mixing bowl, place the shortening. Gradually beat in the
remaining ingredients at low speed, alternating dry and liquid.
Increase speed to medium and beat till smooth and creamy. Mine did not
turn out very smooth, maybe I should have powdered the sugar even more
fine. Scrape the sides occasionally. Store in an airtight container.
Water can be increased for thinner icing. For stiffer icing, omit the
corn syrup.
See the site for more specific instructions and recommendations.
People rave about my frosting, and are heatbroken when I tell them it's because it's whipped fat (crisco), sugar and imitation extract (and some water). I don't use corn syrup in mine, but it requires leaving it in the stand mixer for a few minutes to beat enough air into it to get creamy. Also, 'powdered sugar' is a specific product that isn't pure sugar ... it also contains starch.
I practiced originally with pure shortening back when I was learning how to pipe. Just scrape it back into the shortening container, as long as you use a spotless surface. Its also excellent for practicing making roses ans other flowers. If you want to practice really intricate bead or lacework - which you would do with royal icing - then unfortunately you need royal icing. You can sub meringue powder for some or all of the egg whites if that's cheaper in your area. In Australia (where I'm from) you can buy something called Pavlova Magic in the dessert aisle of a supermarket - its basically sweetened meringue powder and costs 3-4 dollars. Royal icing is the hardest to master in my opinion - but the most important if you want to turn out beautiful piping work. Failing all that, make standard american buttercream which is icing sugar (Americans call it powdered sugar) with either butter or shortening - or a mix of the two. If it has butter in it, just scrape back into a airtight container and freeze for reuse. If made with all shortening, store in the fridge or cupboard in an airtight container til the end of eternity. Its not expensive to make a batch of American buttercream and it is definitely reusable. And its good to practice with shortening, American buttercream and royal icing - as each have different consistencies and can do different things to each other. Good luck!
You could use vegetable shortening or stick margarine as a substitute for the butter. Either would be much more economical for practice purposes.
I used to do cake decorating, just for friends, even wedding cakes with intricate patterns and lacework. Other than the wedding cakes (which were done with royal icing), I always made the Wilton "buttercream recipe", using Crisco shortening. I'm not a Crisco fan for any other purpose, but in my experience it gives the best consistency and is pure white, so your icing is truly white and your blue icing doesn't turn greenish from the yellow of the butter. It's also very stable in warm summer temperatures and lasts pretty much forever.
When you're done practising just scrape it off the tray, put it in a good quality freezer bag and put in the fridge; I used to keep mine in the back of the veggie drawer. Remember to take it out the day before and you'll need to use the mixer on it to bring it back to a good texture; may need a tablespoon of milk or corn syrup if it has dried a bit. Good luck with your practice!
Use nutella then scrape it off or eat it you could use styrofoam or plate when you pipe.
Nutella is too soft to mimic stiff icing - which would be the kind you use to pipe.
Use play-doh...it will be easier to clean up. Just make sure you dont forget to return them to your children toy's chest
Play-doh is the completely wrong consistency. There's no possible way to pipe it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.589917
| 2015-01-30T17:41:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54194",
"authors": [
"Ad Cap",
"Annette Bouchard",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Dani Barr",
"Fred Jagu",
"Joe",
"Kashaf uduja",
"Kurt Malek",
"Latosha Snowden",
"Perry Steitz",
"SourDoh",
"Stephie",
"Tina Robin",
"Vesna Dostal",
"Zach Adams",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127475",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127480",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127493",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138058",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17043",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"user141592",
"yo'",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44119
|
What is the use of UV LEDs in my fridge?
I have a new fridge in which there is, apparently, some LEDs emitting UVs. I read on the internet that it kills bacteria and helps the food last longer. Does this really work? And what about the claim that it somehow preserves vitamins?
I think the vitamins part of the question is probably okay, since it's not really nutritional, just a food storage and preservation question.
I'm glad this was migrated. I'm interested in answers.
What's the wavelength of these LED's? What's the output in mW per square centimeter at the food surface? Are the fridge shelves UV transparent or are there shadowed areas? It's POSSIBLE to sterilize things with current generation UV-LED's, but it's also a great marketing gimmick.
Not having run across this gimmick, I don't know how they are arranged in the fridge. I know that germicidal lamps are used to kill airborne germs in fixtures arranged (overhead or in ventilation ducts) so that they don't expose eyes to the light - so I could imagine they might be doing something similar to reduce germs/spores without needing to directly irradiate all food surfaces. But gimmick still seems like the most accurate explanation.
These are cool: http://www.qphotonics.com/Deep-UV-light-emitting-diodes/ I didn't realize they'd gotten all the way down to 240nm. Not sure it's right top call these things LEDs, since we can't see the output. X-Ray "LEDs" are next.
@WayfaringStranger we've had IR LEDs almost as long as we've had LEDs, and they're not visible either. Defining "light" as "visible light" is all very well in everyday use, but the edges of the visible spectrum aren't well defined so this definition doesn;t work technically
Yes, the UV light will make your fruit and vegetables last longer. Really it depends on the wavelength of UV. 275nm is used for killing bacteria and will burn your retinas, 385nm is less harsh to the skin or eyes and will still kill bacteria to a degree.
I just read a study in which they used 285nm in a controlled refrigerator setting against a static test with no UV on strawberries and how long they would stay fresh. The UV irradiated strawberries lasted 9 days without growing mold. The non uv, started growing mold all over them by 9 days. They tested the nutritional content of each and the UV treated had a higher content of nutrition then the non uv.
There are 285nm LEDs and even 254nm LEDs available ... and since you can switch them off the moment the fridge door is opened, you could use them ... Problem: Most glass containers are black to those wavelengths (even Pyrex - actually that is exactly how the UV-A/B/C bands were defined, by what kinds of glass did or did not filter the radiation).
It's for sterilizations -- for years they've sold "UV pens" for hikers to sterilize water, and kits with UV lamps to keep fish tanks clean.
Of course, it won't help if items are in opaque containers, tightly packed, wrapped in foil, etc ... so you'll likely need to start using clear containers for it to be beneficial ... and even then, it'll only help the outside of the food, and the shelves and walls of the fridge, not the inner portions of the food being stored.
UV light also causes clear plastics to degrade over time. They'll become less transparent (typically taking on a yellow/brown hue), and become more brittle. ... so it could also cause you to need to replace your storage containers much more often.
I have no knowledge of UV affects on vitamins.
I can't imagine it has any real effect on vitamins/nutrients, since it's just affecting the surface. (Unless you're comparing to food that spoils and gets thrown out and therefore does not supply you any vitamins!)
Thank you for your answer ! I don't do anything special to keep my aliments in some transparent containers, they are just translucent. Now that I have been using my fridge for a while I saw that my aliments are degrading less less quicker than on my old fridge so I am having hard time telling wether it comes from the temperature that is cooler or if it's because of the UVs or... both of them ?
Whether UV might help a food last longer depends on what the food is.
Fats (like shortening or ghee), and most spices should be protected from light. The UV in sunlight is part of what turns fats rancid, and helps dried herbs and spices loose their flavor.
You will never achieve a truly sterile environment at home. Bacteria and molds are everywhere, in the air, on every surface. In any case, any reduction in pathogens due to the UV is strictly a surface treatment, and the food will be quickly recolonized from the environment.
I recommend practicing good sanitation (such as not cutting vegetables on a board just used for raw chicken) in general, and not worrying about a gimmick such as a UV light.
I cannot speak to the stability of vitamins under UV.
So I'm guessing the best case is for really sensitive foods that go off quickly from the surface, so if you're lucky and everything's powerful enough, keeping the surface a little cleaner could make the spoilage take a couple times as long...
True, Bacteria and molds are everywhere. But a fridge would be an airtight, closed environment. It should be possible to achieve a higher level of sterility here. Or indeed reduce the number of pathogens. Certainly over a considerable amount of time (over multiple nights). If not, sterilization would not be possible at all.
UV light will destroy bacteria etc. On direct contact only
They are used in commercial food storage to self clean all the surfaces of the food storage system and containers placed within it
Food should be in light proof containers if the UV light is very strong, or there will be some surface degradation
For a domestic fridge, this is most likely a marketing gimmick, though it may help reduce odors etc. if the owner doesn't clean the fridge very well or often?
Since the problematic germs tend to be on the surface of the produce, why should it not work - another question is how to irradiate all sides of a given piece of produce without moving it...
Is it a sub zero? Sub zero uses a uv light to filter the air every 20 minutes not light up the entire fridge. It is taking bacteria and odors as well as ethelyne gas out of the air circulated in the fridge. This is not a new concept Revco corporation introduced this at least as far back as the 60's in their bilt-in Gourmet line. They continued it until they stopped making home refrigeration in the late 70's or early 80's. They continue to make lab refrigeration so they probably continue to use uv air filtration.
https://www.google.com/amp/gizmodo.com/5034434/sub-zero-fridge-uses-nasa-air-purification-technology-to-keep-foods-fresh/amp
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.590800
| 2014-05-13T19:33:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44119",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Chris H",
"Corndog 1037",
"Ecnerwal",
"Evvy",
"John Plant",
"Jolenealaska",
"Melody",
"Pop Flamingo",
"Prissy D",
"Raul Ivan Figueroa Luciano",
"Spammer",
"Steven Jhon",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103607",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103609",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103635",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103654",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103847",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138028",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58663",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87062",
"kelly southern",
"pirooz",
"rackandboneman",
"shabioye",
"theking2"
],
"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
}
|
43741
|
Can I re-can a batch of salsa that is missing an ingredient?
At the end of last summer we made up a huge batch of salsa and successfully canned it (approximately 8 months ago). My wonderful hubby finished it when I was at work. Now I opened a jar and realized it is bitter and he forgot to add the sugar after cooking it and before sealing the jars. Is it safe to reopen and add the ingredient from my recipe and re-can them after this much time? They were all successfully sealed and I was hoping to not have to doctor each jar after opening it before consuming. Thanks for your help.
The conservative answer is that you should only do canning based on an approved, known to be safe recipe from a reputable source such as a university extension or a safety agency.
Having canned the salsa without the sugar, you have deviated from such a trusted recipe, and so the contents of the jars has to be considered at risk, as the sugar may have been a part of the reason the contents was safe or required less processing time than it otherwise might have (sugar in solution reduces the biological availability of the water).
This is especially true if the salsa was not made to have a pH of less than 4.6, to qualify as a an acid food.
Therefore, you should not adjust and re-process as the major ingredient may contain toxin.
Please see the information at the National Center for Home Food Preservation.
Without the recipe it's hard to say, but sugar in salsa is nearly always a flavouring agent, not a preservative, and would have no effect on the shelf-life. Regular canned tomatoes require no sugar at all.
No matter what the recipe says, nor the quantity of sugar involved, I would give the same very conservative answer. Now, if individuals choose to assess and accept certain risks based on their understanding, that is another issue--I did give the link to the NCFHFP where the real information about canning safety can be found to make that decision in an informed manner.
Especially with a tomato-based substance like salsa, which is acidic and can be done just in a water bath, I'd think you should be fine. If anything, excluding sugar would make it less likely to grow microbes and pathogens. Now the quality upon cooking it a second time, I can't vouch for.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.591434
| 2014-04-28T05:56:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43741",
"authors": [
"Aluan Haddad",
"Best content hosting spam",
"James Cato",
"PoloHoleSet",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Satanicpuppy",
"chad",
"formicini",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102583",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102584",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102585",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102588",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102589",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"slot_online_gacor"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
42411
|
How do I reheat a casserole in the microwave?
Would someone please tell me how long and at what power I should reheat a casserole or other pasta dish that has already been cooked? Thank you.
Your question is a little confusing because you say "casserole or other pasta dish" - most casseroles aren't pasta dishes and most pasta dishes aren't casseroles. But I guess you're not asking how to reheat a plate of spaghetti, and the answers will be fine.
Also, it looks like you posted this with words in all caps because you were frustrated people misunderstood your previous question. But there's no need to get worked up - you can always edit your own question (or comment on it) to clarify.
There is no single way to answer this because:
Microwaves vary widely in power
The starting temperature of the casserole may vary
Casseroles vary in shape, size, thickness, and composition
and all of these factors will affect the time.
It is far from ideal to heat a full sized casserole in the microwave in any case; you would be better off using a conventional oven, as it will not have problems with hotspots. Microwaves do much better with good that can be stirred to even out the heating, and this would be at the very least, aesthetically displeasing with most casseroles.
I would recommend starting with about 50% power (for a 1000+ watt microwave, higher for models with less power) to allow some time for the heat to conduct through the casserole. Check regularly with an instant read thermometer until reads about 150 F at several spots.
It is likely to be unevenly reheated, since you are not stirring. This is the downside of using a microwave. Allowing it to stand for 10 minutes or so before service will help even it out.
The other downside is that microwaving to reheat will do nothing good for crispiness, browning, or texture, but that is not unique to casseroles.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.591666
| 2014-02-28T19:37:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42411",
"authors": [
"Andrea Villasenor",
"Cascabel",
"Christiaan Mazza",
"Cosyhost spam",
"DreiZweiEins",
"Henry Ecker",
"John Carter",
"Samuel Harrold",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101352",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99025",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99027",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99028",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99031",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99032",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99033"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
42404
|
How do I reheat a casserole in the oven?
How long and at what temperature should I reheat a pre-baked casserole or pasta dish for 8 people (9x12) that I am taking to a luncheon?
See also: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/38036/how-long-should-i-reheat-frozen-lasagna
Since you separately posted a question about using a microwave, I'm going to edit this one to only be about using the oven, since that's what we all assumed you meant. (Casseroles are much better heated in the oven.)
There is no single answer. It depends mostly on thick the casserole is, and how cold it is.
For a not-frozen casserole, I recommend starting with about 3/4 of the original bake time at about 350 F, and then seeing if it is hot enough. An instant read thermometer in the center should read about 150 F to 160 F for service.
You may need to put foil over the top to prevent over-browning, or increase the heat at the end to about 400 F to encourage more browning, depending on the nature of the particular casserole.
Since you are just heating it through, generally any temperature from about 300 to 400 F is going to work, with an appropriate adjustment to the time, if there are other items in the oven that need a specific temperature.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.591853
| 2014-02-28T14:14:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42404",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Cherylee50",
"Debra",
"James",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99007",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99008",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99009",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99035",
"thecodeadd"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37134
|
Baked Creamy Chicken enchilada casserole
If you are making a baked Mexican chicken casserole that uses black beans, what can you substitute for the blacks beans to enhance flavor but not totally change the dish into something else?
Can you add some criteria or constraints to help guide a more reasonable answer? Perhaps, share the main recipe. Are other beans acceptable? Is there some reason not to simply omit them of you don't like them? See: http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1584/how-can-we-make-substitution-questions-more-helpful
Two of the people who eat this do not tolerate black beans well. The ingredients in the dish are: caramelized onions, shallots, garlic paste, black pepper, chicken stock, sour cream, flour, ro-tel tomatoes and chiles, roasted corn, black olives, shredded chicken, tortilias, and Mexican cheese. I like some kind of bean in this dish for texture, and hopefully enhanced flavor. I guess I am open for suggestions.
Are there other beans that the people do tolerate and that you like? What about something that adds a bit more heat? Barring that, how about a smear of refried beans or chili-ready beans (both available canned)? Seasoned rice is another possibility. BTW, if you edit your original question to include what you have posted here, the original question will probably be better received.
You have to ask yourself, what role to the beans play in this dish (see Are there any general principles of ingredient substitutions?)?
In this case, they are an (likely) an accent ingredient that provides some texture, and flavor, and some of the Mexican identity of the dish.
As an accent ingredient, you have a lot of discretion on how to change out the black beans. The nature of the flavor that they provide is not overly strong and aggressive, so this rules out ingredients with very strong flavors due to your desire not to change the nature of the dish very much.
Obviously, the most likely candidate is another bean, if your guests can and will eat them, as they will be most similar to black beans. Pintos are fairly typical of Mexican cooking.
Another likely substitution would be corn, which also adds texture and flavor, but this is already present in the recipe. If you can get it, you might try some hominy, but this is a more exotic ingredient (at least in some places) that might be surprising to your guests. It will provide an interesting textural and flavor contrast to regular kernel corn.
While not technically a substitution, you can also simply omit the beans. As an accent ingredient, their loss won't change the substantial outcome of the dish.
Spreading a little further out, a fresh legume like chopped green beans, peas or limas will work well with your other ingredients.
In the end, an enchilada is mostly a method (and technically the chili sauce that gives the dish its name) and you have nearly complete freedom to vary the ingredients according to your tastes and the availability of ingredients.
They may also be providing a bit of the bulk of the dish; it's probably a can or two of beans. If none of the good substitutes work out, compensating with a bit of extra chicken might not be a bad idea.
True, which is why I said "likely", based on the information available. If it is a bulk ingredient, I would go with rice if another bean doesn't work--but then I really like rice in my tortilla based foods anyway.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.591986
| 2013-09-27T02:01:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37134",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Jolenealaska",
"LightspeedLife",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Subhasish Mukherjee",
"Suzy Winkel",
"Teresa Brann",
"Tzvi2",
"home cook",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87235",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87414",
"xavier carbonel"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
86893
|
What’s wrong with my sweet potatoes?
Please help I hope the picture is clear enough!
Where did the potatoes come from? Your garden or the shop. Did they look like this when you got them or have they turned like this over time?
@JanDoggen "how to prevent" can well be offtopic here, if this is something that happens while the potatoes grow.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.592268
| 2018-01-04T21:45:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86893",
"authors": [
"Doug",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"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
}
|
87495
|
What is a sour additive for boiled potatoes that looks like a bean?
I recently tried boiled potatoes that had something added that looked like some sort of beans-like vegetables and tasted like green marinated olives. What is this vegetable?
Were they actually bean-shaped, i.e. oblong, or were they just round?
Good point. Somewhat between I'd say. But maybe actually just small and round.
Can you exclude caper berries?
@Marzipanherz actually as it turned out, it was exactly what I was talking about.
It sounds like you mean capers. They're salty and sour.
They come in a variety of sizes, with the smaller ones pretty round, and the larger perhaps sometimes a bit more oblong.
See Google image search to see if they look right!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.592339
| 2018-02-03T12:34:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87495",
"authors": [
"Arsak",
"Cascabel",
"Eugene",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64883"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
87990
|
Which has more citric acid, lemon or lime?
Does lime or lemon have more citric acid?
Welcome to Seasoned Advice - Citrus is a type of tree that grows fruit, such as lemons and limes. Asking if one has more citrus doesn’t make sense. Maybe you meant citric acid? Or something else?
If you clarify what you mean, such as if citric acid is what you meant, you likely also need the indicate a location as some cultures do not distinguish between lemons and limes, considering them simply varieties of the same fruit, considering limes to simply be a green variety of lemon. Even then, each fruit has a range of varieties with different characteristics making the question still unanswerable.
This question is probably answerable if confined to western grocery staples, and acidity.
Okay, I'm editing this to refer to citric acid, since that seems the most likely guess. user65387, if you meant something different, feel free to edit or just ask a new question. And @dlb, I think that we can safely assume this means the usual English/US definition of lemon/lime, given that the OP thinks they're different fruits. If the answer is that they both have decent ranges, and the ranges overlap, that's still an answer - it doesn't make the question unanswerable.
"Lemon juice and lime juice are rich sources of citric acid, containing 1.44 and 1.38 g/oz, respectively."
PENNISTON, K. L., NAKADA, S. Y., HOLMES, R. P., & ASSIMOS, D. G. (2008). Quantitative Assessment of Citric Acid in Lemon Juice, Lime Juice, and Commercially-Available Fruit Juice Products. Journal of Endourology / Endourological Society, 22(3), 567–570. http://doi.org/10.1089/end.2007.0304
See also this Q&A for additional relevant information.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.592431
| 2018-02-25T18:53:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87990",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Debbie M.",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
92476
|
Baking great chewy oatmeal cookies with Quaker Instant Oatmeal Fruit packs
I recently bought a box of Quaker Instant Oatmeal Fruit and Cream Variety Pack, and I want to use a few of the packets for baking cookies.
Can these packets be used in a regular oatmeal cookie recipe to bake chewy oatmeal cookies?
Are you asking if they can be used in a regular oatmeal cookie recipe, or asking about recipes specifically intended for the packets? (The latter question would be off topic, there may be many tasty personal favorite variations out there.)
I'm asking if they can be used in a regular oatmeal cookie recipe
This is related, but not a duplicate (since your packets include flavoring etc): https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/33044/17272
Is this corporate shilling? Why else would the name be so specific and the link be to the Amazon page?
You probably could, but it'd be a little difficult to get right.
You'd want a recipe that calls for instant oats, since that's what's in your packets. And they're also close to 1/3 sugar by weight, so you'd need to reduce the sugar in the recipe. Depending how much of the sugar that ends up being, that could cause additional problems, because creaming sugar and fat together is an important part of many cookie recipes. If most of the sugar isn't available to cream with the fat, you'll get a different texture than the recipe intended.
So I'd suggest searching for "instant oatmeal cookie recipes" or similar, to try to find recipes that are actually intended to be made with instant oatmeal packets. You'll probably have a harder time finding really good, reliable recipes than you , but I'm sure you can find something that's good enough.
Good point on the creaming the sugar. It might be possible to sieve the oatmeal, and put the dust in with the butter to cream.
I wouldn't think that powdered sugar would cream right?
as the goal is to cut little tiny bubbles into the butter, it's possible that the oat bran dust will do the work.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.592588
| 2018-09-25T18:54:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92476",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Erica",
"Joe",
"fdkgfosfskjdlsjdlkfsf",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33227",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69464",
"spacetyper"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
93119
|
How much does fresh pasta yield when cooked?
While I know the yield for dried pasta, I cannot find the yield for fresh pasta, which I know is different from dried.
(My goal here is actually to calculate calories for fresh pasta based on the weight after cooking.)
I would imagine that it is lower than dried pasta (1 to 2) as it is already hydrated; and it might be different with different level of dryness of the pasta.
are you interested in yield to plan for a meal using store-bought pasta, or to make it yourself?
Searching for "fresh pasta nutrition information" yields https://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/usda/fresh-pasta and https://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/usda/fresh-pasta-(cooked) . Which suggests 1lb of cooked pasta is ~600 Calories, while 1lb uncooked is ~1300. Water has no calories, so 1lb of fresh pasta would cook up to 1306/594 = 2.2lbs
However, it won't be an accurate calculation of calories either way. Some of the calories leave the pasta during cooking because some of the starch is cooked out of the pasta.
when making fresh pasta a classic ratio is 100g of flour + 1 egg per person; that roughly means 150g per person
When cooked fresh pasta yields roughly 1,5 times the weight of raw (while dry pasta yields between 2 and 2,5 times according to type)
I don't see how this answers the question.
Yeah, the question is about the weight after cooking. Would you be able to add something about that?
sorry, but what is the point in weighting the pasta after cooking? the added weight is just water, and it is not constant, it depends on how much time do you leave the pasta in the water... anyway I'll try and edit my answer to make it more complete
Andrea: that's also an answer if you want to make it. In either case, you should delete this and create a new answer instead of editing your original answer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.592768
| 2018-10-22T01:54:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93119",
"authors": [
"Andrea Shaitan",
"Cascabel",
"Cindy",
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe",
"Max",
"Morten",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95332"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
33111
|
How can I hold the flavor and texture of my spheres?
I'm doing apple caviar using alginate in my apple juice and calcium lactate as my spherification bath. Everything worked out well, the result is amazing, but after one hour my caviar turn out to be flavourless and instead of nice juicy bursting little caviar ball, it was 100% jelly like I was using agar-agar. I did rinse my caviar in fresh water right after the process (not even 2 minutes after the drops hit the bath). How can I keep this from happening?
An issue here is that alginates (in the hydrocolloids) are not great at flavor release. The holes between the molecule structures are pretty small and aromatic and flavor molecules (being larger) get trapped.
Ironically, Agar agar's network structure has large holes and does allow for good flavor release.
As the alginate shell gets thicker (the gel you describe), not only the texture changes, the flavor also gets trapped in the molecules and cannot interact with your taste receptors.
The thickness of the shell's formula (if I recall correctly) is:
L = sqrt(PI * Dca * t)
So beyond Brendan's good suggestions, consider dropping the calcium concentration and increasing time (measured in seconds). The way the gelation reaction works is just like how heat diffuses. So consider doing the cooking for longer at a lower temperature equivalent by running lower concentration and for longer.
As an aside, Martin Lersch has a free ebook called textures which has some tested recipes that might help.
Once the calcium and alginate react the process will continue regardless of whether you rinse them or not. The rinsing will slow the process down but won't inhibit the reaction altogether. In order to ensure liquid centers you will have to heat the spheres to 85°C for 10 minutes (from modernist cuisine). However, you have a ton of calcium going on in your mix between the calcium in the apple juice and the fact that you're using calcium lactate as your setting bath so you are likely going to benefit from a sequesterant like sodium citrate to bind up some of the free calcium ions. I would actually suggest you go with a calcium chloride bath for this type of direct spherification. If you were doing larger spheres I would suggest reverse spherification but that won't do you any good for caviar.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.592930
| 2013-03-29T17:13:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33111",
"authors": [
"AhhBae8",
"Asaf Zini",
"Bauxite",
"Cherry",
"Jane",
"Kelly",
"Nina Winters",
"Rachel Chartoff",
"Taysa",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76644",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76645",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76647",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76648",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76658",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76663",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76664",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76722",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76726",
"red0ct"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35806
|
What are the signs of a watermelon past its best?
Last week I bought a watermelon, and that day cut the rind of it. Also that day it was placed in a glass container, with a plastic lid that fits snugly around the glass on top, and stored in the refrigerator.
Today I went to finish it off, after not eating some for a few days, and was greeted by a 1/4 inch of milky white colored watery liquid in the bottom of the container, along with partly mushy watermelon innards.
I don't intend to eat it, but have had slightly mushy watermelon innards before, without the liquid described above. Anyone have any ideas what that is?
Additionally, what are other signs an already-cut watermelon is past its best (but not spoiled)?
An enormous now-obsolete comment discussion took place here. It's archived in this chat room.
It sounds like your water melon simply spoiled in the refrigerator. It is a very perishable food, once the rind is cut off, as it is basically a sugar syrup waiting to be eaten by whatever comes along—people, dogs, bacteria, yeasts, molds, whatever.
The milky liquid would be waste from the metabolization processes of whatever colonized the water melon.
You are probably wise not to eat it; just discard it.
Some signs of past-prime watermelon include--but all of these border on signs of spoiled, because it is a continuous process:
Aroma: If you detect an alcoholic, winy, or boozy smell, it is a sign the flesh has started to ferment.
Another sign is when the rind is not taught and firm.
The melon is light for its size, indicating it may have lost moisture
simply spoiled in the refrigerator please expand this point regarding storage of watermelons
Past its best is subjective; as long as it's safe to eat, it's your preference that makes it "best" or not. By most people's standards, it will be past its best when the texture is compromised (it's slightly mushy, like you said) or a lot of juice has been released. There's not any fancy tips here; it's good if it's good and it's past its best if you don't like it anymore.
But as SAJ14SAJ said, the milky white liquid is a sign that it's spoiled, not just past its best.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.593155
| 2013-08-04T21:04:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35806",
"authors": [
"Black Belt",
"Cascabel",
"Cheri",
"Cooper",
"D. Morgan",
"Deborah McCarthy",
"Denise Niecey Waddell",
"Frugal Lentigo",
"GadgesSoul",
"Harry Yankuner",
"John",
"Joyce",
"Leo Martinez",
"Lisa Green",
"Nick",
"Prestige Tax Office",
"Scott Dickinson",
"Susan",
"TheBlackBenzKid",
"acg",
"atamanroman",
"darmual",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83886",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83943",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83944",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83997",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83998",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84877",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84878",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84914",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84915",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84916",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84920",
"johnx",
"ptolemy0"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
34207
|
Drying fresh produce after washing
Washing fresh produce before cooking is important for safety and hygiene. However, the water left on them after washing causes oil to splatter in a pan or pot. What is a good way to dry them up before cooking?
There are three major things you can do:
Use a salad spinner
Dry the produce with towels (paper or cloth—something that doesn't produce lint)
Let the produce sit and air dry
The method you choose depends mostly on how sturdy or delicate the particular items are, and how much time you have.
Salad greens are difficult to dry, mostly because it is tedious to carefully dry each leaf or piece with a towel, although rolling the greens in towels and letting them sit for a while is very effective. For this reason, salad spinners are very popular.
If you have time, letting your produce air dry is almost always effective, even for salad greens. While they are damp, they will not wilt, so if you will use them without a reasonable period, this method works even for greens.
Otherwise, a salad spinner is good for greens; and a towel will suffice for almost everything else.
Drying vegetables before you put them into a pan can take a great deal of time and effort, depending on the type. I generally don't bother, I have a lid or a splatter screen handy, and I slap it on right after I drop in the veggies. It saves loads of prep time for the cost of a minute's extra clean-up.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.593404
| 2013-05-19T18:39:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34207",
"authors": [
"Rob Pierce",
"StuSays",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79597",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79598",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79610",
"lmao",
"treyBake",
"zheng001"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
64485
|
Making bread in a bread maker using regular yeast not bread maker yeast
With Fleischmann's bread yeast, how much regular yeast in a packet is required for a recipe calling for a packet of breadmaker yeast?
We have three at least different kinds of Fleischmann's yeast - one for bread dough makers, and two others - I had one of the others and had no way to tell - the bread came out dense.
Hello Kate, I don't understand exactly what you are asking. What is "not bread dough yeast"?
@rumtscho This might be a cultural difference but in America, there are packets of instant yeast made specifically for bread makers. I think Kate is asking how to substitute other type of yeast for a single packet of this bread maker yeast.
Fleishmann's markets bread machine yeast, active dry yeast, rapid-rise dry yeast, fresh active yeast, and pizza dough yeast. You can use any of these to make bread. http://www.breadworld.com/products Exactly which yeast do you consider "regular"? If you want to use active dry yeast instead of bread machine yeast, you can. I believe that is covered in other questions.
Use the same amount of yeast. — When I was learning to make bread and still used a machine, I tried all of the different brands and "flavors" of yeast sold in pre-measured foil packets. There were probably subtle differences, but they all seemed to work about the same to me. So called "bread machine" yeast might be a little faster acting, but I think you'll be just as successful using "regular" yeast.
As per your edit, you may have better luck if you proof the yeast. Heat a small amount (1/4 cup or so) of the liquid to just warm (~105F, ~40.5C) and stir in the yeast. Add it to the bread maker after it gets foamy, which should just take a few minutes. If it doesn't foam fairly vigorously, consider it bad and buy more yeast before proceeding.
A packet of instant yeast is approximately 2 and 1/4 teaspoon of yeast.
Please note that instant yeast used in bread maker is slightly different from active dry yeast. Instant yeast will generally be much smaller granules and can be mixed directly with the dry ingredients without proofing. Active dry yeast will be larger granules and often times require proofing. However there are several brands that does not require this extra proofing step.
Note that not all instant yeast come in small packets. I have used SAF Instant Yeast with very good results.
I second your recommendation of buying SAF yeast by the pound — it's much less expensive than the foil packets, and easier to use only the amount you need. I keep mine in the freezer (in a glass jar), and it can last for more than a year.
I have successfully made bread in my bread machine using Fleischmann's Traditional Yeast, which is in the form of tiny balls that are much coarser than those of Bread Machine Yeast. The main difference is that when using Traditional Yeast I mix it with the water and sugar and let it sit until it foams, and then stir it and put it into the pan. I then add all of the other ingredients, mixing the salt with the flour and adding that last.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.593649
| 2015-12-16T21:31:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64485",
"authors": [
"David Higgs",
"David Sulkin",
"Debra Lefort",
"Diana Lorenzi",
"ElmerCat",
"Jay",
"Jolenealaska",
"Philip Gibson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153795",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153796",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153797",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153804",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153840",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159337",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159338",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"radioactive spammer",
"rumtscho",
"val Parry"
],
"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
}
|
64859
|
DIY Pot Noodle safe ingredients
I'm looking to make some of these DIY pot noodles or "pot ramen" or whatever folk might call them. I've got a load of ideas for what to put in them but no idea how safe it will be to eat given the minimal cooking that's available by just pouring boiled water. So, can anyone advise if any of the following ingredients pose any risk if they are simply soaked in water and not drained or heated in any sustained fashion?
Vermicelli Noodles
Water Chestnuts
Bean Sprouts
Miso Paste
The Vermicelli I can find here in the UK all suggests that it needs to be soaked and drained. Is it safe to eat them with the water they were soaked in? Are there other kinds of noodles that can be prepared using only boiling water (which would then become some sort of "miso soup" in the blend of things)?
Food safety is the ultimate factor for me, I'm emetophobic so anything which could cause food poisoning will make me paranoid as hell.
Likely of interest : http://www.seriouseats.com/2014/09/diy-instant-noodle-cups-food-lab.html
Is it rice vermicelli, or wheat? For the rice version, you can just let it sit in the hot water. I'm not sure what the cooking time is on the wheat version, but I'd think that'd be more of an issue unless it was a nest of fresh pasta (which is often coated in flour to prevent sticking ... which will thicken the sauce, but won't make you sick unless you have problems with wheat in the first place)
Hi, @Joe - I've read that post (plus probably 30 or 40 similar ones). One problem I have is diet requirements, I have an onion intolerance which means I can't use a lot of ingredients from the lists I've seen, hence looking further afield to try source more info. I don't know if it's rice or wheat... The stuff I've got my eyes on right now says "Made from mung bean starch and water". I don't have any issues with wheat but onion, celery, loosely cooked egg (egg noodles are hit and miss, depends on the brand most of the time), and a few other things have bad effects on me.
The "make your own" is the section that is important on that article. It discusses which noodles work best and stresses that it's important to opt for stuff that's safe to eat raw or is already fully cooked and simply being reheated.
Food safety is fine, but health/nutrition concerns like "should I eat this much starch" are also off-topic here.
Would bean sprouts in any form not make a very much non-shelf stable, and also not long-term fridge stable, mix? All the beans sprouts I know are perishable as all heck!
None of those items need to be heated to be safe, even if you eat them daily. Vermicelli is just pasta, made from wheat four, rice flour or mung bean flour. It may not be palatable under-cooked, but it won't hurt you unless you are sensitive to that ingredient. And if you are sensitive, cooking it won't help anyway.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.593937
| 2015-12-28T00:58:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64859",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"GP01 GP01",
"Joe",
"Jozo Ivanovic",
"Laraine hawson",
"Spammer",
"Terrie Aquilina",
"XtrmJosh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154897",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154899",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154900",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154926",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41992",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
64805
|
Is it safe to freeze ground beef one day before its expiration date?
I ended up buying some ground beef that was 50% off, I left it in the refrigerator one day, and now when I was cutting it into 500g (1.1 pound) pieces to freeze, I noticed that it was only one day to the expiration date.
Could it still be frozen and be okay after two weeks? I heard if I cook it first, it can be stored for longer, is that something I have to do? and how long can it be stored?
P.S. I'm very worried about getting food poisoning, and I don't want to throw it away since I currently haven't a good budget.
It's fine to freeze, no need to cook if you don't want to; just be sure to use it immediately after thawing.
Freezing things essentially stops the clock: food will stay just as safe to eat no matter how long it's frozen. It can deteriorate but it's more about drying out (freezer burn), taking on odors, and so on, not safety. So since it's safe right now, it'll be safe frozen.
Ground meat can be dangerous (not in the sense of, e.g. mushrooms that are always poisonous, but by attracting bacteria). If you’re only cooking for yourself, you’re probably fine if you freeze it before it expires, but if you work in some sort of institution, there are usually rules that it has to be prepared (the core temperature must be high enough to kill off all bacteria) on the same day it was ground (not bought, note the difference). Regulations probably vary by country, and I never saw it for my home country either, I was just taught this as teenager when helping cook for a group home.
On the other hand, if you buy freshly ground meat, then roast/cook it (after seasoning if it has to be done beforehand), you can then let it cool down and freeze it, or even just put it into the refrigerator overnight to use on the next day.
I personally assume that what I buy was ground on the same day (though I rarely buy pre-packaged ground meat) and just roast it if I can’t use it in a meal on the same day, it’s only a couple of minutes of work in exchange for the safety of my food and stomach.
Let us continue this discussion in chat.
Freshness of ground beef can be evaluated from odor, color and from difference in color between internal and external parts of the pack. Normal expiration dates are conservatively rated to avoid any possible troubles with customers. So it should be safe to freeze it.
As with all frozen foods, for thawing, place them in the fridge, never thaw at ambient temperature because the warm exterior can support quick bacterial growth. I place ground beef directly in the freezer because in the fridge it changes color rapidly and its odor quickly becomes unpleasant.
Color differences can also be a sign of freshness— purple on the inside was not exposed to enough oxygen to turn it red. (But it freaked me out the first time I saw it)
You should be okay if the meat is not rotten at the time of freezing. If you are concerned about the safety I'd suggest cooking it right away (freezer to pan) when you're ready to use it, rather than thawing it before cooking. It will be fine for browned beef to use in sauce, taco filling, etc.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.594200
| 2015-12-26T10:35:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64805",
"authors": [
"Anita thapa",
"Cascabel",
"Deborah Dias abeyesinghe",
"Elizabeth Ludvik",
"Gene Malafeew",
"Gunnar Hans Konráðsson",
"JASODA GANESS",
"Joe",
"Kar Pappas",
"Karen Hatch",
"Melissa Cornish",
"Shiella McNulty",
"Tammy Olivarez",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154719",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154720",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154721",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154746",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154748",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154749",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154771",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154819",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"jamie Cruz"
],
"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
}
|
64806
|
What cooking techniques can be used on a barbecue?
I was a vegetarian for several years and still live in a vegetarian household, thus all of my cooking experience is with vegetarian food. My partner and I have made an arrangement that I can cook meat for myself on our gas barbecue. Since I have no experience with cooking meat, I'd like to learn as many techniques as I can. Are barbecues only good for grilling or are their other techniques I can try such as pot roasts, tagines etc?
You can cook, at least in theory, pretty anything you can cook with an oven range. With oven-safe cookware you can pretty easily make anything you can make on a stove top. Stuff you would make in the oven is trickier. For anything you wouldn't just grill, you'll want to use indirect heat. Controlling the temperature would be the big problem.
First off, you can use a gas grill as a gas burner, and cook anything you could on the stove. It won't be very efficient, and won't be as pleasant as using a stove, but it'll work. The one big inconvenience is that since the burner won't be appropriately sized to the pan, or directly beneath it, you'll need pots and pans that can handle heat all around - in particular, you can't use anything that can't take the heat on the handle. Cast iron might be your best bet. But from there you can do whatever you want - saute, sear, etc. You're not really limited to one technique.
You can also essentially use the grill as an oven if you want to. You won't have precise temperature control like you would in the oven, and the temperature will vary more from side to side and top to bottom than it would in an oven, but it can reach the same kinds of temperatures. If you get a thermometer with a probe that can be left inside the grill, then you'll be able to adjust the heat as needed and get a sufficiently precise temperature to do most things you could do in the oven.
You'll want to use indirect heat to do this, so that whatever you're cooking isn't incredibly hot on the bottom. If you have three burners, you can use the two on the sides and put the food in the middle; if you have two you'll have to use one on one side and put the food on the other, resulting in somewhat less even heating.
Here again, you're not really limited to one technique. You can do braised things inside a dutch oven (like a pot roast). You can wrap things up in foil and roast them. You'll have a bit more trouble with things that are meant to cook open and care more about even heating, so for example thinner slices of meat (or fish filets) on a baking sheet might not be a great idea, but there's still plenty you can do.
All-in-all, I wouldn't think of this as learning a list of techniques. I'd just look for recipes you're interested in trying, and see if they seem like they'll work on the grill given all that.
You may be able to use the gas grill for "low & slow" BBQ, although it wouldn't be ideal. You'd need someplace to put the wood chips to make the smoke, and I assume, as does your grill manufacturer, that the grill is located in a well-ventilated area. The grill would need to be set low, and you would absolutely have to make sure that you had a good-sized grease catcher in place.
You could try a pork loin, for example, on the end of the grill away from your burner(s) (e.g., don't run all 3 or all 4 burners, but only the ones away from your meat). You'll want a meat thermometer and aim for an internal temp of 165 degrees Farenheit.
Prior to cooking, marinate it in apple cider overnight, coat with a sugar/salt-based dry rub (no affiliation with the linked site; the rub is similar to the one I make myself, although I don't use the cumin nor the thyme), and give it a try. It's certainly not a traditional tool for smoking, but it's not that different, and people have good success with gas-powered smokers and even electric ones, although the taste is less intense than a true wood-fired smoker.
The real problem in this scenario is that you'll have an entire pork loin all to yourself ;-) For that, don't forget that any number of vegetables also taste great grilled, or even smoked. :-)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.594505
| 2015-12-26T10:40:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64806",
"authors": [
"Angela Cepeda",
"Cindi Payne",
"Estella Pedroza",
"Felicia Hutchinson",
"Ross Ridge",
"Tasia Schmieman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154722",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154723",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154724",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154755",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154758",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"user154755",
"wendy justice"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
65059
|
Will any sugar substitutes brown in a crumble topping?
As a diabetic (but unfortunately with a sweet tooth!!), I would welcome any recommendations for a sweetener as a substitute for sugar which will allow browning as in the topping for a fruit crumble.
You could reduce the use of real sugar (if that is acceptable) by using two thin layers of crumble, the lower using whatever sugar substitute you prefer and the upper with real sugar. Even in the top layer, you could experiment with mixtures of real sugar and sweetener...
As breadcrumbs in a savoury topping brown quite nicely (and so does unsweetened pastry) I should think you'd be able to find a mix that would work.
The recipe would probably involve both fat and some sort of starchy ingredient(s). You might need to switch from oven to grill for a few minutes when it's cooked to get enough browning -- and getting just the right amount of browning might be harder, as some ingredients might burn quite suddenly. Of course, only browned sugar tastes like browned sugar (unless you can find a suitable caramel additive).
Perhaps a good place to start would be a "flapjack crumble" recipe, modified in a similar way to the many sugar-free flapjack recipes out there. A crumble topping that's more like pastry crumbs should also do work but the texture is likely to be less forgiving.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.594834
| 2016-01-04T14:39:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65059",
"authors": [
"Ana Letícia Lottis",
"Blair Kelly",
"Debby Ketcham",
"Linor Jean Frazer",
"Nick Kopsachilis",
"Ralph Jones",
"Ryan Miller",
"Terri Kingen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155472",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155473",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155529",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155530",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
64920
|
Difference between vegetable shortening and vegetable ghee?
What is difference between vegetable shortening and vegetable ghee? Can we use vegetable ghee as its substitute?
There's not really any difference between the two apart from the colour. Sometimes ghee contains a few extra flavourings to make the taste more distinctive. However, I don't think there's much of a difference.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.594989
| 2015-12-30T07:10:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64920",
"authors": [
"Dave Pinchen",
"Maria Ferguson",
"Paul",
"Sean P",
"Sharyn Orcutt",
"Steven barousse",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155095",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155097",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155102",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158664",
"medgettehotmailcom"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
68787
|
Why are these called "no bake" brownies?
I have this old recipe, that my grandmother's aunt's, someone or other (don't really know any more, no one alive can remember) cut out of a magazine years and years ago. The Title is "Blondie Brownies, No Bake Brownies easy enough that even a blond can make them."
There's a pretty short article that reads something like a terrible, sexiest joke, by today's standards anyway. It basically states that if your doing a crappy job as a wife, and your husband's not happy, that you should try to make these no bake brownies for your next desert.
Obviously, the recipe and article are, a bit out of time, but I won't post either here because I don't know the rules for copyright stuff from that long ago.
It's also a cut out, and it's been so long, that I can't tell you what magazine or year. Given the context of the articles and who it's coming from, I would say it's 1930s to 1950s with more emphasis on the 50s.
Now here's the thing, They are referred to as "No Bake" brownies several places in the article. They are also mentioned to be super easy. The last step in making the brownies is to bake them, and the recipe by today's standards, while not difficult, is far from fool proof (slight measurements being off, or the wrong kinda pan ruin them)
So the question is, how are these brownies considered "No Bake", when you clearly have to bake them? And, is have recipes really gotten that simple with time, that this recipe, would have thought of as super easy, while today I find it moderate difficulty?
I know it's hard to tell things about difficulty with a recipe, when you can't see it, but some easy ways to mess it up, are very slight mis-measurements in the ingredients (not adding a flat cup of sugar but leaving it a little over the top), or baking it in glass instead of metal.
Based on comments here is the recipe, minus the article, instructions in my own words.
2 cups all purpose flour
1 teaspoon baking powder
2 cups firmly packed brown sugar
2 eggs
¼ teaspoon baking soda
1 teaspoon salt
2/3 cup butter
2 teaspoons vanilla
1 cup chocolate chips
Mix all the dry and wet stuff together, dry first, then spread in a 13x9 metal pan (very important) Bake at 350 for 30 mins. Don't over bake or use glass cookware. Cool in pan.
I suppose the "No Bake" part could be part of the joke. Recipes aren't subject to copyright, if they were virtually all recipes would be violating someone's previous copyright. Very yew recipes are wholly original. The particular expression of a recipe is subject to copyright, but you can get around that by describing the recipe in your own words and that would probably be helpful. I'm wondering if the recipe is somehow conflating "blondies" and "brownies" which are fairly similar.
I think the "Blondie Brownies" is because of the color. They turn of a very sandy/light brown color.
Yah, that looks like a blondie recipe. Brownies get their flavour from chocolate, blondies get their flavour from brown sugar. See this article for a bit of background on them: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/jun/24/how-make-perfect-blondies-felicity-cloake
I'm not really sure there's any way for us to answer this... short of turning up the article writer somewhere.
You're suggesting that this recipe is sensitive to slight mismeasurements - do you actually know if that's true? Often the point of "easy" recipes is that they're not sensitive, so it's fine if you mess up a bit.
Yes I know for sure it's goes from very good to quite nasty with just a little bit off in the ingredients.
It might help if you posted the original article. You can probably use it under fair use.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.595069
| 2016-05-04T17:35:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68787",
"authors": [
"Batman",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Ross Ridge",
"coteyr",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42060"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
63690
|
Home made yeast cinnamon rolls deflating?
I use an old time recipe that uses high-gluten flour, mashed potatoes flakes, sugar, salt, oil, yeast, eggs - I make them very often and lots of times have no issues. However, lately I'm having issues with them falling after I get them out of the oven. They come out looking wonderful, but as they sit they fall flat. Any idea of what is happening?
More details:
I proof the yeast each time to be sure it's alive. I use active dry with 3 tbsp yeast + 1 tsp sugar in 105-115 degree water to proof it. I could have gotten sloppy as mentioned, being in a rush to get them done might have made me try to hurry things a bit too quickly. I will also try putting half the batch back in for 10 additional minutes to see if that cures the problem along with working the dough just a bit longer.
Some times when you get comfortable with a recipe, you start to deviate or get sloppy. Are you following the recipe as religiously as when you first learned the recipe?
Have you changed your brand of yeast? My "tried and true" recipe changed when I tried moving from one brand yeast to another. Conversely, I found that changing sugar from cane to beet had an opposite effect.
Is this a recipe that uses literally no gluten-containing flour, or did you just omit it from your description?
You definitely need to give us the rest of the details of the process I think.
How much dough are you making (or how much flour + potatoes do you use)? How do you store your yeast? You can reply in the comments or click "edit" under your question to add more information.
Next time pop half of the batch back in the oven for an extra 10min and see if they too fall.
Getting the gluten to really set may be all that is needed.
If not, dough might be a bit weak -shorter strands of gluten with a lot of starch- and decreasing water or working the dough longer are the next possible experiments.
When I see 3 tablespoons of yeast I think it sounds like a lot since it would make a lot of dough. in that case you are overproofing them. That will also cause them to deflate when taken out of the oven.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.595356
| 2015-11-20T21:21:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63690",
"authors": [
"Adrian Hum",
"Bronwen Dace",
"Carol Kirby",
"Chris Hobbs",
"Escoce",
"Gillian Duncan",
"JTL",
"Karen Waite",
"Melissa Wright",
"SiauYen Wong",
"Tiffany Weiland",
"Việt Nhật Hoàng",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151592",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151593",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151620",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151671",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153030",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153074",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153077",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36516",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37369",
"rackandboneman",
"talon8",
"user151592"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
64010
|
On heating smoked salmon
I'm trying to make onigiri (Japanese rice balls) that are typically stuffed with fish and eaten warm. I'd like to "cheat" and use smoked salmon or canned tuna instead of cooking a whole fish to save time and money.
Is heating uncooked cold fish like smoked salmon or tuna not recommended ? My main concern is food safety, but I also want to know whether heat denatures or ruins the taste of prepared fish.
As far as food safety is concered, simply warming smoked salmon or canned tuna is uncritical (tuna casserole, anyone?).
For all warm, cooked foods the two-hour rule applies: After two hours in the 40°F - 160°F (4°C - 60°C) it should be discarded. (see more here)
So it is irrelevant whether you stuff your onigiri with smoked salmon or pickeled plums, because the rice alone falls into the "potentially hazardous" category.
Now for taste:
If you manage to pack your onigiri with very hot1 rice, yes, the smoked salmon gets heated and it may be partially or fully cooked, loosing some of the "melt in the mouth" character. But unless you plan to keep your onigiri hot (which is rather uncommon, afaik), they should cool down quickly enough so that they won't overcook the salmon, leaving you with a dry center or dry flakes thoughout the onigiri. Note that the same problem would exist with pre-cooked fish. Canned tuna is beyond help anyway, as far as cooking goes...
1 And there is a limit to how hot your rice may be so that you can shape it with bare or even gloved hands...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.595589
| 2015-12-01T21:33:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64010",
"authors": [
"Alma Kureshepi",
"Daniel Weatherby",
"Dr. Yasmin Fitzpatrick",
"Gary Walker",
"Nick Barney",
"Susan Oram",
"XOTOGEL",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152541",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152543",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154230",
"marilyn moyes"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
87311
|
Why did my devil food cake come out flavorless?
Here is a picture of my devil food cake . The recipe is in this video (there is no written recipe). Just by looking at the cake, could you tell what mistakes I have done baking it?
Recipe:
400g butter mixed with 2 1/4 cups white sugar (I didn't use room temp butter so I let it mix a LOT with the sugar).
Add 4 eggs each at a time. Add 3/4 cup dutch process cocoa (didn't have dutch process so I used regular cocoa with 3/4 teaspoon of baking soda to reduce the acidity of regular cocoa) with 3/4 cup hot water and 3/4 cup 15% sour cream + 113 grams of bittersweet dark chocolate.
Then add 2 cups (240 grams) white flour. Mixed everything and put in a buttered and dusted pan. Baked in oven for 180 degrees (350 f) for 35 minutes (recipe called for 45 but it would have burned if I cooked that long. I also made sure with a thermometer my oven was at the right temp). Let rest for 15 minutes then take out.
It was supposed to come out choclatey, brown, fudgy and moist. Instead it came out dry, black, flavorless and it also broke into two pieces when I took it out of the pan.
Did you use the same size pan as called for by the recipe?
Is it possible that it was overcooked?
@Jefromi yes. 9 inch pan (9.8 inches)
@mroll That was my first cake ever so I have no idea what is cooked or overcooked haha
6-8 tsp of baking soda is a lot, why did you add so much?
9.8 inches is 19% bigger than 9 inches (by area, which is mostly what matters) so I'd definitely include that in the question.
@BarAkiva to me it sounds sounds like an overcooked brownie.
Good point @Catija, I'd expect to see 3/4 and not 6/8, maybe that could be clarified.
@Jefromi excuse me for the ignorance, but why does pan size matter?
@Catija its six eights, not six tsps. I have clarified the answer
Because the batter is designed to be a certain thickness... when you increase the diameter, you make the batter thinner, meaning it will cook more quickly and dry out... often times requiring a different baking temperature.
@GdD clarified the question
@Catija I meant eights of a teaspoon. as in 1/8 eight times. I just was googling "how to substitute dutch process" and 1/8 tsp of baking soda to 3 tbsps of cocoa powder is what I found
Again, you can not omit the actual units in your recipes. We need to know if it's cups or teaspoons or tablespoons or grams or pounds or whatever.
@Catija yeah sorry I edited.
In baking it's very important - particularly when making your first cake - to follow the recipe as precisely as you can.
If you do not have the ingredients - Dutch processed cocoa, in this case - find a recipe that uses ingredients you can get. The pH balance is not the only difference between the two, as explained in this Serious Eats article:
Dutch process cocoa has a more intense "chocolatey" flavor while natural cocoa looks lighter in color and tastes slightly astringent.
So, your complaints of no chocolate flavor likely are due to the recipe relying on the stronger chocolate flavor of the Dutched cocoa than natural. On top of this, cocoa brands are highly variable in quality. If you don't splurge on high-quality cocoa, you're probably not going to be happy with the outcome, particularly if the recipe was designed for it. This is one of those ingredients where matching the brand used by the author is probably a good call.
Dutch cocoa is also pH neutral, while natural cocoa is not. It looks like you may have attempted to combat this by adding extra baking soda but that may not be an appropriate solution. The SE article reads:
If a cake or cookie recipe only calls for baking soda, it likely uses acidic natural cocoa. If it only uses baking powder, it'll probably ask for Dutch process cocoa instead. If a recipe calls for both baking powder and baking soda, you'll need to follow the recipe to get the proper balance of acid and alkaline. Recipes that use baking powder will likely rise regardless of tweaking, but not as well; it's best to stick to the cocoa that a recipe calls for.
emphasis added
In addition to this, overuse of leavening (in an attempt to neutralize your natural cocoa) could have caused your cake to over-rise early in the baking process and then deflate because there wasn't sufficient structure to support it, thus causing it to be dense and flat.
Preparing the ingredients properly (room temperature butter) is also very important. Creaming butter and sugar introduces a lot of air into a cake. Failing to do so to a sufficient degree will cause the cake to be dense. It's considered "mechanical leavening" you're mechanically introducing air into batter. In relation to cookies, it's discussed on Serious Eats.
See, unlike stirring, mixing, or beating, creaming isn't about combining ingredients—it's about aerating them. By bashing butter against the sides of a bowl, whether you're going at it with a spatula or with a stand mixer, you're folding it over and over, creating little pockets of air with every turn. Add sugar, and suddenly that process is way more effective, building up an expansive network of sugar crystals, fat, and air.
In pastry-speak, this process is described as "mechanical leavening": physically cramming air into a dough so that it'll puff up in the oven like a hot-air balloon. Google around, and that's what you'll be told, time and again. Creaming adds air. Air is fluffy. Fluffy is good. Good is great. Yay, cookies!
While some recipes may only ask you to cream the butter and sugar until well combined, most invoke the phrase "light and fluffy." Both techniques have merit (the former intentionally cultivating a denser dough), but here I'm gonna stick to addressing the mysteries of "light and fluffy" alone.
Now, the article doesn't actually require the butter to be as soft as many recipes may imply. For cookies she recommends the butter start off at 60F (15.5C) rather than 65C (as many recipes recommend). Lower butter temperature helps reduce spread in cookies. For cakes, where spreading isn't an issue, she recommends a slightly higher temperature for butter and to use warm (instead of cold) eggs.
In my experience, the number one mistake people make with creaming is using overly warm butter. Experts generally cite 65°F as the ideal temperature for butter, but that fails to take into account a couple of critical factors. First, the temperature will go up as soon as you add the sugar, which is as warm as your kitchen. And second, once you start mixing, the friction generated by an electric mixer can be enough to warm eight ounces of butter by one degree every minute. That doesn't leave much time before the butter hits the point of no return [68F]. Therefore, err on the side of keeping things cool.
She notes that butter over 70F won't hold air at all, so don't let it get that high.
In the comments you mentioned that you used a pan that was slightly bigger than what the recipe recommended - 9.8 inches instead of 9 inches. A 9-inch circle has an area of about 64 square inches while a 9.8 inch circle has quite a bit more, 75.4 square inches. That's a difference of about 20%. The difference is less pronounced at smaller sizes but when you get into these bigger cake pans, it can make a huge difference.
This is likely why the baking time was so off for you. More surface area for the same amount of batter means that the entire thing will cook more quickly - the batter will also be shallower in order to accommodate the larger size and will cook through sooner. Being thinner also means it is more likely to dry out - particularly if over baked.
There's an interesting guide to adjusting recipes for different pan sizes on Food 52 that you might find helpful. It addresses a similar conversion to yours:
Just by glancing at the two pans, you might think that a 9-inch pan is very close in size to an 8-inch pan of the same shape, thus making it a reasonable substitute. But if you check the chart, you’ll find that a 9-inch square pan is more than 25% larger than an 8-inch square pan. (The relationship between a 9-inch and 8-inch round pan is similar.) Such a considerable difference will result in a 9-inch batch of very thin brownies that may be over-baked by the time you check them for doneness (because thin brownies bake faster than thick ones). Knowing this beforehand, you can increase the recipe by 25% for results as thick than the original recipe intended. If you want brownies that are even a tad thicker than the original recipe, you can even increase the recipe by 33%.
So, I'm not sure whether other things went wrong. I've not tried this recipe but it's from a reputable source, so it should be fine. I reiterate - follow the recipe or find a different one that you can follow if you really want so have success in the kitchen, particularly with baking!
On the baking soda part: if it did balance acidity, then it means that there was actually enough acid to react with it, which means there was extra leavening in the cake, and it could've risen quickly then collapsed.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.595951
| 2018-01-26T14:57:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87311",
"authors": [
"Bar Akiva",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"GdD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61534",
"mroll"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
68062
|
Are there reasons to use olive oil when roasting food at high temperatures?
I see many times chefs choosing olive oil as the fat for cooking recipes that undergo heats of 400f+ (very much above the smoking point of refined olive oil) for 30 minutes, and its virgin olive oil many of the times! But isn't olive oil supposed to smoke at those temperatures? Does cooking past the smoke point not cause smoking and undesirable flavors or other issues? Does any flavor benefit from the oil actually remain?
This article is informative, the comments also provide insight. http://www.seriouseats.com/2015/03/cooking-with-olive-oil-faq-safety-flavor.html
I've added in a couple extra questions to try to steer people toward answering more specifically about the effects of this kind of thing. Hope they're the kind of thing you were trying to ask; if not please feel free to edit further.
Actually, 400°F is below the smoke point of refined olive oil. It's above the smoke point of virgin olive oil. See http://www.seriouseats.com/2014/05/cooking-fats-101-whats-a-smoke-point-and-why-does-it-matter.html
Also see the highest voted (but not accepted) answer in http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/17612/67
Editing again to remove any potential of "why do chefs do X", on the assumption that what you actually care about is the effect on food itself, not what's going through the chef's head.
Just because the oven is reaching high heat does not mean the olive oil that is on the surface of what is being cooked will reach the oven temperature (or get past the smoke point, even). In a deep fryer, heat is transferred almost directly from the heating element to the oil. In a pan, heat is transferred from the heat source to a pan, then directly to the oil. Both those represent very efficient heat transfers, and can bring an oil to past its smoke point. The oven transfers heat from source to food via the air, which is a very inefficient form of heat transfer. The temperature of the oil you apply to your food will be vastly more affected by the mass of the food than by the air in the oven environment.
Smoke is not inherently a bad thing - look at the popularity of barbecue preparations, or the wide variety of both traditional and modern smoked foods. Why wouldn't a little bit of that flavor enhance whatever is being roasted?
Olive oil itself also has a robust flavor, and it browns nicely. So in many ways it contributes to the flavor of the finished dish. An oil isn't suddenly ruined and inedible once it hits its smoke point - it just starts to smoke.
wood smoke (hickory, mesquite, apple...) good smoke.
oil smoke (olive, corn, lard...) bad smoke. [cf @Sean Hart's answer...in the oven the oil should never reach the smoke point]
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.596681
| 2016-04-06T09:39:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68062",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Cos Callis",
"Joe",
"Paulb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
70590
|
How do I convert volume to weight for soft cheeses like ricotta and mascarpone?
Ricotta and mascarpone are messy to measure in measuring cups, so I'd rather use a scale. How much does one cup of each weigh?
My measuring cup has 4 cups capacity (its tall) so you cant just jam some cheese into it and then skim off the top like you would do with flour in a dry measuring cup. I need to shape the cheese into the bottom which is messy.
Either way this is not what I asked. I find weight measurements far more convenient than volume measurements, hence the question.
Use a dry measuring cup and a rubber spatula. You don't need to use a wet one... they have the same volume. The different types of cheese have different masses... so there's no one perfect conversion.
@BarAkiva I think a lot of the comments were more based on confusion about the way the question was phrased; I edited to help out with that.
I don't have mascarpone to check, but the Internet says that there are on average 225 grams per cup. Mascarpone being mainly a mix of water (density 1 g/cm^3) and fat (density 0.9 g/cm^3), this sounds about right.
I don't think it is possible to give a reliable conversion for ricotta. First, many countries don't have normal ricotta, so people use all kinds of substitutions, frequently not being aware that they are not the same thing. So it is possible that whatever you can buy in your supermarket under the name "ricotta" is not the same thing as whatever the recipe author can buy. Second, real ricotta is made from whey, and the amount of whey left in the cheese varies, so you will have a different amount of water between brands, which will change the density.
With this difference, I guess you could just assume that ricotta has the density of 1, measure out 235 grams and call it good enough. This will usually be a different amount from what the recipe author uses - but then, so will be measuring out a cup by volume.
USDA says ricotta is 246 g/cup. Sargento's whole milk and light, Sorrento's part-skim, and Trader Joe's fat-free are all 248g/cup. Trader Joe's whole milk is 240g/cup. I'm sure there's a bigger range once you go beyond US ricotta, but that's a really solid ballpark.
Most American recipes use volume instead of weight for measurement, which means there's often not an exact measurement in weight for the recipe. Your best bet would be to find out what kind of cheese it is calling for, find the density of that cheese, and then go from there. Also whether the cheese is shredded, still in a block of some sort, or if it's a wet and clumpy cheese like ricotta will play a significant role in density as well.
I would suggest getting a measuring cup, measure and weigh a cup of cheese several times, then average out your measurements so that you can just use weight next time you want to do the recipe.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.596942
| 2016-06-10T10:38:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/70590",
"authors": [
"Bar Akiva",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42285"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
70751
|
How do you substitute brown rice for white rice in recipes?
90% of recipes that use rice do so with white or Basmati. I would like to spice up my rice routine using these recipes, while having the health benefits of using brown rice - but it cooks in a much different fashion than white rice.
When substituting brown rice for white rice in a recipe, what should I adjust in terms of cooking time and technique?
You can pre-soak your brown rice overnight and it should cook about as fast as white if you're incorporating it in a recipe that normally takes dry white rice.
Mostly, it will take longer to cook your recipe with brown rice. You will also need to add a bit more water. That's OK, you can do that. Figure about 1/4 extra water (1/4 again above what you had already planned for white rice) and about 1/2 again as much time.
Consider your other ingredients - don't mush them all to hell to cook your rice.
So, figure 1/4 more water and 1/2 more time, add your other ingredients at the time you would otherwise - counting backwards.
In other words, add your other ingredients at that time in which you think the brown rice should be done simultaneously with your other ingredients.
I would like to add and ask if toasting brown rice is any different from toasting white rice?
I think it is about the same
Obviously, taste and texture will also change when brown rice is substituted. I find white rice seems to go better in dishes that have fattier meats and/or more oil, are spicier, and have thinner sauces, while brown rice seems better with sweeter, and/or lightly flavored sauces and less fat and oil. White rice tends to "soak up" sauces and mellow out flavors, while brown rice adds a bit of a richer character to dishes that are more lightly flavored. It's subtle, though - I can't think of a situation where one can't be substituted for the other.
Even further than what @ToddWilcox said: the white rices I tried (bomba, basmati) seem to absorb more fat, but brown rice gets coated instead and the end result is an oily feeling. Tried with paella and with coconut rice. Reducing the oil/fat/cream proportion in the recipe helps.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.597466
| 2016-06-16T09:01:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/70751",
"authors": [
"Bar Akiva",
"J...",
"Jolenealaska",
"Todd Wilcox",
"hmijail",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42285"
],
"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
}
|
103849
|
Is it safe to bake dough in a microwave?
I heard that meat isn't safe to bake or grill in a microwave because there may be tiny areas that contain less moisture and hence not cooked through as microwave cooks moving water molecules.
So what about baking a pie? Is it the same? I tried to bake something in a microwave actually, but I put a large amount of water (as for pancakes) so it would become very hot.
But what about thicker dough like people usually use for pie or bread? Are there any government food safety recommendations about that?
(I'm not concerned about whether this is a good way to make a pie, or bread, just the potential food safety aspect.)
Are you talking about just a microwave, or a countertop combination oven/microwave? And do you care about quality?
Oh, and pie and bread are made with completely different dough - can you be more specific about the dish (or dishes) you're trying to make?
@Cascabel if I would tell about combination I would said so, if the other doesn't mentioned we should treat it like it is :) Differences doesn't matter I suppose as what matter for microwaving is amount of moisture in the food and in that those doughs approximately the same. Rather pie, but also wouldn't be against knowing about bread.
I'm just double checking; we've had plenty of questions over the years that said microwave when they meant something else. And differences do matter; cooking food is about more than just getting it hot enough to be safe, hence the question about whether you care about the quality of the food. (Spoiler: microwaves do not bake food, so this is mostly about figuring out what your goals are so people can tell you in what ways it won't accomplish them.)
@Cascabel Probably it's more for lifehack. Yes, it's more than just make it safe, it's about getting stuff that feels like pie when you cooking pie - that's the goal also. I understood you point. But I'm not being too much detailed because I think if somebody said something, then it should be treated literally as it is, if he meant different or something else then his fault. We can't ask people always: "Did you mean what you said", even though there who don't. Like Mr.Obama said: "I said what I said."
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
First of all, just about any food of reasonable size is safe to be cooked in a microwave, assuming you do it correctly.
I heard that meat isn't safe to bake or grill in microwave because
there may be tiny areas that contain less moisture and hence not
cooked though as microwave cooks moving water molecules.
I'm not sure what the source is for this, but it's not true in general. One can't really "grill" meat in a microwave, but one can bake/roast it. It's true that microwaves heat unevenly, so for thick cuts, that means cooking using a lower power level and/or cooking in stages. Most microwaves with lower power settings actually just cycle on and off, which allows the heat already present in the food to distribute itself farther inside. It's not unlike the process by which you roast meat in an oven: the outside heats faster, but the interior has no direct contact with the hot air, so you depend on the fact that the heat will gradually be conducted throughout the food. Microwaves instead target water molecules (as you note), but with periodic heating and enough time, the hot parts of the food will heat up the rest.
(If there is one thing to note about microwaves, it's that people tend to just use them on high heat, expecting them to cook faster. If you want to cook a large cut of meat, you need to allow time to distribute the heat while cooking, which means you can't cook very fast or you'll dry out some parts completely before the rest gets done. Perhaps that's where you've heard about the "safety" issue -- people who have used microwaves incorrectly to try to cook large pieces of meat too quickly and ended up with parts that were still raw. Like any cooking tool, microwaves need to be used correctly for different applications.)
Anyhow, to the question about baking: yes, microwaves can be used safely for baking too. Browning is harder to achieve in microwaves (though it can be done in some limited ways, and there are gadgets to enhance it somewhat). Pies baked in microwaves generally will bake the crust first for a few minutes before adding filling to ensure the crust bakes better. It won't brown much and likely won't have a very nice crust texture (particularly if you like "flaky"), but it's perfect safe. The results overall will vary based on the type of pie (though reading a bit online seems to indicate that custard pies are often a good candidate for microwaving).
As for bread, again, it's perfectly safe, and there seem to be several online recipes for it. Again, you won't get much of a crust or browning, but if you don't like a dry crust on your bread, it might actually be an okay option. Typically, you should get a result closer to a "steamed bread" rather than a crusty bread, which might be feasible for some types of bread. (Cakes are often a better option for baking in the microwave, as they often don't require browning or crust development for good results.)
In general, it's perfectly safe to bake dough in the microwave as long as your final result is done all the way through. I'd do a search for some recipes with good reviews or from a reputable source before trying them, though, since a lot of baked goods made this way tend to be inferior to those made in a more conventional oven.
EDIT: While the question asked about food safety, I found some general guidelines on baking in the microwave that may address the quality issues that came up in comments. For bread:
Select whole grains or products finished with a topping or icing as microwaving does not brown the bread crust.
Microwave yeast breads at 50% power and rotate at least once.
Reduce baking powder by at least one fourth in coffee cakes.
Use extra shortening in yeast and quick bread to prevent toughness and dryness – 1/4 cup shortening per 2 1/2–3 cups flour in yeast bread
and 1–2 Tablespoons of shortening for every cup of flour in muffins
and coffee cakes.
Decrease liquid in dense quick bread batters or very liquid batters. Additional egg can be used as a binder in very liquid
batters.
Bread must be heated uncovered to avoid sogginess.
For pies, the document notes that "fruit pies will become soggy" by the time they bake completely and:
Double crusted pies cannot be made in the microwave as the bottom
crust becomes soggy and the top does not brown. Microwaved pies need
to be prepared in a precooked shell and topped with a crumb rather
than a crust.
I've always microwaved pot pies and both the top and bottom come out just fine. They actually are crisp. You could bake mini pies like Apple or Cherry in the microwave considering pot pies work great. And, also, cakes and cupcakes will bake very well using silicone molds that are heat resistant. I've already tried that and I always have decent results.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.597665
| 2019-12-01T22:13:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103849",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"R S",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40922"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
63783
|
Can I store a fresh turkey in my garage for a few days?
I have a 25 lb. fresh turkey and would like to store it in my garage if possible. It's 43F during the day, and 33F at night - will it be safe to do that?
43F, 6C? Is that temperature the forecast? It will be hotter if your garage gets sun on/into it. Since it's in the danger zone (even though it's just a bit,) the answer is pretty much no.
Possible duplicate of How do I know if food left at room temperature is still safe to eat?
@TFD : 33-43°F is room temperature? I'm hoping you wear a sweater.
For what it's worth, I didn't vote to close because I feel there's an implicit question here: if that doesn't work, what can I do? So simply closing as duplicate and saying "nope no good" seems less helpful than we could be.
@Joe First bold paragraph of linked answer! Is the linked answer wrong?
@TFD : if it hasn't been done yet, and the person is asking how to do it safely, than that question has nothing to do with this one.
@Joe just being pedantic, but the OP does not use the word "how". A more general question is required here, this one is going to be wasted
@TFD : the correct answer is 'yes, if you chill it'. Not 'you should throw it away'.
As setek said in the comments, 43F is too warm. Anything above 40F and you only have a couple hours before it's unsafe (has the potential to make people sick, even if unlikely). And your garage is attached to a house that's well over 40F, so it'll probably be well above 43F in there.
So you really need to keep it chilled. If you don't have space in your fridge, you might be able to make do with an ice chest; if it's really at most 43F, the ice will last a long time.
My neighbors do this every year, w/ the ice chest filled w/ brine & ice, so there's plenty of thermal mass.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.598193
| 2015-11-24T01:25:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63783",
"authors": [
"Anne Cooper",
"Britt Wilson",
"Cascabel",
"Gavin Marshall",
"Joe",
"John Summerton",
"Ming",
"Ray Hart",
"TFD",
"Theano",
"asha sopin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151868",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151869",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151881",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151903",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151904",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151916",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"patricia boyce",
"peter glendenning"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
62706
|
Can over proofed dough be harmful to breathe in?
I work night shift in a bakery and the people before me always leave unused dough in the mixer. Who knows for how many hours, but during that same day. It's a dough made from dry yeast. One night I went to scrape it out and got a strong spoiled yeasty smell that came from it, almost knocking me to the floor. The other bakers said it was fine and that the dough is still usable for baking bread, but I'm not sure. Is leaving dough in a mixer for hours a health hazard? Does the smell indicate a health hazard?
Checking with a handbook is a good move. Just remember that many bread recipes proof over a really long time (as in days), usually in a refrigerator. Likewise, adding new flour and water to leftover dough "feeds" the existing yeast and makes good bread again. This is how bread was made centuries ago. Over a longer time, you get sourdough, because lactobacillus bacteria ("good bacteria") grow in there, too. Double-check with local health & safety regulations, though. Besides, @Catija has a good point in her answer.
I'd just like to throw in that since the dough has yeast, it'd be very difficult for it to get anything harmful growing in it within a day (or even a couple). The yeast would crowd out any other organisms, and yeast itself can produce some stinky fumes, but they're not harmful.
.... There's no way to know for sure (since we can't test it) but it was probably CO2 (Carbon Dioxide)... Yeast creates CO2 when it converts sugars... that's how you can bottle carbonate beers.
The breaking down of sugars, or fermentation, produces alcohol and carbon dioxide as by-products. Fermentation turns fruit juices into wine and helps turn wort (diluted grain mash) into beer or whiskey. The carbon dioxide produced by fermentation makes the bubbles in beer and some kinds of wine, and causes bread to rise. As bread bakes, the alcohol produced by fermentation evaporates.
We brew beers and we've had our freezer, which we use for a fermentation fridge, fill with the gas when we're brewing and the fermenting overflows. When we have to get into the freezer to clean it out, we have to be really careful as the carbon dioxide is heavier than air, so it stays in the freezer for a while... the same thing would be true of your large, covered mixer bowls. It can make you light-headed because your brain is suffering from oxygen deficiency.
Here's the fact sheet on CO2 inhalation:
Inhalation: Low concentrations are not harmful. Higher concentrations can affect respiratory function and cause excitation followed by depression of the central nervous system. A high concentration can displace oxygen in the air. If less oxygen is available to breathe, symptoms such as rapid breathing, rapid heart rate, clumsiness, emotional upsets and fatigue can result. As less oxygen becomes available, nausea and vomiting, collapse, convulsions, coma and death can occur. Symptoms occur more quickly with physical effort. Lack of oxygen can cause permanent damage to organs including the brain and heart.
And, because it's a byproduct of the yeast activation, it can smell really strongly of yeast, and have a really off smell, despite the gas itself being odorless.
I know the smell of which she speaks, and it's almost certainly this, combined with a bit of an alcohol tang and perhaps a bit of whatever acids the yeast produced. All harmless, but when dough proofs that long, it can get a skin with a lot of gas trapped under it and you can get quite a lungful.
One small problem: CO2 is odorless. I'm sure it's still fermentation byproducts that the OP was smelling, but it's not the CO2 itself.
@Jefromi my last sentence mentions that.
Sort of, but the answer overall is really implying that you're smelling the CO2, and it's only at the end that you mention actually it's everything except the CO2. And I think it's kind of relevant to know that all the smelly things aren't harmful either, not just the CO2.
I'd be mostly concerned with the displacing of oxygen -- trying to lean over into a large mixer bowl might mean you're getting no oxygen. If you have to exert yourself to clean out the bowl, it's going to be difficult to hold your breath while doing it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.598505
| 2015-10-21T17:34:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62706",
"authors": [
"Beryl Tillman",
"Beverly Reynolds",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Heather Adams",
"Joe",
"Joshua",
"Michelle ho",
"Shermin Tasneem",
"SourDoh",
"Stephie",
"Suzanne R",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149140",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149141",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149145",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149153",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
62738
|
What do I do with trout slime?
The trout is covered with slime. I am going to bake it. Should I remove the slime?
If it's fresh Trout with the skin on then yes, rinse the slime off. If it was frozen then you might have another problem...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.598880
| 2015-10-22T19:40:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62738",
"authors": [
"Anthony musarra",
"Brian Miller",
"Carol",
"Christopher OConnor",
"Glynda Kvech",
"Jax Thome",
"Mitti Morris",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149228",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149232",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149246",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149248"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
60203
|
How do I avoid fibrous, dry beans?
I've recently started adding beans to my diet to get more fiber. I've never been a fan, but it's better than the alternative. I've also discovered refried variations, which helps a lot.
What I'm looking for is some kind of bean that isn't as "fibrous" or "dry" as the red kidney beans I've been trying. Are there different tastes? Different textures? Any beans considered "safe for beginners"?
Not directly an answer, but a suggestion: Lentils pack a similar (fiber-)punch as beans but are often easier to "sneak into" food. Plus, cooking time is usually shorter and soaking optional. Less "dry" as well. Welcome to the site!
As both answers suggest badky cooked beans as culprit, could you plase clarify: Are we talking about dry beans cooked at home or the precooked canned variety?
Try cooking in a pressure cooker - much quicker and more reliable.
Subjective, but my favorite beans are "small red beans". Firm enough to hold together but a delightful, creamy interior. I just eat them with pepper sauce and salt.
They might be slightly undercooked, but I'm reheating them anyway which should take care of it. Right now I'm mashing them and mixing them with the sauce.
I actually tried cooking them in the pressure cooker, but that took an hour so might as well do it on the stove top.
Oh, and yeah - dry beans cooked at home. Been warned about gas from the premade ones.
Another suggestion for you OP, you can blend the beans to get a very creamy texture in chilis, my favourite is: http://www.cookingclassy.com/2013/05/white-chicken-chili/
"Fibrous" and "dry" are good descriptions for bean which haven't been prepared properly. Mostly, they have either not been soaked long enough, or haven't been cooked for long enough.
Normal times for beans are about 12 hours soaking in water and another 1-3 hours cooking, depending on the desired texture.
Also, sometimes beans can be cooked with about quarter/half a teaspoon of bicarbonate of soda, which softens them nicely.
That should be a start towards solving your problem. To answer your question, I think that white beans and pinto beans are a good start (you can make a chili, for instance), and that chickpeas are also a very good starting point. Cooked chickpeas are great as-is, and can be seasoned with cumin, salt and lemon juice for a nice snack.
I'll try white beans and pinto beans. And, like someone else suggested, lentils.
I'm not in a position to say if my beans were done or not, but after an hour in pressure cooker they'd peel themselves if I'd blow on them.
Thanks for your input :)
When you use canned beans, you pretty much have to make do with what's sold.
Cooking from dry beans gives you greater control over the end texture. Most recipes that start with dry beans involve pre-soaking the beans before simmering. If you add 1 T salt / Gal to the pre-soaking water (this is called, 'brining') you can get really creamy beans after simmering.
This is because sodium ions disrupt the pectin gel that binds the bean cells together, which loosens them to the point that water can better penetrate and hydrate the core of the bean during the pre-soaking period. This means they cook more evenly, giving a creamy texture. The folks at Cook's Illustrated did a great write-up on this technique in a recent issue - I'll try to track down the reference. Making the cooking water more basic in pH (rather than acidic) can also help. Baking soda both supplies sodium ions and makes the pH more basic. This makes for even creamier beans, but in my hands it can also be overkill (i.e. the beans fall apart into mush).
Don't forget to switch out the brine before you simmer, or you'll have a super-salty dish!
Source:
A nice Cook's Illustrated instructional video
I'll definitely try the brining! :D
It sounds like your beans were undercooked. You should try this recipe. You do not have to pre-soak dried beans or spend hours cooking them to have soft creamy beans. Put your beans in an oven safe pot with a tight fitting lid. Dutch oven and caldero would both work.
Pre-heat the oven to 250F. Boil the dry beans in water (3:1 ratio water to beans) for 15 minutes. You can use soup stock instead of water, or add spices and garlic/onion to the water. After boiling put the lid over the pot and put the pot in the oven for an hour and 15-25 minutes. Afterwards your beans should be perfectly cooked.
For a first timer I think pinto beans or black beans are the easiest to cook. Larger beans like chick peas and kidney beans may require a little more boiling before baking them in the oven. Beans like lentils or split peas do not even need to be baked, they cook through in 15-20 minutes of boiling on the stove.
Different beans do have different flavors. I find that kidney beans and black beans have a fairly strong and distinctive flavor compared to most beans. Black-eyed peas and most lentils have a milder flavor, but still, if you were to cook them separately and taste test you would find they do taste different from each other.
I don't think there is any particular bean that is harder or easier to cook if you are open to experimenting (which it seems that you are). They can mostly be interchanged in recipes (with the knowledge that there will be a slight difference in the resulting color, texture and flavor) and they are generally quite forgiving as long as you err on the side of over-cooking. ;-)
If you're having trouble with getting them cooked well enough, you might try either a slow-cooker or a pressure-cooker. Either one is a good way to make sure beans get thoroughly cooked without having to watch them on the stove for a long time.
For the slow-cooker, soak the beans overnight then add the beans and other ingredients to the cooker in the morning and let it go. In general, for beans in a slow cooker, you will probably need double the time they would have taken boiling on the stove, but you don't need to watch them.
For the pressure cooker, start soaking the beans in the morning to cook them in the evening. You need about 1/4 the "boiling in a pot on the stove" time (or less) in the pressure cooker. There are some good references for cooking times around online, or converting a recipe from "regular" to slow-cooker or pressure cooker. Note that the pressure cooker time starts from when it gets up to pressure, which will vary based on the volume of the cooker and the volume of the ingredients being cooked.
http://www.bbcgoodfood.com/howto/guide/10-top-tips-using-slow-cooker
http://www.fagoramerica.com/my_fagor/common_cooking_times
try lima beans, they are soft and creamy when fully cooked, yet I suggest brining overnight to boil it faster then, I usually stop to boil when shells start to come off and float on top
If cooked with kidney beans they look more like a sauce when kidney are just getting soft.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.598974
| 2015-08-24T14:34:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/60203",
"authors": [
"Anne Kerr",
"Anyone Everybody",
"David Tillotson",
"Lars",
"Mark Stickler",
"Matthew Bowden",
"Michelle Ventresca",
"NBenatar",
"Nancy Story",
"Peyden Therez",
"Rachel Parli",
"Sarumanatee",
"Sobachatina",
"Stephie",
"T Tb",
"UMMAGUMMA",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144074",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144075",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144076",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144088",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144102",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144104",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144150",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144151",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37812",
"samantha cameron"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
59949
|
Use of whipping cream in fudge
A UK fudge chain uses whipping cream in their fudge (I assume instead of butter). How much should one use and whats the benefit?
Whipped or whipping cream?
It's the Fudge Kitchen and they use Whipping Cream.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.599547
| 2015-08-16T09:42:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59949",
"authors": [
"ChellGraham",
"Danita Miles",
"Derek Heersink",
"Jenny Codling",
"Stephie",
"Walksfar 2023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143380",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143382",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154761",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41959"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
60002
|
Can I keep canned peaches in the fridge if water got in during processing?
I followed all the rules to a tee. Unfortunately, before immersing jars for final boiling, I apparently did not tighten the lids enough. I just took them out of the boiling water after 30 minutes and the screws lids were loose and looks like water got into jars. I understand that I can't keep them like this but if I removed them from the jars and put the slice in the refrigerator are they ok to eat within a few days?
Yes, basically anything cooked will last at least a few days in the fridge.
If you want it to safely keep it longer than that, you can freeze it. It's probably best not to try to reprocess the jars though, since you don't know exactly how much water got in (and how much acid and sugar got out), so if you're unlucky it could upset the recipe enough to make them unsafe.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.599620
| 2015-08-17T23:12:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/60002",
"authors": [
"Alan Corcoran",
"Carmen Hernandez",
"Graham Wellard",
"Sarah Boyd",
"Yulanda Foye",
"anna cooper",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143527",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143529",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143533"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
59344
|
Can zucchini be increased in zucchini bread recipes?
I would like to increase the amount of zucchini in my zucchini bread recipe. Can I? How much? Does increasing the amount of zucchini make other changes necessary?
It might be worth adding some more details on your existing recipe so someone can give you some more specific recommendations.
Also you might add why you want to do this (what is the intended result you are looking for).
when you say "increase" does it mean that it already has zucchini in it? Are you making a standard yeast bread, or a zucchini bread, which is a very different thing?
You'll have to adjust the other liquids so you don't get baked goop, but it should be doable. Grating vs blending the zukes will also alter the liquid situation. Checking a bunch of zucchini bread recipes online might be the best way to answer this.
Zucchini bread is a quick bread. It is chemically leavened and bound together mostly with egg but some gluten.
Adding more zucchini will add liquid and fiber which will interfere a little more with gluten development. Both of these changes will result in a bread that is more moist and tender- to the extreme of not holding together enough.
You can increase the zucchini- how much is difficult to answer because the bread will be different and how much is ok will be a matter of taste. I have found that for the quick breads I make, such as banana and zucchini, I can up to double the titular ingredient.
The resulting bread is always very moist and dense. Sometimes it is too tender to slice. The flavor is more pronounced and sometimes that's what I'm in the mood for.
Interestingly, bread made in this way has a much shorter shelf life because of the extra moisture.
I've tried adding another egg to hold it together but that quickly becomes too "eggy". Of course adding more flour means you are just making a bigger batch of your original recipe.
I wonder what the effect would be if you increased the amount of zucchini, but also reduced the water content of the zucchini (e.g. by grating, salting, waiting 15 minutes, and squeezing the liquid out). Would you end up with a stronger flavor without impacting the texture as much as you would by merely adding more zucchini?
@mrog- it's a interesting idea. I fear the salt would be too strong. You could rinse it but you'd lose a lot of flavor which is often the point of increasing it in the first place.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.599738
| 2015-07-25T13:26:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59344",
"authors": [
"Ibtisam Mahmoud",
"Kathy Abrams",
"Lonnie Mecham",
"Marcus Jadischke",
"Mary Aitchison",
"Monica Chitambo",
"Peppino Morelli",
"PeterJ",
"Sobachatina",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"Wendy McKee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141755",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141757",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141835",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141836",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154171",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"mrog",
"rumtscho",
"user3169"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
58988
|
How can I use a large quantity of raw almonds all at once?
I have a big practically unused bag of raw almonds that's been sitting in my pantry for a couple years. I got them as a gift when I used to munch on them more, but after a few major life changes it just has never been pulled out again.
What can I possibly make with all of these almonds? I'm looking for something that uses the almonds as I primary ingredient rather than a garnish so I can get rid of them in one fell swoop instead of slowly whittling them away. I've thought of almond butter and almond flour, but I don't see myself using either that often, so it doesn't really help.
If you're willing to wait 5 months : Make a large batch of spiced nuts, put them into decorative bags, and give them to all of your friends for christmas.
A couple of years? Seriously? My recipe: Compost...
If you want to make your almond into almond meal, this recipe (King Arthur Flour Site) is one of the best almond cookie recipes ever. I make them with an apricot preserve thumbprint and they are magical.
@Catija : you can also roll sugar cookie dough in ground up almonds before baking (might not use it as quickly, doesn't require quite as fine of processing as almond flour)
If you're feeling artsy, you can try to make marzipan. (although, not all eggs are pasteurized, but something like 'egg beaters' in a carton are. )
@Joe Please note that real marzipan has no eggs, just almonds, sugar and sometimes rose water. For almond paste binders like egg whites may be included. Many (English) recipes on the Internet are imprecise, especially as the terms are often used interchangeably.
@Catija and Joe, yes, those are exactly the type of suggestions I was looking for!
If they are still good and you like almonds, you could toss them in a little olive oil and seasonings (rosemary, garlic, parmesan, cinnamon/sugar, etc.) and bake until crispy. I think about 15 - 20 minutes.
In an attempt to make this specific enough to leave open and avoid it becoming a poll of everyone's favorite almond recipes, I've refocused the title and removed the implied question about what to use almond flour for - you can just search for recipes for that.
How big is "big"? (how many pounds, kilo's, cups, utils...?)
@CosCallis the point of the edit is exactly to not specify how big is big. It should be applicable to anybody who finds themselves in a situation where they have more almonds than they can eat. If there is no way to answer such a question, we will have to close it anyway, because we generally don't allow questions of the "what should I do with X" type unless there is a good reason why "eat it as it is" or "search an ingredients database and choose whichever recipe strikes your fancy" won't work.
Yes @rumtscho, but 'big' could be anything from a pound to a pallet, and answers could be very different depending on OP's actual measure...
@CosCallis I still don't see how it matters. It's an amount you're willing to cook with at home (not a pallet) and it's enough to want something that actually uses a lot, not just using them as a small part of a dish. If you really must know, it's in the revision history, but if you find yourself not giving an answer because you think it works with 2 pounds and not 5, you're probably not being helpful.
Some things that are made almost entirely of almonds (plus elbow grease), and thus will use up a large quantity of almonds:
Almond butter (need to add: nothing. Well, salt, if you like.)
Almond milk (need to add: water)
And then there are more dessert recipes than you can shake a stick at, but they take increasing amounts of other ingredients, and thus decreasing amounts of almonds.
Marzipan (need to add: sugar, rosewater)
Macarons (need to add: sugar, eggs, some sort of icing/frosting)
Almond torte (ditto)
Almond brittle (need to add: sugar, corn syrup, butter, salt)
Almond pasta [variation on Hungarian dióstészta] (need to add: cooked pasta of your choice [e.g. broken-up fettuccine or small egg noodles], sweetening of your choice [sugar or honey or even artificial sweeteners will all work])
As Stephie implied, after "a couple years", I'd bet your raw almonds are rancid and whatever you do with them would just be throwing good ingredients after bad. But eat a couple and see for yourself. If they're ok, I'd make almond butter, that would let you use all of them quickly.
If it's only two years, and they've been stored in a place that's not too hot, they might be okay. If 'couple' is code for '4+ years' or they've been exposed to really hot temperature ... maybe not.
I believe it's been 1.5 years (depending on which Christmas I received them), and they've been in the pantry the whole time, so I'm not too worried about them being rancid, but I will definitely do a taste check first.
Agreed about checking for rancidity. The OP did explicitly say he didn't think almond butter would work very well for him, though.
@Jefromi Whoops, I totally missed that.
Almost all nuts, so long as they haven't gone rancid on you, are very versatile:
Whenever I travel, I bring a bag of raw almonds. (raw simply because I prefer the flavor to roasted). If I end up missing a meal (not enough time to grab food when changing flights, sessions ran long and I'm tired from jetlag, meetings over lunch, etc.), then I have something easy to snack on.
If you go hiking, you can make a trail mix -- nuts, dried fruit, maybe some candies (m&ms are less messy than bare chocolate) or granola.
You can add them to many types of quick breads. (although walnuts & pecans are typically my go-to nut for this)
If you grind them up, you can use them as the breadcrumbs in most three-part dredges. (I don't know if I'm use it for deep frying, but it's great for pan frying ... especially fish)
They're great in deserts -- chop & sprinkle over ice cream or frosted cakes, mixed into brownies, etc.
They can be an appetizer -- heat in a dry pan, add a bit of butter, then spices and maybe a little bit of sugar to make spiced nuts.
There are so many uses, that I'm guessing this question will likely get closed. You can put it on cereal for breakfast, a small bag with your lunch or as a snack, etc.
I guess I should clarify. I'm mainly looking for something that will use up a large portion of the almonds in one fell swoop as opposed to whittling away at them as garnishes. I'll updated the question.
Assuming that they are not rancid...almond brittle (or mixed nut brittle...with other nuts, pecans, cashews, peanuts). There are many recipes out there like this one: http://www.myrecipes.com/recipe/almond-brittle. This one will use them up about a cup at a time (1 cup whole == 3/4 cup chopped +/-)
You can also often use more nuts than a recipe calls for. Nuts can be expensive and people like sugar, so a lot of recipes go a little light on the nuts.
@Jefromi, as we are not a site for giving out recipes this was meant to be representative of a "use" (brittles) that would use up nuts in large quantities (large here being a relative term...)
Not sure I understand your reply. I know the recipe you chose was just an example. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that recipe. I'm just saying it works even better than recipes will tend to suggest; you can use a lot of nuts if you want.
You have a lot of answers already, but I'd like to add Curries as another solutions.
Using nuts in curries is a fantastic idea in my opinion! The last curry I did had some pistachios ground up in the blender with some broth, you end up with a really thick, sustaining and delicious sauce.
my raw almonds were two years old as well and I just used this recipe to make candied slivered almonds that are delicious!
http://www.kraftrecipes.com/recipes/caramelized-almonds-57033.aspx
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.599986
| 2015-07-11T13:34:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58988",
"authors": [
"Brooke",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Cos Callis",
"Dan C",
"David K",
"Ger Cullen",
"Joe",
"Julianne Farmer",
"Kay Pearse",
"Neil Gardner",
"Nitza Oathout",
"R L",
"Robin Marquardt",
"Sally Gardner",
"Sasha Borisova",
"Stephie",
"Theresa Newman Terri",
"Tyler Pinheiro",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140827",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140828",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140831",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140988",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140989",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140992",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141004",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142618",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36746",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"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
}
|
54841
|
What previously manual techniques should I use a stand mixer for?
I recently added a KitchenAid to my kitchen on Valentine's day, so that's the source of my question.
I know plenty of things can be done by hand or with a stand mixer. But recipes don't always mention when it's an option. So what general manual techniques should I try using the stand mixer for instead? And if I do, are there any adjustments I'll commonly have to make, or can I just throw things in and let it go?
For instance, when making pie crust I used to just dice a stick of cold butter and slice that into 8 oz of flour adding water a drizzle at a time until I got the consistency I wanted, then I would roll that up into a ball. But it can also be done with the stand mixer. I was making pie crust for chicken pot pies, and halfway through I said... hey, that's why I got a KitchenAid. I just tossed the whole unfinished mess into the mixing bowl and let the flat beater do it's job at speed 1. It seemed to work just fine and I rolled out perfect crusts. But the recipe in the instruction book was different from my normal crust (more ingredients).
Enjoy the mixer, they're fabulous for a lot of things. I'm not sure this question is really answerable (though perhaps someone will come up with a good way to answer it in this format) - it seems a bit too broad to me (as you could have a LOT of adjustments, depending on what you cook/bake/etc.). If I were you i'd limit the question by mentioning a few kinds of things you specifically bake/cook and are interested in knowing how a mixer affects.
It's a shame that since this site went live, there's been the push for every question having only one answer ... this seems like it could be an opportunity to make a really useful resource for people new to stand mixers.
Skip the stand mixer when making a pie crust, you'll have better results with a food processor. Don't let the tool determine your course of action, rather use the right tool for the job...a stand mixer is great for breads, cookies, cakes, meringues, whipping cream...powering attachments...not so good at pie crust...too easy to over mix.
@Joe I think it's possible to answer this question generally, like you did, but getting into specifics could fill an entire cookbook. Having that "cookbook" spread over a bunch of different overlapping answers, none of them complete and definitive, would be a terrible resource.
@moscafj well as it turns out we also got a cuisineart on the same day. We really like to cook. I secretly bought the kitchenaide artisan as a gift "to us". She also secretly bought the cuisineart "to us". When we started talking about it, I started getting worried we bought two of the same appliance. As it turned out it was obviously not the case, but we have some toys to play with. I also ordered pasta roller and cutters at the same time. I made fresh spaghetti last night. Fun and delicious.
I think the question is worth clarifying and trying to keep. The core idea here, if I understand right, is which normal mixing techniques you can replace with the stand mixer, and if you do, what needs tweaking.
@Escoce I've tried to edit this to make it a bit more focused and answerable, while keeping it open to reasonably comprehensive answers. If you feel I've messed something up, feel free to edit further.
I use mine for anything that needs to be kept fairly cool, but doesn't necessarily need to be "cut" the way the blade of a food processor does. Anything that requires mixing meat, in particular. Burgers, meatloaf, etc. retain a better texture when the meat isn't warmed by your hands. Aside from those, we mix ground meat for jerky and meatballs in the mixer.
Hope this helps. Enjoy your mixer!
For the most part, you don't need to adjust your recipe.**
For breads that you typically have to knead for a very long time, however, I sometimes need to add a bit more flour. I assume this is to compensate for the lack of bench flour getting worked in while kneading. I also have to watch it fairly closely, as I've had too many times when the dough starts climbing out of the bowl as it's kneading.
** although, I've never tried pie crusts; I typically use a food processor for that, so it really 'cuts in' the butter.
the foodprocessor to cut sounds like a good idea. When I make crusts by hand I usually get impatient and just start smooshing it all together. The crust still come out great, but they aren't really cut together until ready. :) The cuisine art is a great idea I'l have to try.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.600599
| 2015-02-17T19:38:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54841",
"authors": [
"Ben Borg",
"Bill Chow",
"Bridget Myers",
"Cascabel",
"Cindy Delaney",
"Escoce",
"Grace Harris",
"Joe",
"Joe M",
"Kerry LM",
"Kimberly Burroughs",
"Nancy Lehmer",
"Ross Ridge",
"Yung kim",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130213",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131156",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
88550
|
What does Jiro brush on his sushi?
I recently watched the movie "Jiro Dreams of Sushi," and noticed that Jiro was always brushing some sort of liquid onto the sushi, but I can't figure it out.
My hypothesis is that it's either some sort of oil (sesame, olive, etc.) or maybe a vinegar of sorts, but I have no idea.
He brushes soy sauce on it, because he knows how much is sufficient to season each nigiri. Actually not just any soy sauce, but nikiri:
A good sushi chef adds all the flavors the sushi needs before he hands it to the customer. He mixes his own sauce and uses it behind the sushi bar. This sauce is called nikiri.
you can see him brushing it here:
According to this other site,
Nikiri is typically made using a mixture of soy sauce, dashi, mirin and sake. The sauce has a subtle complimentary umami sweetness that is designed to enliven and enhance the flavour of the fish with which it is being served.
I lived in Japan for 17 years; I ate a lot of sushi, and much of it was at high-end restaurants (my students would treat me). I have never seen an “itamae, a sushi chef, brush any behind-the-counter sauce on the nigiri before serving it, unless the nigiri begs for a different flavor than soy. Some chefs serve the whiter, sweeter fish with ponzu and green onions. But I’ve never sat down at a sushi bar where there wasn’t a dipping bowl in the place setting and soy sauce on the counter or table.
I will have to look into “nikiri” though. Sounds interesting!
@JustJoel actually I also assumed it was just soy sauce until I did some research for this answer. I've never heard of nikiri before.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.601081
| 2018-03-23T06:53:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88550",
"authors": [
"Just Joel",
"Luciano",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65650"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
87259
|
Using left over pickle juice to make more pickles
Can the juice from store bought dill pickles be used to make more pickles. Can fresh cucumbers put into this juice aquire the same flavor as buying more pickles. If so how long would the cucumbers have to be in the 'juice' for full flavor?
I'm not sure how different the question would be with store bought vs. home made, but see https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/23539/67
I tried it once. They just spoiled in a few days. I think you need to go through the whole pickle-making process rather than just adding cucumbers to a jar of brine. There's a sterilization that you're not getting, I think.
I have seen recipes and pre-packaged "refrigerator pickle" mixes, ("Mrs." somebody... comes to mind) but haven't made any. I've eaten them, and they were pretty tasty.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.601237
| 2018-01-24T15:00:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87259",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
54219
|
Are vanillin/vanilla powder safe to use in savory dishes?
Vanilla beans are quite expensive, and I can buy cheap vanillin ($0.3).
So I'm wondering whether I can use vanillin instead of real vanilla for savory dishes:
are they dangerous in high heat? I'm thinking of curry or onion soup.
Dangerous in high heat? Can you elaborate please.
The title asks if they're weird (probably yes), but the question asks if they're dangerous (probably no). Also, does the "they" in the second line refer to vanilla beans, vanillin, or both?
what I mean by dangerous is, because I will bloom the powder with other spice, or roast it, or something. there might be chemical reaction that is absent in baking or the likes but apparent in standard savory dish preparation.
The vanilla chapter of Ian Hemphill's "Spice and Herb Bible" says,
Vanilla is also delicious in savory cooking because it is not overtly
sweet. An innovative Mauritian restaurant in Sydney served a delicious
vanilla chicken [...] It was aromatic delicate and beautifully
balanced.
The same book has a recipe for Vanilla Salmon Salad where vanilla seeds are scraped into the dressing.
I did a quick taste test using vanilla extract with various savory things from my fridge. Here are the results:
Cheese: tasted fine, but I wouldn't call it a taste sensation;
Vegeburger: nasty combination; I think the leeks in the burger were a problem;
Avocado: actually quite a nice combination;
Roasted aubergine: not bad;
Tomato: fine;
Savory omelet: not good; onions don't seem to work with vanilla extract;
Baked beans in tomato sauce: very nice.
Note that using vanilla extract and a vanilla bean to flavor a dish are not the same thing. There is an amount of alcohol in the vanilla extract I used (bourbon) and this may completely invalidate the test. Having said that, the first indications are that alliums (onions, leeks, garlic etc) don't go with vanilla. So onion soup may not be a good plan. And since curry generally contains plenty of onion and garlic, I'm skeptical about using it there too.
Turning to the question of whether vanilla and vanillin become dangerous when heated, the answer is almost certainly no. That doesn't mean that heating vanilla is inconsequential. Harold McGee's "On Food and Cooking" mentions that vanilla beans contain more than 200 volatile compounds and notes,
Prepared vanilla extracts [...] are best added toward the end of
cooking; any period of time spent at a high temperature causes aroma
loss.
On the other hand, heating vanillin at normal cooking temperatures (i.e. normal for soup and curry) is not a problem. Its boiling point is around 285°C.
As another answer mentions, vanilla has a more complex taste to pure vanillin. Most of what you will read comparing the two will be very much in favor of using real vanilla beans in cooking. Instead of repeating this advice, I'm reminded of having read that in a Cook's Illustrated taste test comparing genuine vanilla to synthetic vanillin, the artificial flavoring came out on top. It's probably not be enough to conclude that vanillin tastes better than vanilla but may encourage you to forge ahead if vanillin is all you can afford.
Update: Having read @papin's suggestion that you may need to caramelize the onions, I just did a quick taste test with rostad lök (not sure how it translates from Swedish, the literal translation is toasted onion). It tasted slightly better but still not great. Again, I'm using vanilla extract so my taste test is not necessarily valid.
that was beautiful, thank you very much. the allium-vanilla link was a real help. might use it on fried things or the likes.
Regarding the taste test: There have been studies with children testing "strawberry" yoghurt (don't have the source at hand, but will search if required). Most preferred the artificial flavoured over genuine strawberries. Probably again an example of what taste we have learned to expect.
Vanilla goes well with savory dishes. Chef Michael Roberts, from the 1980s Trumps restaurant, used it as one of his secret ingredients, breaking with the spice’s traditional use. He had several shell fish dishes with vanilla. He credited Alain Senderens, one of the forces in French cooking pushing for new flavors and methods, for the combination, but Roberts took it to new places. Mixing it with curry seems natural to me, but onions, I sense, may need to first be caramelized. This is type of thing one needs to experiment. Before Roberts died, he spent some time traveling India to absorb some of its cuisine, which may have resulted in some recipes.
The pure form of vanillin is just one of the main aroma components of vanilla, which being a natural substance, has hundreds more aroma ingredients. So if it is "safe" to use vanilla then it should be safe to use vanillin. You may compromise and use vanilla extract instead of the vanilla beans. Look at Stephie's answer for why use the natural version and some suggestions of to keep its richness.
When I try a new flavor pairings I start by exaggerating the flavor and using more than I would use if I were serving the dish to others. For vanilla extract (the commercial brand in US supermarkets) I would start at 1/2 teaspoon of extract for each cup of liquid in the dish and then bring it down until it harmonizes.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "dangerous". But rest assured:
Both real vanilla and vanillin are used at high heat - think of baking!
Therefore, I would not expect any of these to change their flavour in hot dishes.
As to the use of vanilla in savory dishes: There are plenty of recipes that use vanilla, my first thought was a venison sauce with red wine, pepper and vanilla. So nothing "weird" here.
BUT IMHO: I wouldn't substitute vanillin for genuine vanilla. The taste is quite different. We have "learned" to associate the label "vanilla" with the specific taste of vanillin, especially with pre-made desserts and sweet dishes. Real vanilla has a much more complex flavour and I'd be afraid that the vanillin would be giving a savoury dish a somewhat "desserty" touch. Admittedly, I'm a bit of a purist, food-wise, but I'd expect savory recipes with vanilla to be a bit on the "exclusive" and "exotic" side, so why not treat this as a special occasion and splurge on real vanilla?
Taking Jefromi's comment into account:
You might want to consider adding the vanilla towards the end of the cooking process or to the finished dish, keeping as much of the volatile aromatics as possible.
Once you heat it enough, people can't usually tell the difference between artificial and real vanilla. You can definitely tell in pudding and ice cream, but not in baked goods. So if the OP does want to get real vanilla for a soup, it needs to be added at the end, once it's cooled a bit.
Well I can tell in baked goods... (and not only by the little specks). And pudding is cooked, too.
I would point out though that in most baking you don't actually get high temperatures. You might bake bread in a 500F oven, but the inside of the loaf only gets to about 200F. Candymaking might be a better example.
@sourd'oh I was talking more about cookies and so on, which do get a bit hotter, and generally in blind tests people can't tell the difference (or even prefer imitation).
@Stephie Right, but pudding is cooked to a much lower temperature, and if you're using extract, you're able to add the vanilla at the end to preserve the flavor. I've never been able to tell the difference between pure and imitation in, say, chocolate chip cookies, and even if I did I'd be suspicious it was just the power of suggestion without trying a blind test, but if you can taste all the extra aromatics in cookies, it's certainly worth it for you!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.601344
| 2015-01-31T06:57:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54219",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Cindy Brown",
"Doug",
"Giyasoodien Ahmed",
"Grism Bolks",
"Haidoneko Hyde",
"Heather Himes",
"JJ Greer",
"Kama Erickson",
"Kym Brothers",
"LaReina Parker",
"Martin Dean",
"Med Electric",
"Pat Durham",
"Robert Petties",
"SourDoh",
"Steph Tarczy",
"Stephie",
"Thomas Brunner",
"Vicky Yu",
"cary maures",
"crescent_lunar",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127525",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127526",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127527",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127560",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127566",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127574",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127575",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127576",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127578",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130368",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33127"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
81201
|
Can melted butter with food debris sit out at near room temp indefinitely?
There's food debris in the butter. My knowledge says that the oxygen deprived liquid gets bacteria in it and it turns into botulism same as vacuum sealed individual bags of fish.
My bosses don't care and leave it like this every day. The bacon sits there indefinitely as well. No date. There's no timestamp on either butter or bacon.
Is this safe?
This is a food safty question catija
Then you need to remove the discussion of getting the health board to fix it. The health board is irrelevant to the question if all you care about is whether it's safe or not.
I'm voting to close as unclear what you're asking. It's barely legible, and the only question mark in there isn't attached to a question.
@user57430 I've edited your question for you, but in the future we'd appreciate it if you'd try to put a little more time into it before you post, especially for things like spelling.
As for the answer, as far as I can tell there's nothing here that isn't covered by the linked duplicate - things left in the 40-140F ("near room temperature") range for more than 2-4 hours are unsafe. (Note that this is not purely because of botulism, and does not mean that things "turn into" botulism.)
Not a duplicate, IMO. There are endless Google hits on butter, specifically, and whether it can be left at room temperature or not.
@PoloHoleSet But this isn't butter, this is butter with stuff in it.
With extra-italic stuff, some of which definitely is perishable and subject to the 2 hour rule ....
Whether or not this is safe (it very likely isn't) the idea of keeping either item around without so much as a date on it triggers every restaurant-trained horror I have. If your bosses don't care about this I would hate to see their walk-in cooler.
Yes it can. It might not be a very good idea to serve or eat it, though.
Check what the food debris is made out of - if anything forming debris in the butter is subject to the "2/4 hour in the danger zone" rule, it will still be subject to it when swimming in butter.
Bacon. Eggs. Asparagus. Brocoli pieces. All small to tiny poeces but in there. The butter sits forblike 2 months in a tow not. They keep adding butter to it. It never gets changed
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.602006
| 2017-04-24T15:47:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81201",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Chris H",
"PoloHoleSet",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57430",
"logophobe",
"rackandboneman",
"user57430"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
81216
|
Raw Salmon on a green cutting ( RTE ) board
Is this legit ok? My bosses tell me it doesn't matter because the board is going to get washed, when I say there's colors because the dish machine might not get to 165 from time to time and bacteria can be on the RTE cutting board.
Ah, the next installment in this kitchen saga - will we get to know where this place is?
I think this might be an okay safety question, thanks. Let's please avoid further side discussion in the comments, though. You can use the chat room created off one of your previous posts for that if you wish.
That does RTE stand for?
Ready to Eat (I believe)
Ah, if you had been watching you will know that this guy/lass is front of house, not necessarily kitchen staff. It seems that the guys in the kitchen are not quite up to scratch when it comes to rules/regs/laws or general cleanliness - and the OP is a bit miffed by it - hence the photos etc... I am sure that the saga/drama will continue - however it would be nice to know where this establishment is so as to avoid it!
Yes ready to eat. White is for unwashed produce blue for seafood. Red for meat and yellow for chicken there is brown aswell. Not sure what the brown cutting board is for
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.602216
| 2017-04-25T03:51:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81216",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"GdD",
"dougal 5.0.0",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57430",
"user57430"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
84327
|
Recipes say not to boil butter for beurre monté - why?
I made butter poached lobster tail today. Every recipe on the internet warns not the boil the butter when making the beurre monté, otherwise the butter will separate. No recipe explained why this is such a bad thing. If you're just cooking the lobster in the butter, why does it matter if it separates or not?
Cooking doesn't equal boiling, mind. For example, sous-vide cooking cooks something at very low temperature.
Beurre monté is a sauce of emulsified butter, which will remain emulsified up to 80-85ºC (more or less). If the temperature goes up, your sauce will separate into fat (~80%) and water (a little less than 20%), will lose texture and you also might end up with rancid flavors if the temperature goes up too much and the fatty acids in butter hydrolize (as in break down with the help of water)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.602342
| 2017-09-12T03:40:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84327",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
53953
|
How can one use Thai basil stems and flowers?
What parts, besides the leaves of Thai Basil, are usable? I am making Thai Basil Chicken (Gai Pad Krapow) using the leaves but can I use the stems and flowers as well?
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! This is a great question; a I've just edited the title because sometimes people just read the title and skim over the rest of the question, and we don't want you to just get a list of things to make.
As with most herbs, you can freeze the stems, and then toss them in when you're making stock.
First off, I'm afraid you have been using the wrong type of basil for your dish!
In Thai cooking, three different types are commonly used:
"Thai basil" (or "horapha", โหระพา), which tastes a bit like anise / liquorice; it's slightly purple (as shown in the picture in Jolenealaska's answer).
"Holy basil" (or "kaphrao", กะเพรา), which tastes more like pepper/cloves; it can also be a bit purple, and (unlike Thai basil), it is a bit hairy, and the leaves have jagged edges.
"Lemon basil" (or "maenglak", แมงลัก), which (as the name suggests) tastes a bit like lemon.
Notice that "krapow" is just a slightly different spelled transliteration for holy basil ("kaphrao"). Preparing this well-known dish with Thai basil instead of holy basil will certainly make for a very good tasting dish (I've made it myself a few times when I couldn't get holy basil, and in fact I actually prefer it, since I'm quite a sucker for that anise/liquorice taste), but should really be called "Gai Pad Horapha" instead.
As for your question, I typically use the flowers (of either type of basil) to garnish a dish - if I haven't eaten them already while peeling the leaves off the stems.
I typically discard the stems, but on occasion I have chopped them up and mixed them with some honey and ginger (and some mint, whenever I had it), to be used as a dipping sauce for spring rolls.
The flowers and stems are absolutely edible.
The stems are like cilantro stems in that they have a lot of flavor of the herb but are not as prized for their texture as the leaves. I puree cilantro stems until they are just flavorful, green liquid. That liquid is great in sauces, salsas, soups and dressings. I see no reason why Thai basil would be any different. As a matter of fact, I wish I had some Thai basil right now, I have a couple of Asian pears and some fresh homemade Japanese style mayonnaise. The stem puree would make an awesome dressing for slaw. Also like cilantro, you don't have to puree the stems, you can just chop them up and use them as you do the leaves, it's just a matter of personal preference.
The flowers of Thai basil are a bit more controversial. The flowers certainly are very pretty:
Some people think they are very tasty, others not so much. So on that one, I just recommend that you taste them. If you like them, you can use just like any other edible flower or with the leaves in any application in which you would use the herb.
the whole basil plant is edible. Roots too, though I wouldn't want to eat them.
The stems can be a bit woody, especially if you let it grow tall.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.602443
| 2015-01-25T00:49:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53953",
"authors": [
"Adams Solomon",
"Annette Currie",
"Carrie Hickman",
"Cascabel",
"Eedi Mar Young",
"Gary Larson",
"Joe",
"Margie Rinaldi",
"TONY",
"URIKA BERRY",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126868",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126869",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126907",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128691",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128693",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
65674
|
Boiling Beef Chorizo as part of a soup base?
I'm wondering about the results if I were to try boiling beef chorizo instead of frying it for use as part of a soup. (My girlfriend insists this is a recipe for disaster, so I'm asking for more information here rather than try it on my own.) Chorizo is oily and is generally cooked by frying, so I'm wondering how the spices and flavors would mix and separate if boiled in water instead of being fried. I'm not particularly skilled at cooking meat, so any information about how I could expect this to turn out would be appreciated. If I boil water, and add chorizo, what could I expect from this? What about if I add it straight to soup to simmer/boil there?
Welcome to the site @Jonathan. Your question is unfortunately not a good one for this site's format. It's very broad, based on opinion rather than facts, and it's unclear what you are trying to accomplish. I suggest re-formatting it to ask specific questions, for example whether it would be better to boil the chorizo or add it at the end.
Hello Jonathan, I'm afraid GdD is right. Nobody can tell you whether the results will taste good to you, or to your girlfriend. The only way to know is to try it. But the question has no universal answer.
Thanks for the suggestions, I'll try and change the question to be more specific.
I tried making some changes to narrow it down, but it's possible that the question is still too broad, so if that's the case I may need to simply find out on my own.
I just saw this in the reopen queue - it looks a lot better. The one thing I'm wondering is if you mean to boil it in water, take it out, then add it to soup (the question kind of sounds like that) or just simmer/boil it in the soup directly.
@Jefromi I was considering both options, ideally I'd like information about both.
You could fry it off with your veg base, remove it, make your soup and then add the chorizo to serve. Boiling chorizo is just a bit of a waste
Could you elaborate a bit? You lost me at veg base. Assume you're talking to someone with no formal understanding of cooking, being as literal and detailed as possible would really make a huge difference.
Sorry, I'll be more helpful this time. In classical French cooking just about everything begins with a mirepois, which is your veg base, traditionally consisting of equal parts brown onion, carrot and celery. Capsicum and leek are also often used, personally I also use fennel but not carrot. I would thinly slice the chorizo, heat a heavy based pot with a tablespoon of vegetable oil and when it's (technically speaking) really fucking hot drop in the chorizo and immediately remove the pot from the heat whilst stirring the chorizo until the pot cools.
Drop the burner to the lowest setting and add about 100grams of butter, simmer for one or two minutes and then remove the chorizo with a slotted spoon or tongs. You'll have a red tinged chorizo infused butter which you can add your vegetables to, onions first.
Awesome, that clarifies exactly what I needed to know. Would you mind editing your comment into your answer? It's up to you, but I would appreciate it.
Ive tried this a few times. I think boiling the chorizo can be beneficial for some soups because it allows the flavor to penetrate the other components. However, boiling it also makes the meat pretty indistiguishable and mostly just imparts flavors to the soup (in my case ive used mexican chorizo). Maybe another thing to think about would be the oil content which could allow you to craft a flavorful rue. rue is made from simering equal amounts of oil and flour on low heat (timing wise less is more) and will thicken your soup.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.602733
| 2016-01-21T10:54:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65674",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"GdD",
"Ivan Angel",
"John Jones",
"Jonathan",
"Kent Helsdon",
"Michael Fancourt",
"Mystic Sunshyn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157009",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157011",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157024",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157083",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157647",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157748",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33081",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42902",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"jeoff crae",
"mark santa-olalla",
"richard smith",
"rumtscho",
"user42902"
],
"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
}
|
53803
|
What are properties of good whole bean coffee?
I'm in search of a great new (commercially-available) brand of coffee for home-use in making both espresso and drip coffee. I used to frequent a local roaster, but I'm a poor grad student and I have to start finding something less artisanal that fits better in my budget.
I know what coffees I like in terms of taste, but I thought I would ask the foodie experts what some "rules of thumb" or properties are of a good whole bean coffee.
You are unlikely to get good answers to your question as much of this depends on the region you live in, and it's opinion based. In any case, you get what you pay for most of the time.
As for the quality of the finished product, a lot relies on the beans you use, but it also depends on how you brew it. Even mediocre coffee beans can be enjoyable if brewed properly. Generally speaking. The better your beans, the more leeway you have to "mistreat" them. I personally only use a French press or a pour-over. These tend to produce the best results. For espresso, use high-quality beans or you'll end up with swill.
I posted an answer below, but I would tend to agree and suggest you edit out the parts about specific brands lest you get your question closed. I think they rest of the question is still a good question.
I'm not going to say the brand, I'll just mention that it's a store brand French Roast. I really can't speak to the actual quality because I am such a non-connoisseur that I truly know nothing. But I really like this coffee. I have purchased other coffees since I have discovered this one, and I am always happy to be done with the other coffee, because I want to get back to the coffee I like. That it is always on sale so it's also the cheapest option is just a bonus. I make the point to say this because what is best is always subjective.
@pocketlizard: this might be of interest to you... http://www.coffeereview.com/ I've no affiliation and have actually never seen it before today. I just found them through a random google and they have a pretty decent sized list, including many of trader joe's beans. I would take some of their reviews with a grain of salt as taste is very personal. It's also far from complete. But it might be interesting to get a rough idea of what your options are as this site also lists prices.
I've removed the iffy parts of the question; without doing so I think we'd have to close it immediately. We really don't want this to turn into a poll with 100 people saying "my favorite is X".
@talon8 - I have used Coffee Review in the past, they definitely favor the high priced stuff. Regarding Trader Joe's coffees: they got pretty low ratings!
Roast Date
Coffee starts to degrade fairly quickly. If you can find someone who roasts locally, that's ideal. The closer you are to the roaster, the less shipping and handling and the more likely you are to get quality coffee. If a company is roasting something to be shipped nation wide, they have to make certain sacrifices. So like @Max said, look for a Roast Date. Within the last week or two is ideal, a couple months is decent.
Origin
For places like Tim Hortons (Canada), McDonalds or Starbucks, they are looking for a very consistent taste every time. This is easier to do with a Darker Roast as you hide some of the nuances of specific crops. Often these will be from multiple origins to "blend" to a consistent taste. There are still many acceptable coffees that are blended like this. However, if you look at many of the Artisianal Coffee Places, they often tend to go for a light or medium Roast. They'll also tend to advertise a specifc farm and country. The reason for this is that with a lighter roast you can taste more of those specific notes in the bean. Some places in my opinion go to far and under roast it. I find in this case it actually comes across as overly sour. So this is entirely up to you what you prefer or are used to.
Packaging
You want something that was vacuum sealed at the roaster. Coffee reacts with oxygen and degrades as soon as it's roasted. Vacuum sealing it immediately, slows down that process. So this means avoid anything in a bulk bin in a coffee shop or grocery store. You also want to buy something that is a whole bean. As soon as you grind it, it also starts to degrade (within minutes). You can find a ceramic burr hand grinder for about $30.
Personal Notes...
For me, I have a few local roasters that I really like, but for my daily cup I can't afford to buy them regularly either. So basically, I look semi-local (for me it's anything in western Canada) for a medium roast from a company that can tell me where they got their bean. I look for words like "single origin" and "fair trade" and yes, even "organic". I don't actually care if it's Organic, but I've found these companies often care about their product more. When I get the coffee I like to be able to taste something unique in it. I'm not sitting here looking for "hmmm this tastes of elderberries and caramel by the ocean in the fall..." that's a little too much for me. That said, if it just tastes like generic "coffee", then I'm not really interested. Not to say that any of this guarantees their quality... so buyer beware.
I don't think specific brands fits with this site, as it's too specialized/localized, but hopefully that gives you something to look out for.
I think a good rule of thumb when looking for good coffee is to look for the "Roast Date".
The more recent the roast date, the better the coffee will be.
Most artisan/boutique coffee should have it available, either when you buy the coffee or directly on the bags.
For commercial coffee, it might be there, but not always.
If you buy commercial coffee and you cannot see the roast date, try to find vacuum sealed bags (either whole grains or ground).
Do you have specific roasts that you prefer? Light, Medium or Dark?
Ultimately you want to get the freshest roast possible. Buying local is a good way to ensure that, but overall there are a lot of great roasts out there worth trying. Get risky with it and start trying stuff.
I've edited out the "contact me" part since it's not actually an answer to the question (it also comes across as borderline advertisement). The rest does answer the question ("fresh roasts are good") but would be more helpful if it were a little more in depth!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.603174
| 2015-01-20T14:11:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53803",
"authors": [
"Caroline Howells",
"Cascabel",
"Che Travis Rutherford",
"Denise Laws",
"Doreen Vitiello",
"EICR Testing Report LTD",
"Elizabeth Parsons",
"Eoin Boyle",
"GdD",
"Hazel Eleanor",
"Jolenealaska",
"Le Thanh Phat FPL CT",
"Lisa Velasco",
"Patti Brooks",
"Rick G",
"Sharyl Eaglesham",
"Walk In Chiller Ltd",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126484",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126503",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126507",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126536",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126538",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32879",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
87233
|
Why does this chicken recipe result in a glutinous mess?
Countless times I've tried to prepared a recipe that calls for dredging chicken tenders in flour, dipping them in beaten egg (or a mixture of egg and water), and then coating them with a bread crumb mixture.
It just doesn't work for me. In the process of dipping the chicken in egg, much of the flour gets wiped off and ends up in the egg; the flour that remains sticks to the chicken in gooey clumps, and those clumps tend to resist coating with bread crumbs. After the third or fourth chicken tender has been treated, the egg has become a mess because of all the flour that's been washed off.
I've finally given up on that method and I simply do the egg and bread crumb part of the recipe, which seems to work just fine.
So why would I put flour on first - what's the advantage? And what am I doing wrong that makes it work so badly?
Are you drying your chicken off before you put it in the flour?
Is your chicken cold or room temperature?
And how much flour are you trying to get on a piece of chicken? It sounds like you may be trying for a very thick coating of flour, when only a light dusting is needed.
The reason for the flour being part of the breading process is to create a barrier between the meat and the breading, which will during the frying step allow for the formation of small steam pockets and a crisper crust. In a Wiener schnitzel this leads to the characteristic wrinkled surface. On the other hand, it’s the flour-egg mix that acts as „glue“ for the breadcrumbs or whatever you are using.
The amount of flour that is needed to achieve this is minimal. If you end up with flour in the egg, then I suspect you aren’t shaking off the excess flour.
The proper procedure starts with dry meat. This ensures that only little flour actually sticks to the meat when you then shake your meat to make sure all extra flour falls off. In this way you prevent the formation of what you describe as “glutinous mess”.
Then you proceed with the egg (again, let the extra drip off) and breadcrumbs.
Shallow-fry and serve immediately to ensure the crust is still crisp.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.603949
| 2018-01-23T00:09:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87233",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"GdD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45428",
"senschen"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
54399
|
Why is there so much crema on my espresso?
I buy fresh beans of lighter roasts, grind a few minutes before extraction, pull a double shot normale, and end up with a lot of crema, I mean a lot!
Right when I'm done, the top 90% of the shot is crema moving around like the head on a fresh Guinness. After it dissipates for 30-60 seconds, I'm left with roughly a centimeter of crema of light color.
Crema is a pretty bitter flavor, so I wonder if there is something I'm doing to cause this type of extraction, and what can I do to improve on my technique?
As you seem to indicate that it's a problem, I'd have to say that yes, there's such a thing as too much.
@Joe Where did I indicate that this is a problem?
it looks to me like you were commenting on the bitterness ... if you bitter, then it's a good thing. Many tastes are personal. (I like spicy food ... but where I consider it bland, others might consider it overpowering).
For me personally, I believe that having a stronger bitterness note at the start of the shot overpowers the balance. But it's just at that beginning. I'm curious to see what some of the experts on here have to say :)
What type of coffee machine are you using? It seems that a lot of air is getting into the crema thus forming such a thick layer.
@Trogdor I've been using a Breville Infuser for about two years now. I've been tinkering with technique and am just now getting these results, so it's definitely not the machine. Thanks
I think this question is completely fine. People probably didn't like the "good or bad" bit and the question in the title, but the real question is what's causing it and how to avoid it, and that's a great thing to ask.
@Jefromi fair enough
Crema is basically carbon dioxide fizzing up the coffee oils. By the description you're giving, it is likely to be too much. Your beans could be too oily and/or too fresh. It could be a combination of the type of beans / blend / or the way it's roasted.
Just as a guide, it is best for the beans to rest for around about a week after it's roasted. And if your beans end up soaking in oil, that is not good!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.604160
| 2015-02-04T18:58:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54399",
"authors": [
"Anne Toomey",
"Cascabel",
"DrGWm Sparks",
"Joe",
"Latoya Pryor",
"Laura Seltz",
"Majid Jaffali",
"Samantha Carman",
"Trogdor",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127978",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130366",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rwyland"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
52326
|
What are marshmallows?
What are marshmallows and how are they made?
I edited out the health aspect of your question because that's off topic here, but the answer the health question can be inferred from the answer to, "what is it?"
I have a posted an answer to the marshmallow question. I think that your shortening question is actually a duplicate: Here: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33897/what-exactly-is-vegetable-shortening and here: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7149/are-there-any-substitutes-for-shortening
@Jolenealaska The health question may stem from confusion over terms: the candy marshmallow -- it used to be made from the herb marshmallow root (Althaea officinalis), but it isn't anymore. I won't bother expanding on the effects of marshmallow root since that's definitely off-topic :)
I'm surprised nobody's posted about marshmallow farming... there was a problem with too much rain in North Carolina a few years back: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23QA1tSMpfw
@mike Oh Jeez :) Hide and watch, someone is going to watch that and take it seriously.
I went ahead and edited out the shortening thing, since as was pointed out, you should only ask one question at a time, and if you posted that question separately it'd be a duplicate anyway. Also, I noticed that you tagged your question "fondant" - are you trying to ask something about a marshmallow fondant, perhaps? If you've never seen marshmallows where you are, there might be better options than trying to make your own marshmallows if you just want to make fondant. But people can't help if you don't ask!
Marshmallows are a white, fluffy candy, that easily melts and becomes sticky. They are almost all sugar (and corn syrup which is also sugar), with whipped gelatine. They're vanilla flavored, usually with clear vanillin, because the pure whiteness is the very essence of the candy.
They're sometimes colored, but not usually:
The little ones are often served in hot chocolate milk, and they're often used as ingredients in other things like fudge.
It's also very traditional to skewer them on a stick and roast them over a campfire:
Put the roasted marshmallow between graham crackers with chocolate, you have a s'more, a favorite snack of campers everywhere.
Here's a tour of a huge marshmallow factory: YouTube video with some fun trivia too.
Here's a homemade version that I have done, complete with handy video, it's kind of a fun afternoon: Alton Brown's Marshmallows
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.604409
| 2015-01-06T10:57:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/52326",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"DEE CLARKE",
"E. K.",
"Erica",
"Gina Saperstein",
"Jeff Schroeder",
"Jolenealaska",
"Manish Chouhan",
"Savvas Constantinou",
"Spammer",
"Stephen Foster",
"Walk-in Clinic",
"Wanda Driggers Segura",
"brian jones",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124223",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124224",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124226",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124227",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124232",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124261",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8864",
"mike",
"viv pilling"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
86538
|
Why do chefs in cooking shows not always seem to do things the "right" way?
I've read some books about the science behind cooking, and I've watched videos of chefs like Gordon Ramsey and Jamie Oliver on YouTube. It seems like those famous chefs don't always do things the way I'd expect based on the books.
For example, books mention that for better browning of meat, you should dry the outer layer of your meat with paper towels. When I watch those videos, they never dry with paper towels the outer layer of the meat, but they apparently still get great results. Similarly, books say that adding salt to a bowl of mixed eggs helps them retain more moisture, while Gordon explicitly says you shouldn't salt your eggs because it breaks the yolk's formation and make it lose water.
Why might these kinds of discrepancies happen? Is it possible to get good results without doing everything exactly right, are celebrity chefs just not actually cooking well, or am I missing something?
Okay, I've tried to make this into a less loaded version of the original sentiment. We really don't want to get bogged down in the details of every possible example, but wondering about celebrity chefs making mistakes is relatively common, so hopefully this can serve as a general reference question for that sort of issue.
Even conducting chemical reactions with strict protocols does not guarantee a complete "practical" reproducibility. .....
There's a concept out there of "satisfice" (satisfy + suffice). Basically, it's "good enough" for whatever you're trying to optimize for. And for cooking shows, time is a major factor. I suspect that if they're not trying to cram everything into a 22 minute tv show (once you add the commercials), they're going to cook differently. I personally want to make a cooking show where there are no swap outs, but maybe you speed up time, or have some sort of dissolve like when the TV show "24" went to commercials, with a clock up in the corner so you knew how long things really take.
I have a couple of observations:
"Different" doesn't always mean inferior.
"Best" from a science perspective, doesn't always mean most expedient in a restaurant or home kitchen.
Sometimes the results of the difference between "scientific" best practice, and alternate restaurant or home kitchen practice are not noticeable, unless you compare these results side by side.
There are lots of ways people learn how to cook, and many practices have been handed down through generations. While science is, naturally, the basis of all cooking, it is only relatively recently that people have taken a "scientific" look at cooking and shared those practices widely.
So, you are probably hearing more about "best scientific practice" these days. However, old understandings and practices are hard to give up. People typically use the practice they were taught, because it has worked for them.
Many ways work, but each book or TV host will be prone to the "one true way" fallacy.
@Ecnerwal : I used to think it was pretentious that Emeril would always say how he would do it (there was something about how he said it). I guess I was too used to Nick Stellino who would give multiple options, and how he prepares it for his wife vs for himself, or restaurant vs home
One thing to realize about cooking shows and videos is that they are edited. Very rarely do they show you full details of the process, which is necessary to demonstrate a 45-minute recipe in a 3-minute clip. They may be skipping steps or simply not showing them for the purpose of brevity, even if the chef would typically use them for optimal results.
Another thing that editing obscures is that the finished product you see at the end of the clip is never the exact same food that the chef prepares earlier in the clip. At minimum there are usually three sets of ingredients used: one for the pre-cooking preparation steps, one for the actual cooking steps, and one (prepared off-screen) for the finished product to be shown. There may be many, many others depending on how the clip was assembled. In order to get a television-worthy close-up presentation for a steak, someone (paid less than the big-name celebrity) is likely cooking 3, 10, or 20 to get an optimally appealing combination of outer char/crust, marbelling, and doneness. Some shows even make this explicit - lower-budget shows or recipes prepared on infomercials might actually show the chef placing a dish in the oven and removing an identical, already-cooked dish on the next rack down. Good Eats in particular features many tongue-in-cheek jokes about "TV magic" which play on this trope.
Finally, using less scientifically validated methods (you've dubbed these "inferior", which I think is debatable) doesn't mean that the resulting dish won't still look or taste great. Scientific principles can be a good complement to cooking skill, but understanding the Maillard reaction(s) doesn't directly translate to judging how to flip a steak and when. Chefs can (and do!) use "scientifically incorrect" methods for ages, and the reason they've never questioned them is that they still obtain results that meet their criteria for quality. That's not to say that they can't be made arguably better (more consistent, more appealing, or more efficient) but ultimately you don't need to be reading food science journals to be cooking great food.
Note that cooking shows/demos are highly edited. Things like patting meat may very well be done off camera by preps, not left for a Celebrity/Exec chef to do. For searing, the point is not actually typically (at least as I was taught) to dry the meat. Rather, it is to remove the surface water. Often you will then be taught to salt and let set for a few minutes. One of many reasons is to draw out moisture which will help with getting a better sear on the meat, but it is that fresh protein infused fluid that does the trick, not older water and condensation mixed liquid you earlier wiped off. Again, that is as I was taught and works for me, and other experiences might disagree.
On eggs, that is a controversial one, but typically when you talk about salt helping retain water, you are talking when mixed in. So, a scrambled egg with salt would retain water, but a fried egg it may draw water out, weaken the yolk membrane and make the white more rubber. Seemingly contradictory statements, but it depends greatly on application.
Additional I would note on the general differences between studies of food science such as those put out by Americas Test Kitchen and Alton Brown. In some cases the science is fine, but not really applicable to use as it may take specialty equipment to do, like how many of us can actually afford to build and devote the space to a wood fire oven to get the 800F temps for he perfect pizza once a month? It is more informational as to what you are trying to get close to. In other cases, they may do a side by side test of methods, like what is the best technique for cooking a standing rib roast, but cooking one, and only one, roast each by 3-4 methods and call that definitive. No, that is not science, that is anecdotal. Science is to do that multiple times, and have other people do it multiple times, preferably blind, and get reproducible results. Blind is that those preparing, judging, etc. do not know what they are even testing or the difference in methods, they just put it in the oven, push a button, take it out and compare tastes without knowing the expected results, and do this multiple times to eliminate variations in source product, cook bias, judging bias, atmospheric conditions, etc.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.604691
| 2017-12-19T06:49:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86538",
"authors": [
"Alchimista",
"Cascabel",
"Ecnerwal",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59209",
"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
}
|
58665
|
Why do my cakes taste like cinnamon?
I baked a cake using eggs, butter, milk, vanilla extract, flour, cocoa and baking soda.
I baked it at 450F for 30 mins. I tested it and the knife came clean. It looked okay but tasted horrible, like it contained cinnamon.
Then I tried another recipe which had the same ingredients but I was told to add baking powder. This one was baked at 325F for 30 mins in the middle rack of the oven.
However, when we ate it, it tasted horrible and like it had cinnamon, though I had put no cinnamon in either.
Why are my cakes coming out like this? How do I fix it?
I think at this point my main question is, are you really sure it tastes like cinnamon? If you think cinnamon tastes horrible, maybe you don't eat a lot of it, and you're noticing some other bad flavors and thinking it's just cinnamon? Is the horrible flavor really just cinnamon, or is there something else that you can describe? Do any of the raw ingredients smell anything like the horrible taste that you're noticing in the cake?
What kind of cocoa are you using?
Going back to what Jefromi is saying, what do you think is the taste of cinnamon. To me its spicy, sweet, earthy, and a little bit bitter. If this doesn't sound like cinnamon to you, maybe you are tasting something else.
hi and thanks for answering my problem! It did taste like cinnamon but as Jay says, its more like sour and bitter .. I thought it was like cinnamon but i guess not! I don;t know now!
I am using normal cocoa moscafj .. not dutch processed.
Thankyou all - Jefromi, moscafj and Jay :) Really appreciate it! :D
I think I would suspect the baking soda in the first cake. In the second, I would say it may be the baking soda and possibly the baking powder, depending on the amount used.
From your list of ingredients, I can tell you are missing at least one ingredient.
Sugar
Or any kind of sweetener. Cocao powder by itself is very bitter and acidic. Without the sugar it's not too surprising the cake taste bitter and slightly sour.
I think Jay may be on to something. Next time you bake this cake add 1 cup of sugar for every 4~5 eggs and see if you get the same taste. Be sure to follow typical protocol: cream butter and sugar together, then add eggs one at a time, beating in between each addition. Then add dry ingredients in increments, alternating with milk and extracts.
I would add that a small amount of salt (1/4 tsp.) would also curb the bitterness.
My guess would be its the baking soda. This has a very strong taste and its very easy to add too much. I generally add less in all recipes as im quite sensitive to the taste of it and it completely ruins a good bake! Baking powder also contains soda, and would be the same problem. Taste a tiny bit of your soda plain and see if that is the flavour you are getting, if so, cut down the amount added.
Also i would agree that adding sugar is essential and the lack of it would compound the problem.
Also, raw powdered cinnamon tends to have an adstringent quality that probably explains that association,,,
Did you put sugar in it? Because if you didn't it probably tastes bad because it needs sugar or something that will make it sweet.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.605297
| 2015-06-29T23:33:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58665",
"authors": [
"Bayaan Rusch",
"Cascabel",
"Cindy",
"Dawn Evans",
"Denise Mei Yan Hofmann",
"Edward Krahn",
"Jay",
"Laura Jones",
"Susan Krzymowski",
"Thomas ertman",
"Victor Silas",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139889",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139890",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139891",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139892",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36508",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"moscafj",
"rackandboneman",
"user36508"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
58840
|
What natural emulsifier can I use for almond milk?
I am a vegan and I make my own raw almond milk (blend soaked almonds, strain through a nut milk bag).
The trouble comes when I want to warm the milk for a warm drink or to put in my coffee - if it gets too hot the fat separates from the liquid part and it's really gross. It loses its flavour too.
Is there a natural, vegan emulsifier I can use that will stop this from happening?
I read this the other day, you might find it of interest: http://www.seriouseats.com/2012/01/how-to-make-vegan-mayonnaise-mayo.html
Depends on what you mean by natural, xanthan gum is the best candidate here. It's a product of microbial fermentation and in that regard is no more unnatural than alcohol or vinegar.
Thanks @Stefano, I actually have some at home so I'll give it a try. I guess it would fall into the 'natural' category - no harmful chemicals and not overly refined.
Your best bet for this is xanthan gum, which is an excellent stabiliser. Whilst the distinction between 'natural' and 'unnatural' is fraught with difficulties, insofar as xanthan gum is a product of microbial fermentation then it is no more 'unnatural' than alcohol or vinegar.
Be careful not to use too much though (unless, of course, you want your drink to have the texture of mucus), you really only want to use about 0.4% of the volume of the liquid you're trying to stabilise: so if you have 500ml of milk then you would use 2g of gum. Add it to your liquid and use a blender or an immersion stick to incorporate, a few pulses should do, any more than that and you'll just incorporate air and you could just end up with an annoyingly stable foam!
If you start with some of it frozen, and then whip it up, the foam ends up taking on a milkshake like quality, which you can then put in the freezer to make ice-cream without needing a special ice cream churner.
Nice. Great tip!
@Stefano this solution worked perfectly! I could even use it in the milk frother and it came out beautifully.
Great stuff, glad to be of help!
@Stefano Hi, I followed your instructions (which were great as far as preventing separation from occurring) but with oat milk; however, after refrigerating overnight the oat milk had taken on an almost congee-like consistency. I also had added some rapeseed oil (I'm trying to replicate the Oatly Barista milk and they use rapeseed oil). Do you think the latter could've contributed to this, or could it be too much xanthan gum?
Generally textural problems are down to too much xanthan gum, how accurate are your scales?
I think I need a more accurate one—my current digital scale isn't accurate to fractions of grams. I'll give that a try!
Yeah, that's almost certainly it, you want at at least 1 decimal place.
You can purchase soy lecithin from good cooking suppliers or online, about 0.5% lecithin by volume of fat will emulsify it well. Many soy lecithins are not GMO free
I have not tried soy lecithin with almond milk, but it works for soy milk
For an alternative, try sunflower lecithin, usually available in health food/supplement shops. It is more likely to be GMO free, works as well, and tastes more interesting
As SourDoh, there may not actually be enough fat in almond milk for the emulsifier to hold
How is the breeding technique (genetic engineering) relevant?
You can add things like lecithin or flax seeds to help keep your milk emulsified, but it will still probably separate in hot liquid. To prevent that, you might try to add something fattier to your milk, like coconut.
You would need to grind the flax seeds to get any reasonable release of lecithin, the taste in a hot drink :-/
The flax seeds would be emulsifying via their mucilage, a hydrocolloid. Thorough blending is inherent in making nut milk, so it wouldn't be any extra work, they'd just get blended with the almonds.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.605726
| 2015-07-07T05:43:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58840",
"authors": [
"Elizabeth Condeveras",
"Elizabeth Manuel",
"Evan R",
"Farah Sharif",
"G Oliver",
"Jason Williams",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kathy Parks",
"Linda Ashburn",
"Mari Boggs",
"SourDoh",
"Stefano",
"TFD",
"Wavy Crab",
"bakalubak robert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140390",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140412",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140421",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140526",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140527",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57746",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7552",
"walbuc"
],
"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
}
|
9822
|
Is golden syrup with black around the edges bad?
I had a tin of golden syrup for a long time - longer than I care to admit. When I opened it up yesterday (to sweeten up some mulled wine), it was granular (a bit like honey can be), and black around the edges.
Is this 'bad', or just different?
Is the blackness the result of some chemical reaction with the tin?
And in general, does it eventually go off, or does it last indefinitely?
The black stuff is most likely the crystallised minerals from the sugar. It's normal, and occurs more often if you let the contents dry out
Golden Syrup improves with age according to Heston Blumenthal's "In Search of Perfection". Here he analyses a 70 year old glass jar of Tate and Lyle Gold in the lab finding that the "older treacle contained the same flavour compounds as the normal stuff, but each was intensified".
In his recipe he fakes the ageing process by baking the tin at 70ºC (158ºF) for 24 hours noting that the flavour will continue to improve up to 100 hours.
+1 That validates my point that it does not go off. Also, very interesting, as I always heat my tins in the oven before use with the lid ajar, so that the syrup becomes more fluid for ease of use. Might inadvertently improve the end result!
My favorite saying is When in doubt throw it out. Having said that you should throw that away. The black can either be from the oxidization of the tin or it could be mold growth. In either case golden syrup only has a shelf life of about two years; or one year after being opened, and it should be refrigerated after opening. The granulation could be fixed by reheating but the black is not worth the risk.
Black around the edges makes me wary, too. Granulation is normal.
The black stuff is unlikely to be bacteria, as the extremely high sugar content is pretty antibacterial (the sugar tends to dry out the little beasties). It is susceptible to mold, however, so I'd still think you'd want to pitch it if it's discolored.
Well, it's all gone now, some in the bin, and some in the mulled wine. No untoward symptoms as yet :)
-1 NEVER refrigerate sugar products. They are perfectly persevered in...ummm...sugar. They have exceptionally long shelf lives if keep in a cool pantry, like tens of years!
Just wanted to add a bit of information: http://www.lylesgoldensyrup.com/faq.php The FAQ says not to use past the "Best Before" date.
To answer the question of whether to refirgerate sugar products. Yes you refrigerate sugar products. For more information please check out this article: http://www.survival-center.com/foodfaq/ff9-swee.htm And note that golden syrup is a Cane Syrup, and should be refrigerated after opening. Liquid sugar products are not chemically the same as granulated sugar products and can develop mold growth.
@Varuuknahl: No where on the Lyles tins does it say refridgerate and being from England where everyone tends to have the stuff, I can say I've never seen it refridgerated and people keep the stuff for years, opened, but resealed in tins in ambient cupboards and it is still fine.
@Varruknahl: Additionally - Lyles are bound to say not to use it past the best before date, as they have a vested interest in people buying more tins (and do not wish to be sued in a rare case). "When in doubt, throw it out" is music to the ears of the business people, and deeply wasteful.
@Orbling - I am going to have to go with science on this one as mentioned in the above articles and the manufacturers website. Besides would you risk your kids health on a tin of something that costs less than 10 dollars, I wouldn't, it is not worth it.
@Varuuknahl: Even if it had really badly gone off, due to mould, corrosion, etc, the likelihood of the quantity involved harming anyone's health for more than a few hours would be negligible. Also, $10! I seem to remember it is all import in the US for this product.
Does anyone keep honey in the fridge? I'm no chemist, but the sugar content of honey and syrup must be comparable.
Golden Syrup pretty much does not go off. It is a blend of sugars and preserves as well, it should keep for many years. It will crystallise slightly over time though that can usually be solved via warming.
Bacteria is highly unlikely, mould can form on it - that would be a reason to chuck it out, possibly not all of it. The only serious issue is from the tin itself corroding, which is what the black area could be. I've known households to use that stuff from a 20 year old tin and have no issues whatsoever. It definitely does not need refrigerating any more than sugar does.
Unless you know someone is allergic to mold, it's usually safe just to scrape the mold off the top, and then clean the container. This happens with maple syrup from time to time.
@Chris Cudmore: Aye, quite true. I am allergic to mould myself, so am the special case. But even I occasionally do such things if very careful.
I've just thrown away an open tin of the syrup, as I thought it had a funny aftertaste. Still within the sell by, but open for about a year.
Sweetheart, if you have doubts- just chuck it!
It's not worth a couple bucks to eat something that you think will could make you sick full stop.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.606105
| 2010-12-06T12:13:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9822",
"authors": [
"Ajay Sharma",
"Alison Bremer",
"Anand Kumar",
"Angela Walters",
"Benjol",
"Chris Cudmore",
"Eric D. Fields",
"Ira",
"Jonathan",
"Lisa Galdal",
"Mary Pollock",
"Mrs. Garden",
"Nick Sorbie",
"Orbling",
"Rowan",
"TFD",
"Varuuknahl",
"bikeboy389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138072",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138074",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138075",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20157",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20176",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3577",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75810"
],
"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
}
|
59670
|
How do we decide between gas, induction, and electric (ceramic) stoves?
I'm surprised I only found one previous thread on this topic and it was 5 years old, so i think it's worth asking again since I'm sure some things have changed.
We're going to be remodeling our kitchen very soon. I'm not a professional chef, but i do like to cook. This will be the first time I've had the opportunity to actually pick out what stove to use rather than using whatever came with the house or apartment.
I'm trying to decide which type of stove to get. Gas I have the most experience with and seems like the simplest to use. It's also a bit of pain to keep clean.
The induction cook tops seem very cool, certainly seem to be easier to clean. But i'd have to replace a fair bit of cookware. I'm not really concerned about having to do that - buying a new set of pots and pans will be relatively cheap compared to the remodel.
The ceramic ones - the only reason that seems worth considering is it should also be easier to clean than gas. But it also feels like it would be too similar to those cheap stoves that use those coils - and I hate those things.
Can anyone list more pros and cons of each to help me make a more informed decision. E.g., this one will heat faster, etc. No opinions, just comprehensive facts, please.
I do strongly believe that the previous induction vs gas question covers a lot of this, and that not much has changed since then. But that question doesn't include electric as an option, so I think this is worth reopening.
I would like to point out that what you want to cook can be important to know... If you do a lot of stir-fries and you love your wok, induction isn't a great option unless you get a fancy (expensive) wok hob. Since induction only heats what it touches and woks have no flat base, you're in a bind.
I don't even own a wok (or if i do i don't remember where it is ;) although now that you mentioned it, i suddenly feel like it's important. I can always make do with a large pan. So i don't think a wok would be an issue, but thank you for bringing it up.
Some ceramic stoves control temp by switching the heating element on at off at different frequencies. This can give you a "simmer" that is really a "boil madly for a minute, then cool for a minute". That makes some things cook differently than they would on gas or even old style electric coils.
Just thought I would update this since someone just posted an answer - i went with an induction stove/cooktop from samsung. I'm happy with it. For me the trade-offs with gas were worth it - mainly for the easier clean up. I did attempt to cook with flat-ish bottomed wok once, and only once. A waste of effort. The only significant complaint i have, specific to the brand, is that the markings on the knobs indicating which 'burner' it controls are coming off. Given the choice, I'd go with an induction cooktop over gas.
Aside from the differences in cleaning and price, which are important, I find that the biggest issue for me is actually cooking on the stove.
Gas
This is what you're used to using
The control of it is reasonably accurate (if your gas stove has better control than high/low/off)
The response time is immediate (if you lower the setting, it has immediate effect and less energy is transferred to the pot)
Reasonably energy efficient
Electric (resistive heating)
It's quite a change from gas, requires new cooking habits (mostly due to the response time, see below)
The control is very accurate (on a modern stove you'll have ten power levels)
The response time is quite slow (takes a minute or two to heat up initially. Worse is that changing from power level 8 to 4 takes a few minutes, with the pan being too hot for that time)
Low energy efficiency (relative to the other options)
Induction
Doesn't require a major change in habits, but does require thought (I used to heat a pan with oil on the gas, then lift it to move the oil around to cover the bottom. On my induction stove, picking up the pan turns off the coil after a few seconds)
The control is very accurate (usually ten power levels)
The response time is very fast. Faster than gas on initial heating of the pot, equivalent to gas when turning down.
Reasonably high energy efficiency.
A powerful induction stove can transfer more energy than gas for equivalent safety, as the gas would require a large flame. Simply put, a 3kW induction stove can boil a 5 litre pot of water in about three minutes.
Note that for a good induction and electric stove, you'd probably need a three-phase electrical connection in the kitchen. You should check the model before talking to the electrician, though.
I'm confused about the energy efficiency bit - gas definitely wastes heat out the sides. Are you talking about the price of the electricity vs the price of the gas?
@Jefromi Heat transferred to pot relative to money spent is the ultimate energy efficiency for me, but it's different in every district, depending on the price of gas and electricity. In this case I was talking about heat on pot relative to heat generated/wasted.
I see - my point was that in terms of heat on pot relative to heat generated by the stove, gas seems clearly less efficient than electric. The area around the stove tends to heat up more, and it's especially evident from how hot the sides of the pot get.
The one thing you can do with electricity with 100% efficiency is generate heat, so I'm not sure why you think electric ranges are inefficient.
Induction (I never actually read this, but thought it looked useful; used my own knowledge)
Only work with certain metal pots
Will not burn non-metal items, as long as they haven't had a metal (kid-friendly)
Cost-efficient once installed (if not in CA or other states with expensive electricity)
Easy to clean: water and soap
Gas
Works with all types of pots
Dangerous, may catch items on fire (stay away from curtains, plants, etc)
Generally less cost-efficient than induction stoves (unless in CA or other states with expensive electricity)
Harder to clean: occasional scrubbing is needed
Ceramic (resistive heating)
Works with all types of pots
Remains hot and dangerous for a longer time than induction/gas stovetops
Less control over heat, may burn food or reduce quality
Takes a long time to prepare and heat up
Medium cleaning difficulty: no hard scrubbing, but not just a wipe away; may affect performance if not clean
Brands: There are sooo many brands out there. You might want to check out GE, Home Depot, Sears, and IKEA first. But for ceramic cooktops, a deeper search might be in question.
TLDR: Depends on what you're looking for. Induction is the generally best (cost, safety, maintenance, control) but only works with certain pots.
+1, and: in Australia, with the cost of gas to run a gas cooktop vs. the cost of electricity to run an induction cooktop, gas is cheaper.
That's exactly why I mentioned the price differences. Nice catch @setek !
I'm in california, so elec is somewhat pricey. Although I don't think this would raise our bill too much since it's not like it's going to be in use non-stop. An hour or two a day average is probably about how often it will be used. And most of that would probably be using two 'burners'. I can't seem to find how much elec it would use per hour per 'burner'.
1 great feature with gas is that you can still cook if your electricity is out.
This feature has come in handy on a few occasions but is certainly not a deciding factor.
The only thing that I can think of in the other direction is if you’re in an earthquake area… if you don’t have gas at all, no worries about a broken gas line (and explosion risk). But not so great if the power goes out because of ice storms
I have used all types. Gas is best. Look into any restaurant or commercial kitchen and you will find nothing else. Response time is tops for both raising temperature and lowering. It is also the most energy efficient and lowest cost of operation.
Worst is glass/ceramic cooktop. Heat control is horrible. The glass surface gets very hot and even after you turn it down it stays hot and continues to over cook your food. The control knob does not directly control heating. The glass top has sensors that measure temperature of the surface, then turn the sub-surface heater coils on or off constantly changing from high to off. Totally inadequate for trying to control your cooking temperature. They are terrible to clean. Any tiny drips or accidental boil-overs (because heat response is so bad) causes whatever you are cooking to burn to the surface of the glass. No liquid cleaners will remove. You must either use an abrasive cleaner and scrub, scrub, scrub, or use a razor blade and then an abrasive cleaner. If you only boil water, or use the microwave you can clean a ceramic once and then not use it and it looks ok. Other than that it is worthless. No one who loves cooking could have designed a glass cooktop stove.
Electric resistance coil is actually second best. Works on any type of cookware and is quite controllable. When you turn the control knob up or down it immediately increases or reduces the power to the coils and changes the temperature. A little more difficult to clean than gas, but far easier than glass top.
I have down voted this as it is a mixture of opinion and false information. Further more as it fails to mention induction doesn't ever answer the question.
@404Usernotfound On the other hand, this kind soul finally gave a specific answer about cleaning ceramic glass with a razor blade and not just a vague one i.e. "a pain", like all the other responses in both threads...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.606565
| 2015-08-06T18:38:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59670",
"authors": [
"404 User not found",
"Barbara Whittington",
"Carmi",
"Cascabel",
"Cass Capel",
"Catija",
"Charles Newton",
"David Mc Donald",
"Hazel Marren",
"Joe",
"Katherine thomey",
"Kerry Quinn",
"Leticia Lujan",
"Maria Daigle",
"Ming",
"NOTjust -- user4304",
"OpenAI was the last straw",
"Princanna Rahman",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"andrewgu",
"denise Young",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142612",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142647",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142656",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142657",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142886",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142894",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35947",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37361",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85739",
"merk"
],
"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
}
|
57463
|
How long does unwhipped whipped topping last in the fridge
I have a defrosted container of frozen non-dairy whip topping (specifically, Rich's Rich Whip). How long will it last in the fridge before I whip it?
It's essentially a non-dairy substitute for cream. It comes in a frozen container. You defrost it and then whip it up to make non-dairy whipped cream. Ingredients (from the Rich Whip FAQ):
water, high fructose corn syrup, partially hydrogenated coconut oil, partially hydrogenated palm kernel oil, contains less than 2% of the following: carbohydrate gum, sugar, polysorbate 60, polyglycerol esters of fatty acids, salt, sodium alginate, soy lecithin, artificial flavor, sodium citrate, natural flavor, colored with turmeric and annatto extracts.
According to the proper handling page on Rich's food service page for ready-to-whip products they state (in the last section) that the container should be thawed for 24-48 hours, then whipped. Any leftover liquid should not be re-frozen, but that it can be refrigerated for "up to 5 days."
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.607334
| 2015-05-13T20:17:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57463",
"authors": [
"Aine Quigley",
"Alix Powell",
"Claudia Miller",
"Spence Family",
"byron kelly",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136722",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136723",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136724",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136820",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136821"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4390
|
Are there any savoury dishes using matcha tea?
I know that you can use matcha powder in a similar way to chocolate in sweet foods but are there any savoury dishes you can make with it?
One trend I've seen recently is making tea broths/sauces for meats, fishes, etc... Besides being a good use for tea, this has the double effect of giving off the tea's natural aroma when presented to the eater as opposed to simply using the tea to crust a meat - where you wouldn't really get any tea flavor until you actually bit in.
I've also seen people smoking meats with tea leaves and such. I haven't tried this myself to see if the results are worth the trouble (aka - if you can actually taste the tea flavor).
I would also try poaching various items in a matcha tea poaching liquid. For example:
Water
Sugar + salt
Matcha tea powder
Peppercorns
Bay leaves
Whatever else sounds good to you.
You could use this to poach chicken and fish.
Lastly, don't be afraid to add it to soups! Carrot-ginger soup would benefit from the addition of some matcha powder.
I'd like to mix it in your fried chicken flour/spice mix, dredge it well, and serve with a sesame/mustard dip, or something with a little Asian flare.
1+ sounds interesting
I've made a green tea and garlic cream sauce using matcha, which I thought was pretty nice. It's tricky to pull off, as I learned when someone tried my imprecise steps transcribed and found the result "bland", but I came to the conclusion that it was likely a difference in the amount of salt used.
Matcha-iri Genmaicha, which is a toasted rice green tea that has additional matcha powder for flavor, is sometimes used in ochazuke, a post-drinking food that typically involves a bowl of rice with tea or soup stock poured over, topped with pickles or other flavorful ingredients (furikake, sliced nori, some other things).
Additionally, for a few years, matcha flavored salts were popular in Japan as an accompaniment to tempura. I've bought them or just mixed very finely grained salt with matcha.
I wrote about matcha salt and the green tea cream sauce years ago on my blog.
A classic Japanese snack is chazuke, which is green tea poured over rice. I imagine that it's usually made with lower grade tea, but a matcha might lend some interesting texture to the rice.
You can dig though these (also google) for more, but this looked good.
I've used it in pastries and quick breads before (these pancakes were good).
It might be worth summarising the link content in the answer for usability and to keep the answers relevance if the links become broken
You can check out recipes at Matcha Natural www.matchanatural.com/recipes
they post a ton of helpful recipes including Matcha tea,
also for green tea noodles, pasta, rice etc.
Matcha Natural Recipes
Matcha Natural Baked Recipes
Dear user20678, welcome to the site! We appreciate your contribution, but we generally discourage link-only answers, because they 1) look like spam, and 2) are susceptible to link rot. If you can summarize the content of the links in a few sentences, we will keep the answer, but else we will have to delete it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.607470
| 2010-08-05T22:27:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4390",
"authors": [
"Anders Wendt",
"Andrew Roberts",
"Ashley",
"Joy D.",
"Willbill",
"edsobo",
"emptyflask",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48072",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8269",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8665",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9061",
"joshjs",
"rumtscho"
],
"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
}
|
4890
|
Crockpot recipe when converting temperature from low to high?
I have a crockpot recipe for burritos, located here, that I really want to make. It says to cook the mixture on low heat for 6-10 hours but that is too long/short. I really want to convert the recipe to a high heat so I can cook it quicker. Do you think it is possible to cook this on high? If so would the recipe itself change and how (more/less water required)? How long should I cook it on high?
You can probably get away with high heat, but you need to watch the liquid content. Since you're not cooking something that is liquid and can circulate to heat evenly, you risk burning the food or having it dry out.
I can't see any reason this needs to cook for such a long time. Ground beef is finely divided, so cooking for extended times won't benefit it that much. I'd say bring it to a boil either on high in the crock pot or on the stove, then transfer to the crockpot for 2+ hours (as long as you have).
At high you can cook this for 3 hours. For food safety the key is to get over 140F and up to 160 for ground beef. In my experience with the slow cooker I use, what I recommend will work; but there is variation with slow cookers.
And so you have a reference, according to About.com, One hour on HIGH is equal to two hours on LOW.
Link to source on About.com
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.607735
| 2010-08-11T15:33:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4890",
"authors": [
"JT703",
"Lucas Kauffman",
"Stephen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9433",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9434",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9445",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9446",
"lucia"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4359
|
What are the major differences between yams and sweet potatoes?
I was just wondering what the major difference between yams and sweet potatotes. I know yams are more orange and I love yams!
Actually, yams are often white, and may be purple or other colors.. In the US, what we get labeled as yams are actually sweet pototoes. (They were similar to the african yams that people were used to, and the name stuck, sort of like how 'pepper' is used for chilies, but they're not even close to the same thing.)
update A longer explanation of the confusion between yam & sweet potato in the US.
Sweet potatoes are sweet (as you can guess from the name) and though they can come in a variety of colors, the ones you'll find in the grocery store are generally orange. True yams are usually white and starchy-tasting and generally larger than sweet potatoes. The two vegetables look a little bit alike, but they're from different plant families.
The tricky part, and the reason I say 'true yam' instead of just yam, is that in many parts of North America sweet potatoes are called yams. For example, when people in the U.S. eat candied yams at Thanksgiving, they're actually eating sweet potatoes.
True yams are common in African cooking, where they're often boiled into stews or cooked and ground into paste or powder. Some Asian cuisine features purple yam, which is a sweeter relative of the true yam used in certain desserts.
IMPORTANT NOTE: purple yam is delicious.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.607984
| 2010-08-05T17:30:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4359",
"authors": [
"Jason Baek",
"Jhybe",
"MGOwen",
"Ninjakreborn",
"Yuen Yip",
"eykanal",
"fdierre",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8193",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8195",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9559"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
1111
|
Converting oven recipe to slow cooker
I have a casserole recipe that I generally cook in the oven. I'd like to try it in my slow cooker for several reasons: convenience, timing, opening up the oven for another dish. Is there a general rule of thumb to convert the directions for the oven to an equivalent for a slow cooker?
Roughly speaking, the low setting on a crock pot is 200 degrees Farenheit, and the high setting is 300 degrees.
Crock pot time vs oven time:
4-6 hrs on low = 15-30 min oven
6-8 hrs on low = 35-45 min oven
8-18 hrs on low = 1-3 hrs in oven
In addition to the liquid notes above, you may want to make these changes as well:
reduce the amount of whole/leaf herbs by half
add ground spices during the last 30 min of cook time
you may prefer to brown meat before cooking in the crock pot; it's a flavor & fat issue
add rice or noodles in the last two hours of low cook time
I assume "degrees" mean "degrees Fahrenheit" here, but not absolutely sure. Can somebody who knows it please clarify?
I'm not sure there are any hard and fast rules, however, slow cookers tend to retain liquid better that casseroles, so reducing the amount of liquid by perhaps a third or even a half, is probably a step in the right direction.
What I've done in the past, is find a recipe for the slow cooker, that's similar to one I would cook in a casserole and work around that. It's worked out pretty well, so far. :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.608141
| 2010-07-16T16:57:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1111",
"authors": [
"Dan Hanly",
"Judge Maygarden",
"Jörgen Sigvardsson",
"Olivier Payen",
"Phyllis",
"ThinkingCook",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46031",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46033",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"liz",
"rick schott",
"rumtscho"
],
"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
}
|
3
|
What is the difference between white and brown eggs?
I always use brown extra large eggs, but I can't honestly say why I do this other than habit at this point. Are there any distinct advantages or disadvantages like flavor, shelf life, etc?
Brown eggs are cheaper, at least where I live
The Egg Nutrition Center's FAQ page has an entry on this very topic. Basically, the color of the egg does not affect the egg's flavor, nutritional value, etc. It simply depends on the particular breed of chicken that lays the egg -- white eggs from white hens, brown eggs from brown hens.
It's also worth noting, as the ENC points out:
Generally, brown hens are larger and
require more feed and therefore their
eggs may be slightly higher priced.
Donut must have meant: white eggs from white laying hens and brown eggs from brown laying hens. Leghorn hens lay white eggs. Their feathers can be all white, or all black, or mixed brown.
In addition, there are breeds of chicken that lay greenish or bluish eggs -- these can often be found at farmer's markets.
My dad could tell the different between a cooked white and brown egg by taste along. Although he was the only person I knew that could. Additionally it wasn't a double-blind test, so maybe my mom was tipping him off.
Bron eggs cost more because people think they are good for you (cf brown bread) and so stores can charge more
Cosmetic only, based on the breed of the chicken. When I was growing up we had some South American Aracaña chickens. Besides being able to fly, the two hens laid pale yellow and green eggs. Kind of like pre-colored Easter eggs!
The only difference you might notice would be if you free range eggs instead of factory farm eggs. There is a slight yolk color difference and I think a slightly better flavor. Mine come in a range of colors including green, brown, and white.
Fresh eggs from a free range chicken are to die for. Once you try em you will never go back to grocery store eggs again!
I cannot tell the difference between eggs laid by my free range chickens and those from the grocery store based on the taste. They are both very tasty :)
There difference between white and brown eggs is purely cosmetic. There is no nutritional or taste difference.
Brown eggs, IMO, look cooler, though. ;-)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.608311
| 2010-07-09T19:08:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3",
"authors": [
"Ambuja",
"Chris",
"David Fullerton",
"Diane Odorizzi",
"Eight Days of Malaise",
"JYelton",
"Jim McKeeth",
"Leah",
"Martha F.",
"Martin Beckett",
"Martin Gonzalez",
"Mia Danielle",
"Rambo IV",
"Rebecca Chernoff",
"Robert Cartaino",
"Spammer",
"dassouki",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2309",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4849",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76275",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76276",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/842",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98956",
"papin",
"unintentionally left blank"
],
"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
}
|
84
|
Is there a formula for converting pancake batter to waffle batter?
I have a wonderful pancake recipe that I would like to convert into a waffle recipe. Is there a generally accepted formula for doing this? Based on other recipes I've seen, it looks like the amount of oil is the main difference. Would more flour or other ingredients need to be added to compensate for additional oil? Are there any specific pitfalls to avoid?
After being on meta for a while, I can't take any waffle question seriously ;-)
Add an extra egg and 1/3 cup oil, my waffle recipe uses half baking powder, half baking soda while my pancakes only use baking powder (but when converting a mix I usually just do the egg and oil).
How much flour does this assume?
From 1.25 cups for pancakes to 1.75 cups flour for waffles
Assuming your goal is crispy waffles and tender pancakes, they are fairly different. If you like them really crispy, consider using about 20% cornstarch in place of some of the flour.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.608551
| 2010-07-09T19:37:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84",
"authors": [
"Alejandro Mezcua",
"Dave Bacher",
"Janelle",
"Kiesa",
"Nathan Koop",
"bubu",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/233",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/416",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79",
"sblair"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
3747
|
How do you put out a grease fire?
I recently had a grease fire - the pan caught on fire from a little fat that spilled over the skillet. Is there a safe, quick way to put out a fire like this?
If this happens frequently, e.g. more than once in your life time, then I say it worth investing some money on a fire extinguisher.
@user3528438 In any situation where you aren't trying to trade your home for insurance money, you should have an extinguisher (edit: or a pile of accessible salt) ahead of time as cheap insurance against burning everything down and harming loved ones and innocents. It doesn't matter how often you think the event might occur: accidents are by their nature accidental and you'll need to replace the extinguisher after a single use anyway. It isn't like it will ever pay off in any way except stopping that first fire.
Steps to put out a grease fire
Turn off the source of heat. If the burner / element controls are behind the fire, turn off the gas main or cut electricity at the circuit breaker. Turn off any fan blowing or pulling air around the fire.
Do NOT pour water on it.
Let me say that again: DO NOT pour water on it!
Attempt to remove all oxygen from the flame. You can cover it with its lid, with another pot or wok, or with a baking pan, anything nonflammable. Fire blankets, however, usually cannot handle grease fires.
If you can't cover it, dump baking soda on it... but you need lots of it. Some people below had success with salt. Heated baking soda releases carbon dioxide, starving the fire of air if it's cool enough that it won't reignite. Salt just absorbs the heat and smothers it like a lid. Do not use flour or any flammable powders. Do not throw the baking soda or salt in a way that might spread the fire.
Secret step number 6: If all else fails, use a fire extinguisher. Class K extinguishers are low pressure and meant for grease fires. Aim any other kind of high-pressure extinguisher indirectly so that it won't spread the fire. If the fire seems contained by step 4 or 5, get the extinguisher ready but don't use it if the fire is dying out on its own.
For home cooking, this is the right answer.
For anything bigger, you want a halon extinguisher (preferably an automatic one) or some Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF).
It's amazing what you learn in the navy, isn't it?
@Carmi : You can't get halon in all areas. As a backup, you want something that's rated well for 'class B' fires, but I'd also recommend bouncing it off of the wall rather than spraying straight at the fire, to disipate the energy and not push the fire around, making it larger.
@Tree77 : a word of warning; I was cooking with my neighbor when he had a greese fire in the burner, and we tried covering it with a lid over the burner; It did not work, because on his stove, there was enough of an air gap from under the burner (the whole top of the stove lifted up so you could clean underneath) that the fire kept going, and burned up his stove. If we had gone straight for the fire extinguisher, rather than smothering, we might've been able to save the stove.
Surely "fire blanket" would be an option before extingusher...
@Joe: Obviously, you're right, and not everything is correct everywhere. The main point is that if the fire is hot enough to be burning grease, you can't dissipate the heat fast enough, so you need to smother the fire with soemthing.
The advantage of halon is that once the fire is out and everything cools off, you can just vacuum the stuff away and it doesn't do any damage.
There is a whole art to putting out fires by spraying net to them to dissipate heat and avoid causing thermal shcok to things, but that takes serious training.
I only keep a single box of baking soda in the kitchen - probably not enough for firefighting. Don't use flour instead of baking soda. Flour can be quite flammable.
+1 for attempt to remove oxygen, 2 days ago this happened to me, the fire quickly went out on its own but if it had not, I had no baking soda and no fire extinguisher. Removing oxygen would have been my only option.
@KatieK haha I tried it with flour. Fortunately it didnt light and after the grease fire was out I had a big pile of smoldering flour and had to cover it with a wet towel (which I should have done in the first place).
I'm an arson investigator and I give classes to businesses with our fire extinguisher demo. The participants must supply their own fire extinguishers but they get to practice using them in a controlled environment. Here's the rules for kitchen/grease fires that I teach. When you have a grease fire the first step is to cover the pan. If the controls are on the front of the stove you should turn off the burner, but if the controls are on the back of the stove you don't want to risk a burn reaching for it until you've covered it. Next step...nothing. Leave it alone and let it cool up for quite a while. NEVER EVER EVER move the pan. Even after you've covered it. I can't tell you how many structure fires I've investigated because someone tried to move a burning pan of grease off of the burner. It's almost impossible to move a pan full of any liquid without sloshing or spilling it, then add the excitement of the fire and you're almost guaranteed to end up spreading grease everywhere. Grease and oil heat up to over 300 degrees F. so it will take quite some time to cool off but don't risk moving it. Keep it covered and it will cool off on it's own.
There have been several people mentioning all the "home remedies" to extinguishing grease fires. Never use the wet towel method. Water boils at 212 degrees F. and cooking oils are commonly used at temperatures well above that. The oil will quickly boil off the water in the towel and then you will be left with an oil soaked wick. Halon has been mostly restricted to a few specific fixed extinguishing systems and I haven't seen them used as portable fire extinguishers in a long time. Class B rated fire extinguishers probably won't be very effective due to the higher temperatures which is why Class K fire extinguishers have become the standard agent specifically for extinguishing grease fires. The extinguishing agent in Class K fire extinguishers can withstand the high temperatures and forms a soapy film on top of the grease, it acts like a lid restricting oxygen from the fuel. Class B fire extinguishers will work briefly but the high heat breaks down the agent before the grease can cool below it's ignition point and once the oxygen is allowed to mix with the grease vapors it will re-ignite. Dry Chemical fire extinguishers (not to be confused with dry powder which is for flammable metals) can work on grease fires, but as with most fire extinguishers the agent is expelled at high pressures that will usually splash the grease and spread the fire. Class K fire extinguishers expel the agent at much lower pressures which avoids the splashing effect. Water should never be used in a grease fire. Water boils at 212 degrees F. When it turns into a vapor it expands 1700 times its volume as liquid water. Since grease is well above this temperature when it is burning the water instantly boils and expands causing the grease to be thrown out of the container spreading the fire. Google some frozen turkey - turkey fryer videos to see examples of this.
Baking soda will work, if you can avoid splashing, which is why I don't recommend it. Dry Chemical fire extinguishers, commonly known as ABC fire extinguishers, usually have some form of sodium bicarbonate as the dry chemical agent. Never use flour, it's very flammable. I'm sure there are tons of YouTube videos of this for you to see. The problem with most powders are that when you get any substance in a small enough particle, lots of substances become flammable or explosive. 'Ladder 49' was based off of a grain silo fire which is a very real scenario. It was grain dust that was generated from pulverizing grain in the conveyor process of moving the grain around. Sugar is also explosive in dust form. Google the Georgia Imperial Sugar refinery explosion of 2008.
TL,DR:
Cover the fire with a lid or another pan to exclude oxygen from the grease vapors
Turn off the burner or heat source
Leave it alone until it has cooled off, Do not try to move it.
Class K fire extinguishers were designed specifically for grease fires and are the only fire extinguisher recommended for use on grease fires.
Don't use household powders, most are flammable/explosive when the particles are separated like they are when they are thrown. Google 'flour fireball'
I've never heard of a class K: is that perhaps the same as class F (I'm in Europe)?
I had a grease fire years ago while using my first electric stove. I dumped most of a box of baking soda on it with no visible effect; my wife ran in and hit it with a Halon fire extinguisher, which actually spread the grease and fire against the wall behind the stove! I called 911, and the dispatcher told me to dump salt on the fire. I did - about a cup - and it killed the fire almost instantly.
Baking soda puts out fires by releasing carbon dioxide and smothering the fire, but if your fire is burning violently enough, the convection created by the fire pulls in enough oxygen to offset the smothering effect. Smothering with baking soda could work if you had a bucket of baking soda, but a little refrigerator-size box won't cut it, as I learned through experience. Salt, on the other hand, apparently is a great absorber of heat for its volume. It sucks so much heat out of the grease that it simply can't support combustion anymore.
Bottom line:
Never, ever use a pressurized fire extinguisher on a grease fire.
Baking soda is probably not going to do the trick.
Salt is your friend.
It's been twenty-some years, and I've never had a kitchen fire since (knock on wood!), but I still make sure to have a box of salt within reach whenever I fry anything.
A fire extinguisher isn't necessarily bad, but you have to use it appropriately for the kind of fire you have. Standing right in front of a pan full of grease and shooting it with pressurized anything will obviously spread it all over the place. You need to stand back and use the extinguisher to starve the fire. It may take a little longer than you'd expect.
But salt is 1) incredibly cheap 2) safe 3) almost magically fast. Obviously if you haven't turned off the heat, the oil could flash again - but at least in my (one) experience, half a cup of salt killed the fire instantly.
Daniel is right. Suffocate the fire. DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT attempt to pour water on it. The water will superheat and create a huge fireball of vaporized grease and steam. People have been seriously injured.
Major +1 for the video.
I like the Mythbusters version of why you shouldn't do this better. (First 20 seconds of the video, for scary firey plume montage)
When you add water, it flashes instantly to steam and blows molten oil high into the air, where, suddenly in an O2 rich environment, it bursts into flame. Impressive, and something you never want to happen in your kitchen.
Buy yourself a high quality fire extinguisher, and learn how to turn off the electricity/gas at the source. You can try to smother it, but honestly I don't recommend it if it's anything to really worry about. Oil in a pan isn't going to burn that high. Oil accidentally knocked on the floor is going to burn your whole house.
Turn off the heat source, and wait until the flames subside. Do not move the pan. Do not put anything on or near it that may burn. Do not do anything that might splash oil out of the pan. When the oil is hot enough to burn, you don't want it out of the pan under ANY circumstances...It will IMMEDIATELY burst into flame.
Smother with lid, fire blanket or wet (wet you plonker!) cloth. Then, yes, use the extinguisher.
On the extinguisher front:
Yes, you can use an extinguisher to put out grease fires, but be careful. There are different kinds of extinguishers. Check that the one in your kitchen (or the one you're likely to use) is the right kind before any kind of fire.
Water extinguisher: Fortunately there aren't too many of these around now. Water extinguishers should NEVER be used in a kitchen. Between grease fires and electrical fires, it's almost universally the wrong extinguisher to use.
CO2 - (High pressure carbon dioxide) Extinguisher: These are the most common you'll find, and recognizable by the big "horn" dispenser. CO2 extinguishers work by removing oxygen, but can disperse quite quickly. They are also under pressure, so don't get too close to the source of fire when using a CO2 extinguisher. You don't want to "blow" the oil out of the pan. The big plus with this type of extinguisher is that the CO2 evaporates (it makes a kind of CO2 snow) so very little damage is done other than damage caused by the fire. Caveat: These extinguishers can be useless outdoors, or in highly ventilated environments. CO2 is great for really small indoor fires before they get out control. The "snow" coming out the extinguisher is cold (think dry ice) and some stuff (especially electronics) doesn't like the extreme cold, but on balance it's the best indoor extinguisher, though like all pressurized extinguishers, dangerous if improperly sprayed directly at burning liquid.
Dry-Powder Extinguisher (The powder is usually bicarb): These extinguishers works by removing the oxygen and smothering the fire. They are good for outdoors, and work on pretty much any kind of (small) fire, including kitchen fires and electrical fires. However, the retardant doesn't evaporate, and powder extinguishers do make a mess. A 9 kg extinguisher (typical size) contains 9 kg of bicarb. While these extinguishers have a "trigger nozzle", they are notoriously leaky, so once started most of the 9 kg is going to be released. Also dry-powder extinguishers need regular (annual) servicing to prevent the contents from caking and rendering the extinguisher useless.
Obscure extinguishers: Halon and BCF extinguishers were popular because they have all the benefits of CO2, but aren't "cold," so they're a lot kinder to electronics. They're also CFCs, which have gone out of fashion for environmental reasons. And both are brutally expensive compared to CO2. Unless saving the electronics is critical, like say on a nuclear submarine, they're overkill for a home or office environment.
Bottom line: In a home situation I would recommend CO2 for most rooms, plus Dry-Powder for the kitchen.
Most importantly - if you use an extinguisher, remove the heat source as well. In the case of CO2 if the fuel is still hot, then it can reignite when the CO2 dissipates.
Lastly - after any extinguisher has been used - even for just a squirt - it must be replaced. Water and Dry Powder are "one-use" extinguishers, even with a trigger, and while control on a CO2 extinguisher is much better it must, must, must be replaced (recharged) after even a single use.
+1 for mentioning the wet cloth/tea towel trick. Fast, easy, safe and effective.
See MikeJ's comment for a rebuttal to the wet towel suggestion ... it only works for really small fires, and if it's dripping wet, can make things worse. (and this reminds me ... I need to recharge or replace my extinguishers)
Do not use water.
You have to suffocate it. Turn off the burner (obviously), Find a tight fitting pan lid and put it over the flame tightly. If it's on the stove and not in a pan, you can still use a pan lid to suffocate it, you just might have to get a little creative about how you cover it. A pan, wok or any sturdy, non-flammable cover would work as well. Anything that can cut off their air supply.
Fire extinguishers will work as well if it's too big to fit under a pan lid, pan or other handy cover. If you don't have a fire extinguisher and it's that big... call 911 (or your location's equivalent), you're in trouble.
Smother the fire with a fire blanket (or any sheet of fire retardant material)
Turn off power supply / gas
Leave the blanket in place and call help if necessary
and to follow up on @user34961 the reason is—regardless of what your poster's art shows—almost none of them are actually strong enough to handle a pot full of grease fire on their own. Maybe they'd help if all you have is one plus a heavy-duty wok: use the upside-down wok to do most of the job and the blanket to help cut off air along the sides but not trying to handle the fire itself.
First of all try to stay calm so you can make sound decisions. I had a pan of bacon grease spill all over the bottom of my oven so i turned it off and figured it would burn off....that is until it started to get too big for comfort. Meanwhile, i quickly drenched and totally saturated several kitchen rags and towels, and carefully opened oven. With oven mittens i quickly removed the racks and without the racks in the way, took each corner of the kitchen towel and tried to lay it evenly over the bottom of the oven. Did that with two staurated towels and the fire went out instantly. I then removed towels and after my heart rate went back to normal, i turned the oven back on andmonitored that the fire would not come back. All was good. No fire came back.
@user34961 It really isn't a different kind of fire. Bacon grease is just lard, which absolutely gets used in the same ways as oil and shortening. Hell, it's the reason grease fires are called grease fires instead of oil or fat fires. Otoh, yeah, David should've provided more context and gone out of his way to make it clear that this only works on small fires that can quickly be completely cut off from oxygen before they burn through the cloth... and several other techniques are better if at all possible since you're risking making things much worse.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.608707
| 2010-07-30T02:20:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3747",
"authors": [
"Barbaradev",
"Brennan Vincent",
"Carmi",
"Cerberus",
"ColinYounger",
"J. Win.",
"JD Isaacks",
"Jackie",
"Jason Rikard",
"Joe",
"KatieK",
"Lisa Rammell",
"MT_Head",
"Megan",
"Purag",
"Ralph from Texas",
"Ray",
"Ritesh Singh",
"Rowland Shaw",
"Vince Bowdren",
"ceejayoz",
"gman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1306",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33420",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33430",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33472",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57440",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6840",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6844",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6854",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/771",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83755",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83757",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83781",
"jameshfisher",
"jinzhihao",
"lawrence",
"lly",
"user3528438"
],
"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
}
|
3760
|
What are the differences between the grades of maple syrup?
You can get maple syrup in different grades, but what defines the difference between the grades? Why is one syrup grade A and one grade B?
Historically, these grades were established before white cane sugar became inexpensive and common, so the "best" maple syrup was the least strong, or Grade A. Now we seek out that maple flavor on corn flapjacks or waffles, so the "best" maple syrup is Grade B.
I find that the best pancakes are made with 2/3 cornmeal to 1/3 whole wheat or buckwheat flour (or any wheat flour, really) rather than just pancake mix. The cornmeal makes them crisp. And Grade B maple syrup, of course.
The grades reflect how much light can get through some standard quantity of maple. The darker maple syrups tend to have a stronger maple flavor and tend to be harvested later in the season. The collected sap needs to be concentrated and purified to make the syrup, which is traditionally done by boiling and skimming off impurities.
The USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) and the CFIA (Canadian Food Inspection Agency) have similar grades for maple syrups:
The CFIA standard requires measuring the grades using green light (560nm) light.
There is also a Grade C maple syrup that is only sold for commercial purposes, not for consumer table use. It's very strongly flavored and often used as a flavoring agent in other products.
The grades of Maple syrup indicate depth of flavor and amount of light transmittance. Grade A is the lighter with Grade B being darker. The letters are just a means of indicating variance of flavor/color, not a judge of quality. Lighter grades are usually used on pancakes, waffles, etc. while Grade B is best as an ingredient in cooking/baking due to the deeper flavor. I prefer Grade B myself but it is generally not widely available outside of New England without purchasing via mail order. Trader Joe's markets usually carry it however.
Lighter syrups are usually the result of earlier harvested saps and the darker ones are from later harvest. Time of season and changes within the trees is what will determine the color/flavor, not the boiling process.
Grade B is also easily available in Ontario and Quebec.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.610107
| 2010-07-30T03:31:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3760",
"authors": [
"Alex B",
"Allison",
"Angus",
"Augustus Kling",
"CodeCompileHack",
"Martha F.",
"Mosab Ibrahim",
"Oddthinking",
"Robert P",
"Sverre Rabbelier",
"gdelfino",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14813",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14907",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14908",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6864",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6865",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6880",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6890",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7084",
"kipkoan",
"loevborg",
"ycshao"
],
"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
}
|
7106
|
Is there a safe way to remove items that have fallen into a Garbage Disposal?
I've always been told to never reach into a garbage disposal, for obvious reasons, but always seem to drop items in that I don't want to risk ruining the blades with by grinding them. Is there a tool(s) that can be used to efficiently retrieve items from a disposal?
I always used to reach in and grab stuff, but I would always put a piece of tape over the switch first.
Circuitry can't just turn itself on; the machine is controlled by a switch.
If the switch is not flipped on, the circuit is not complete and the machine will not run.
Our switch is up on the wall, under a cabinet. There is no chance of something hitting that switch accidentally, so I just reach in when something falls down the drain.
If I thought there was even a chance that the disposal could turn on, I would never reach in there.
If someone knows more about electricity and knows, say, that a lightning storm or some other factor could cause a sufficient boost of electricity to bypass the switch, please share. I really don't want to be unsafe!
@JustRightMenus: Yea, I reach in all the time too. The whole circuit breaker thing is excessive. Any such surge would have likely flipped the breakers or fried your fuses. It's not as "safe" as unplugging it obviously, but I'd bet you're more likely to get in a car accident than have a freak garbage disposal accident.
The more likely thing is for someone to not realize you have your hand in it and bump the switch. There is a woman who lives a block from me who lost several fingers in a garbage disposal, though I've never asked her exactly how it happened.
With the switch, you're right there if someone comes up to you -- with the circuit breaker, it's not in the same room, so there's a chance of someone coming in and flipping it on because you shut off power to something else. (at least in my old house -- I'm not sure about the disposal, but some of the outlets in the kitchen are on the same circuit as two of the bedrooms).
... and if you're afraid o power surges; don't do it in an electrical storm, or if the power's out.
@Joe - I'm advocating turning off both the switch and the circuit breaker. To me, having both a belt and britches when my fingers are on the line is cheap insurance.
The formal methodology for protecting yourself against inadvertent machinery turn-on is called "lock out tag out". It's probably overkill for this use. One place I stayed had the switch in the cabinet under the sink, so when you were reaching down there your legs prevented anyone from getting to the switch. Good deal.
Ah ... right ... lockouts ... one of my friends got some 440 when someone decided to cut his lockout on the circuit panel when he was working in an outbuilding what was fed from the main building's panel. Lockouts aren't a failsafe either when you've got stupid people around.
::scoops jaw off of ground, then scoops it up again:: @Joe: I'm flabergasted. Lock-out does have a human element; namely "Don't remove other peoples locks". I do hope the miscreant was fired for cause. I do pretty safe work---on order of 1% of my time is spend mucking about with power equipment or high voltages or cryoliquids or horribly toxic materials---but I take safety precautions seriously.
@Michael at Herbivoracious: A good piece of tape over the switch, holding it in the off position, will help protect against accidents.
I suppose the motor could be on and straining against whatever is in there, ready to move when you pull it out; but it would probably make noise.
Whatever you decide to use, unplug the garbage disposal first if possible, or turn off the circuit breaker it is connected to. This makes absolutely sure it can't be accidentally turned on. It is the same principle taught in shop class before changing the blades on the table saw and is well worth the extra few seconds of effort.
the difference with the saw in shop class is that in a crowded environment, especially half full of young people who'd rather be doing anything rather than paying attention, your danger of a bumped switch is greatly increased. You're still in no danger if the switch is off. Important disclaimer: My post above is NOT meant to be the end-all be-all of electronic advice, but it is practical advice for disposals. There are MANY other times when care must be greatly elevated when messing with electronics.
Obviously, there is NO harm in following Michael's advice. I just find it excessive.
Well, definitely don't turn it on while your hand is down there :)
Seriously though, practically speaking, the disposal is physically incapable of turning itself on or causing you damage when it is off. It is turned on by a switch (like a light switch). What happens when you flick the switch is that a circuit is completed -- this is what turns it on. When the circuit is incomplete, electricity cannot travel to the disposal. In theory, a strong enough electric surge could theoretically "arc" and act momentarily as though the switch were on, thus closing the circuit. However, in practice, this would (as Hobodave mentioned) either fry your fuse (causing it to not come on), fry your disposal (causing it to never come on again), or throw your circuit breaker (causing it to not come ever again on until you reset the breaker).
(Any electronics people, please forgive the simplicity of the above. I am intentionally trying only to convey the practical truth and am trying to avoid the full lecture on electronics.)
This is not to say that there couldn't be something dangerous in this dark tight space (like a blade, or broken glass) but this is always a potential concern. If you're careful and slow, there is no danger to reaching in as deep as your hand will allow into a disposal. The first time you do it, you will get the willies when you feel those disposal blades, but be careful and you'll be perfectly safe to do this by hand. If your hand is not small enough to fit into the opening, find someone whose hand is small enough. The space down there is tight and oddly shaped. I have thin hands which have been down there way too many times and I can promise that there is likely no tool which can navigate the weird angles and retrieve your lost item.
Edit: OChef appears to mention such a tool: http://www.ochef.com/products/alligetter.htm
OChef? surprise surprise...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.610663
| 2010-09-11T04:02:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7106",
"authors": [
"BlueBerry - Vignesh4303",
"Chuck",
"Dinah",
"J Gauthier",
"JoceR",
"Joe",
"Junaid Saeed",
"JustRightMenus",
"Michael Natkin",
"Miles",
"Miroslav Franc",
"Noumenon",
"Prasith Govin",
"Sam Holder",
"Sveetly",
"barneco",
"derobert",
"dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14494",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14503",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14783",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35427",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84989"
],
"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
}
|
653
|
What can I substitute for eggs in cookie recipes?
I'd like to make some biscuits (cookies), but I have no eggs, and I don't want to leave the apartment.
Can I use something else instead of the eggs? I'd like answers that will work for most cookie/biscuit recipes.
(Editor's note: yes, there are also plenty of cookie recipes without eggs - this question is about substitutions, not those recipes.)
+1 for trying to avoid leaving the apartment. I can relate.
closely related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21427/what-can-i-substitute-for-eggs-in-a-pancake-recipe and http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21454/should-flax-seeds-be-crushed-to-be-a-good-egg-substitute
Looking at the answers posted, the question has become a random list of recipe suggestions. So I am closing it as opinion based - there are indeed too many ways to make cookies without eggs.
@rumtscho: The top voted answer is NOT a recipe. And I’ve used it in dozens of different cookie recipes for hundreds of batches, so it is NOT opinion based
@rumtscho Seems also reasonable to read this as a substitution question, and simply delete all the answers that give recipes instead of actually recommending a substitution, since they're not really answering the question.
@Cascabel and Joe I agree that a substitution question wouldn't need to be closed. The problem I see is that, so far, the vast majority of answerers interpreted it as a recipe request. Do you have a suggestion how we could reword it, so we don't keep getting this kind of answer after reopening?
@rumtscho Just make it ask for substitutions, like most of the related questions :) If people still post recipes, they can be deleted; don't have to let those posts ruin a good time. I've edited in that vein and reopened, and I do think that it's probably better to try that approach first, before closing questions.
There's a replacement, but it's not an ingredient most people have sitting around -- flax seed.
I use it when I'm cooking for a few of my friends who are vegans. Grind up some flax seed in a coffee grinder. For each egg, take 1 TB of flax seed meal, and 3 TB of water. Stir it up and let it sit for a while -- it'll get kinda slimy. Use that in place of the eggs.
Obviously, this won't work for anything where the whites and yolks are used separately, but I've used it for years for Christmas cookies -- the only problem is that the dough doesn't hold together quite as well when you're dealing with refrigerator cookies.
update: it's also a good idea to make friends with your neighbors. I've known the folks living in one of the houses behind me since high school ... we've been known to call each other up when we're short on sugar / flower / eggs / milk / vanilla, etc.
You may also want to increase the baking powder in the recipe, as eggs also have a leavening effect, which is sometimes desired. It often is not so simple as 1 egg = ____ because eggs are used for different reasons in different recipes. Think about what the eggs are doing and try to replace the function.
This is a pretty good page of vegan egg substitutions.
I know that people complain about ‘link only’ answers, but the article actually gives different lists depending on the application. I’ve asked the Internet Archive to index it, to prevent link rot: https://web.archive.org/web/20220621145235/https://cooking.lovetoknow.com/vegan-egg-substitute-list-different-dishes
You can substitute canned pumpkin for eggs.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.611233
| 2010-07-11T19:24:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/653",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Joe",
"Nate",
"SourDoh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1453",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/280",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"kevins",
"nils_gate",
"pritaeas",
"rumtscho"
],
"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
}
|
21411
|
What differences are there between Chia and Flax Eggs?
In substituting Flax Eggs (milled/ground flax seeds in a water slurry, after they congeal) for regular eggs, I have found them to be a versatile aide in baking and thickening any number of dishes.
I have begun to hear tell of using chia seeds instead of flax or something like Ener-G egg replacer. Can chia be used in the same fashion once the seeds are ground as flax?
Is the chia composition the same as a flax egg (1 part milled flax seed to 3 parts water, in slurry)?
Do they set the same, i.e. congeal in the same time?
Can they be mixed for super supplement-y egg substitutes?
What differences are there in how you make or use them, and which is preferred for different uses (if either)?
With flax seeds I like using 1T of seed (ends up being 2.5T of powder) to 3T of water, and use it for thing that are suppose to be light like cake or something that needs a nutty flavor.
But with chia seeds I use exactly 1T of powder to 3T of water (ends up looking like egg whites) and use it in brownies, cookies and so on. Also chia doesn't add flavor like flax does.
**For me chia is definitely stronger.
The first time I used a chia egg I thought it was like a flax (1T seed = 2.5T powder) but I was wrong, my baked good came out very dense in the middle and tasted raw. You can still use a chia but you have to be exact.
Also a chia egg will become very thick and gloppy once it's mixed with water whereas a flax just get gooey.
Do you have any experience comparing how the gelling power of the two differs, i.e. if you use flax in lighter dishes, is it because it provides lift, or maybe chia is stronger?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.611535
| 2012-02-16T17:18:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21411",
"authors": [
"Jay M",
"Spammer",
"T. Green",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47361",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47363",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47410",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54284",
"kimberley",
"mfg"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
1380
|
How do you organize your recipes?
I am thinking of collecting and organizing recipes that turned out to be good.
The first thought I had is to write down the recipes in a word processor, print them out and collect them in a thin ring binder. My system would have only one recipe per page (including simple to complicated versions). I would make handwritten notes on the printed recipe whenever I feel the need to update it. Eventually, I would modify the recipe in the word processor if there are too many handwritten notes. This way, I would keep a clean and tidy recipe book for reference. What do you think?
How do you organize your recipes? What works best for you and what does not?
I hadn't started it, they all are in my mind still.. You give me a good idea.
you might want to check http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/98/digital-recipes-storage
I am now looking into evernote.com. I will try it for a while and see how I go.
Alton Brown recommends the system you mention, with the addition of plastic page protectors to protect your printouts while you are cooking.
I've started keeping mine on a wiki. Google Docs would probably be a great alternative for someone who doesn't want to set up a server somewhere.
Thats awesome, I love this idea. The hard part for me is how to get my girlfriend to use it.
Even with minimal/occasional participation, our extended family wiki works very well.
I publish most recipes I try and like on my blog, and then I save the link in a dedicated Delicious account using tags for all the ingredients, style of cooking, country of origin and whether it entered into my limited range of favourite recipes.
Using Delicious also has the advantage that as I surf around the web and come across something nice to try I can save it away tagged with for example "TryThis" for easy retrieval when I need inspiration for something new.
The majority of my favorite recipes come from www.allrecipes.com so my collection naturally lent itself to a binder system. I put all of my recipes in page protectors before putting them into the binder. In additional to making everything uniform, it has prevented cooking spills from making a mess of the recipes.
To make recipes easy to find in the binder, I organized the recipes with 5 large colored dividers and 30 numbered dividers. I then made a table of contents corresponding to the dividers. The color dividers represent a dish type (i.e. appetizers, soups, main dish, desserts, etc) and the numbers will represent a sub type (i.e. beef, poultry, pasta, etc). To make things easy, I put a table of contents at the front of each dish type section.
If you become a member of allrecipes you can save your own recipe in their recipe box tool. You can also modify recipes on their site and save them to your box. I usually prefer to have mine printed out, so I really only use their recipe box as a "bookmark' or "favorites" tool.
I use a Wiki now and used to use a phpBB forum. There are free Wikis on the Internet, e.g. Wikispaces and Wikidot. Forumer provides free hosting for phpBB forums.
I use http://pasplore.com
It is an online digital cookbook that does not require you to open up, or copy and paste when you find a recipe. It has a button of its own and extracts not just the webpage, but the actual recipe and stores it to the cookbook and category of your choosing.
I prefer to have a printout or written recipe, rather than store them online. I like the idea of compiling them on the computer and then adding handwritten notes etc to an actual printout. If I had them solely on the computer or online I know I would find it too annoying to go look for them and I don't trust my memory to do more complicated recipes without having it in front of me.
I don't have a lot of confidence while cooking yet, so for me compiling an actual set of sheets of recipes to consult would be the best way.
I keep all my recipes on http://www.justrightmenus.com - and you could, too! Just create a login and start adding. There are many community recipe sites that allow you to create a "recipe box", if you will, of recipes you like or that you personally have added.
On justrightmenus.com, the recipes are organized both alphabetically and by category (chicken, easy, vegetarian, etc.).
Another great site is epicurious.com.
In both these cases, the solution is electronic. If you cannot easily access a computer (or iphone-type device) from your kitchen, they won't work as well for you.
I use two systems. First, for my complete recipe collection I use MacGourmet. This keeps track of everything that I like or want to try. I will enter things into MacGourmet from magazines and cookbooks so that I have a single repository to find things.
Second, I keep a 3-ring binder with plastic sheet protectors. This binder contains basically my "everyday" cookbook. Recipes that I make often enough that pulling out the computer would be a pain. This binder is organized by course mostly. When I make things I can just pull out the plastic sheet protector and put it on the counter while I cook.
I don't keep recipes at all, instead I work to learn the fundamentals of something (cookbooks, TV, internet), and then apply the techniques based on the ingredients and my fancy.
That said, for the small number of food facts and dish ideas I can't fit in my head, I use a moleskin notebook, as well as aa binder for family classic recipes (to pass on to my kids). I also research a specific technique before applying it (braise), though once learned it's just a matter of reminding myself the next time I need it.
I just use a blogspot blog to post them on, works pretty well.
I focus on learning underlying principles so I am free to ad-lib my way through my pantry. This approach releases me from the struggle to conquer organization in yet one more area of life, and provides a happy outlet for my half-scientist, half-artist brain. The main two resources I rely on continuously are
1- the book, "On Food and Cooking: the Science and Lore of the Kitchen" by Harold McGee. The original edition first came out in 1984...so this is pretty much an industry standard for understanding how food and fire work together.
2- the website, www.cooksillustrated.com. There's an annual membership associated with this site, so it's not for everyone -- but it provides a wonderful service to us intuitive chefs. Every kitchen task imaginable is tested in almost countless ways, and their results are provided in simple, engaging formats. Their site is easy to navigate, as well.
I've started adding mine to pinterest. And I can add as many groups as I like, one for desserts, one for chicken, etc. The only downside is that if a link I've added goes inactive.
I keep most recipes in an Evernote notebook. If I'm planning a big meal I add a tag to the recipes I'm going to make and then save a custom search so everything is one place.
I have an index card box and write the recipes on individual cards. Doesn't take up as much space as a binder.
I have some recipes stored in SousChef on my Mac, a pretty good recipe program. Some recipes I get from various recipe sites, and if I want to make them again I'll go back to the site. A lot of times I just wind up making a dish by looking at various recipes for the dish and picking and choosing parts from each, making sure to include the common elements. Then their are my main dishes, those that I make on a fairly regular basis, where the recipe only exists in my mind.
I use SousChef for OS X. Plenty of online recipes.
This just popped up on my feed this morning: http://www.goodlifeeats.com/2010/07/making-magazine-recipe-binder.html
I also use instapaper.com to quickly snag and store recipes that I read online (I've got a recipe folder on instapaper).
I don't. I let google do that for me. =)
For most recipes that's what I do, I know where I got them in the first place, so when I google for it again I sort of know which result has worked before.
My mom will print them and leave them all in a drawer for (not so) easy access.
I use my iPad in the kitchen. All of my personal recipes are text files in a DropBox folder in a markdown-like format. I wrote an iOS app to view and edit them, but I can also edit or view them directly as text files. When cooking from a book, I will take a photo of the page with my iPhone and then view it on the iPad for cooking. This keeps the book from getting soiled, and creates a permanent record of the recipes I've used. If I cook a recipe from a book frequently, I will retype it into my collection as text file. I will sometimes use the iPhone when shopping to double check a recipe to make sure I don't leave out ingredients.
You could use Evernote in a similar fashion, but you might want to consider a paid subscription so you get offline access on the iPad/iPhone.
To keep a record of things I've cooked, I use a google calendar (shared with my wife, who does most of the data entry). It seems to play nicely with iOS and it has a nice web interface and API. (We also have a calendar of Restaurant visits.)
I'm using Springpad. Coupled with the Chrome browser extension, it's lightning fast to send something to my recipes notebook, or look something up and add notes to it. The learning curve was a bit steep, but since I was already using it for general organization adding recipes to it was basically painless.
I organize my recipe in http://www.howdoeshedoit.com/recipes.php. Also to get good reviews and ratings of our recipe...
Welcome to Stack Exchange even though you're probably long gone by now. This doesn't answer the question or offer any reasoning; it reads more like spam trying to promote a web site.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.611742
| 2010-07-17T08:29:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1380",
"authors": [
"Alex Basson",
"Chris",
"Cornelius",
"Himadri",
"Jim Rush",
"John Roberts",
"Jon Hadley",
"Kenny Rasschaert",
"Lucero",
"Maayan Lamdan",
"Marco Blauth",
"MargeGunderson",
"Markus",
"Matt Enright",
"Pez Cuckow",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2500",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2538",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2586",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2612",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4587",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4604",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4639",
"melaos",
"sorin",
"tetri",
"zanlok"
],
"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
}
|
3047
|
How do you make General Tso's chicken as generally found in the Eastern USA?
I realize this is a recipe request, but I'm hoping that the supplemental information will be enough to let it through. I also realize it's rather localized and apologize to all of those who don't know what I'm on about.
So, I am a huge fan of General Tso's chicken. I grew up on the east coast of the USA in the DC/VA area. Every dish of General Tso's was more or less the same: breaded deep fried chicken, a spicy, thick, reddish brown sauce with a hint of sweetness, chili peppers, sesame seed, and broccoli.
Since moving to Chicago I have been unable to find this style of General Tso's. Out here the sauce is runny, brown, sickly sweet, and barely spicy. They also put all kinds of random crap (vegetables) that I don't want in there. I've tried this dish in L.A., Seattle, and Phoenix and it's all similarly gross. I've even had one where the chicken wasn't breaded!
The dish I want to know how to make looks like this:
I realize D.C./VA is a rather specific area, but since this dish originated in New York City, I imagine that it didn't get butchered much migrating 200 miles south. So, while I haven't had NYC General Tso's I imagine that it's quite similar, or at least much closer than the mess I have out here in the midwest.
Update
I'd prefer first-hand knowledge to a top 3 Google hit.
I usually went for other dishes, but the times I had General Tso's growing up in the Detroit metro area sounds like what you described. So you may have to go only a few hours east :). http://www.urbanspoon.com/r/19/233742/restaurant/Detroit/Kim-Toa-Warren
Not exactly convenient. :P
@hobodave: closer than VA/DC/NY
In Montreal area, this is called General Tao chicken and it is the way you describe it from the DC/VA area.
There's a little strip-mall chinese joint near here that makes a nearly perfect General Tso's chicken. Flavorful, spicy, crunchy. I order it at least 75% of the time. I would love to have a great recipe of this dish also.
@Tim: Ask for their recipe and share? :D
hobodave, if this question ( http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1241/whats-a-good-recipe-for-us-style-teriyaki-chicken-closed)
was closed, then I'm going to have to vote to close your question as well:
I think you might be able to get away with it if you posted a recipe you have tried, and pointed out the flaws in it, then you might be able to solicit suggestions for modifications. But in its current form it seems too localized (only a few places in North America) and too subjective (the only real answer correct answer depends on your taste buds). as well as being borderline off topic. So apart from not being an exact duplicate, being about the site and actually being a question, you have hit all of the reasons to close :-). Good work ;-).
@Sam: I'd just like to point out a few significant differences between the two posts. I don't pose it as a "what is a good", nor "what is the best" question. I've listed most of the ingredients in it. My region isn't a "few places", as stated by myself and indicated by commenters it covers nearly the entire eastern seaboard of North America, as far inland as Michigan. I'd hardly call that too localized, as opposed to an interstate exit in a single city. However, it's your vote to do with as you please.
@Sam: I suggest you read http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49/restaurant-mimicry-questions-allowed and voice your opinions there, or start a new meta if you don't feel this quite fits into that mold.
@hobodave, maybe as a non american part of a country seems a small area to me. Agreed that it is not a 'what is a good' or 'what is best', but I still feel that it would be better phrased as a 'how can I fix this so it is more like X', and would have a wider audience even if they had never eaten the actual dish in question. Also part of me feels that as you are highly reputable, it may be seen as favouritism for 'the in crowd' and maybe that is clouding my judgement
@Sam: When talking about regional food, too localized is a bit of a farce, as I'm sure most people would agree. There are sweets found only in West Bengal. Does that mean discussion about Bengali sweets is not allowed here because they are too localized? what about szechuan food? As a cooking Q&A site, I would expect it to be slightly more open to such questions.
PS. West Bengal is 1/25th the size of New York State, and Vietnam is about the size of the East Coast. Henceforth, I suggest we vote to close Vietnamese and Bengali cuisine questions as too localized...
@Sam: I disagree with you in this case because the OP (hobodave) has provided objective criteria for evaluating the answers. Specifically, there are criteria for the colour, spiciness, and basic ingredients. I am intimately aware of the differences between what dave is referring to and the generic "General Tso" you find on recipe sites and many restaurants. This is a difficult question with an objectively correct answer, whereas "U.S. Style Teriyaki Chicken" can actually refer to any number of different dishes, and the only criteria given was "damn good."
@Aaronut, @Sam, and @hobodave... shouldn't this discussion be happening in meta? That way it's preserved for posterity and not just in the comments of a question? We should want to be able to point to it when similar situations arise in the future.
@Aaronut, @Sam, and @hobodave, here is the relevant discussion that happened on meta: http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49/restaurant-mimicry-questions-allowed/70#70 From the criteria listed there, this question looks like it's on topic.
@Mike: You are correct. I tried to steer it there earlier.
@hoboodave, I see your link to it there now buried in this wall of comments. My mistake :-)
I started a new thread on meta for the discussion of this as I didn't feel that the existing one linked to already quite fits the bill. http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/376/what-defines-too-localized
@hobodave: omg, why did you have to include the pic??? This is one of my favorite guilty pleasures ever and now I can't stop thinking about it.
The image included doesn't work. Firefox says it cannot be displayed as it includes errors. I tried rehosting it to SE's standard image host, and it refused, saying that it was not a valid image file.
Many restaurants actually serve a "light" version of the Tso sauce, and I have a pretty strong feeling that's what you're used to.
To make the light version, you use 3x the corn starch and add 1/2 cup of the base liquid (usually chicken broth).
The hint of sesame almost certainly came from toasted sesame oil, my favourite "secret ingredient" that goes into just about every Asian stir-fry.
To get a more consistent flavour for the sauce, instead of using "minced" garlic, you might want to grate it using a fine rasp, if you have one. This will definitely help to bring out the flavour of the garlic and subsequently the spiciness of the sauce.
Grated orange zest is another common additive, and although it's traditionally labeled as a different recipe ("General Tso's Chicken with Orange"), some restaurants sneak it into the regular recipe. If you remember any hint of orange, try adding about 1 tsp of this.
Finally, if we're trying to recreate a recipe from an American Chinese restaurant, it's very likely they used some MSG. You can leave it out, but we all know how much of a flavour enhancer it is.
I don't actually have an exact recipe kicking around, but adapting these changes to the "traditional" recipe, it should look something like this:
1 cup chicken broth
1/4 cup soy sauce
2-3 tbsp rice wine or sherry (to taste)
1 tsp toasted sesame oil
1/4 cup sugar
1 tsp MSG (optional)
1 1/2 tbsp rice vinegar
3 tbsp tapioca flour or corn starch
6-10 dried red chilies
1 tbsp minced ginger
1 tbsp grated or finely minced garlic
I'm going to skip the ingredients and preparation for the fried chicken itself, since that's pretty straightforward and no different from any of the "normal" Tso recipes. So let's assume that part has already been done. Here's how I'd make the sauce and finish it off:
Combine the chicken broth, soy sauce, rice wine, sesame oil, sugar, [MSG], and rice vinegar. Make sure that the sugar is completely dissolved.
Add tapioca to the soy sauce mix and dissolve.
Heat a few tbsp of oil in your wok and start frying up the chilies. The longer you fry them, the hotter the final dish will be, so adjust the timing to taste. Many restaurants skimp here, and either don't use enough chilies or don't fry for anywhere near long enough. You're looking for a deep, dark red, almost black colour for optimum heat.
Add the soy sauce / tapioca mix, garlic and ginger, and stir.
Once thickened, add the chicken and serve with the broccoli. (You most likely got it steamed, that's how it looks in the picture, although my choice would be to stir-fry it with some red pepper flakes.)
I can't promise you that this will be identical to what you got in the restaurants, as I haven't been to those restaurants, but hopefully this sounds a lot closer to what you had than the garbage you traditionally find in lower-end restaurants and on recipe sites.
Update: After reading some of the results of this experiment, I would add the following (better late than never, right?):
The above ratio of starch to water will result in a very thick, almost paste-like consistency. That's intentional, but if you want something more "saucy", i.e. to put on rice, then don't triple the starch, especially if you're using tapioca. 2 tbsp should be sufficient. At the same time, keep in mind that it's always easier to dilute a sauce that's too thick than it is to thicken it in the wok once it's already hot.
If you're finding that it's still not spicy enough (I, too, like my spicy dishes blazing hot), then try including any or all of the following in the sauce:
1 tsp chili oil
1 tsp hot chili sauce (proper chili sauce like sriracha, not tabasco)
2-3 fresh red chilies, cut into rings, with seeds (caution: very hot)
I'm going shopping this afternoon. I'm going to try this tonight, I'll let you know how it turns out.
@hobodave: Looking forward to hearing about it! Hope I didn't make any major screwups in my adjustments, it's always easier when I'm in the kitchen. ;)
@Aaronut: Operation Tso is complete. Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/hobodave/sets/72157624450024941/ It certainly looks like what I'm used to, and the orange zest is definitely a nice touch. However, it just wasn't that spicy (hot). I had to redo the peppers because the first batch burnt so quickly, it took maybe 2 minutes to fry the peppers before they would burn. Also, the consistency of this was SUPER THICK. It went from liquid to paste in a flash, I had to add another cup of broth to get it somewhat normal. It's still somewhat off in consistency, it oozes off in sheets.
It certainly tastes good, and it's better than the crap I've had out here in Chicago. I think it just needs more heat, and a consistency tweak. Eating the chilis gives it a nice kick of heat though.
@hobodave: Interesting, how many chilies did you use? And did you use tapioca or corn starch? Generally there's no other "heat source" in General Tso, but if you're not getting the right amount of heat, you might consider chili oil, or an actual fresh chili pepper (with seeds). In any case, I'm glad to hear that it was at least a moderate success; if you get it really nailed down in the future after a few iterations, be sure to give us an update!
@Aaronut: I used a big handful, like 20. I used tapioca, my first time. Do you think I overcooked the sauce? It literally went from broth like consistency to super snot in less than 5 seconds.
Also @hobodave, that's actually roughly the consistency I thought you were going for, since you complained about runniness; should've been more specific! (Edit: No, you probably didn't overcook, but a ratio of 3 tbsp to 1 cup will form almost a paste; the original recipe uses 1 tbsp to 3/4 cup and is runny; to get the consistency you want right now, I guess you'd want to use about 2 tbsp. And my guess is that since you had to dilute it, that's part of why it turned out a bit less spicy.)
It's hard to describe consistency in words.
Oh, and I have to ask... did you use MSG? Even though I never do, it tends to affect your perception of heat, and that could be why it tasted spicier in the restaurants... the other thing you could do is use chili sauce, like the sriracha hot sauce.
So @hobodave, those photos are from tonight? They actually look pretty damn close, aside from not being able to see any actual chilies. (And the broccoli is a little less vibrant - but that might be just lighting.)
@Aaronut: Yes I used MSG. I have a much more heat tolerant palate than most, so I think I'll do what you suggest and take matters into my own hands next time. The photos are from tonight. There are actually 4 chilis in the first picture (some look like a shadow) and 1 in the closeup. And it does actually look very close to what I'm used to, maybe slightly less red. Do you think they use cayenne in the sauce for heat and color? And yea, I overcooked the broccoli for a few minutes when I got distracted.
@hobodave: I'd be very surprised if they used cayenne. Chili sauce is more likely - some tend to be quite red in colour. I also wouldn't rule out artificial colouring - or even natural colouring, from something like turmeric. I'm admittedly guessing, though; the only way to know for sure would be to ask them...
@hobodave About the consistency issue: The chef of my favorite DC-area restaurant uses lotus flour as a coating for his marinated chicken before frying it and then adding the chicken to his sauce. It might be worth it to you to experiment with lotus flour because the General Tso's I enjoyed last night tastes exactly like the dish you describe.
@Iuls: I've never heard of that! I'll definitely try to get some this weekend and try it.
@Aaronut: G-Tso 2.0 was attempted last night. I made the following changes from your original recipe: (1) Breaded with Tapioca flour instead of Cornstarch. (2) Added 1/2 tsp of seeds that were in the bottom of the dried red chili bag. (3) Forgot to buy an orange. (4) Used 2 Tbsp of tapioca flour in sauce. (5) Used 1 tsp of "chili infused toasted sesame oil" (best I could find at the store I was at, I didn't feel like making a second stop).
@Aaronut: Analysis: Breading the chicken with the tapioca flour was weird. The cooked flour became suspended in the oil as I progressed which subsequently clung to the cooked chicken as well as clogged my strainer. Cornstarch didn't do this, the debris sunk to the bottom. I'm going to try lotus flour as @Iuls suggested next time. The seeds added a nice bit of heat, I sauteed them briefly (5s) as the chilis were darkening. They cook fast. The orange zest was noticeably lacking. The sauce consistency was much better with the reduced tapioca. The appearance is still weird though...
@Aaronut: ... the sauce wasn't too think or too thin, but it did form "sheets". Think this is the tapioca? The chili infused sesame oil didn't really bring much heat that i could tell. I could taste no heat in the uncooked sauce. I think I'm going to have to get pure chili oil or try the sriracha you suggested. I think I'll try G-Tso 3.0 this weekend.
@hobodave, you are truly committed to this one! I definitely would not have recommended using tapioca as a breading, but I guess you found that out for yourself. I'm not totally sure what you mean by "sheets", and I don't think I've ever seen chili-infused sesame oil (though it sounds interesting). Really best to separate the hot ingredients from the sweet/savoury ingredients as much as possible, because otherwise you can't really control the heat. If you're after mega heat, I'd still suggest that you consider a few fresh chilies; with seeds intact, they heat up like nobody's business.
@hobodave: Also, although it's never been my experience, some people on here insist that acid intensifies heat, so you could try adding a little lime or lemon juice - just a few squeezes.
Lastly, @hobodave, back to consistency: It's possible that tapioca isn't exactly right for the way you personally want this - it's more potent than corn starch and tends to form a more jelly-like consistency, which is what I'm used to but maybe not what you've had - if you think that might be the culprit, my suggestion would be to split the sauce into two halves, and try corn starch in one half and tapioca in the other. Starch is the last ingredient anyway, so it should be easy to split this way.
@Aaronut: The interesting part re: the tapioca batter was it tasted much better than cornstarch. The plain chicken fried in cornstarch tasted like.. fried cornstarch. The chicken fried in tapioca tasted good; there were just the technical challenges. It might have gone better if there were room for me to fry all of it at once, but I had to do it in a few batches due to my pot size and the temperature drop.
This recipe is very close to the one I use. The one thing that I would mention is that almost all the Chinese restaurants in the new york area use dark meat for the general tso chicken. Now that I live in the middle of nowhere and have to make my own Chinese food, I found that that detail made a surprising amount of difference.
Originally from the Northeast US, I too was surprised that one of my favorite Chinese take-away dishes was so radically different. The 2 critical bits for me was recreating the texture of the "breading" and the sauce. I found that, for me, baking or sauteing the chicken first, then "breading" with a corn starch or tapioca batter WITHOUT LEAVENING and frying in oil gave the best results for the chicken. Too many places use some kind of leavening so instead of a crispy shell (akin to a KFC drumstick) instead I found I was eating a puffy dough ball.
The second bit, to make the sauce closer to my expectations. Aaronut has a good response there. Adding a healthy measure of garlic and getting the sugars to carmelize and reduce to a sticky brown almost-but-not-quite glaze... yumm!
BTW, the tapioca batter was not pleasant to fry with.
I don't know if this is the right recipe, as I have only had General Tso's chicken by this recipe and in a small town in upstate NY, but it tasted good to me.
here is a recipe. really your worry will be the sauce itself. cornstarch is the secret to the thickening part. if you are new to cooking i would suggest just working on a sauce first and play with the elements first. every chinese place does it differently. the chicken is simple to cook so get the sauce and your good to go
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.612563
| 2010-07-23T23:02:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3047",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"BigHandsome",
"Dinah",
"Garrett",
"Hapkido",
"Iuls",
"Jimmy Sawczuk",
"Joshua",
"ManiacZX",
"Matthew Nessworthy",
"Mike S",
"Mike Sherov",
"Ritwik Bose",
"Sam Holder",
"TRiG",
"Tim Gilbert",
"autodidakto",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21831",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6363",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99",
"ngephart",
"pconcepcion",
"stephen776"
],
"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
}
|
32272
|
What's different between canned beer and bottled beer?
Beer produced by large breweries has long been sold in cans, but I've noticed recently that more craft beers are appearing sold in cans as well. Why might they be choosing cans over bottles? Is there a taste or shelf-life benefit to canned beer? Or is it just ecological or marketing concerns?
You can take aluminum cans to parks for picnics, beaches, etc, and can't take glass bottles. I know that's a big reason why Harpoon releases their IPA and Summer Ales in aluminum cans over the summer.
I've made a fairly substantial edit to your post to try to make it pretty specific and on-topic - hope it still essentially asks what you were trying to ask!
@lemontwist : there are a lot more places that have bans on bottled beer (eg, NASCAR tracks, sports stadiums). I remember talking to a person who made crafts out of cans ~10-15 years ago, and asking them where they got a bunch of things that I hadn't ever seen in cans, and they said some breweries starting doing runs in cans just for stadium sales because of the bottle bans.
On the ecological concern -- aluminum is one of the most recycled materials ... but I prefer 'em because camping, it's easier to bring back crushed empty cans than bottle. (but that's why a consumer might choose them, not the brewery)
Cans have a lot of advantages over bottles: they don't allow light in (light spoils beer), are easier to stack (and take up less space when arranged tightly), the materials for each can are cheaper, and so on. From the consumer perspective, this results in cheaper and higher-quality beer, all else being equal.
The reason craft breweries have been using glass bottles rather than cans is largely historical and aesthetic. Some hip craft breweries started using cans recently, and it led to a trend.
Cans have a lot of advantages, but I've heard that a canning line is much more expensive for a brewery than a bottling line.
As an upcoming craft brewer myself, I've been considering canning for all these reasons. +1
@user5561, many of the craft breweries contract out their canning to another facility. I know that Harpoon uses a larger brewery in Utica to get their canned beer.
Zach makes a good case for the benefits of cans over bottles...but there are just as many benefits of bottles over cans.
In general, I'd say that, if the beer is kept out of the light, bottles are a better choice as far as flavor is concerned.
For one, glass is completely nonreactive, and does not contaminate the beer, but aluminum does leech into the beer, even from lined cans. For an example of research on this topic, see this article.
Additionally, with lined cans, the plastic liner also contaminates the beverage; while, due to the small volume of plastic involved, this is likely less of a problem than in plastic bottles, it's still likely more of a problem than in glass bottles, where only the lid is lined with plastic, and (assuming the bottles are kept vertical at all times) the beverage has little contact with the plastic, reducing leeching.
With regard to longer-term storage, I've also heard pop bottle collectors say that cans eventually develop pinhole leaks, so the contents can't be kept in a can for decades, as they can be in a bottle.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.614033
| 2013-02-28T02:11:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32272",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Joe",
"JoeFish",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8522",
"lemontwist",
"user5561"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
36228
|
Is there any way to use oversized okra?
I accidentally let some of my okra grow much too large. It's about six inches long, and I've heard that it's inedible at this size--per this video it should be 2 1/2" to 3".
Is there any way to cook these or are they really best sent to the compost bin?
In my experience (I'm Texan, I've seen my share of okra), 2.5-3" is pretty small, and 6" is on the big side but I wouldn't expect it to be inedible. It's certainly going to be much more tender at 2.5-3"; there's no possible way it'll be too tough to eat. Larger does mean tougher, but at that size they might still be okay (for example this source says 4-6" is good). It looks like different varieties can have pretty different sizes - for example, this cow's horn okra is supposed to be best at 6-7" but still be good at 14"!
In any case, test the okra you have; no reason to choose just based on the length. Just try cutting it with a sharp knife, and if it's really hard and fibrous, you'll know. If it's borderline, any sort of long stewing method will be your best bet. You'd also want to cut it fairly thinly, so that you don't have very long fibrous strands to try to chew.
If it's really too hard to soften even like that, you might still be able to get some use out of it as a thickener but I don't think you'll ever be eating it on its own. If you want to try thickening with it, I'd cut it into bigger chunks, so that you can easily fish them out once they've done their work.
What i do is boil over sized okra pods (cut open) in a stock pot until the water cooks down and thickens, then strain the water off, then use the water to season any vegetable or meat dish. It makes an awsum seasoning for just about everything. Another way is to just put them whole in the freezer. When you need some, take one out, cut in half and throw it in a pot of beens.
This is my first Garden. Yes I forgot to pick you up for a few times. I have had them get as large as 8 inches. Just to see if I can eat them this large I cooked a lot of them together that was 6 inches and less. I just boiled them. They were melt-in-your-mouth nothing wrong with them I do not know what species are. I will try to fry some later. the larger ones I mean. I'll let you guys know how those come out.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.614346
| 2013-08-22T22:01:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36228",
"authors": [
"Artmari",
"Becky Poplawsky",
"D Greenwood",
"Edward Rusli",
"Gwylym Arthur",
"Robert Miller",
"Robin De Schepper",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84977",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84978",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84981",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84984",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84985",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84986",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84990",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84992",
"kristjan",
"rajesh soni Jharsuguda",
"user84979",
"vishnufka"
],
"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
}
|
27349
|
Why does my dough never "fall" after its first rise?
My bread recipe (from Artisan Bread in Five Minutes a Day) calls for waiting for the dough to double, then "fall." It never falls, though I cover the dough as instructed (not airtight) either with a towel or plastic wrap sprayed with cooking spray. I have tried spraying the bowl with cooking spray, and have tried without. Neither results in a "fall."
I've tried using a wide stainless steel bowl as well as one of those food-grade rectangular plastic storage containers a la Alton Brown.
Is the "fall" important? If so, what can I do besides slam the bowl to coax the dough to fall as instructed?
Can you link the recipe? I've never heard of a bread dough that should fall by itself and I don't believe it ever will or that it would do any good. Degassing, though, is a technique where you, with your hands, press all the bubbles out of the risen dough to let it rise once again so it gets longer time to develop gluten and flavour.
Pretty much any recipe in Artisan Bread in Five Minutes a Day See step 3 at the top of the page in the linked recipe. Incidentally, when I wrote this question I didn't remember the "at least flattens on top" clause :)
I suppose this is because the author wants to maximize the flavors imparted by the rising yeast and bacteria. If you let a dough rise by itself, it will eventually fall. It's a matter of time. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDtkKmYpln8
As citizen suggested, this isn't part of most common breadmaking techniques; it's pretty much specific to the core methods used in that book. I'll go ahead and edit your question, so people don't have to look to the comments to understand what you're asking.
Basic Physics of the System
Bread rises (as you probably know) due to microorganisms, primarily yeast, converting sugars into CO₂ + byproducts. The CO₂ forms bubbles, stretching the gluten in the flour. In order for the bread to rise, the microorganisms must produce CO₂ faster than it can escape from the dough.
Graphed over time, the amount of CO₂ produced would start at 0, fairly quickly rise to its maximum (as the yeast, etc. come back from dormancy), then slowly decrease, eventually to 0 (as they run out of food and/or are overwhelmed by byproducts such as alcohol). The amount of gas escaping from the dough also changes over time. It must obviously start at 0, and probably increases over time (after all, there is more to escape), and eventually of course its all escaped and thus it must be 0 again, but I'm not sure of its exact shape. So, a diagram:
That's the basic physics of the system. At some point, the bread must fall. (Well, maybe in a 0-g environment it would shrink instead of fall, but…)
How the Environment Matters
The microorganisms are very sensitive to fairly small changes in their environment. In particular:
Temperature. If your kitchen is 70°F and the author's is 80°F, it could easily take twice as long. The lower the temperature, the slow the microorganisms go (up to a point, once it gets too hot, they're not happy either).
Hydration. If your bread dough is lower hydration (drier) than the author's, it'll be slowed down again. The recipe is written in volume measures (cups), as you know flour packs down. That leads to huge variations in how two different people measure it. Make sure to measure it how the author says to (hopefully it specified somewhere in the book). Scoop-and-sweep vs. sift-and-sweep can easily be 25% different. Preferably, spend $25 on a kitchen scale, and do your baking by weight.
Salinity. Salt slows down yeast. If you happened to substitute table salt for kosher salt, and still measured out 1½ tablespoons, you've used more salt than the author wanted. A fair bit more.
Age of your yeast. If your yeast is old (and sometimes the packets in the store have been sitting for ages), it may not have the same potency as a fresh packet would. It'll probably take longer (but as long as it rises, it'll likely be fine)
The times in the book could just be nonsense. Authors and editors do sometimes make mistakes. Other times they're in a rush, and just take a guess. "Yeah, it was about two hours..." The book could just be wrong.
Also, generally speaking, slower leads to better flavor. So its not a bad thing.
Summary
Give it longer. Provided you've covered it in plastic (so it doesn't dry out), it'll eventually fall.
Keep in mind that "fall" doesn't mean it'll return to its original size, just that it'll fall back from its maximum size. The "or flattens on top" comment in your book is a pretty accurate description of what it looks like. Normally, while its rising, there is a dome shape on top, with the center as the highest point. When it starts falling, that dome vanishes, and may even invert (as in, the center will be the lowest point).
I've made preferments that take upwards of 20 hours to fall. It will eventually happen. And when it takes forever, it'll probably taste better.
Nice answer.
I would add the strenth of the flour as a factor that makes the risen dough fall earlier or later.
That book, or at least the recipe you linked to, basically has you making a loaf of bread out of a pre-ferment (poolish, sourdough starter, levain). Using a pre-ferment gives more flavor and a better shelf life.
If you maintain a sourdough starter for a few days, regularly feeding it, you'll see it rise and fall regularly. Ideally, you want to use it when its at its maximum volume, just before it falls, to ensure that you're getting the most potential rise out of it in your bread.
Since you're not maintaining a starter in this recipe, you don't know when that maximum volume is or what to look for. The first observable change after letting it ferment and rise would be a fall, and if you use it when it's just fallen then you've still got a lot of yeast in there for leavening.
This video shows an almost ready poolish near the end.
Ultimately, the dough will fall, given enough time.
As long as you give it enough time to rise and the right conditions (e.g. Around 35 degrees c) then it should still be fine even if you don't get the fall you suggest.
When I make bread I just leave it for a while based on circumstance (anywhere from 1 hour to 3-4 based on ambient temp and what else I'm doing ), I then knock back the dough to remove most of the air (see 1) and it generally works fine.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.614602
| 2012-09-23T20:24:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27349",
"authors": [
"Ajay Brahmakshatriya",
"BaffledCook",
"Barbara Miller",
"Ben Suter",
"Cascabel",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Jeff Axelrod",
"Jessica",
"Wendy G",
"citizen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61604",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61605",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62460",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"user62467",
"user62487"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4329
|
What are the advantages of a lid on a barbeque?
I have just bought a new half drum barbeque which can with a fold down lid.
I have heard that these lids are good for creating a smokey flavour, or for keeping food moist whilst it cooks. A lot of this seems to be based on peoples personal opinion with evidence based answers about what the benefits of cooking with the lid down are.
Does anyone have any evidence of exactly what cooking with a lid down on a barbeque actually does?
See the responses to : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2751/using-charcoal-in-kettle-grill/2758#2758
Possible duplicate? http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2654/how-does-food-cook-differently-on-an-open-top-grill-than-a-covered-one
Maybe I'm missing something... What's the purpose of a door on an oven? Isn't it to keep the heat in?
The lid can do one of three things:
Keeping the lid down increases the temperature of the air in the grill. This means that in addition to cooking with the direct heat of the coals, you are also cooking with convection of the air. This won't happen with the lid up.
In a charcoal grill, the temperature the coals burn is based on the airflow through the grill. Open is as hot as it will go (assuming the bottom vent is also open). By closing the lid and altering the airflow, you can control the temperature of the grill. My grill can keep fine temperature control between 200F-700F depending on how you set the airflow.
Which leads us to smoke. It seems obvious that if you are smoking, you will impart more flavor by trapping the smoke with your food rather than letting it float in to the sky. Additionally, you want wood to smolder not burn for your best smoke production. This works better at a lower temperature (see #2).
Keeps the Dog from stealing the meat on the grill!
Cute answer Bill. Put it in a comment and it won't get down-voted.
I know plenty of people that have to keep the lid closed on their grill to stop animals from getting the food. It is a legitimate answer.
It keeps the heat in, so you can switch techniques from a pure grilling technique (Open Lid, hot coals = direct radiant heat) to a baking/smoking technique.
For example, when I do a duck breast, I put all the heat on one side of the grill (i.e. 2/4 gas burners, or pile the charcoal on one side).
I sear the breast skin up directly over the heat, and then flip it to brown and crisp the skin. Once the fat starts to render, I get flare ups that are completely un-manageable.
The solution is to move the breast to the cool side, and shut the lid, so that it bakes and smokes for a few minutes to finish off the cooking.
Like the people say, open lid means directional heat from the coals. You'll cook the bottom of your food much faster than the top. You'll also get more air to the coals, so they'll be hotter, and to the food, which dries it out faster (at least in dry places like Calgary, where I live).
Closing the lid, keeps the heat more 'omnidirectional', cooking from all sides more evenly. And generally keeps the moisture in.
All evidence of this is from my cooking (on stoves, outdoor grills, campfires) and from what I've picked up from my family and friends. Take it as you will.
I am assuming you are talking about a charcoal grill. When grilling over direct heat, using the lid serves two functions:
First, your food will cook, albeit to a far lesser degree, on the sides that are not facing the coals. Putting the lid on will trap heat in your grill, providing convection as well as direct cooking.
Also, you will be providing less oxygen to your coals with the lid on. This is key in controlling flareups. This is the more important benefit. The biggest risk to ruining your grilled food is the intense heat from flareups on your grill.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.615252
| 2010-08-05T12:40:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4329",
"authors": [
"Greg Hewgill",
"Jacques",
"Jarrod Spillers",
"Joe",
"Joel",
"Ocaasi",
"Pat",
"Squidward Fancypants",
"eisb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/222",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26346",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26353",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8133",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8135",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8137",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8171",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8335",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8394",
"jsakowitz",
"odinthenerd",
"s_hewitt",
"switz"
],
"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
}
|
4997
|
Nestle Cream "Ashta"
I was in the middle east for a few weeks a few months ago. Anyways, I was introduced to the following Nestle cream:
It didn't really taste like the cream I'm used to here in North America.
Have any of you tried this before?
Can I make it at home?
Which taste did it have?
My family really liked this after they had it on a trip to Oman.
I've never tried to make it, but it can be purchased for not much money at indian/middle eastern food stores. It is a bit hard to find, but in any decent city there should be something. I get mine from a little halal market I also get my lamb and goat from.
It makes excellent mango smoothies.
I live in the middle of nowhere ruraltown
I haven't had it. As to making it at home: that would be a recipe, which normally is outside of this site's scope. I'll give you 2 links, though, from which I'll try to distill a general description of 'Ashta type cream'.
This type of cream contains:
Milk, Milk-and-cream or powdered milk
(corn)starch
orange blossom or rose water
sugar.
Source links:
http://arabicbites.blogspot.com/2007/06/ataif-bil-ashta.html
http://www.tasteofbeirut.com/2010/05/lebanese-cream-ashta/
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.615605
| 2010-08-12T13:44:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4997",
"authors": [
"Chris Fortier",
"Pichi Wuana",
"cesarterrazasg",
"dassouki",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9663",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9664",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9678",
"lrosa",
"tomzhi"
],
"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
}
|
16251
|
Does garbage disposal horse power matter that much?
I am in the last leg of a kitchen remodel and need to purchase a garbage disposal. And I am wondering how much of a difference horse power makes in the day to day operation of the kitchen?
Has anyone here experienced the pros and cons to disposal units with different horse power?
NOTE: I almost posted this question on the DIY site, but I feel it has more relevance here. Moderators, feel free to move it if you think it belongs there instead.
UPDATE: We decided to go with the Waste King L-8000 Legend Series 1 Horsepower. It is really smooth and quiet. It takes up a fair amount of space under the sink however.
I do think this is off-topic for the site, which is supposed to surround cooking; that said, I did provide an answer because I have some insight to share regardless.
The answer depends... are you trying to put food down them, or your neighbor's yapping chihuahua?
@Ray, questions about Kitchen Equipment are specifically considered on-topic. Check the equipment tag for some detail.
Oops, my mistake
I'd go for a more powerful one, in general, and I noticed that the higher powered disposals are sometimes quieter, which I really like. I really learned that paying the extra for good plumbing parts (faucet, disposal) through our plumber was worth it, since they can be fixed, unlike cheaper big box store stuff, and that there was a real difference in the higher quality disposal.
My impression is that horsepower is really only going to matter when you've got something stuck in the teeth. Once or twice I've had this happen, where something has gotten stuck in there (say, a piece of broken glass, or an unpopped popcorn kernel). The machine grinders give up and the whole works just stop moving and I've had to turn it manually (using a wrench on the underside of the disposal) until it was crushed. More horsepower just means it will give up a little less easily.
Ray has raised very important point here, it depends on the materials it grinds, if hard materials it has to grind, horsepower is very important here.
Hello grmary, and welcome to the site. While we generally allow links to commercial products which answer a question directly, they should not be used if the answer is as informative without them as it would have been with them. Also, users may react negatively to them even when they don't hurt the rules. I don't have to delete the post after I removed the link, but for future reference, it's better to leave it out from the beginning.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.615750
| 2011-07-18T17:37:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16251",
"authors": [
"Adam Lawrence",
"BobMcGee",
"Diana Depaulos",
"Gunther Rankenburg",
"Ray",
"Smoking in the NW",
"bnynn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123877",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123889",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34603",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36182",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84987",
"nidhi gupta",
"rumtscho",
"trampster",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7185
|
Milk vs. Dark vs. Semi-sweet vs. Bitter-sweet chocolate?
What's the difference between the following chocolates?
Milk
Dark
Semi-sweet
Bitter-sweet
If a chocolate only lists the % cocoa solids used, can I figure out which of the above types it is?
Milk chocolate is unique in that it contains a significant quantity milk, either in the powdered, liquid, or condensed form.
Dark chocolate is a category of chocolate that includes semisweet and bittersweet chocolate. The US FDA actually does classify dark chocolate as anything containing 35% or more cacao (liquor or butter). In practice, semisweet chocolate is typically much sweeter, and contains about 50% sugar. Bittersweet chocolate, on the other hand, typically contains about 33% sugar. Some dark chocolates may contain small amounts of milk, but not enough to be called milk chocolate.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_chocolate
In the US, the government regulates the use of certain chocolate terms. Their distinctions for chocolates have to do with the chocolate liquor content and not the total amount of cocoa products (the cocoa fat and the other solids). The regulations also do not distinguish between bittersweet and semisweet. To them it is all sweet chocolate. Based on Callebut labeling, milk chocolate has about 32% cocoa content and dark chocolate 51% or more.
In practice you will find chocolates with 40% or more labeled as either semi-sweet or bittersweet. Semi-sweets are supposed to have more sugar, so if we use the nomenclature adopted by Ghirardelli (a common choice for cooking in the US) that means 53% of the chocolate product is sugar, whereas for bittersweet they use 40% (based on chocolate chips).
If you look at the Nutrition Facts label, the total amount of sugar in a portion is listed together with the weight of the portion. For example, for the 55% Chocolove bar, it is 13/30 = 43%, so this Chocolove would be in the bittersweet category.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.615980
| 2010-09-12T16:17:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7185",
"authors": [
"Debra Gleeson",
"Kalin",
"Maria Berinde-Tampanariu",
"Ollie C",
"Steve",
"WorldIsRound",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140788",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14652",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14656",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14674"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4532
|
Colorful Marshmallow
How to make colorful marshmallow without using synthetic coloring agents?
Need more details please. Presumably you are making your own marshmallow from scratch? And you are referring to store-bought "food colouring" as "synthetic coloring agents?"
If you are making your own marshmallows, you can add home made or purchased natural food color. With home made colors there is a trade-off: too much coloring liquid and you get the added flavor, too little, and the colors will be whitish. You make your own by concentrating the juices of blueberries, raspberries, spinach, or carrots, or by using turmeric.
If you live close to a Whole Foods supermarket (or other well supplied supermarket) look in the spice section for the India Tree natural dyes. They cost more than the artificial colors, but they save you a lot of work. You may also buy them online.
There are several companies that make natural colors. US based Wild Flavors explains on their web site how they produce the natural colors they sell (look for the PDFs in the color library).
Small amounts of natural fruit or vegetable juices should provide some colour without altering the flavour too much.
If you have access to a juicer, carrot, beet, strawberry and blueberry all come to mind as colouring agents.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.616165
| 2010-08-07T15:37:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4532",
"authors": [
"0xnuminous",
"Jeremy Wiggins",
"Joshua",
"Kurt Spindler",
"Maxine",
"Mormegil",
"Posipiet",
"Trishan Nagiah",
"bsaito",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/835",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8618",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8639",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8813",
"loan",
"sdg"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25857
|
How firm a bite should Ptitim (pearl couscous) have?
I've made Ptitim for my family a couple of times without any prior experience of how it should taste. After about 25 mins of simmering, the pearls remained quite firm (a little like pasta that needs a couple of minutes more). I wonder if this is correct, or if I should have continued simmering.
I used Ptitim with rather large pearls (spheres of about 5mm diameter). I used enough liquid that the pearls were still coated when I had stopped cooking.
The results were edible, even tasty. Still I wonder if the pearls should have been quite so chewy.
I'm used (since childhood) to eat ptitim that are only a little firmer than al dente. I've never had 5mm ones, though.
I wondered for a while whether the pearls would soften any further at all. I left the remaining Ptitim in the fridge over night and the following day the pearls were as soft as baked beans, which is a little too soft. I guess I'll have to experiment with cooking times.
Do you fry them before adding the water? Just curious. I always fry the dry ptitim in some oil or butter, occasionally with onions, and only then add water. I find it hard to treat it like regular pasta :)
Yes I did this and then added twice as much water (in volume) as Ptitim. I've seen other cooking suggestions where much more water is used, as when cooking pasta. I've not tried that yet, and perhaps I should.
I do it your way: only a little water, more like cooking rice I guess.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.616320
| 2012-08-26T08:16:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25857",
"authors": [
"Chandni Mashru",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Robin Betts",
"Saketh Malyala",
"Stacy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2104",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59327",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59329",
"orip"
],
"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.