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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
5191
|
What is 'Cooking Chorizo'?
I have a recipe that calls for "Cooking Chorizo" (in the UK). What is this? Would normal cured chorizo be an acceptable substitute?
Could they be referring to the difference between Mexican and Spanish chorizo?
Look at this question: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8030/how-to-keep-fresh-chorizo
Spanish Chorizo comes in two forms both of which to the best of my knowledge are fully cured (cooked): one which is more for eating on its own (like salami) and the other which tends to have a higher ratio of fat in it and is used primarily for cooking. The latter one being what the recipe is referring to as "cooking chorizo". Oftentimes the cooking chorizo is in a paper casing that must be removed (unless you need some extra fiber in your diet). Either one of these would work, however you might need to add a little oil to the pan if you need to cook other things in the fat that would normally be rendered out.
Mexican chorizo is always a raw product which must be cooked and is usually in a plastic casing.
Any chance you could also tell us where the Portugese "chouriço" fits in on this scale? It's the only "version" I'm able to find in the supermarkets here.
To the best of my knowledge it's Chourico is just the Portuguese spelling of Chorizo. As far as the fat content and whether its more the "eating" or "cooking" type, I don't know.
Chorizo for eating is not cooked, but it is eaten raw. The difference between it and chorizo for cooking is explained in my answer.
Cured is not cooked. There is a cured chorizo that has dried out, that's for eating as is. And then there's uncured chorizo that's softer, sometimes smoked, and is for cooking.
"Cooking chorizo" probably refers to chorizo for cooking rather than eating raw. Cooking chorizos are usually smallish (8-16 cm), sometimes curved like a banana and tied together by a string in chains, whereas eating chorizos are usually straight, larger (30-50 cm), and you eat them raw in thin slices, like salami. In some places in Spain, they use the word "chorizón" to refer to eating chorizo and differentiate it from cooking chorizo.
Spanish 'Cooking' Chorizo is semi-cured, hence, you have to finish the cooking process yourself. The semi cure only takes a week, where as fully cured takes about 8 weeks. Fully cured you can eat without cooking. If the packaging doesn't state if it's for cooking and you are not sure, check to see if it's semi cured, or not. Cooking chorizo is also spicy - it's not sweet cured!
Portuguese chourico comes only one way that I know of.That is raw and needs either frying or cooked in soup. It is high in fat content. I would assume to add flavor also to hold it together. I always buy mine (since I live in Minnesota) from Portuguese food Inc.
This does answer the question, but I am removing the second link because it is promotional rather than relevant. Please don't continue to link to your web site unless there is a specific page you are linking to which directly answers the question (and is summarized in your answer).
@gil many here are sensitive nearing overly so to possible promotion. not to pick on Michael, but he's a great example of how to do it acceptably.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.616479
| 2010-08-14T18:38:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5191",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"BaffledCook",
"Bruce Stephens",
"CesarGon",
"Darin Sehnert",
"Kristine",
"Leann Joseph",
"Michael Natkin",
"Stella",
"TimGJ",
"argentpepper",
"ashutosh",
"codepringle",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10133",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160584",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160585",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17366",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34187",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"maarja sarapuu",
"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
}
|
4635
|
How do I cook toast on an Aga?
I've an "Aga toaster", which is like a couple of disks of 2cm wire mesh joined together with a handle:
But no matter what I try, most of the time the toast sticks. Any ideas?
Have you tried non-stick cooking spray? Olive oil? Butter? No difference?
Have you pre-heated the "Aga toaster"? (Or is it sticking to the plate?)
I would, but I don't want the butter cooked - fried bread is nice, but it's not what I'm after with my coffee in the morning!
Yes, pre-heating makes little difference. I think it cools down by the time I've opened the lid and popped the bread in.
Once you've had a go at the other solution, let me know if you still have problems. I have an Aga expert on tap, but it will take some snail time to get a response. :)
You can try to tossing some Flour on your Aga toaster first, but it will give you extra grill marks on your toast.
Now that sounds like a good idea. I'll give it a go and report back. Grill marks aren't a problem, it's part of the character of the whole thing -- if I cared that much I'd use an electric toaster, but given that the Aga is warm and ready...
And yes, did the trick nicely, bravo!
We have found that the best way to cook the toast with our AGA toaster is to open the silver lid and place your AGA toaster with the toast inside on the metal hot pan, but do not close the lid. After a while, turn your toast over and lift up the top facing handle of the toaster. Repeat this process for the perfect toast or toasts.
If you want to do this faster, do exactly as I've said but with the lid down and open the lid and toaster lid more frequently.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.617029
| 2010-08-09T13:35:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4635",
"authors": [
"Ayman Elmasry",
"Flexo - Save the data dump",
"Jeremy McGee",
"Josie",
"Justin",
"Marek Karbarz",
"Ocaasi",
"RubberDuckRabbit",
"Stopher87",
"Tobias Op Den Brouw",
"fighting_falcon93",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10264",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/588",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59110",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62088",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8876",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8877",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8878",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8955"
],
"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
}
|
829
|
What would be a good substitute for rice wine?
I like to prepare various Asian dishes and one of the important ingredients I use is rice wine; unfortunately, it's become difficult to obtain lately, and sherry, which is sometimes used, never was a beverage available in my country.
So, what else could I substitute for rice wine?
If you can get it, sherry is usually a good bet but since you can't, I've used just regular white wine before as a substitute when you're cooking a dish but you just need to be a little less liberal as you might be with rice wine as I find the flavour tends to be a little stronger.
Another alternative is Sake, but I'm assuming that if you can't get rice wine, you'll struggle to find Sake.
+1 for sherry - several Asian recipes actually call for either sherry or rice wine. BTW, it's spelled sake.
FYI - I think a dry sherry or white (fairly non-oak in flavor, like a Sauvignon Blanc) is usually the way to go. Just "sherry" or "white" leaves open a pretty broad and differing range of possible results.
White vermouth works well, and it will keep a long time, particularly if you refrigerate it
That's a possibility. I'll have to try that. Thanks.
I've heard that gin is one the closest substitutes in terms of flavor and that regular white wine works as well in a pinch. I haven't had to do this much myself so I'm not sure what kind of ratio you should go with in these substitutions.
Naw, see... You use the gin to make martinis, and cook with the vinegar that the olives came packed in... If it doesn't taste right, you didn't drink enough gin while making it.
I think the problem with gin would be the alcohol content, even though it may be a flavour substitute.
@Knives I'm not big on Martinis but a large G&T would hit the mark :)
I love a good g&t, but.. I hate olives in them!
Gin.... Gin...... Gin. Works great.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.617227
| 2010-07-13T12:33:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/829",
"authors": [
"Aaron Thomas",
"Aaronut",
"Damien Pollet",
"Feltope",
"Iris Martinez",
"Ken Redler",
"Kevin Kibler",
"Natasha Bahner",
"Paul Thew",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Pulse",
"Shog9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148793",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148861",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148862",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1519",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1520",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1521",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1548",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2616",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"kindall",
"nanda",
"trent"
],
"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
}
|
7698
|
How does one soften sun dried tomatoes?
Some packs of sun dried tomatoes come a bit too hard to chew. How do I soften them for use in a salad? Should I toss them?
Generally you soak them in a small amount of very hot water for about 10 minutes or until they are as soft as you want them. The flavorful liquid that comes out of that process can be used in salad dressings, soups, sauces, etc. (A quick way to do this is throw them in a microwave safe bowl with water to cover and microwave for say 3 minutes, then allow to stand.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.617435
| 2010-09-30T02:59:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7698",
"authors": [
"Sharon Delaney",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140785"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6324
|
Pimenton ahumado vs. Pimenton de la vera
Besides the noticeable cost difference between these two, what is the difference between pimenton ahumado and pimenton de la vera? Both are purported to be Spanish smoked paprika.
Why the upper case in "Pimenton"? It should be in "La Vera", which is the name of a place.
From the best I can tell, "de la vera" is a regional form of spanish smoked paprika, where ahumado is the more generic form. Sort of like how real cheddar cheese only comes from Cheddar, England or or a true Burgundy wine can only come from Burgundy, France - "de la vera" comes from around the Tietar River in La Vera, Spain.
Pimenton de la Vera has been protected
by a certified designation of origin
since 1998 in order to provide you,
the end consumer, with a guarantee
that you really are getting the best.
The government managed regulating
council for Pimenton de la Vera
carefully monitors all steps of
growing, harvest, and production to
ensure the strictest quality standards
are met. No simple pepper can meet
these standards, only those who follow
the time-honored traditions exactly.
Although there are many other
paprika’s in the world, including
other certified origin products such
as our Pimenton from Murcia, only
those grown and smoked in the La Vera
valley may bear the certification.
source
Briefly:
"pimentón" is Spanish for "paprika".
"ahumado" is Spanish for "smoked". There is non-smoked pimentón as well, so "pimentón ahumado" is just one of the varieties of pimentón. Others are "dulce" ("sweet", meaning not hot) and "picante" ("hot").
"de La Vera" means "from La Vera" which, as Ryan says, is a region in Spain where they make one of the best-known smoked paprikas in Spain.
So, "pimentón ahumado" is a generic, very much like "red wine", whereas "pimentón de La Vera" is a specific provenance product, like "Rioja" or "Barossa Valley".
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.617623
| 2010-08-30T02:47:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6324",
"authors": [
"Alex",
"Bailey Rowland",
"CesarGon",
"Leslie F",
"Mike C",
"ako",
"cheapocooker",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12592",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12593",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12594",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2582"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6945
|
What is a good way to steam tamales without a "tamale steamer?"
I am looking for ways to to cook large quantities of Tamales but I don't have a Tamale Steamer. Anyone do this before with other standard kitchen gear? I would rather not cook them in batches as the recipes call for 2-3 hours worth of steaming...
3 hours of steaming seems too long. My Wife's recipe (which I am not allowed to share) only calls for approx 90 minutes. We've also found that tamales freeze well, if you freeze them before steaming. ie cook whatever filling you are using, assemble the filling, maza, and husks; make sure they are cool and freeze them. When ready to eat, they go straight from the freezer to the steamer, for slightly more than the 90 minutes.
Last time I made these, they were done in just over 2 and 1/4 hours... I think the recipe was incorrect. I was checking them routinely, so it didn't really matter.
Alton Brown recommends steaming them right in a normal tall pot with a steamer insert (your typical expanding/contracting one many people have on hand), directly in their husks. Basically, you put a couple inches of water in, and then a steamer insert, and the tamales (in the husks) go on top of the steamer.
You can find his recipe/method here.
You can also watch the episode on YouTube, go to about 4:45 in to see the tamales in the pot.
If you don't have a steamer insert of any kind, I would imagine you could fashion something out of aluminum foil without much problem. The most important thing is that you keep the tamales out of the water. In a pinch, an upside-down colander would work if you have a pot that's large enough to hold it.
Another (very low-tech) option is this hack, that basically uses a disposable aluminum pan to create the steamer/upside-down colander part of the rig. This seems like a pretty easy, straightforward solution.
Edit: as Michael points out in the comments, this seems like it could be a huge mess. I would recommend getting a disposable pie pan that's just smaller than your pot, poking holes in that, and putting it upside down in the pot like a steamer insert - seems a lot safer and more efficient than a large rectangle on top of the pot!
Any of those will work, although the last one looks like it leaks a lot of steam. Basically you just want a big pot with a tight fitting lid, and some way to elevate the tamales a bit above a couple inches of water. I use a huge pasta pot that has a built in colander, works great.
One more tip: if you end up with a situation that has too much room for the tamales so they are falling over, just stick a big drinking glass or something else in there to hold them upright, but not too tightly packed.
I was thinking the same about the last method. Seems like the fastest, cheapest hack, but also the most potential for a big mess. You could always find a way to trim down the size so there's less overhang, but that seems like a pain.
Cut corn off cob by cutting off end and put cobs along bottom of pot. Works great and gives a corn flavor. An old Mexican way I watched on PBS.
I used a roasting pan with a rack. I filled pan with water, put tamales on rack and covered with foil. I used 400 degrees for an hour and did twelve, but could have fit a bit more.
My husband stole my cookie racks and rigged them in his giant stock pot uses lots of foil and Saran wraps the lid on for a good steam seal and cooks about 300 tamales at a time in a few hours.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.617816
| 2010-09-07T21:51:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6945",
"authors": [
"Alex Nye",
"BillN",
"Fiona Dunlop",
"KAdot",
"Michael Natkin",
"Ronnie",
"SilentKiller",
"djb",
"floer32",
"gnomed",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102824",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14108",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14109",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14111",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14116",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154309",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154806",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/215",
"jane larson",
"nicorellius",
"stephennmcdonald",
"tony",
"vosmith",
"김미나"
],
"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
}
|
3089
|
Parsley: flat-leaf or curly?
How do I know whether I should use flat-leaf or curly-leaf parsley? I'm interested mostly in their uses as ingredients, but guidance on usage as garnishes is also welcome.
Flat-leaf (also called Italian Parsley) and curly parsley can be used interchangeably but most chefs prefer flat leaf as it usually has a more distinct taste. That is going to be up to you and your preference.
Curly parsley provides a more unique and visually interesting look when you're talking about garnishes but putting a sprig of parsley on a plate is what would be called a "non-functional" garnish. Aside from adding a bit of green it serves no purpose as very few people I know will pop it in their mouth and eat it. You're better to sprinkle with chopped parsley or herbs that can help enhance/accent the flavor.
Curly parsley is also visually appealing used in a parsley salad due again to the ruffled edges.
I usually use flat-leaf if available, then curly if flat-leaf isn't available. Under no circumstances (except if you just need a touch of green dust) do I recommend using dried parsley. Clippings from the underside of yor lawn-mower probably have more flavor. Same goes for dried chives.
I find that the Simply Organic dried parsley has pretty good taste. Not sure what they do with it, but it's green where every other dried parsley I've seen is mostly brown/yellow.
Has anyone seen or heard of "Litehouse" brand of Freeze-Dried herbs? A friend of mine recently told me about them and she thought they had a much more vibrant taste than other dried herbs. It's a product produced in Germany but imported through a company in Idaho. She found them in a store in North Carolina but can't find them locally here in Savannah, GA.
Flat parsley is more for Southern European cooking and has a stronger taste.
Curly parsley is more for Northern European cooking - British cooking in particular. For example it is perfect for cod is parsley sauce. It's much milder and less bitter in its raw form.
I personally can't tell the difference in the taste.
I feel that flat-leaf is easier to chop but YMMV.
Lately we've had curly. We can store this in the same glass as cilantro (as per these instructions) and easily tell the 2 apart -- which I find very convenient.
Frankly, I think the difference comes down to texture.
If I'm not cooking it, I always use the flat parsley, as I find the curly to have a very harsh, rough mouth feel to it.
Other than that, I don't think it matters.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.618149
| 2010-07-24T14:29:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3089",
"authors": [
"Darin Sehnert",
"Dre",
"Mike Baranczak",
"QuantumMechanic",
"Rupert Madden-Abbott",
"System Down",
"ceejayoz",
"cidermonkey",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5593",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5594",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5755",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64391"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
1365
|
Crispy stir-fried mushrooms
How do you prepare mushroom pepper fry? I wanted it to be crispy, but the mushroom itself was generating lot of water. Any suggestions would be helpful.
Recipe questions are off-topic for this forum: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1288/food-and-cooking/1313#1313 I'd suggest re-asking a more general question about how to fry mushrooms so that they're crispy.
Related: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27713/how-to-properly-saut%C3%A9-mushrooms-so-that-they-dont-release-water
Mushrooms typically release water if they are overcooked and also if salt is added too early in the cooking process.
When cooking mushrooms, cook them on a relatively high heat until they have just developed some colour. at the end of the cooking process add your seasoning.
also- don't crowd them. put them in your hot pan, in a single layer, with space inbetween the mushrooms.
let them sit a while, then stir them up a bit, then let them sit a while, then stir a bit.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.618367
| 2010-07-17T06:56:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1365",
"authors": [
"Fermin",
"Harlan",
"JNK",
"Neru-J",
"Sam Becker",
"Stephanie Jones",
"Vijay Kiran",
"dasWesen",
"erjiang",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14394",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14395",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2475",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46043",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84975",
"Łukasz Rogalski"
],
"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
}
|
2642
|
What do I need to know about temperature and food safety?
What general rules do I need to follow to keep my food safe? How do I know what temperature to cook something to, or whether my food is safe at room temperature?
Should this somehow be put into the FAQ? It would certainly be helpful to have something to link to with references when you see some questionable advice.
@Eclipse, just favorite this question, and then refer to it when debunking.
Since this is community wiki, I'm going to go ahead and clean up the comments, and put the answer in an answer, instead of as part of the question. There is, however, a lot of overlap with How long can cooked food be safely stored at room/warm temperature? so we might want to reduce this to just asking about cooking temperatures.
Apply good judgement--the most important advise. When in doubt, throw it out.
Storing food: the danger zone
When food is between 38°F and 140°F (4°C and 60°C) it's considered in the danger zone, and bacteria are growing on it quickly. USDA guidelines say that no longer than two hours in the danger zone is acceptable. This applies to anything that should be refrigerated, including raw meat and cooked food (leftovers). Additionally, if it's over 90F (32C), they reduce the guideline to just one hour.
Killing pathogens: cooking temperatures
When cooking meat, cook it to the recommended temperature for that particular kind of meat. See for example the USDA's temperatures for various meats. These are conservative guidelines, but they'll make you safe. The common ones:
Poultry: 165°F (74°C)
Pork: 145°F (63°C)
Beef, veal, and lamb: 145°F (63°C)
Ground beaf, veal, and lamb: 160°F (71°C)
Different meats have different potential hazards. Most bacteria is killed by heating it over 145°F (63°C), but some things are much harder to kill, so it's important to use the appropriate temperature for what you're cooking.
And of course, once it's cooked, there may be some things that survived, or are reintroduced to the food, so you still have to follow the two-hour danger zone rule above.
Toxins
Even if the bacteria is dead, toxins can remain if the food was out too long, causing problems. No matter how thoroughly you cook something, it won't make up for bad handling. (Also asked and answered here). For more details on killing bacteria and the hazards of the toxins they leave behind, see the many answers to this question.
Botulism
Botulism is anaerobic (it grows without oxygen) so it's often a concern for canned goods, or things suspended in oil (e.g. garlic in oil). Some further information from http://www.uga.edu/nchfp/publications/nchfp/lit_rev/cure_smoke_fs.html (°C values added)
The majority (65%) of botulism cases are a result of inadequate home food processing or preservation (CDC 1998). Botulism results from ingestion of a toxin produced by the bacterium C. botulinum.
This bacterium requires a moist, oxygen-free environment, low acidity (pH greater than 4.6) and temperatures in the danger zone (38-140°F / 4-60°C) to grow and produce toxin. C. botulinum forms heat resistant spores that can become dangerous if allowed to germinate, grow, and produce toxin.
Sufficient heat can be used to inactivate the toxin (180°F / 82°C for 4 min., Kendall 1999). C. botulinum thrives in moist foods that are low in salt (less than 10%), particularly when they are stored at temperatures above 38°F / 4°C.
These organisms will not grow in an aerobic environment, but other aerobic organisms in a closed system can rapidly convert an aerobic environment to an anaerobic environment by using the oxygen for their own growth, permitting growth of C. botulinum.
Nowadays foodborne botulism kills about 10 to 30 people a year in the USA, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
what about worm eggs?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.618513
| 2010-07-21T17:14:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2642",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Della Rollins",
"Diane Cooper",
"Don Marvin",
"Eclipse",
"J. Doe",
"Jason Plank",
"Jeff",
"Jessica",
"Margaret Leymarie ",
"Mike Sherov",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"cweso",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4831",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4943",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77119",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77121",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99",
"jonatan",
"oshirowanen",
"rene la choc",
"sbooth",
"spade78",
"user4831",
"wordsworth"
],
"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
}
|
1181
|
Why do my brownies inconsistently end up hard and thin?
When I make brownies, I sometimes end up with really hard thin brownies instead of thick fudgy soft brownies.
I bake them the same amount of time, use the same ingredients, and use the same equipment each time.
Are there any reasons why my brownies sometimes end up thin and hard, and other times not?
You might not be as consistent as you think. See my comments about baking cookies.
One thing that comes to mind is amount of flour, and how (and how much) you're mixing -- but I don't know that those would make it 'thin' necessarily, but it would make them tough if you're over mixing.
It might be a temperature issue, if you're using a solid shortening (eg, butter) rather than a liquid shortening.
Also, although you said you're cooking them for the same amount of time, inconsistent oven temperature might turn that into inconsistent baking -- you only want brownies to be set on the sides when you take them out of the oven -- they should fail a toothpick test if you want them fudgy. Cooking them until they're 'done' will result in them hardening up as they cool.
A few tips from personal experience:
Stop cooking your brownies when a toothpick inserted about 3 inches from a corner toward the center comes out clean, not when the center necessarily comes out clean.
Make sure your batter is at room temperature before you start baking to promote even cooking.
When your brownies are done (see point #1) rest them away from the oven to promote quick and even cooling.
Cook your brownies in the middle of the oven.
To at least partially fix this after baking...
If you want to increase the moistness of the brownie, you can ice brownies with your favorite chocolate icing. Let your brownies cool for about 5 to 10 minutes, then drop large spoonfuls of your icing on the brownies and let them partially melt for a couple minutes, then come back with a spatula and smooth it out. The icing will not only give you more height, flavor and appearance points, but will also insulate the brownies and some of the richness will soak into the brownies besides just sitting on top.
Store your brownies covered and in the refrigerator once they are cool.
Definitely check the expiration dates on your mix/ingredients, but also if the humidity in your area varies greatly this can have a significant impact on the amount of moisture in baked goods. Flour, sugar and salt are all effected by humidity especially if they are not stored in air-tight containers.
A couple of thoughts ...
1- You are using old ingredients or an expired mix. In particular, if the eggs or baking soda/powder are not fresh, the brownies will be hard and thin.
2- The oven temp could be inconsistent. Hard and thin also indicates overcooking.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.618846
| 2010-07-16T20:01:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1181",
"authors": [
"Erik",
"Stu Pegg",
"Vincent",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2187",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2196",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2213",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2633",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8939",
"mikek3332002",
"user2196"
],
"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
}
|
21668
|
How can I know when my yogurt is ready (in a generic, basic, non-us yogurt maker)?
I've bought this yogurt maker (the only one I've been ever able to find in the country I'm living), and it only has a simple on/off button.
Somewhere in the manual, it's written that "Good yogurt takes eight to 15 hours, depending on the type of milk used."
Now I'm wondering how can I know when my yogurt will be ready.
The manual says:
Preparation of the yogurts
...
[ yogurt making instructions ]
...
When the yogurt maker cools off (eight to ten hours after having turned on), make sure that the yogurts have been set. If they haven't, the starter culture did not have enough time to work: start over.
Instructions are really confusing on this point, and it's been something like 15 years since I used a yogurt maker, so I'm not such an expert in yogurt making at home. Does the maker cool off by itself, or do I need to turn it off?
According to http://www.wikihow.com/Make-Yogurt, you can you tell if your yogurt is ready by "gently jiggling one of the containers . . . the yogurt will not move if it is ready and you can take it from the yogurt maker and put it in the refrigerator then. Or you can wait and let it get more tart for 12 hours or more." It also gives more specific instructions about the three types of yogurt makers, so you can see which one you own and follow more recommendations based on that.
but... wasn't I supposed to keep away from the yogurt machine while on, without touching it at all?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.619088
| 2012-02-24T01:13:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21668",
"authors": [
"MHarris",
"Mud",
"Orwellophile",
"dolma33",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48105",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48108",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48118"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
1551
|
Apple pie: peel or not?
Is it okay to leave the skin on the apples when making an apple pie? I'd like to leave them on, but I wonder if there will be chewy strings of peel or if they will cook tender.
A rather subjective question, its down to peoples preference, although i have never bought an apple pie that had skin on.
Cooked peel tends to stick in the teeth in my experience; I always peel.
@dnolan I've also never bought a good apple pie...
I don't tend to make apple pies for the nutrition. ;-)
Depends on the apple. Apples with softer skins will bake to a more even consistency, but apples with tough skin (the 'shiny' kinds like McIntosh or Red Delicious) tend to get caught in your teeth and throat, and are generally a pain to eat.
If you do make a pie with the skins on, use smaller pieces of apple or slice around the apples to create shorter pieces of peel. These are easier to eat and don't get caught in your mouth as much.
You can peel the apple and then process the peel like herbs into a fine cut using whatever tool you normally use for herbs, and then re-add it to the mix. Adds flavour, but no funky stringy things
When making fruit pies your goal is essentially to make a loose jam inside the crust, something that will remain firm and cohesive without resisting fork or tooth. Apple skins are detrimental to this process as they aren't hygroscopic and will prevent the apple pieces from melding with the other pieces on the skinned side.
I'm not saying it's impossible to make a nice, firm apple pie with skins on, but it's far more likely for that slice of deliciousness to collapse on your plate than if you peel them beforehand.
many popular pies having filling that does need to be so cohesive; steak pie, fish pie, fresh berry pie. It more like a casserole than a jam
You should peel your apples. If you don't it gets hard and rough and isn't pleasant. The nutritional value is pretty much lost because it gets cooked. Just eat the peel you've got left :)
While there will be some vitamin loss due to heat decomposition (conversion to indigestible components), most nutrients are useful whether cooked or not. The vitamin C goes down about 60% during boiling/baking
Try it with the peel pureed.
I've made a few pies this way and it works well - also adds a bit of color!
Really thoroughly wash the apples
Cut-out any bad-spots
Peel 'em!
Throw some of the apple-slices in with the peel and blend. Use a stick-blender for best results
Toss the puree in with the rest of the apple-mix and bake!
In my experience cookbooks always tell you to peel the apples, and professional apple pies will always have the peels removed. Cooking at home, though, I often leave them on, especially if I know the apples are organic. I think the peels add flavor and texture, and as you mention, nutrition.
I leave the skins on, slice the apples, and soak them in cinnamon, sugar, and a little salt for a day or two. Then I drain and layer the pie with apples, cinnamon, and sugar several times and bake. I've never had complaints. The skins basically turn to mush but the pie is great, not a sloppy mess. Very nice on a plate, holds well while cutting and serving, and saves a lot of time not peeling apples. That's my .02.
Been haking apple pies from our trees for the last 3 years. Everyone loves my pies and no one notices that they aren't peeled. They are surprised when I tell them they had skins on.
There are going to be varying opinions on this, but in general do you like to bake apple desserts with the peels on already? If you already know that you like peels on when baking then you should be totally safe to end up loving the resulting pie!
Do pick an apple variety with softer skin, one that is not super glossy. And you may want to lightly peel or partially peel your apples with your first test pie.
I always leave on the peel I love how it tastes I also don't remove the skin when I eat a fresh apple. I really don't like any apple pies from the market so I tend to just bake them myself as they are so easy to make and taste totally different from manufactured pies.
Yes, leave the peel on, it adds tannin, texture & taste (i.e. more flavor). The OP can experiment, develop their own preference. Please do try w/peel on, you'll be pleasantly surprised at the difference.
Better Homes and Gardens offers an Unpeeled Apple Pie recipe that looks exactly like a regular apple pie recipe, except that you don't peel the apples. Guess their test kitchen found it edible! I'm about to try unpeeled apple turnovers myself, using my regular recipe. Here's the BH&G link: http://www.bhg.com/recipe/pies/no-peel-apple-pie/
I don't see where it makes that much difference if you peel or not, I've done it both ways and as someone else posted, it saves a lot of time if you aren't standing there tediously peeling an apple. I like to think it saves money too as there is less waste. This idea goes for potatoes and eggplant too, neither of which I peel. I have even made mashed potates with skins on. It's not only more nutritious, it also provides more fiber.
Just ate the worst apple pie ever!
Taste was good, wasn't too sweet, just enough cinnamon and nutmeg, but one bite in and I started to choke... WHAT? An apple pie with the peels on?? Sorry, folks but I don't care if the apples are organic or not - apples should be peeled. If you are so worried about what to do with the peels, cooks them up, cores and all, to make apple sauce - when soft, put the cooked apples through a food mill and enjoy fresh apple sauce!
I guess this is as relevant an answer as the one by the person who likes peel, as it gives us the information that there are people out there who dislike it. But -1 for the inflammatory tone.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.619257
| 2010-07-17T21:16:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1551",
"authors": [
"Adam Shiemke",
"Carol James",
"Claire Shaw",
"Daniel Rodriguez",
"George Mallios",
"Iuls",
"Jonathan",
"Kayode Olamide",
"Lam Chau",
"Malcolm Collins",
"Shayne",
"Sheryl Perry",
"Sly",
"TFD",
"ceejayoz",
"dnolan",
"germancarsonly",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112952",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149795",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149849",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150002",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2800",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2801",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2803",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2824",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3954",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39811",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/661",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75525",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8308",
"merlinc",
"michael",
"opsb",
"rumtscho",
"thiagoleite",
"user149795",
"whostolemyhat"
],
"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
}
|
13438
|
Is there a lamb dish that is as easy to prepare as steak?
I need to cook a romantic dinner and my wife wants lamb, which I've never cooked before.
Usually I make us steaks in a cast iron - it's easy, tasty and quick.
Can I do something similar with lamb? What is the name of the cut I need to buy?
You want the ones that look like little tiny T-bone steaks. Typically they are called Lamb Chops, but look first as there are different cuts under that name. You might also consider doing a rack, which is the equivalent to a Rib Roast, but obviously much smaller. For the rack, I'd sear it in a pan, and then broil it until done. (15-25 minutes, 140-160 degrees).
That's what I got and cooked - t-bone ones. Turned out great. Thanks!
In the UK I'd use a cut called lamb leg steak, as you can prepare it in a similar way to beef steak. Personally I prefer to griddle on one side, flip over and finish in a hot oven. Make sure you rest it!
I know recipe requests are a bit ugh here, but I'd recommend making the lamb steaks a little bit spiced (rub with cumin, chilli & coriander) and serve with a smooth, creamy cauliflower puree - it's a great combination.
Thanks for the idea. Creamy cauliflower puree - should I chill it before serving?
+1 for the spicing. Also could use a mild curry powder.
@z-boss - no, don't chill it. Also serve some greens, say wilted buttery spinach, and perhaps a red wine reduction sweetened with redcurrant jelly. If you don't want to use spices, try taking half a lamb stock cube (the paste kind), schmush it with a little olive oil, then rub that onto the lamb steaks as seasoning.
I'd simmer cauliflower in some veg stock, then when very tender reserve the liquid and pop the cauli in a blender. Add a few tablespoons of the liquid and whizz until fine. Add some cream, then keep adding more liquid until you like the texture, and season to taste. Reheat in a saucepan when needed. And yes, serve with some lovely fresh greens too as per @ElendilTheTail.
I love lamb burgers. You grind lamb, then mix it with onions and various spices. You then put them on a spit and either broil them in the oven or cook them on a grill. You serve inside grilled pita them with tzatziki (a yogurt and cucumber sauce) and taboulleh (a bulghur salad). The latter is optional, it's just a nice side dish.
Roast Lamb Loin is very easy. 30mins per 500g on 180 degrees. Seasoned with salt is the minimum; however it's easy to add Rosemary or Mint. It works very well with a large range of sides including salads, purees, or roast vegetables. A good wine match is a full bodied red such as Sharaz or Syrah.
You can't go past Lamb Backstrap . It does everything a steak does in regards to cooking, remains very juicy and tender.
You can wrap in prosciutto , serve with soft polenta. Basically whatever your imagination can come up with it will suit this cut.Only down side is the price to purchase, but well worth it for a romantic dinner.
I'm not familiar with that cut. It's probably a regional term. Can you add a picture?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.619856
| 2011-03-25T16:19:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13438",
"authors": [
"Chris Cudmore",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Gary",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5060",
"z-boss"
],
"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
}
|
2582
|
How do you make Yorkshire Puddings rise reliably?
Has anyone got a foolproof method for Yorkshire Puddings? With the recipe I have they never seem to rise properly.
If you post the recipe you're using, we can throw out some comments, although based on answers so far, heat matters more than recipe.
While using a hot oven and keeping the tin hot while filling are both critical elements, equal concern needs to be taken with making sure that your batter is at room temperature.
If the eggs and milk aren't room temp to even slightly warm, then it will take a significant amount of heat to simply warm the batter in the pan before significant steam can build for their expansion.
You can warm eggs quickly by placing the whole egg (in shell) in a bowl and covering with hot water from the tap. Let it sit for 5-10 minutes and you'll have room temperature/warm egg. Milk can simply be microwaved to only slightly warm (not hot, or you'll cook the eggs).
You might also try using bread flour. Here in the south all-purpose flour has a lower gluten content than most other all-purpose flour in the US and it's also bleached to weaken the gluten content that's there. I've recommended to guests of mine that have had issues with popovers not rising that they try bread flour and I've heard positive responses following the use of bread flour. Bread flour will also have a bit more flavor and produce more browning from the additional protein.
You could also try King Arthur AP flour, which I think is the same nationwide, and also is one of the higher-gluten AP flours. Less than bread flours, though.
Serious Eats had a recent article on this topic http://www.seriouseats.com/2015/12/food-lab-yorkshire-pudding-popover-best-method-science.html
The key to making Yorkshire puddings rise is immediate heat. To achieve this you need to use a preheated oven at around 220 C (425f) and the oil in the Yorkshire pudding tin needs to be at almost smoke point, Around 180c.
Don't hang about getting the baking tin into the oven, as soon as each well is filled, quickly place in the oven and bake for 20 to 25 minutes.
Heat is the key - if it hasn't set the smoke alarm off you don't have it hot enough.
The fact is that one amazing person has actually tested all of the various variables for what makes the best Yorkshire puddings and wrote it all up... and the reality is, most of the advice in the other answers doesn't matter one jot... and even if none of it is followed, one still gets "passable" Yorkies.
After dozens of tests and hundreds of puddings, I have some good news for you: It's nearly impossible to mess up a Yorkshire pudding (despite the fact that I managed to back in my fraternity chef days). You can play with the ratio of ingredients every which way and still end up with a batter that rises tall. You can bake it in any type of pan you'd like. You can rest the batter or bake it fresh. You can chill it or leave it out at room temperature. Heck, you can even break the cardinal rule of Yorkshire puddings and pour the batter directly into a cold tin [provided it's not a cast iron skillet]. Break every one of these rules and your puddings will still puff and turn out light and crisp.
It's certainly too long to include here but the overall results for various testing categories:
Batter temperature:
Warmer batter will create taller, crisper puddings with a more hollow core
Colder batter will create denser puddings with a more distinct cup.
Pan temperature:
Your puddings will come out slightly higher and better-shaped with a hot tin, but it's not the end of the world if you forget to preheat it. (Just don't try it in a full-sized skillet.)
Resting Batter:
This was what the tester determined made the largest difference in the quality of the finished product:
I'm going to say this: Resting your batter is the single most important step you can take to improving Yorkshire pudding and popovers. Not only do they come out taller, they also come out much tastier, with a more complex, toasty flavor. Non-rested-batter puddings taste positively flat (literally and figuratively) next to rested-batter puddings.
I'd go so far as to say that resting at least overnight is essential if you are really after the best.
Ratio of Yolks to Whites
He does admit that adding extra yolks makes richer Yorkshire Puddings... but he's not sure that's what he really wants:
The more yolks you add to your puddings, the more rich, tender, and custardy they become. The more whites you add, the taller and crisper they puff.
Thankfully, I found that whole eggs gave the most desirable results. Still plenty tall, but not so lean that they become dry.
Is it OK to open the oven?
Yes. Opening the oven does not in any way harm your puddings.
I baked batches of puddings side by side in two identical ovens. One I monitored carefully through the glass door in the soft orange glow of the oven light. The other I opened up every few minutes to peek along at its progress. (I have two ovens and only one working oven light, so this actually worked out quite well for me.) With the latter, I even took the risk of rotating the tray a few times during baking.
Both batches rose just fine and equally tall.
Conclusions:
There are a ton of other factors that he tested but these seemed to be the most commonly addressed. I strongly encourage anyone interested to take a look at the rest of the article. And, if you want to know what his "ultimate" method and recipe is, it can be found here.
Am I the only person who read this and found it to be self-contradictory? On the one hand, it doesn't matter what you do, on the other hand warmer batter and hotter tin will rise higher? And at the beginning, you wrote that advice in other answers "doesn't matter one jot", and then provide quotes saying that batter and tin temperatures do matter. Why am I so confused?
@ToddWilcox It's in the first paragraph: "and even if none of it is followed, one still gets "passable" Yorkies." The point being, that very little will kill them entirely. You can certainly improve on "passable", though.
I guess we disagree on whether the difference between "passable" and "ultimate" "matters one jot" or not.
Everyone has a different opinion on what makes something better than others... taste is subjective. Look at the batter temp, for example... which temp you go with depends on what outcome you want. The OP here hasn't told us how their recipe fails or what they are looking for, so we have no way of targeting the answer to them... as such, my answer gives a range of options so that users can choose their own pud.
Opening the oven can even help, if your oven traps steam. Just open it long enough to let the puff of steam escape.
The key to getting them to rise I think is having very hot oil and a very hot oven.
I tend to heat the oil in the oven first, but whilst I am pouring the mix in I put the tray on the heat on the hob to ensure the oil stays hot, otherwise it can tend to go cool in the first ones whilst I'm filling the other ones.
The most important part of getting a good rise is the way that you pour the batter in the the tray. You must pour a thin stream directly in to the middle of the tray circle.
Heat the oil
1) Turn the oven on to 200 degrees centigrade and place a rack in the top half of the oven
2) Put oil in to the Yorkshire pudding trays circles and place in the oven
Make the batter
1) To a bowl add 140g of plain flour and 4 medium eggs and whisk by hand for 30 seconds
2) Add 200g of milk to the same bowl and whisk by hand for 1 minute
4) 10 minutes later whisk by hand for 1 minute
5) 10 minutes later whisk by hand for 1 minute
Filling the tray
1) Remove the hot tray of oil from the oven, place on a flat surface and close the oven door.
2) Pouring the batter THIS IS THE IMPORTANT STEP - Ladle 60g of batter in to a small cup because its easier control the batter flow with a small cup. Then very gently pour the batter exactly in the middle of the circle in a thin stream. If you slosh the batter in then you will not get the Yorkie crowns that you desire.
3) Open the oven door and very very gently pick up the tray and place it on the rack. You do not want to ruin the structure of the batter that you have just carefully poured in.
4) Close the oven door and DO NOT OPEN IT for 18 minutes.
Good answer, one thing I'd add to it is. Don't add salt to the mix until just before you add to the oven. I have no idea why but salt destroys Yorkshire pudding batter.
I've done quite a few experiments (statistically designed using DoE software, in case you're interested) on optimizing rise in yorkshire puddings now and I can tell you it's not necessary to preheat anything.
I know this because it was not possible to guarantee uniformity across my trial puddings this way without the whole thing taking ages. So I just put the mixture into the pan cold and everything rose perfectly well.
The recipe I ended up with which has yet to let me down is to have equal quantities (by weight) of flour, egg, water and milk. I therefore start by weighing the egg then adjusting the other quantities to match. With an electric whisk it's possible to mix everything together although I tend to do eggs, flour then liquid.
A little fry spray in the tin should be sufficient to prevent sticking. Then it's 15-30 mins at 200C according to your preference and the overall volume - one big one will of course need longer.
I'm actually about to do another round (definitive screening design rather than the more traditional response surface model) so we'll see how that works. I can say quite categorically that pre-heating tins, warming ingredients and sifting flour are not necessary for good rise and I (plus various others) find the taste and texture of puddings made this way to be quite satisfactory although I can imagine some people may have more specific requirements which are not catered for by this particular recipe.
Next round will involve more assays - I only measured height in the first set, this time I'm planning to measure height, mass and absorption of a standardised gravy in a set time as possible responses of interest.
I mix 4-5 heaped table spoons of plain flour with 2 large eggs. I mix these together in the hope I get a thick mixture that's quite stiff, if it's still a bit runny I'll add some more flour. Then I add whole milk to get a batter. The aim here is to keep adding milk so that I can use a hand whisk to get air into the batter, without the air bubbles quickly rising to the top and leaving the batter. If you use a hand whisk rather than a fork you'll do a better job of finding how much milk you need.
Once all that's done I oil the pudding tray and place it on a hob until the oil is smoking. Because the heat won't have distributed evenly, I then turn the hob off for 20 seconds or so, and then give it another blast.
The oven is usually pretty warm by this point as the chances are I've just removed a roast chicken from it. I turn it to 200C.
I quickly give the batter one more whisk to try and get more air into it, and then I pour the mixture in the tray, place it in the oven and set the timer for 20 minutes.
Don't open the oven during this time.
They always rise.
They also always stick to the tray, so I'm going to try greasing with something other than vegetable oil, I may skip the heating the tray step as well to see the effect that has.
Ok, I'm and ex chef and I cheat. I use batter that has been electrically whisked with one egg and to a consistency of single cream and, here's the cheat, half a teaspoon of baking powder! I leave the batter covered in the kitchen to get lose its fridge-milk chill and develop the gluten for about an hour before use. Also its critical to use generous amounts of oil in the pan (whether for yorkshire puddings or toad in the hole or just batter pudding) and get it just smoking hot before you add the batter max. This will 'seal' a thin layer of batter mix before it has a chance to stick to the pan! Leave enough space above the pan because you might get a surprise on the rise!
@user32857: assuming they're british, it's what you'd expect from 'light cream' in the US, 'lite cream' in Australia, and 'table cream' in Canada. See https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/784/67 . It's been years since I've messed with dairy (it doesn't like me), but I generally aim for nappe aka 'coats the back of a spoon'
With all due respect, I wonder how much experimentation folks here have done with getting the oil/oven very hot and the ingredients not too cold.
The problem I've had historically is the stuff sticking to the pan when cooked (I always make big ones, can't be doing with those small ones made in fairy cake tins!). So in recent times I've switched from a metal baking tray to silicone cake pans.
For example, I made toad in the hole this week. Basic pancake batter (3 eggs, 90g flour, half pint of milk, two pinches of salt), whisked until the lumps disappear (i.e. no attempt to make it 'voluminous'). Batter is in the oven perhaps 10 minutes after the milk had come out of the fridge (i.e. not exactly room temperature, I imagine). Two silicone cake pans (one per greedy person!), each with a dash of olive oil and a small knob of butter, on a metal baking tray into a fan oven set at 160 C (don't know the actual internal temperature). After three minutes, put the tray on a (unheated) surface, add the browned sausages, pour in the batter (by this time the oil has cooled somewhat, right?), then back in the oven. Stays in the oven for about 20 minutes, during which time I've opened the oven to retrieve the squash that is starting to burn and again to return the squash to the oven to warm (i.e. the oven door has not been closed throughout). Pudding has risen and the risen bits are brown and crisp, the bottom is somewhat less crisp. Situation normal, results just how I like it.
It seems from other answers here I'm doing a lot 'wrong'. Yet my results are always to my satisfaction. Now, it could be that I haven't had the 'real stuff' so don't know what I'm missing or I have bad taste etc. But I don't think anyone can say that mine do not "rise reliably" (which is what the question asks)!
By nature you'll get variance in peoples opinions and experience and people tend to stick with what works for them rather than necessarily experimenting. Have you noticed how everyone believes high heat to be important, yet no-one explained why?
actually, over the last two weeks I did experiments with Pfankuchen (aka German Pancakes, aka Dutch Babies) and found the most reliable method to get the characteristic rise at the edges was to heat the oven and pan to 225F, then pour in the batter, then crank the heat up to 425F. Resting was not needed. However, I needed a picture for a talk I gave last night on polysemy, and so wasn't necessarily optimizing for flavor or texture. I found that too high of heat can cause the top to crust, and you end up with the whole thing turning into a puffed ball, like what you get from too low of heat.
You need equal amounts (volume) eggs (yes eggs) milk and plain flour. If you wish to make them a little lighter use 3/4 milk then a quarter water to the equal volume. I use on average 4 to 5 eggs, depending on how many I am catering for but a 12 hole bun tin I use a mug of eggs, mug of milk/water and a mug of plain flour plus a good pinch of salt. I use trex as my fat and get it smoking hot in an oven at 230c at least. I would put the shelve down from the highest as I have trouble getting the at least 5 inch risen puddings out of the oven. It must be plain flour (no baking powder).
I think that the consistency of the batter is also vital. If it's too thick, then they simply won't rise. Single cream is the consistency you're after, not double cream! That's definitely too thick!
There are 3 keys to successful yorkshire puddings -
1/ High temperature oven.
Yorkshire puddings rise due to quick cooking of the flour and steam being formed in the batter mixture, hence the requirement of a very hot oven and hot oil as you pour the batter into the yorkshire pudding tin. Once the yorkshire pudding has risen and is nearly done you can move it to the lower shelf to finish.
2/ Light mixing hand
Use a light hand when mixing the batter. Don't beat it into oblivion! Allow some air to remain within the mixture and ensure the flour is sifted first, this isn't a pancake mix.
3/ Let it rest
Let the batter rest for 30 mins or so before adding it to the pan and into the oven.
I use a heavy oven safe ceramic pan which I preheat at 220 C / 425 F. I also allow the pudding batter to come to room temperature. This preheating of the ceramic works every time. Preheat a pyrex or corningware shallow pan. Once it is preheated pour in the oil or drippings, they will start smoking, the immediately pour in the batter and put it in the oven. After 15 minutes, turn down the heat to 160 C 325 F for another half hour. You will be very pleased by the result.
I have tried to get my puddings to be fail proof and now I'm almost there. I agree with the above answer.
I use 1 cup of plain flour, 1 cup of eggs (4/5 depending on size), 1 cup low fat milk, and a pinch of salt. I do not use oil, I use drippings like my grandad use to use, or the fat off the meat in the baking dish. I heat the oven full blast (I have fan forced). When the fat is smoking hot, I pull the shelf out but don't take the pan out and I fill the muffin tin with the batter from a plastic jug, then I close the door. They begin to rise quite quickly. When they are golden colour, I turn the oven down to about 200deg and cook till a nice brownish golden. It takes about 20 mins. Also. I open the oven during cooking and turn the pan as my daft oven browns on one side quicker than the other. This does not affect them at all. Also, I leave my batter for about 2 hrs or even overnight, but take it out of the fridge a few hours before I need it so its room temp. I do not sift flour either, it makes no difference. I put the flour in a bowl with eggs and mix to a smooth paste, then I add the milk and use a hand electric beater for about 1 min. Also, I give it another blast with the beater just before I put them in the tins to get some air into the mix. You must have a hot oven and smoking fat almost.
I use the 200 ml method....2-3 eggs depending on size...that usually gives me 200 ml or 2 dl...then the same amount of milk and flour...mix the egg and milk first, (best if both are room temp not straight from the fridge) then sift in the flour whilst whisking. I never salt mine as I have found they tend not to rise as well if you do. I butter my yorkie tray, the whole cups not just the bottom....a knob of butter rubbed into each cup (yes I use real butter in mine)and put it in the oven usually at about 220 then pour the batter into the cups once it is smoking hot and stick it back in for 15-20 min or until they have risen and are golden. Never open the oven door whilst they are cooking as they may collapse on you. One hack to making your puddings really rise is to add another extra egg white when you wisk. I have also found that preparing the batter an hour or so in advance and leaving it to sit (room temp again) until it goes in the trays work really well. My friend always adds a dash of baking powder to hers and they rise very well but I have not tried this myself..
The part of the method which most answers sidle up to but never fully address is, I believe, the key to a good rise, assuming that your recipe is reasonably standard, the baking tray hot etc.
The fat in the tray/pan doesn't just need to be hot, it also needs to be of generous depth and to be swirled up the sides of the pan.
A properly risen Yorkshire Pudding or Toad in the Hole is high at the edges and leaving a depression in the centre which is crispy on the outside but with a softer upper layers which is closer, for the lack of a better description, to the consistency of an English pancake/crepe.
If the sides of the baking pan are not thoroughly and liberally coated with the fat, the outer edges of the pudding seem to 'catch at the edge and be held down by that friction, which pushes the rise to the centre of the pudding, resulting in a more cake-like domed shape. (on a Toad in the Hole, this is why they occasionally rise like a slightly enthusiastic focaccia and eject the sausages.
And the reason you need a lot of fat is because that helps the it to keep its heat instead of being cooled by the batter.
So, plenty of fat (lard or goosefat for preference due to high smoke point) and swirl the pan before you pour the batter.
2 eggs is 200ml add same amount of milk then same amount of plain flour pinch of salt couldn't be easier. Or if you want more just measure the eggs and same amount of milk and flour.
What kind of milk? What kind of pan do you use? Which parts do you heat up before adding the batter? What temperature is the batter when you add it? Where do you store your eggs, milk, and flour? Do you grease the pan? With what? Is the oven open for any of the baking time? How long do you bake? Do you prick the pudding in the pan? What do you do when you take it out of the oven?
I use one cup plain flour, 3/4 cup of milk, 2 eggs, salt & pepper, then approx 3/4 cup water depends consistency of batter, use hand whisk, leave to stand at least hour, heat tin with lard until smoking (I use 12 tray but works bigger tins too) this recipe works brilliant everybody loves them, about 200 oven approx 20 mins.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.620154
| 2010-07-21T11:36:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2582",
"authors": [
"Adam Shiemke",
"Brenda Smithingell",
"Catija",
"Doug",
"George Claghorn",
"Gottfried Helms",
"Joe",
"Kriss Bradly",
"Laura",
"Leobiss International",
"Lori ST",
"Martin Beckett",
"Mathew Bradford",
"Melanie Shebel",
"Renzo",
"Robin Betts",
"Shirly Thomas",
"TXN_747",
"Todd Wilcox",
"Vanessa Patterson",
"csgillespie",
"derobert",
"draksia",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102781",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113333",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155648",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162378",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4576",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4583",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4586",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67074",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67081",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94298",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94333",
"jejorda2",
"mohamagdy",
"nnrcschmdt",
"pretty ",
"spiceyokooko",
"user268587",
"wareagle"
],
"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
}
|
8001
|
How can I avoid chocolate truffle mix curdling?
We are trying to make chocolate truffles by heating cream and adding to chopped up chocolate but it keeps curdling. Are there any tips to avoid this happening?
I followed this recipe, ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/recipes/truffles_67741 ) and I think the 'rolling boil' instruction made me curdle the mixture also.
I am going to try the below and see if that works tonight.
Try adding the heated cream to the chocolate away from the heat. Curdling often occurs when you add too much heat to the chocolate as it's the fats and cocoa solids in the chocolate separating that causes the issues.
When I make truffles I tend to use a cheese grater to create fine chocolate shavings which melt easily when mixed with warm cream avoiding the need to add more heat which you might need to do if you have bigger chunks.
To save a slightly curdled mixture you can sometimes get away with frantic whisking but the taste will probably be affected.
I melt the chocolate then allow it to cool slightly and add the cream at room temperature, stirring it in gradually, adding any alcohol for flavouring as I go - I've never had it curdle this way.
I have had it split and it's generally adding something cold too late, whisking for a few minutes with an electric whisk on high speed will fix it, well it worked for me.
You should melt the chocolate over a double boiler as you heat the cream, and stir the cream vigorously into the melted chocolate to prevent this.
There are many reasons why this can happen. It is actually one of the most common problems with ganache. Here are a few things that can cause the lumpiness:
Overheated cream - The cream should come to a simmer and not much more. If you want to be precise, it should be around 105 F when it is added to the chocolate.
The chocolate should be finely chopped so it melts easily. It should also ideally (although it doesn't absolutely have to be) be tempered. If you are using new chocolate that was not previously melted, it should already be tempered.
What recipe are you using? If you have any liquid flavorings (rum, fruit puree, etc) that can be a factor. Are you adding butter or only using cream?
From more experimentation it seems like too much heat is probably the problem. Less heat does mean more work chopping up the chocolate finely. Just using chocolate and cream. Does butter help?
Yes, there is a lot of work involved in chopping up the chocolate. When possible, I often buy chocolate from companies that sell their chocolate pre-formed into small (chocolate-chip-like) pieces. Try using a thermometer to check the temperature of your cream before you pour it onto the chocolate. It should be around 105 F. Let the cream and the chocolate sit without stirring for 30 seconds to a minute and then start stirring and add a small amount of butter if you want. After trying many, many ganache recipes, my go-to ratio for basic ganache is from this site: http://tiny.cc/7ppjm
Boiling water worked for me! Cheers
how do you use the boiling water?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.621847
| 2010-10-10T12:51:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8001",
"authors": [
"Computerish",
"Russell Gallop",
"Terri",
"evl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5057",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91379",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94259",
"jos",
"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
}
|
16949
|
Desperately Seeking Chicken Haddies
A staple of my Gran's kitchen when I was a child, Chicken Haddies (unbelievably I found a graphic of the product she favoured, below) was boneless haddock meat wrapped in wax paper then canned (a process unique in my experience.)
She was raised in Southern Ontario but spent decades of her life in mining camps in Ontario, Québec, and Newfoundland. My question is, is anyone aware if Chicken Haddies are still sold anywhere? An internet search finds references to several canneries in Atlantic Canada but the companies have no internet presence.
Please help, Chicken Haddies made the best chowder EVER!
Are chicken haddies the same as finnan haddie? If so, there are lots of online purveyors available.
I think there must be some difference, even though the fish chowder she made she referred to as "finnan haddie chowder".
It seems that the shortage was temporary. You don't have to add other answers here, as the OP has obviously found enough sources.
Apparently the chicken haddie plant had fire damage and we have not been able to buy it for over a year now in New Brunswick, Canada. I too grew up with it for making the best fish cakes. Anyway, the plant is up and running again as of January 2012 and I've been buying at Sobeys.
Here's a link to a page where you can get them shipped from, or find the nearest store:
http://www.powershopper.com/products/findneareststore.asp?companyid=13&partnumber=6712483&companies=13
It sounds like the term "chicken" means the same thing in PEI for haddock ('haddie')as it does in Maine for lobsters, that is, small. (Minimum size lobsters are sometimes referred to as "chickens" or "chix")
I had found that page, but regardless of what data I enter in the search function, there is no result. I also tried to google "Babineau" without success.
I'm sorry it didn't work, Doug. I tried! :)
you can get it at superstore OceanChoice makes it from Newfoundland Babineau's chicken Haddie
They just started selling it again, at the Fisherman's Market it Halifax.
The OCI plant in St. Lawrence, NL still makes it. Whether you can buy directly from them or not I don't know.
I just googled it and it seems the plant is on strike!
Wow! Talking about dating yourself, I worked for Connors Bros in the later seventies as a quality manager testing Chicken Haddies , I got here because I was completing some information and was struggling to remember if Chicken Haddies was a mixture of cod and haddock. Connors Bros , Black Harour still are in business but I think Chicken Haddies was dropped in the late 80's. You are right it was packed in parchment and autoclaved and was prone to blackening which we called "smut" and which is related to sulpur in the meat protein. I would say call Connors and ask for a recipe they would still have it and they are great people. Yes it does make a great chowder.
Good luck
Just reading these comments again, I must say thanks bro! I wasn't quite sure that I wasn't just imagining that wax paper. Still, I wonder what that was for.
Babineaus Chicken Haddies is for sale again at Sobeys stores. I just brought two cans today, it is made by Babineaus Fisheries in PEI. We boil and mash potatoes add diced onion and Chicken Haddie mash it all together and pan fry it or make fish cakes.
Would you care to share your recipe wth the rest of us?
As I child I, too, had chowder made with canned fish - but my parents called it Finnan Haddies, not Chicken Haddies. Finnan Haddies still exist - they are a name for smoked haddock. Maybe they used the name they knew from Britain to refer to the Ontario canned product. These days I make the chowder with canned tuna, but perhaps you could try getting smoked haddock?
I checked @ESultanik's link, and I think the difference is that Chicken Haddies were definitely not smoked. The flesh came out of the wrapping with a brilliant white colour.
I got some in Winnipeg, at the Gimli Fish Market. The brand was Babineau chicken haddie. It cost 7.99 per can.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.622255
| 2011-08-18T13:13:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16949",
"authors": [
"Dextek",
"Doug",
"ESultanik",
"Eric",
"Evan R",
"Jack Maddington",
"Jennifer S",
"Juan Serrats",
"L Bahr",
"Nick Edwards",
"Wade",
"crew",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36308",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36309",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36387",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36424",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45153",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47844",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50739",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55094",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55095",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7060",
"rizalyn",
"rumtscho",
"sahar samie"
],
"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
}
|
12080
|
How fast does water cool off after boiling?
I don't have a kettle, so I use a cooking pot at home to boil water. I boil water on high in the cooking pot and as soon as I see the big bubbles/steam forming, I assume the water has reached 100° C. Is that correct?
If the water has reached 100° C and I let it settle off the stove for 1 min, what's the average temperature of the water after that period of time?
EDIT
I'm trying to make some coffee from my french press and from what I've read, people recommend to wait 1 min before pouring the hot water in the press. I'm not getting a lot of coffee flavour from the french press after letting it infuse for 5 min. I was curious to know if the temperature of the hot water can drop a lot in 1 min.
You are correct with the assumption that the water reaches 100°C when it starts to boil. As for the average temperature, I think it would be really hard to calculate since you would have to take into account what temperature the room is in and what not.
Pick up the book Thermodynamics for Dummmies. It will help you calculate heat loss based on ambient room temperature and the size of the vessel.
I'm gonna be a bit pedantic and say, "Use a thermometer". It's really the only way to tell with 100% certainty (limited by the acccuracy of your thermometer, of course).
At the Engineering Toolbox: Heat Loss from Open Water Tanks: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/heat-loss-open-water-tanks-d_286.html
As long as you are talking about a normal pot with or without a normal lid (i.e. not a pressure cooker) and you are reasonably close to sea level, you're right, boiling water is at 100°C.
However, if you start to climb in altitude, that is no longer the case, at 300m, water boils at 99°C, at 600m, 98°C and so on. Wikipedia has a page with information about High altitude cooking that contains a reference table.
... and that it's mostly pure water -- if it's a solution (ie, there's salt or sugar disolved in it), the boiling point is slightly higher. (not much though, you can only raise it about °4C, and that's for a saturated solution, which would be very salty)
This would go for water in a kettle also though.
This doesn't answer the important part of the question, which is how fast the water will cool.
@Jefromi No, but that was not the original formulation of the question (the one I answered back then).
@PaulRein It wasn't in the title, but it was the whole second paragraph of the body.
Tip: in your current phrasing, your question seems like a rather abstract physics question. You could get more informative answers if you expanded it to let us know what you are trying to prepare at a certain water temperature. Is it tea perhaps?
But to try to answer the first part of your question as stated: the Rouxbe cooking school has a video lesson demonstrating how you can identify different water temperatures without using a thermometer. For example, for the poaching cooking method (which is done in water at 71 to 85 degrees Celcius) you should look for the first small bubbles at the bottom of the pot and the first signs of steam from the surface. So assuming that the water is at 100 degrees Celsius as soon as you see steam forming is not necessarily correct. If you heat up the water further than the poaching temperature range, you get at the temperatures for simmering and gentle boiling. For a vigorous boil (100 degrees Celcius, which is the maximum temperature that water can reach at sea level) you have to wait until the water is moving and steaming faster, with big bubbles appearing on the surface.
The cooling rate will also depend on the mass (volume) of the water, the mass of the pot, the thermal transfer capacity of the pot and anything it contacts, ambient temperature, air pressure, humidity, purity of the water, etc. The answer to your question is "close enough".
I'd wait about 30 seconds. If that doesn't do the trick or tastes burnt, try more coffee. If neither of those work, you may have a lighter blend of coffee (can also happen if it's old). Also make sure to steep for about 4 minutes on average for a French press before pressing, you can play around with times to find one that suites you best of course, but 4 minutes is the average amount of time it takes water at approx. 195 degrees f to extract the intended amount of flavor from of the coffee that the manufacturers shoot for without making "too strong" or "too weak". All subjective though. Hope this helps a little! Saw everyone else trying to be Isaac Newton and not trying answer your question so I figured I'd at least offer what I know. Cheers!
No one seemed that interested in answering the part of question about cooling time. Luckily, someone else has done a wee experiment and put it on their site:
http://jwilson.coe.uga.edu/EMT668/EMAT6680.2002.Fall/Ledford/ledford12/cooled%20_data.html
They also used a cooking pan.
According to their data and this excellent answer on Coffee SO which says:
Coffee solubles dissolve best at an optimal temperature of 195-205°F
the ideal moment to pour the coffee after boiling is around the 2nd minute, roughly between 90 and 150 seconds (though I've come to prefer cold brew, it tastes great and it's easy, which could be the real solution to your problem).
Thanks for the data links. However, the reason why this question is unanswerable as written is because so much depends on the details. Your first link mentions that cooling rate depends on surface area (which is true), so the size of the pan/surface area is one variable. The volume of the water is another variable. The material of the pan/cup is another. Whether the cup/pan is preheated before adding the water is another. The temperature and humidity of the room are further variables. The only way to actually know the temperature in a particular setup is to measure the temperature.
@Athanasius Yes, specifics make a difference and the only way to know is to measure directly. That doesn't mean there isn't an average in either the specific mathematical sense or the more colloquial "what's it likely to be, roughly". It's not unanswerable any more than "how long does it take to get from work to home" is unanswerable. So, a data point is a good start.
I agree, which is why I upvoted your answer. My comment was reacting to the first sentence of your answer, however, which implied that no one was interested in answering that question. I don't think it's that people were uninterested -- I think it's just impossible to answer with any specificity. IMO, the right answer if OP wants to find an "ideal moment to pour the coffee" is to get a thermometer and measure what happens for the particular equipment.
@Athanasius Fair enough. It's a tad rhetorical but I'm not above hyperbole :)
Boiling fresh water is indeed 100c or 212f at sea level. However your question is a very good one. If all the water in your pot were boiling, it would all vaporize very quickly.
The water just above the hot spots inside the tea pot are just under boiling, and reach boiling just as they vaporize, but the water convecting around the edges is much cooler.
In general, it is usually considered that if you bring tea water just to boiling point (the whistle just starts blowing), and you pour a cup of tea that water temperature overall is closer to 180F or 82C which is the perfect temperature for steeping tea leaves.
Coffee steeps faster in hot water as well. In fact you can make an appreciably better cup of coffee starting with hot water rather than cold water in a basic drip coffee maker. The hot water runs through the system faster which means less of the harsher elements of the coffee is extracted from the bean. Hot water equals swifter extraction which equates to better quality, where as just like with tea,
If you steep too long, the tea loses its fresh quality and becomes astringent.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.622642
| 2011-02-12T13:33:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12080",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Brian",
"Cascabel",
"Floy",
"Jason",
"Joe",
"Kip Norman",
"Mark Bell",
"Marti",
"Mike Collins",
"Nicola Dineley",
"PaulRein",
"TSomKes",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"Willie Naylor",
"duchessofstokesay",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162453",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162454",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16965",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24889",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24890",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24964",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24966",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24967",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24969",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4827",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"ian",
"keshlam",
"martijnn2008",
"mmmmmm",
"vwiggins",
"wst"
],
"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
}
|
11150
|
Are there significant differences between different zesters?
I'm thinking of purchasing a zester and I need some indication of a good one. Can anyone help? What should I look for?
I think there's probably a bigger difference between types of zesters than between brands.
No matter what type you choose, look for one that limits how deeply you can cut into the fruit's peel. You want to get only the colored layer, and as little of the white pith (the bitter under-layer) as possible.
The most common kind that I've seen--a series of little loops at the end of a metal scraper thing (hard to describe, I guess)--are too small in my estimation. They work OK, but they are usually kind of dull, so they release a lot of the oils as you use them, and it takes a long time to get a lot of zest. Some also have a second slot to allow you to cut a fat piece of zest, appropriate for a martini or the like. Even on the fine side, the zest they make isn't really very fine, and might wind up as a texture in the final dish. (I think of these as more of a bar tool than kitchen tool, and wouldn't purchase one of these of any brand)
Microplane graters are quite popular for zesting, and they're what I use the most. They don't dig deep, and are crazy sharp so they don't bruise/mash the zest much--less fragrant oil on the tool, more in the dish. They also work really fast--it takes very little time to get the zest from an entire orange. The zest produced is very fine and will disappear in most cooking applications. Because they're sharp it's easy to grate your fingers by accident, so they require some care in use. There are lots of styles out there, from the classic that looks almost like a wood rasp to ones that look more like a grater. I think these are great to have on hand anyway, since they're really good with parmesan cheese and other hard items, and they're killer for zesting.
Another option is a standard vegetable peeler. These take bigger slabs of skin off, and take some practice not to cut too deep. If you do cut too deep you can use a sharp paring knife to remove the excess pith from the backside. Kind of a lot of trouble, but with practice you can get good enough that you don't need the second step. You can get a lot of zest in a hurry this way, but the pieces are huge. You'd either need to cut them down or only use them in a recipe where you wanted to take the pieces of peel back out before serving. Since you probably already have one of these, this is your most economical option.
I have had both a terrible and an excellent version of the 6-hole with handle style. The terrible one was all shine and no substance. The excellent one is not so shiny, but is ground to a fine edge. The terrible one is useless, the excellent one is quite useful. The excellent one also has no "martini zest slot"
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.623589
| 2011-01-17T21:25:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11150",
"authors": [
"Brendon Watson",
"Diego Dominguez",
"Ecnerwal",
"John Wayne MacMullin",
"Nicholas Brooks",
"Ron Richmond",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131647",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131650",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22856",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22858",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"petebachant",
"user22856"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6473
|
How do I get vegetarian tamales to come out fluffy?
I'm a vegetarian, so naturally I don't use lard when making the masa for tamales. I've experimented with butter, non-hydrogenated vegetable shortening, and solid coconut oil. I've tried beating the dough for a long time in my stand mixer, as I've read some suggestions that that is the key to make a fluffy dough. I've also tried both fresh masa and MaSeCa.
My tamales are ok, but I inadvertently had a bite of a lard-based tamale last year, and it was drastically fluffier and lighter than anything I've achieved. I don't know if the difference is the choice of fat, or if the restaurant that made them employs a better mixing technique. Help?
Have you asked the restaurant what their technique is? :)
I don't have enough Spanish to ask :)
Michael can you describe your current method?
Basically beat the shortening and masa for about 10 minutes on medium speed with the paddle attachment on a stand mixer, trying to work in as much air as possible.
You can use Crisco All-Vegetable Shortening: its is on PETA's (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) shopping list of baking goods, but can work just as well for frying as lard.
I was just looking at an all-tamales cookbook at a store, and they said the best choice was a mix of crisco-type shortening for texture and butter for flavor.
I've never made tamales, so take this with a full shaker of salt, but you could try adding a bit of chemical leavening (baking powder) to the dough. It makes everything else fluffy; it just might help your tamales!
I have made tamales for about 30 years and I too learned from my grandmother and my mother. But the secret to fluffier tamale dough is baking powder and salt.
Hey Rosa, welcome to the site. It seems there is a previous answer that says the same thing as yours. Please upvote that answer, unless you have any new information to add...
Add baking powder and mix a few minutes longer to make it fluffier.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.623880
| 2010-09-01T06:37:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6473",
"authors": [
"B Claudiu",
"Didgeridrew",
"Joshua Smith",
"Mark Snook",
"Michael Natkin",
"Tobias Op Den Brouw",
"Tom Ferguson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152612",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154807",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59151",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8457",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17260
|
How do I flavor popcorn with a minimal amount of fat?
I have a popcorn machine that produces popcorn without using fat. It basically blows hot air over the kernels, and after 2 minutes they start popping.
You're not supposed to add any flavoring agent (salt, sugar, ...) in the machines as it's not made for that. So when I want to add flavor, I spray water onto the popcorn right after it has popped, and then scatter the flavoring agent. This works relatively well.
The downside:
the popcorn can become damp (I solve this by leaving the machine on, which blows hot air over the popcorn)
you can waste some flavoring agent (not all of it sticks to the popcorn, some of it falls on the bottom of the bowl)
The upside:
no fat used, healthier and your fingers will be less "greasy"
Any other ideas how to flavor your popcorn using no fat or a minimal amount of fat?
Related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/47507/17063
While movie theaters do often add flavoring agents (e.g. Flavacol) during cooking, that's not all they do for seasoning— they also use popcorn salt which is simply extremely finely ground plain salt. Morton, among other salt companies, package it for sale in grocery stores. It sticks perfectly to popcorn with absolutely no liquid or fat whatsoever. If you can't find any, and don't feel like ordering it online for some reason, putting salt into a high speed blender, spice grinder, mortar and pestle, or some other grinding device does the trick.
For a sweeter corn, you can use a shake of confectioners sugar. It would be great with a shake of cinnamon.
I love to add a touch of garlic powder and a shake of smoked paprika to mine! My wife absolutely swears by brewers yeast for her popcorn... she even brings a little jar of it with her to the movie theater.
Good luck and happy popping!
I suspect that you may not have used an air popper before answering this. The hot air dries the popcorn so much that even popcorn salt doesn't stick well to it. It might work for microwaved popcorn, or other heating methods, but not an air popper
Proper popcorn salt is a powder— It would have no more trouble sticking to dried popcorn than cornstarch would. It will stick to clean glass and teflon.
Don't spray with water with a standard squirt bottle. Get an olive oil spritzer. It's pressurized, so you get an almost aerosol-fine mist, which prevents the kernels from getting soggy. It also adds flavor, in addition to the powdered seasonings you add with it. Or you could use an infused oil and skip the powdered seasoning altogether.
How does this add flavor if you're just spraying water with it? And doesn't adding infused oil defeat the purpose of the question?
You're not spraying water; you're spraying flavored oil and then sprinkling powdered seasoning. If you look at the olive oil spritzer, it sprays a very light mist - it's not like pouring oil over the popcorn. It's just enough to make the seasoning stick to the popcorn.
I do the same thing (olive oil spritzer and popcorn salt). I do it in a large bowl so that I can spritz, sprinkle on the salt, toss a few times, then alternate spritzing and tossing a few times depending on the size of the batch
My fat-free flavoring of choice is a bit of lime juice and chile powder tossed with the popcorn in a large bag. Sometimes I toss by hand in the bowl. I find the lime juice doesn't dampen the popcorn as much as water and adds a nice flavor.
I will have to give this a try...
I use a little spritzer bottle that I fill with Braggs aminos or nama shoyu or coconut enzymes. Just spay a little on as it comes out of the popper. It provided a tad of moisture to then sprinkle on other spices that stick. No fat!
Spritz your popcorn with vinegar, and whatever seasonings you enjoy with it. My personal guilt-free snack is salt & vinegar popcorn! :)
A popcorn gift pack that I recieved a few years ago came with a "grape seed oil" spray bottle (along with several flavorings powders). The grape seed oil seems to work quite well when administered in very low quantities. Not "no fat" but it is at least 'minimal'.
I used to use the cheese flavouring packets that come with macaroni and cheese making mix. Took the popcorn, put in a big bag, poured in the cheese mix and shook it all up. Works pretty good.
Are those packets fat free? Most cheese is not.
I use brown lunch bags with virgin olive olive oil. It works good and adds flavor.
Hello Albert Nitch. I think your answer will have more success in our community if you explained the method in more detail.
I don't think that this answer fits the question since it specifically asks about flavoring without fat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.624099
| 2011-08-29T13:02:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17260",
"authors": [
"Barb",
"ChefAndy",
"Cole",
"Cos Callis",
"Duke William",
"EmmyS",
"Flip Turner",
"Gedas Kutka",
"Iqbal Bassa",
"Joe",
"Preston",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Snappawapa",
"SourDoh",
"Wideicha Marrero",
"ashley",
"dataresulttoto",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104618",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104620",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104625",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104628",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37108",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97665",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97674",
"rumtscho",
"terri kandis"
],
"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
}
|
9891
|
If a recipe calls for canned beans and I want to use dried beans, what do I need to do to the dried beans first?
This is for chili in a slow cooker and I'll be using red beans of some kind--kidney I suppose. I know I need to soak them, but do they need to be pre-cooked too?
@SeanHart The edit you approved was made by someone other than the OP and asks a new question (and in all caps, to boot) - this really looks like the kind of thing that should be rejected.
@PaulWarrenSnellPhD If you have a new question, please post it as a question. Editing an existing question is not the right way to ask. That said, I believe this is exactly your question, and is already well-answered: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/434/1672
Canned beans are already cooked, so if you want the same texture... yes. Soak and then cook your beans until they are just tender.
some beans may need a longer soak/cook process, so consider checking about this if you use several kinds of legumes (like I tend to).
Yes, fully cooked. You'll be rewarded with much better texture than from canned beans.
@Michael: A lot of the texture improvement is down to the fact that canned beans are already fully cooked and get overcooked when added to new recipes. They do not really need to be added to right near the end of a recipe to "warm through". Having said that, many canned bean manufacturers tend towards overcooking the beans anyway.
@Orbling, funny, I have the opposite experience. I find many canned beans unpleasantly crunchy. I think they often either undercook them or use (natural) chemicals to keep them a bit firmer so that they don't fall apart too much in the can over time. In almost all cases I like my beans fully tender.
@Michael: It entirely depends on the brand. I pick per bean per brand for canned varieties (if not using dried). I too prefer beans well cooked, the crunch is deeply unpleasant.
@Orbling I'd love to see your list of which brands are good for which beans; I can never seem to remember, end up making a random guess and being sad.
As "Mrs Garden" states, the canned beans are soaked and fully cooked in advance.
Different beans (legumes) require different amounts of soaking and cooking, so you need to be specific as to the type in your decisions. Butter beans (lima) take very little time, Chick Peas (garbanzo) take hours.
Some legumes, like lentils, often do not need soaking at all.
Your example of red kidney beans are a special case, as they are toxic if not vigorously boiled for ten minutes before the cooking process to destroy the toxins in the skin. Note that cooking them under 100C actually increases the toxicity levels - poisoning from them is particularly noted with slow cookers.
Remember that the canned beans are designed to throw straight in to a recipe at the end, or the beginning, or be eaten cold in salads, they are fully cooked. If your recipe is going to cook for a few hours in liquid, then you may not need to pre-cook the beans, only soak them - as the cooking process will suffice. Take note that if the recipe is high in salt, it is not a good idea, as salt early in the cooking process hardens beans. A lot of slow cooker recipes can just have soaked and partly cooked beans added to them from the start.
My father never cooks red kidney beans before adding them to a chilli, just boils them hard for ten minutes to sort out the toxicity issue and throws them in for the full cooking time.
No way! I didn't know that about red kidney beans... cool. I don't use them very often (I really dislike them), but I will keep that in mind for the next time I do. Thanks!
Also, has anyone else noticed that the bean world is divided re:salt? I always salt my (soaked) beans at the beginning of the cooking process and they have never been tough. Not even once.
@Mrs Garden: I'm a sceptic on it as well, it depends on the bean type and how you are cooking them. Some of the smaller beans are worse for it I think, haricot, aduki, etc. As for the toxicity, red kidney beans are the worst, but there are others in the family that are also.
The "don't salt" thing is an old wive's tale that has been thoroughly debunked: http://www.seriouseats.com/2010/10/the-food-labs-top-6-food-myths.html Salting beans early on is always a good thing.
Salting beans early definitely doesn't make them tough. What you have to watch out for is acid. Adding (substantial amounts of) ingredients like tomatoes will roughly triple cooking times, so doing so tends to make sense only in certain recipes using pressure cookers with stacked inserts.
Dried beans, like other dried grains (barley, bulgur wheat, etc), should soak overnight with about 2.5 times as much liquid to dried beans. For example, soak 1 cup of beans in 2.5 cups of water over night. You can always drain the water that doesn't soak up. What I like to do is use hot water to cover the beans and the place plastic wrap (or a cover) over the bowl.
There are a couple of issues with using plain dried beans in a chili: 1. the beans won't cook at all, 2. the chili will take a really long time to cook, and 3. since the beans are soaking up all the moisture from the rest of your chili, the chili could become dry and sticky (think a can of Hormel chili that sat out all night).
Good luck!
If you have a pressure cooker, you can do a "quick soak" of the dried beans. I don't have the exact procedure/measurements close at hand, but here's the general idea: You put the beans and plenty of water in the cooker, boil them a short time at high pressure, then release the pressure quickly.
This has most of the same effects as soaking overnight in a fraction of the time. The downside is that it can be hard on the bean skins and some will rupture and/or come off. But all you've got is dry beans and you don't have all night to wait for a soak, this can get you to a cookable state very quickly.
Of course, this still leaves you with uncooked beans, but that's remedied by cooking your soup (or whatever) longer with a little more liquid than is called for with canned beans. Since you're looking at a long-cooking crockpot chili here, I don't think you'd have much trouble.
Sounds like this might be nice for chili or refried beans, where you don't need or want the beans all whole.
nonsense. I always just rinse the dried beans and throw them into the crock. The crock cooks all day, why would you need to soak the beans for an equal amount of time beforehand? I've made plenty of soups using beans, and have never had a problem.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.624542
| 2010-12-08T20:21:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9891",
"authors": [
"Alex Kaushovik",
"Calimo",
"Cascabel",
"JoshieSimmons",
"Katherine Naugle",
"Michael Natkin",
"Mrs. Garden",
"Orbling",
"Robert Layser",
"Rose Monk",
"Shuriken",
"Sobachatina",
"a0z0ra",
"dfeuer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122584",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122586",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122616",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20264",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20265",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27380",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3577",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58949",
"pak",
"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/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
33538
|
How do I cook chips (french fries) in the oven?
A while back, I came across a method of cooking chips in the oven (rather than deep frying them). Basically, what I do it cut the raw potatoes into chips, coat then in oil and bake them in the oven for about 30 mins on top heat. This works... kind of. However, if I cook the chips thinly, they just break up in the dish when moving them around, and if I cut them thickly (which I would prefer) they just never cook (I've left them in for a lot longer than 30 mins in the past).
Are there any tricks to this? Is there a certain type of potato that I should be using, or a certain type of oil?
(I'm in the UK, so I imagine that available ingredients differ from the US - as does the meaning of chip - by which I believe I'm referring to french fries)
The potato variety part of the question is asked here... but the top answer incorrectly says that it doesn't matter. It was also asked here with a bit more of a description. There's a bit more on the actual difference between varieties here and here. (I'll see if I can clean up any of this when I have more time.)
Just to be clear, I'm not specifically asking which type of potato to use (unless that turns out to be the answer). TBH, I've tried it with various types and haven't really noticed any difference with relation to my question.
Understood, that's why it's a comment and not an answer - but the type of potato definitely should have an effect on the tendency to break up. Waxy potatoes hold together better than starchy/floury/mealy ones.
The general answer to your question is that these are called "oven fries". If you google, you should find a myriad specific recipes. They will not have quite the same quality as a true deep fried French Fry, but they are delicious in their own right.
There are a couple tricks I've learned from Cook's Illustrated about making oven fries:
Soak your cut potatoes in warm water to rinse off excess surface starch. Drain them and dry them very well (I use a salad spinner and paper towels).
Use a heavy duty sheet pan on the bottom rack of a hot oven to focus the heat on crisping the bottoms of the potatoes.
Oil your sheet pan well, and sprinkle salt on it. This will act kind of like ball bearings under the potatoes to prevent them from sticking too hard.
For the first 5-10 minutes, tightly wrap the sheet pan (with the potatoes) with aluminum foil. This will essentially steam the potatoes and help get a really nice creamy interior. After that, remove the foil and flip the potatoes halfway through. Make sure you use a thin metal spatula when you flip them.
These techniques work well for potatoes in general, and really do turn out some fantastic spuds.
I do this routinely. I do about half an hour at 375 and then turn it up to 425 to crisp them. Don't turn them often - typically I will just turn them once when I'm putting the heat up. I've tried assorted varieties and never really noticed any difference.
How long at 425?
@JonathanLeaders until they are brown and crispy - a few minutes, maybe as much as 10. It depends on how many there are (ie whether the sheet is crowded) and what else has been going on (have I been opening the oven a lot etc.) I typically turn them up while meat rests, sauces get finished, quick-cooking vegetables like kale get cooked, the table gets set etc, so I'm not always paying strict attention to time passing, I just look at them to see if they're ready or not and if not I give them another minute or so.
I pre cook my fries. I cut them into medium thick fries, wash them and put them in a pan with cold water.
Bring them to a boil and let them cook for about 4-5 minutes, drain them.
Then I spray my baking sheet with Pam, then put my fries on the baking sheet and pray them again with Pam.
Bake them for half an hour in a pre-heated oven on 415 F, turn them after 20 minutes.
This recipe is for medium thick cut fries, if you want steak fries, add about 5 to 10 minutes oven time.
Mine have never failed me and I am a french fry lover, but this way I have them somewhat healthier then when you prepare them with oil
Enjoy!!!
To help your thick cut chips cook I suggest par-cooking them before putting them in the oven. You can do this by boiling them or microwaving with some water. Then dry them out, coat them in oil and bake at a high heat to get them crispy.
This is a much simpler adaption of Heston Blumenthal's chip cooking technique. Much more viable for the home cook with limited time.
For extra reading and inspiration here is some chip research/science on recreating McDonalds fries and a video from McDonalds explaining their actual process.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.625211
| 2013-04-16T15:42:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33538",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Jonathan",
"Kate Gregory",
"Paul Michaels",
"Rosa",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99540"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4091
|
How can I make this antique ginger wine recipe using ingredients available today?
I have this old family ginger wine recipe, but some of the ingredients are hard to find or may not exist any more...
Essence of Ginger 12mls
Tincture of Capsicum 9mls
Essence of Lemon 5mls
Solution of Burnt Sugar 25mls
2 1/2 lb sugar
1 oz Tartaric Acid
5 quarts boiling water
Add mixture and sugar to boiling water.
WHEN COLD add tartaric acid.
I expect I can find the sugar and the water(!), but the rest I'm less sure about. Can anyone give some ideas as to how I could make tincture of capsicum, essence of ginger & lemon, and a solution of burnt sugar? Just in case it's different in other parts of the world, this recipe is British.
Do you ferment it after?
How archaic and fun!
I whipped out some Google-fu and found the following for you:
Tincture of Capsicum
You can actually buy this on Amazon: Cayenne Capsicum Tincture 2 Ounces. It's available other places, but I saw prices as high as 2x this. (9 ml ~ 0.3 oz)
Essence of Ginger
This is from a late 19th century Jamaican cookbook (Classic Jamaican Cooking: Traditional Recipes and Herbal Remedies).
Three ounces of freshly grated ginger
Two ounces of thinly cut lemon-peel
Two pints of brandy or proof spirit (white rum)
Just combine and let sit for 10 days, shaking well.
Essence of Lemon
This can also be purchased. You can likely find some lemon extract in your grocery store, if not here is some on Amazon: Flavorganics Organic Lemon Extract, 2-Ounce Glass Bottles (Pack of 3) - note that it's 3 bottles.
Solution of Burnt Sugar
This isn't just typical caramelized sugar, it's burnt sugar. Sugar that has been heated to the dark caramel stage of 370 F to 400 F (188 C to 204 C). The sugar at this point has lost most of it's sweetness, smells burnt, and tastes kind of bitter. It's commonly called caramel color these days. This is what is gives Cola's their dark color. In the small amount of 25ml and in the presence of 2.5 lbs of sugar (wow!) you won't taste it.
My amazon-fu fails here, but have found it available on this site: http://www.spiceplace.com/mccormick_caramel_color.php
It might be simpler to buy this than attempt making your own. Caramel coloring can be a little hazardous to make, it's easy to go too far and burn your sugar, and dumping any quantity of water into 400 F sugar is a sketchy experience. Here is a how-to if you desire though:
http://www.ehow.com/how_5673239_make-caramel-food-coloring.html
Tartaric Acid
This too can be purchased - Tartaric Acid 2 oz. (56 gr.)
Please note that tartaric acid is not the same as cream of tartar. Cream of tartar is an acid-salt in which the tartaric acid is partially neutralized. This site suggests you can use a 2:1 substitution ratio of cream of tartar to tartaric acid. I'm not sure if this will make a difference in your drink because I've never used cream of tartar in such a way or quantity before.
There is also the possibility that a recipe of this age simply used the term tartaric acid to refer to cream of tartar. Who knows?
Thanks - I'm afraid I won't be able to order any of these products as I'm based in the UK, but I will still accept your answer! :)
Did you check amazon.co.uk?
Ironically, UK amazon carries a product called "Riddles Ginger Compound" which looks just like a concentrate of the recipe given.
I live in France now but my mother used almost the same recipe for ginger wine. Boots the Chemist supplied the essences of capsicum, ginger, lemon and solution of burnt sugar etc. The tartaric acid also came from Boots winemaker section. The basic mix keeps for ages and is then added to the sugar and boiling water. Tartaric acid (not cream of tartar) is added when the solution is cold.
Then, to give it a kick, you add cognac to taste!
These ingredients are still available to order online or from a chemist locally.
Goog luck!
My dad made this for years, and I used his recipe 20 or so years ago without a hitch. The nearest commercial ginger wine to this is a dark ginger wine (sold in Holland and Barrett health food shops) which comes close but still hasn't got the full body of this one.
But the last time I tried to make it, it wasn't as straight forward as popping into the chemist and I couldn't get burnt sugar anywhere. (I will point out that this was still before my Google life and involved the yellow pages and a zillion phone calls to chemists and home brew shops.) I did work out that I probably could leave out the burnt sugar as it seemed to be only added for colour.
Here is my dad's recipe as written many years ago:
Take a bottle to chemist and ask them to put in:
1/2 oz essence of ginger
1/2 oz capsicum
1/2 oz burnt sugar
Also buy 1/2 oz tartaric acid to add later. Put 3 lbs sugar and tartaric acid in a bowl (I think he used a bucket) and pour 7 pints boiling water over it. Let it stand until cold, add other ingredients and then bottle.
I presume there must have been some stirring involved but I don't remember any long waiting times before we drank it.
BTW, "Chemist" in Britain means the same thing as pharmacy and pharmacist in the US. It's not as common now as it used to be (at least in the US), but pharmacies that compound medicines do often have ingredients like the ones discussed here.
just like you I am in the uk and I bought all the ingredient from Amazon uk hope this helps, my gran use to make this ginger wine when I was a child so I am going to attempt to make it for Christmas as I am not allowed alcohol, good luck,
Because these are extracts, it's impossible to know how strong each flavour should be, so it will end up coming down to personal preference.
I would use fresh shaved ginger and extract it with alcohol (e.g. a clean tasting vodka) or hot water until you reach the desired strength of flavour. Do the same thing with lemon peel (but don't use the white underneath part of the peel).
Capsicum is chili oil, so you will need to extract the oil in alcohol or another oil. I would take a bunch of habañero or other hot peppers, chop them and add them to alcohol, then wait for the oil to infuse the alcohol.
Tartaric acid could maybe be substituted with cream of tarter, which is derived from tartaric acid. Probably the tartaric acid in this recipe is designed to lower the pH so that certain bacteria do not develop, thus it would make sense to substitute citric or other acids to get the same effect.
For the "solution of burnt sugar" I would just caramelize some sugar and add water.
I would try to look for the capsicum tincture at a local health food store. Capsicum tablets are used to improve blood flow and sometimes cure colds, so perhaps a tincture could be found somewhere like that. As for the essence of lemon and ginger, maybe this could be found there too? All of these ingredients are used in natural health products, to be honest this sounds like it would be a great thing to drink during cold and flu season! The burnt sugar though, I don't know about that! All I know for sure is that when you are making candies and syrup you need a reliable recipe and thermometer to tell you when you have achieved the right temperature, so maybe a burnt sugar recipe is required? Good luck!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.625615
| 2010-08-03T11:01:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4091",
"authors": [
"Andrea Grissom",
"Anne Dalton",
"Chris Cudmore",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kim Landers",
"Matteo",
"Melita",
"Olga",
"Rich",
"Sara",
"djsmiley2kStaysInside",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140592",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15625",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7668",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7717",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8091",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23343
|
Create a water + baking soda solution?
I was wondering if there is a way I can mix the two and put it in a spray bottle? I would like to use water + baking soda in some cases to spray a little rather than have large amounts. Is it possible? I've tried, but the nozzle always ends up clogged.
What are you actually trying to do? Is this a cooking question? (And have you tried, well, mixing them and putting them in a spray bottle?)
Im trying to create a solution that is ready to be used whenever I need to for any relevant cooking session. However putting baking soda and water in a bottle will always end up unsaturated around the nozzle and causes it to be clogged. Im wondering if anyone ever tried to do this and was successful ?
But what do you cook that uses baking soda water solution, in tiny spray quantities? There might be a better way, assuming you are cooking something (and not, say, cleaning).
Some cultures use small amounts of baking soda (sodium carbonate) solution on demand as a common baking additive, or assistant. e.g. glaze for baked goods, dough strengthener (pulled noodles)
Just wanted to add, for the naysayers, that spraying baking soda on food seems like a very reasonable thing to want to do. Baking soda lowers the pH, which strongly encourages the Maillard reaction (in the presence of protein and a "reducing sugar"), resulting in much faster and deeper browning.
A small pot of water and baking soda (over saturated is OK), and a simple brush is all you need
A quick stir of the pot with the brush, and wash it on what you need works fine
Baking soda is soluble in water at up to 90 grams per liter. If you add more than that to water, you'll end up with a saturated solution at 90 g/L plus some crystalline baking soda on the bottom of the container.
A teaspoon of baking soda has a mass of about 4.8 grams, so it'll take 53 ml of your saturated soda solution to deliver 1 teaspoon baking soda. In Fully metric terms, that's 11.1 ml of solution per gram baking soda.
The OP is probably already doing essentially this. The issue is presumably that the solution in the nozzle evaporates and leaves behind baking soda.
OP should use a squeeze bottle rather than a spray bottle. Something like this won't clog nearly as easily: http://skincandytattoosupply.com/products.php?product=Squeeze-Bottle
THe OP should explain what he's trying to accomplish; without any extra information I assume that for some reason he needs a fine mist of baking soda solution.
@Wayfaring Stranger , thanks thats a good alternative as well :)
I really have no idea why you'd need to do this for cooking. The amount of baking soda in solution in a few sprays of a bottle is going to be tiny. If this is actually cooking related, I'm sure there's a better way.
But if there's some use for your spray bottle of solution, you probably just need to clean the nozzle periodically - spraying plain water through it now and then would work. Nothing's going to stop the water in the nozzle from evaporating, though.
Just looked back at your comments on this question, hilarious.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.626196
| 2012-04-25T23:01:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23343",
"authors": [
"Bibi",
"Cascabel",
"DMz",
"P G",
"TFD",
"TaliaChaliah. webstarts dot co",
"Veljko",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"aaaidan",
"dezign",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23962",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52840",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52844",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52845",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52850",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77142",
"satyam",
"xxbbcc"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19607
|
Eggs in Pancakes, health hazard?
I want to make pancakes. I have a powder mix that needs only milk to be ready.
However there is a note on the powder mix's box that says I can add an egg to the mix as well.
How safe is that? Are pancakes cooked enough to avoid risk of salmonella?
Even though I answered, I'm honestly a bit confused by the question - are you under the impression that eggs are always dangerous to eat? Or that eggs in pancakes somehow aren't cooked? Have we told you what you need to know?
I thought pancakes are not cooked enough to kill off salmonella in eggs. Thanks
Can you rephrase the question to be clear that your wondering about egg being cooked when making pancakes, as it stands the question is very confusing even with the answer provided.
we're assuming they get eaten up, well, like hotcakes. If they sit around warm, the undercooked portion can get nasty: a chef I know sent a dozen diners to the Dr. from a not-runny-one-bit quiche kept at blood temp 4hrs.
Not having eggs in pancakes is what's unusual and something I would be worried about.
Eggs are completely safe in cooked food, and pancakes are cooked. Pancakes made from scratch have egg in the batter too. As long as you don't drink the batter, or more realistically, leave an uncooked bit in the middle of the pancakes, you're totally safe.
(And of course, it doesn't take much to kill salmonella, and a mL of uncooked batter right in the middle of a pancake has ridiculously small odds of getting you sick even if it's somehow still cold, but if you're trying to play by all the rules, then you should make sure they're fully cooked - you probably want that anyway.)
This isn't really a question about pancakes, it's about the risk of getting salmonella poisoning from eggs.
As to the likelihood of eggs having salmonella, you could start here:
Is it safe to eat raw eggs?
How does salmonella get into eggs?
In any case, since you're going to be cooking the pancakes, you should be fine. If you really want to be sure they're safe, you could check the temperature of your pancakes once they're done. Salmonella bacteria can be killed by a temperature of 160 F, so that's what you want to look for.
I don't think the OP intends to eat the batter raw.
Sorry, between the mistake I made in formatting and the funny wording I banged out at first, it wasn't clear. Hopefully it's more obvious now that I was only including the mention of raw eggs for completeness.
Ah, cool. I think you'd have a lot of trouble trying to check the internal temperature of a pancake with a thermometer - and like you say, there's really no need to worry if they're cooked through.
When using raw eggs to go with the Pancake. I suggest you use the pasteurized shell egg. That's the safest egg.
Pasteurized eggs kill bacteria right through the center of the yolk and destroy all the bacteria and you don't have any risk.
0 risk? Can you cite a source that shows that?
Pancakes are cooked. You don't need any special kind of eggs to make them safe.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.626494
| 2011-12-13T02:25:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19607",
"authors": [
"Brendan",
"Cascabel",
"DMz",
"ESR",
"J.Alvaro.T",
"Pat Sommer",
"Rob",
"Silvia Torres",
"Steven Nguyen",
"Ward - Trying Codidact",
"andyk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42711",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42712",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42713",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42722",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67995",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68184",
"jouell",
"km206",
"lemontwist",
"newcoder"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45140
|
Oops! Too much hot pepper. Now what?
In my home, we're not very fond of capsaicin, and I put too much crushed red pepper (the dry spice, bloomed) into a vegetable soup[1]. What can I do to remedy the soup? (Obviously, I can cook another pot of soup and combine them, but I'd rather not. Any other remedies?)
[1] The soup was made roughly thus: I bloomed the crushed red pepper in a heavy-handed application of Pam and added onion and garlic to saute a little and then to sweat; then I added vegetables and water and seasonings, heated it, and let it simmer.
Counterpart (about black pepper): http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/39337
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/30398/67
You say vegetable, but can you be more specific? (if it's broth based, I might adding some potatoes or sweet potatoes or other bland, starchy items; if it's tomato based, I'd probably serve w/ sour cream.)
@Joe done. Feel free to remove your comments.
So far the answers seem identical to How to reduce the heat from peppers in my tomato soup? and How can you make a sauce less spicy/hot? and How can you reduce the heat of a chili pepper?. Going to dupe this if I don't see any unique answers.
@Aaronut, ah, it indeed looks like pretty much a dupe of http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/18461. Thanks for the links!
According to this rather informative post (https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/1126), the remedy to your problem seems to be using fats, especially oils. These two sites
http://www.seriouseats.com/2011/01/what-to-do-when-you-add-too-much-spice-make-less-spicy.html
http://rosie2010.hubpages.com/hub/How-to-make-spicy-sauce-less-spicyhot
both seem to recommend yogurt or other dairy, and the last one appears to support the oil/butter approach of the first post, at least if the problem is capsaicin/hot peppers.
Good informative links. Dairy is especially effective due to the action of casein, which composes a significant amount of the proteins contained in milk. See here: http://antoine.frostburg.edu/chem/senese/101/features/capsaicin.shtml
Usually, cream will help cut the heat from peppers, including crushed red peppers. Not sure if your soup would work with dairy. Yogurt or milk would work, sour cream too. Cheese does not seem to help.
A comment on "Cheese does not seem to help." I'm not sure if it is technically a real cheese but a brick of "cream cheese" is great for cutting the heat in spicy chili.
If your recipe and objective is dairy tolerant, then dairy will be the best way. If it's not, and dilution is not an option, I recommend adding a sweet or acidic (or both) component to the vegetable soup.
examples to keep it all veggies and no dairy:
Sweet - pre-roasted carrots or butternut squash (I find roasting enhances the sweetness)
Acidic - pan roasted cherry tomatoes till they burst a bit (mmmmm, in a light oil, with perhaps a bit of white wine and shallots :) ).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.626799
| 2014-06-26T04:02:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45140",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Amanda Hall",
"Amy Cesar-steele",
"Aria Nicholas",
"BOURBON WHISKEY DISTILLERY",
"Charles Gan",
"Joe",
"LFKP ",
"Lennin",
"O.M.Y.",
"Robin Norris",
"Sarah Laming",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107423",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107424",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107425",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107431",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107436",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107444",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107490",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107527",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107584",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"logophobe",
"msh210",
"فانز ابو فله"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
53464
|
Can I replicate these Cafe Noir cookies?
I recently bought a pack of McVitie's Cafe Noir expecting shop junk and for once quite liked it. It's very light and crunchy like a rich tea with a thin icing which seems to permeate the upper half (rather than a simple iced topping).
They seem to derive from the Dutch cookie "verkade cafe noir". I couldn't find a recipe or anyone trying to recreate them. Any ideas if they can be created at home?
Does your package have an ingredients list? The link you shared has nutritional information which gives some clues: definitely includes flour and milk, has an incredibly high sugar to fat ratio (although some of the sugar might be part of the glaze you mention). I have never heard of that specific cookie before - although they sound great and now I'm interested. Also, out of curiosity, can you describe their texture more - are they more firm than, say, a shortbread cookie? Maybe like a thicker airier graham cracker (the ratio of ingredients made me think of graham crackers)?
Here are the ingredients : Coffee Glaze (46%) [Sugar, Caramel, Coffee Powder (1%), Gelatine, Salt, Natural Flavourings], Wheat Flour, Sugar, Vegetable Oil, Glucose Syrup, Whey Solids, Raising Agents (Sodium Bicarbonate, Disodium Diphosphate), Salt, Natural Flavourings.
It's quite a plain biscuit. I was thinking, it's quite similar to a 'party ring' iced biscuit. It has a prominent snap and is quite airy and light. I'm not sure what a graham cracker tastes like (in the UK)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.627236
| 2015-01-09T22:48:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53464",
"authors": [
"Jason Wilkening",
"Jody Gray",
"Stephen Eure",
"Trauma Outpatient Center",
"Vickie Eddleman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125597",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125598",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125603",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125604",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18447",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27244",
"nguyen khanh",
"worthwords"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
73475
|
Why should (or shouldn't) we wash rice before cooking?
There are pretty confusing articles on this topic on the internet.
Some suggest that we should wash them to remove starch, talc, etc. Some suggest that we should not wash them because they are fortified with minerals.
This also varies according to the type of rice - short grain, Jasmine, Basmati, etc. It would be great to have logical reasons instead of just instructions.
My Zojirushi cooker instructions imply that not washing rice is basically barbaric. A South Asian friend told me that washing Basmati is a really good idea, and generally imported Basmati gives off a lot of starch in a few changes of water.
Some rices specifically say on the bag not to wash them.
Related: When making sushi, why do you have to rinse the rice?
Reasons to wash your rice:
Reduce/Control Starch levels
Often when you're cooking rice you want distinct grains of rice and for your rice to have texture. In the case of Chinese fried rice for example, you specifically want your rice grains to not stick to one another. If you're talking white rice especially, there will be a lot more loose starch that will form a thickish paste if if you don't rinse it away.
To clean out impurities
I imagine there was a time when there were a lot more impurities (dirt, dust, bugs, etc...). I don't know if that's necessarily the case these days with modern manufacturing. If you're concerned about your source, then this may be a factor for you. There's also the occasional random article that suggest rinsing to reduce levels of something like arsenic (see FDA warning on arsenic in rice)... I think 1. is your bigger factor here though.
Reasons to not wash your rice:
It removes nutrients.
This is true for fortified rice. See here for more information on the fortification process. Note, whole grain/brown rices are less often fortified (I want to say they're not fortified, but I actually don't know for sure). So it would depend on what kind of product you're buying and where it came from.
You actually want to keep the extra starch.
This is the case for things like risotto where the starch is what gives the dish it's creaminess. Serious Eats has a great article that talks about the process.
You might note that washing unfortified rice doesn't do a great deal. Also, debris in rice is still fairly common, so unless the dish specifically calls for the rice not to be rinsed (as with risotto) it probably should be rinsed
While I think that arsenic is extremely unlikely unless someone is trying to kill you, pesticides are very likely. Especially with (a) imported or (b) direct from farm rice, as it's only the mass production domestic rice that goes through rigorous food safety checks.
Besides toxic pesticides (some of which are based on arsenic by the way), your rice may have Diatomaceous earth mixed in as a non-toxic pesticide by natural food stores. This naturally-occurring, soft, siliceous sedimentary rock when ground into a white powder dehydrates and slices pests such as moths. While not toxic, you should avoid breathing it and certainly need not consume it.
@sumelic No, I was just responding to the answer, I didn't see the link. Fair point. Let me say that you were right and I now agree with you. I found a better link tho: http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodborneIllnessContaminants/Metals/ucm319870.htm
About arsenic, the FDA says "rinsing rice before cooking has a minimal effect on the arsenic content of the cooked grain. Rinsing does, however, wash off iron, folate, thiamin and niacin from polished and parboiled rice." That link includes tables of reductions of those vitamins and minerals by rinsing, and also by cooking in excess water. Not sure if you'd rather clarify that rinsing doesn't really help with arsenic, or just avoid bringing it up?
As an added reason to care about starch: Cooking starchy grains without a cover tends to result in the the water boiling over.
For Japanese (like me), our white rice is always thoroughly washed in cold water until the water runs clear. Steamed white rice is at the very core of most of our diets, and we take it really seriously. In fact, the Japanese word for "meal" and for "rice" are the same ("gohan").
American white rice (I think by law) is pre-washed then "fortified" (meaning that a dusting of vitamins is added), which is probably where the argument that "you are washing away nutrients" comes from.
Most white rice produced in the US is thoroughly washed then fortified. So, Americans don't usually wash white rice. It's fine if you do, though. Rice imported from other countries may not be either washed nor fortified. Look at the label for clues.
I am in the US and I buy the blue one from Great Value at Walmart. I believe I shouldn't be washing it. But as the other answer suggests, it forms a sticky white paste if I don't wash it. Is there a way to know whether it is fortified or not?
I would read the bag... According to google they sell one that is "enriched" and one that isn't.
Interesting, Jolenealaska. Would you have a reference for the washing and fortification steps in the US?
We almost always wash rice. Why?
If there's any bugs, it'll float. This is pretty important if you buy rice in bulk of any sort. A quick swish and dump would do here. This is the reason I got told that its done. Bugs icky.
If you don't want your rice clumping together. This is not a measure of stickiness - how sticky rice is depends on the content of a specific protein. I've had rice that was nice and chewey, and came out as a block. "Wash until it runs clear" is basically "Wash until you get all the accidentally created starch from processing out". In theory, I suppose you could pack rice precleaned, I guess.
Also, keep in mind that sometimes you DO want your rice to be sticky. For example, when you make sushi rolls, you want the rice to bind together. Search Google for "sticky rice" and you'll see that it's quite an art form just to get the rice to stick, while some other recipes or uses would find this stickiness to be a problem.
"sticky rice" often comes from using different kinds of rice. In Chinese cooking, you're using something that is often labeled as "glutinous" or "sweet" rice. Also, in traditional sushi applications, the rice is in fact rinsed, multiple times in fact.
This seems more like a comment than its own answer - an answer should stand on its own, or else it might get confusing. If you want to improve your post so it is an answer to the question, you can talk about how washing (or not) changes the way rice binds together - although you might want to mention how rice varieties also play a role, as talon8 mentioned.
Sticky rice is /not/ sushi rice, and the of the dish will suffer. Sticky rice is also known as glutinous rice, and is used for making sticky rice in Thai cuisine and mochi in Japanese cooking. Sushi rice is short grain rice, similar to ordinary Japanese rice (specially labeled sushi rice is chosen for its neutral taste and ability to absorb the vinegar mixture that is key to sushi). There is already a question about substitutes for sushi rice.
And sticky rice commonly gets washed, it will still work :)
I don't agree with this - I have been taught to thoroughly wash rice, even for making sushi. It doesn't stop it holding together, but does stop it becoming clarty and pasty
Unwashed. Sticky rice. Has more starch. Slightly under cook. Eat. this stays with you. So you can work till noon. Give you more energy Why many in Asia eat it that way. Washed rice. less starch. for light fluffy rice, fried rice. But in 2 hours you are hungry again. Unless oil added.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.627414
| 2016-08-26T20:04:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73475",
"authors": [
"Basil Bourque",
"Brian",
"Cascabel",
"Casey",
"Cool_Coder",
"Hack-R",
"Jon Takagi",
"Megha",
"Pointy",
"canardgras",
"flow2k",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17332",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22246",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50111",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90873",
"rackandboneman",
"sleske",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32952
|
How does sous vide compare to other cooking methods?
I have a stomach ailment which makes me intolerant to roasted meat and grilled meat. Even though with grilled food most of the fat drips off, you will notice that smaller amounts of fat still fry on the meat surface throughout the grilling process and then drip off. Even if grease is not my problem, I simply cannot eat or roasted or grilled food due to the effects these cooking methods have on the meat e.g. it may be due to the meat being relatively hard. On the other hand I can tolerate soups just fine. Most likely it is because the fat does not fry or the effects water cooking has on the meat and so my stomach isn't irritated.
Anyway I was wondering if I were to try sous vide, would the end meat be just like or similar to the meat in a soup or is it more likely it would be have problems as with grilling/roasting. In sous vide the meat will be in a bag i.e. never make contact with water and stay at low temperatures. Even if this is the case, I would think the heat would still cause fat and juices to drip out and then the meat would be fried in its own juices. Please explain what you think about sous vide compared to grilling, roasting in the respects I have mentioned. Also how different would the cooking result of sous vide be with steaming?
in order to fry something you have to bring the oil past the boiling point of water, sous vide does not do that.
Steaming and boiling also don't bring things past the booking point of water, but you've said you've had problems with them in some cases. The one thing in common with all the meat you've said you've had trouble with, as has been explained before, is that it sounds like it's tough and overcooked. Perhaps instead of bringing all this speculation in you should simply ask if sous vide results in properly cooked (tender) meat, and maybe if it involves frying (though your characterization of frying is... odd.)
I fixed the obvious spelling mistakes but left the rest in, for what it's worth.
You can't "fry" meat in "its own juices". Even the conventional layman expression for it is "stewing" in its own juices. Those juices are mostly water and can't be brought much higher than the boiling point of water, even if the external temperature is higher (which, in sous-vide, it isn't).
Here's the short summary: "hard" meat is overcooked. There are some exceptions like nice crusty bits on the outside (overcooking those bits is the point), but a piece of meat that's actually hard and tough the whole way through is overcooked. The entire point of sous vide is to avoid overcooking, so it'll be soft and tender. Roughly, I suppose it's most similar to steaming until just barely done, but even with steaming you can overcook meat - sous vide should always be just right.
And no, it doesn't involve frying, though roasting and grilling (British or American) don't really either - frying is when it actually sits in oil, not just a few drops (and often those drops are water, not oil). The problem you're having with roasting and grilling, making the meat "hard" is simply that it's overcooked.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.628010
| 2013-03-24T00:49:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32952",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Arkadeep Bandyopadhyay",
"Brendan",
"Cascabel",
"M. S. Frave",
"Matthew Rapati",
"Parul prajapati",
"Veg Anon",
"Xiaoyu Lu",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76226",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76227",
"txgeekgirl"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18431
|
What is more difficult to make: beer or wine?
I would like to know, in your opinion, what is harder to produce: wine or beer. I mean, including all the steps: planting grapes or barley, taking care of them, collecting, making, etc... the whole process :)
How are you quantifying "difficulty"?
This is a place for food and cooking questions, not gardening. And as baka hinted, I'm not sure how you want to compare the difficulty of maintaining a crop for six months to the difficulty of prep or the difficulty of waiting for fermentation.
homebrewers generally don't grow their own crops, I think even most major breweries just buy from suppliers. In terms of the actual brewing process, its not so difficult for beer so long as you keep everything well sanitized and can follow the recipe.
Please take some time to familiarize yourself with our [faq]. In addition to not being topical to our site, this question is overly broad and unanswerable, as well as largely subjective.
@hobodave, just when I gave a real answer...
I haven't done it myself, but I guess making beer is more difficult for one good reason: safety!
Grapes will ferment by themselves and will produce either wine or vinegar. The fermentation process is violent, so there's no risk. Added meat will be fermented as well!
Beer needs to be sterilized before a yeast is added and there's a risk for butulism.
Now, making a good wine is something else. I guess that making a good wine is far more complicated then making a decent beer, once you overcome the safety issues, as there are a great number of steps involved in making good wine. For instance: aging in oak.
Commercial wines start by sterilizing the grapes and afterwards adding a certain yeast strain, but hey...
For beer, boiling the wort is not required for safety (but it is if you want decent beer). No known human pathogens (from what I've heard online) can survive the fermentation process combined with the preservative effects of hops (including botulism - beer is too acidic for it to survive). There are some organisms like wild yeasts and Lactobacillus that can live in beer, but they're not dangerous, they just make the beer taste bad (usually sour - lambics deliberately use wild yeasts). I have not tried it, but it seems like wine would be harder to make (takes much more time at the very least).
@user5561, thanks for pointing that out. Didn't know it.
I would say it depends on if you like the effort up front (then beer is easier, lots of up front work) or a lot of waiting (then wine is easier, less work up front, lots of waiting and intermediate steps before bottling). Same amount of sanitation in both cases, bottling can be more annoying with beer. I've brewed both wine and beer for several years.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.628286
| 2011-10-18T16:33:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18431",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Cascabel",
"M Granja",
"Trevor",
"baka",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39878",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39880",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7278",
"lemontwist",
"micapam",
"riotburn",
"user5561"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44491
|
Should I avoid meat broth when cooking for vegetarians?
Yes, cuban rice and beans is usually cooked with meat... or at the very least with the broth of it. If I'm cooking for a vegetarian I don't know, should I avoid the meat broth? Is there anything vegetarian that would give an equivalent flavour?
Keep in mind that if possible, the best approach is to just ask your vegetarian friend. There are a lot of people with a lot of different diets, and no one here can really tell you for sure what a single vegetarian person prefers.
I've edited your question to try to avoid getting into too much debate, since we're not really in the business of telling you what other people will and won't eat. (I wish it weren't necessary, but welcome to the internet.)
@Jefromi, Thanks for your comment! I'm having too much fun with this and comming back to pick up the mushrooms cooking suggestion. My friend can actually eat fish, and that will be one of the dishes. But I think that mushrooms are entirely appropriate for the rice.... I was a bit set aback for the extra-work, but now I reckon that I will have backup dishes in case something goes wrong...
Ah, cool - then keep in mind shrimp/fish stock too, for dishes where that'll work!
People choose to eat vegetarian diets for a number of reasons. Not only might the flavor offend your guest, but it may cause them to be physically ill.
You can substitute vegetable stock or broth for the meat products you are accustomed to using.
Mushrooms lend a meaty flavor to dishes they are used in and could potentially be used to replace your meat. I would suggest cooking them separately first to draw out the moisture, then adding them to the beans near the end of the cooking process so they soak up some of the flavors and have a chance to marry. Remember mushrooms are little culinary sponges. They will take flavors and run with them, adding their own earthy notes in the process. Search for vegetarian rice and beans dishes to get an idea of the possibilities here.
From an etiquette standpoint, you may want to avoid the temptation to apologize to your other guests for having to make a veggie substitution as that would be a quick ticket towards alienating your vegetarian pal. I only mention that because some people don't think about things like that and I have a few friends who are on restrictive diets. They are sometimes embarrassed when people go out of their way to make menu changes for them.
Another alternative altogether is to find a way to prepare two versions of the dish. Meaning, you could use meat as you are accustomed to but leave a portion of the food vegetarian. When it's practical I like this option a lot. It just comes with the downside of increased cleanup and stovetop logistics issues.
I would also add that an apology is unnecessary because your guests probably won't realize that you used vegetable broth unless you tell them.
Agreed. I just find that some people lose confidence when they cook a dish they are usually proud of but are forced to change it up. Maybe I just have a lot of awkward friends.
+1 for mushrooms, the "meat vegetable". Mushroom stock would be a very appropriate substitution here.
Thanks a lot. I will consider the vegetarian stock then ... any suggestions about which mushroom is better?
@dsign Most packaged mushroom broths won't specify. If you make your own, there's really no reason to use anything expensive. Dried mushrooms are okay for broth, fresh better for sauteing. Criminis and portobellos tend to have a more meaty flavor than their immature white cousins, but portobellos will generally cost more. Save the specialties like morels for another application.
Portobellos are widely considered to be a meaty mushroom, often substituted for beef. You could potentially slice portobellos into shapes similar to meats you'd traditionally use. Crimini (baby portobello) mushrooms may be a good fit. These are both fairly easy to find in supermarkets in my neck of the woods. More in depth pairing information would probably require more details about your recipe (and somebody with a better palate than mine). Honestly most any mushroom would do. Edit: Jinx. Logo and I are on the same wavelength today.
@PrestonFitzgerald I noticed that too. You owe me a mushroom.
Second the comment about "may cause them to be physically ill". I have a friend who's been vegetarian long enough that she has lost the ability to metabolize some animal products. A tiny bit of lard in a cookie is enough to send her gut into spasms -- and yes, there have been enough inadvertent double-blind tests to prove that this is physical, not psychological. On the other hand, poultry doesn't cause that reaction (though she avoids it), and she considers most smaller fish dumb enough to be virtual vegetables. All of which goes back to "If in doubt, ask the guest for guidance."
Be aware that there are vegetarians who are unable to eat mushrooms, in addition to meat. No matter what you choose to do, check with your guest whether it is acceptable, unless you know them very well.
Knorr makes a cheap funghi porcini stock cube, although it may be difficult to lay hands on at short notice because AFAIK they only sell it directly into specific markets (especially Italy). That plus any kind of mushroom generally does the job. Not that I claim to make haute cuisine or anything :-)
The answer to this is yes: avoid meat-based broth. From a dietary perspective, meat is unsettling to the stomach of a long-time vegetarian, and quite possibly repulsive, and the fact that it's broth (and thus, perhaps, "not really meat") is not the kind of call you want to make on behalf of someone who defines their own dietary restriction.
I have had personal experience with this from two angles: first, I once cooked for a vegetarian friend and had the foresight to ask this question of her, and she thanked me for it, because she had had to refuse food in the past because someone figured "it's just broth; that's okay, right?" It was not okay. And second, my family now includes several long-time vegetarians who say that meat is, at best, weird, and sometimes nauseating just to smell.
Occasionally I do make food that ought to taste like meat, which I try to mock up with particularly savory spices. A small amount of hot spicy Hungarian paprika is surprisingly effective at conveying the main aspect of meat's taste, at least in a soup where the main flavor is supposed to be something else. I imagine it would work with a beans and rice dish. I would agree with Preston Fitzgerald's suggestion of mushrooms, too; even better, if you can use a mushroom broth, since despite optimistic claims, mushrooms themselves are not a good substitute for the tactile experience of meat. Add a little extra saltiness to enhance these flavors (but not to the point of making the dish actually very salty, of course, and since you mention dietary restrictions, that's another one to watch for).
Edit: An update on the subject of the meat smell: there now exists a substitute meat product called "Beyond Meat", which makes hamburgers that I, as a relatively recent pescatarian, find to taste almost exactly like actual hamburgers. They also smell pretty similar, though not the same. My wife, who has the aforementioned meat revulsion, says that the smell is "borderline", though fortunately on the edible side of the border.
Thanks for your answer :-) ... I'm specially wary of the part related to the smell. But to be honest, I don't want to spoil the dinner to the non-vegetarians in it :-)... so, I will go the extra-mile, and ensure that there is enough fresh clean air around just in case...
Many people avoid meat on moral grounds; many others avoid certain types of meat on religious grounds. You could risk really offending someone.
If you want to add that meaty background taste you can try soy sauce, but sparingly, and maybe add less salt.
Thanks for the soy sauce suggestion! I will use it next time!
Vegetarians do not eat meat or things made from meat. Meat stock is made from meat. Do not put it in food for vegetarians. End of.
I agree that you have to assume they don't want to eat it, but you're definitely oversimplifying, which I think makes your point much less convincing. Sometimes the vegetarian in question is actually fine eating things like chicken broth, but there's not a word for "vegetarian except for chicken broth", so they just approximate and say "I'm a vegetarian". And you haven't addressed the other part of the question, what to substitute.
This is all true, it amounts to whether the questioner's friend is a vegetarian or merely someone who calls themselves a vegetarian to prevent their meat arriving in large lumps ;-p As a matter of labelling, a dish containing meat broth is not vegetarian and shouldn't be given to someone requesting vegetarian food. As to the questioner's friend, sure, ask them specifically what their diet is. So bear in mind that many actual vegetarians find it fairly tiresome to be asked, "oh, but do you eat chicken/fish/stock/ham?". "No", they think, "I told you I'm vegetarian, and I was telling the truth."
While some vegetarians wouldn't mind, most would so you are better off avoiding any meat. There are probably vegetarian stock options which you could use instead, I'd recommend using those to be sure.
If it were me I would look to add depth of flavor in vegetarian acceptable ways. Caramelization of sugars is a good way and can be achieved by sauteeing or roasting vegetable, and perhaps frying the rice before cooking.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.628543
| 2014-05-28T18:36:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44491",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Dawood ibn Kareem",
"James Martin",
"Links Healthcare",
"Magic Winner",
"Naomi R",
"Person",
"Preston",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"Steve Jessop",
"alishar",
"dsign",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104604",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104605",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104631",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104635",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104661",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"keshlam",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
786
|
How to melt glucose?
I recent backed a pie that included glucose and the recipe pretty much only said melt glucose...nothing about how to use it which lead me to much agony :)
So the question is ... is there a common ratio of glucose/water that you should use? I clearly failed in the beginning thinking that it should just be thrown into a pot and then heated...it sticks together into big blocks :S In the end I put in some water, but I assume that was a bit to late since it never dissolved 100%
If it's for a pie, by melt the recipe author probably meant to dissolve in the least amount of water. You can do that by making a glucose syrup, as Pulse mentioned. Place one cup of dextrose with a third of a cup of water in a pot and heat until dissolved. Commercial glucose syrups are typically 10 to 25% water.
If you melt solid glucose in a pan, which happens at about 146°C, it will burn.
A good explanation ... what I was looking for :)
Glucose syrup shouldn't need to be "melted" as it is an invert syrup (like corn syrup) and should not crystallize. It is however easier to pour and mix into items if it is warmed and I'm guessing that perhaps the recipe writer might have meant to warm rather than "melt" it.
Treat it the same as you would if you were melting honey that had crystallized:
Remove the lid from the bottle and place in a small saucepan of gently simmering water until the glucose is warmed and easy to pour.
If you're baking a pie that requires glucose syrup, such as pecan pie, you could use corn syrup, which is a similar thing. It is possible to make your own glucose syrup, but the results can be suspect.
The alternative to glucose/corn syrup is a sugar syrup it is, however, quite different and is simply made by combining sugar and water in a heavy bottomed pan and gently stirring until the mixture begins to boil. It then needs to be cooked for several minutes until the temperature is approximately 120c.
Well I'm trying to learn how to melt glucose, not how to substitue it with a syrup :)
this is a good comment, but not a good answer, as it doesn't answer the question.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.629246
| 2010-07-12T21:12:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/786",
"authors": [
"Ben Scheirman",
"Christina Tenney",
"Katie Glover",
"KevDog",
"Sam Holder",
"cyberzed",
"dr-jan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140787",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1440",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1465",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1507",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1518",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69",
"mr.b",
"pelms"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
12861
|
How do I convert a weight of dried chick peas to volume of cooked?
I'm following a recipe that calls for 200g of dried chickpeas, soaked overnight. I have two 28 fl. oz. (796 ml) cans of chick peas, packed in water.
This is made complicated by two things:
You can't easily convert a weight measurement to a volume measurement. (What is the density of a chickpea?)
The recipe wants me to measure dry chickpeas, and I have canned chickpeas. (How much of the weight is water?)
How much of my canned chickpeas should I use?
I assume the recipe is actually cooking the chickpeas (garbanzo beans) fully (a time consuming process, eg. hours)? Some recipes, like falafel, sometimes require uncooked chickpeas.
There is no exact conversion because there are so many different varieties of chickpeas or any bean types for that matter
Their water absorption rate and amount is effected by many things including how they have been stored, have they been heat treated on import, and what time of year they where grown!
My rough rule of thumb for beans in general is 2.5 ±.5 times the volume and 2 ±.5 the weight after an overnight soak
With our local chickpeas it's 2.2 times the weight after 10 hours at 20°C (on the bench)
200g should be around 440g of soaked chickpeas. 1 cup of chickpeas is around 240g, so just shy of two cups of soaked chickpeas should do it
I have just cooked 290 grams of dried chickpeas which filled 1 cup, in a pressure cooker. After cooking the drained weight was 616 grams or 2.12 times the dry weight. The volume was 3.75 cups or 3.75 the dried volume
The USDA guidelines for canning dried peas or beans (or here) gives the rule of thumb that 12 ounces of dried peas/beans produces 1 quart (32 fluid ounces) of canned product. That's a ratio of 3 oz dry per 8 fl oz cooked. They don't specifically mention chickpeas in the document, but the same ratio appears in other places, here for example.
At that ratio, 7.05 oz (200 g) of dried chickpeas would produce 18.8 fl oz. A 28 fl oz can of cooked chickpeas would represent about 10.5 oz of dried chickpeas.
As an approximate guide, I multiply the dry weight by 2.25 to get the soaked and cooked weight of beans and chickpeas. Most recipes are forgiving for a few grams difference in weight. It always works and I cook a lot with legumes and prefer using dry over canned for confidence in knowing what is in the food I cook. Check out Nourishing Traditions for information on soaking
Hydrated chickpea = 1/2 dry chickpea. So If the recipe calls for 8 ounces dry chickpeas use 16 ounces hydrated chickpeas. I ran a small study weight 10g of dry counted them and then weighted 10g of hydrated ones. Ratio is 2:1 Dry:Hydrated.
Hopes this is helpful
All of these are measurements I've done myself:
1/2 cup (100 g): uncooked dry chickpeas = 1 cup (170 g): uncooked soaked chickpeas.
Based on this data, I can say the density of uncooked dry chickpeas is of 0.85 g/mL, and for uncooked soaked chickpeas is of 0.72 g/mL. This is assuming that 1 cup = 236.588 mL, not 250 mL as usually.
I don't have the measurements for cooked (and soaked) chickpeas, which should be even higher. The chickpeas were soaked for 8 hours in 2 & 1/2 cup: water.
So, for your first question, 200 g: uncooked soaked chickpeas = 278.339 mL (assuming again 1 cup = 236.588 mL). You should use 278.339 mL to get the 200 g the recipe is asking for.
In regards to your second question, cans usually have drained weight, or at least for canned sea food like tuna or salmon. This is the amount of weight after draining oil/water. However, some beans are canned with veggies.
A can of 15 ounce chickpeas weighs 9 ounces drained, dry is approx 1/2 of that so about 4 ounces dry. Soak and cook the dry, and when done cooking measure out 9 ounces after draining to get the amount in a standard 15 ounce can.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.629559
| 2011-03-06T23:55:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12861",
"authors": [
"Adrian Black",
"Chris Hobbs",
"DineshM",
"Kristin Hagley",
"Levon",
"Martin Ender",
"Nancy Humphrey",
"Nancy Pj",
"Orbling",
"Regional manager",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115137",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136635",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161440",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161441",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162884",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26604",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26605",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26607",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"voddy"
],
"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
}
|
33348
|
If I use a diffuser will I be able to use a pressure cooker to can food on my glass top stove?
I have a glass top stove and just purchased an All American pressure cooker/canner. It's very heavy and will hold 7 quarts or 19 pints. If I use a diffuser will I be able to use my stove to can food?
Can you explain why you're asking about using a diffuser, and why you can't simply put the pressure cooker straight on your stove? Are you just worried about scratching the stove?
Or perhaps do you not have a burner as big as the canner, so you're trying to spread the heat out?
Glass stove top manufacturers sometimes recommend not using pressure canners because the weight and heat distribution can be too much for them and the glass surface can crack.
A diffuser would probably not help with that problem. The diffuser is not likely to be so much bigger than the canner that it would distribute the weight. If it was that large then it would diffuse the heat too much.
Sometimes stove or canner manuals will place restrictions on the size of the canner vs the burner size. If the canner is too large it can transfer heat out of the burner area and damage the surface.
Another common problem mentioned is that some canners have concave bottoms. Obviously, only flat bottomed canners should be used otherwise the weight distribution will be bad for the burner and the canner might not heat properly.
You should check with the manufacturer of your range and see if your range can be used with a pressure canner. If they say it can can then you can can without the diffuser. If they say it can't then you may just be out of luck.
We use a camp stove and do a lot of our pressure canning outside- especially in the summer to save AC bills.
Anecdotally- My mother once, 20 years ago, had a glass surface crack while canning. I have been canning on a glass surface for two years without incident.
I wasn't going to post an answer but I just had to type "can can".
Or you could put a harness on the handles of the pot, rope it over a pulley, and balance out 2/3 of the weight.
A diffuser is used to spread heat from a source around a wider surface area. You don't need to use a diffuser with a pressure cooker/canner, as it doesn't need any sort of protection, and you'll lose some heat due to the inefficiency. In other words you probably could, but you don't want to.
Not sure why you would use a diffuser to can food. As far as a glass top stove, it is no different for canning than gas or a electric coil top burner. As long as you have water in the pot (sufficient to water bath the jars, usually to the rim) and obtain an internal temperature of 180F. inside the jar, your there. 1/2 pint needs 45 minutes after starting to boil to reach the 180F. 1 pint needs 1 hour. 1 quart needs 1 1/2 hours after starting to boil to reach a 180F safe level. Of course pressure cookers are a whole different animal and the pot should always come with the numbers. Mike
The whole point of pressure canning is that it reaches higher temperatures than boiling water canning, so I'm not sure why you're talking about this 180F temperature. And even for boiling water canning, I have no idea where you're getting these processing times - even for raw pack you don't generally need that long. I'm refraining from deleting this, because I think you're attempting to answer the question, but you're providing incorrect extraneous information, so -1.
... and, the question explicitly says OP is using a pressure cooker/canner.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.630129
| 2013-04-09T23:17:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33348",
"authors": [
"Anne Bailly",
"Ben",
"Cascabel",
"Jacob Roggan Smith",
"Jason Melo Hall",
"Jennifer Sinclair",
"Karen Call",
"Kwon Cassy",
"Linda White",
"Sobachatina",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77306",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77307",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77308",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77325",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77335",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77340",
"jeszyman",
"user77335"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20748
|
Planning for sandwich sales
I make a really great smoked brisket and usually give quite a lot away when cooking at rallies, races, tail-gating etc. This time I want to try selling the sandwiches.
I have no clue how to figure out how many sandwiches per pound. How would I figure that out?
What about prices - how should I select a price per sandwich? How can I estimate how much money I might make selling them?
Setting prices just isn't something we could possibly do for you. Its what the market will bare and what your costs are. You'll need to figure up your ingredient costs, labor costs, advertising, estimated maintenance, and depreciation. Then double and add some for profit. Then you determine if your price is comparable with a competitive product and thus if its a good market to enter or if you think your product is worth a premium. This is much more an economics questions than a cooking question.
@rfusca- I think this is a valid question. What considerations need to be taken into account when calculating food prices. What process can be used? Perhaps even- How does one go about becoming a licensed food vendor?
I am sorry to hear about your hard situation, and I wish you that it turns well. But I am afraid that we are not qualified to answer most of your questions. And bad advice from well-meaning but uninformed people can be really dangerous, especially where legal matters are at stake. I would recommend that you talk about it with somebody qualified - maybe the local employment agency can offer legal and economic advice on starting a mini-business? The only cooking-related answer is one only you can find out - make a batch of sandwiches as usual and count how many you got out of a pound of meat.
@Sobachatina I am quite sure that the community closed a "how does one become a food vendor" question a while back, just because it is a legal, not cooking matter, and it also varies regionally.
I'm going to try to give this a fighting chance by editing down to the actual questions. Obviously some things are beyond the scope of the site, but some of it is perhaps within scope if a bit trivial.
@jefromi- well done.
thanks everyone...i figured the cooking part would be some formula (give or take) like 10lbs=so many sandwiches. I've cooked hundred of briskets, just never served in retail setting. as far as legal stuff, if the rally allows me to accept as donations none of that will apply. rallies are closed events and vendors are responsible for reporting their own earnings etc. bikers are a very close net group and will always help each other out.
Dennis,
Welcome to the site! Generally we focus on the "how to make food" side here, but I thought I'd suggest some things to consider from a layman's perspective. There is no standard formula for how to figure this out because so much depends on your exact situation. (The amount of meat per sandwich is the result of your own cooking style.) Be forewarned - lots of research and math is ahead of you!
You need to make a profit, so first you need to figure out how much it costs you to make the brisket sandwiches. What are your food costs (include transportation costs)? (It's important to keep your portions uniform for all units; consider using a measuring cup to dish out the meat per sandwich.) What is the cost of your time (including shopping, cooking, cleaning, advertising, and selling)? What is the cost to construct it (your charcoal / electricity, and new equipment)? How much does it cost you to sell it (napkins and other service ware, table, stall rental, advertising,)? Even if you're working "under the radar" for now, eventually you'll have to get licenses, permits and a food-legal kitchen, and you may have to change your prices then. Consider it all, and add it all up.
Once you've got a well researched amount for the costs, divide that by the number of units (sandwiches) that you produce. You need to make at least that much to break even. Probably you want to charge at least twice that (probably higher).
Analyze whether that price you've come up with will work in your target market. Do you need to increase the price to avoid leaving money on the table? Look at your competition - how much are they charging? Price is a funny thing - and you'll have to massage it a lot. (If you undercut the competition by a lot, you may just have a lowered perception of quality rather than more customers. But if you're much higher than the competition, customers may never try you.) You can also consider selling the sandwiches at not much of a profit, and hoping to make up the difference with soda pop or sides.
Good luck!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.630446
| 2012-01-24T18:51:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20748",
"authors": [
"6flcna",
"Cascabel",
"Dziad Borowy",
"Linda",
"Seoladh",
"Smiley",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45619",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45620",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45628",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8848",
"rfusca",
"rumtscho",
"theonlymo",
"user164573"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37658
|
What is flavor development?
Probably this is something covered in cooking academies/universities, but I'm not a professional chef, I just happen to like cooking a lot, and I want to get better at it.
I often hear the phrase "This flavor is not well developed", but I don't really understand what "flavor development" really means.
Can all flavors be developed? What factors tend to develop more a particular flavor?
This is just fancy sounding talk for the myriad of techniques in good cooking that create good flavor in dishes. It doesn't refer to any one specific thing.
Some examples of techniques used to develop flavor include:
Seasoning (properly salting)
Browning meats and other foods properly to bring out their flavor
Creating pan sauces or other uses from fond to enhance the flavor of a dish
Using herbs and spices skilfully to compliment the food
Balancing flavors with acidic ingredients like lemon juice or tomatoes
Cooking properly to allow the flavor of individual ingredients to shine through
Blooming or toasting spices to bring out their more aromatic qualities
Using alcohol to enhance certain flavors not soluble in water or fat
There are no doubt many, many more things that could be included in a list like this.
After all, it sounds far more professional to say "the flavor in this dish is not well developed" than to say "this dish is bad."
As usual, great answer!
It's also just a lot easier to say than "you messed up or missed a step, or mishandled or used the wrong amount of an ingredient".
If you're only going to add salt then nothing more is going to change. But if you leave out the salt and add different seasoning like, garlic, salsa, chili powder, cilantro, purple onions, and so on, your dish will turn out good no matter what the food flavoring is, it can be made better.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.630822
| 2013-10-16T16:33:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37658",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"ILikeTacos",
"Virginia OBrien",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147564",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147584",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18779",
"user23757107"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32233
|
Are there different grades of chicken in the US?
I don't know how much the grocery store is doing marketing and how much difference there is between different packages of chicken on their shelves. Locally, two of our best known grocery stores advertise their chicken as being "select" so presumably a better quality chicken than off-the-shelf Perdue.
I've also noticed that one store's "select" chicken breasts are larger than the others. When I cook one store's chicken, it tends to be more rubbery (no matter the size) or the leftovers have a chew that almost makes me wonder if it's undercooked. Strange.
Or is one store just handling it better than the other. Are there different grades of chicken? I'm confused.
You should say where you live; the answer to this question might not be the same everywhere. This site has members from all over the world.
Everything you could want to know--and more--about US grading: http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELDEV3004377
Well, where I live is in my profile but... The pdf you link to is good but I don't know what's at the grocery store. I could ask, of course, but what's going on in general?
Visitors to this site should not have to look up a member's profile just to find out where the question is applicable. This is a localized question so please specify the location.
Poultry grading in the US is voluntary, while inspection is mandatory. Per the FDA:
Chicken Inspection
All chickens found in retail stores are either inspected by USDA or by
State systems which have standards equivalent to the Federal
government. Each chicken and its internal organs are inspected for
signs of disease. The "Inspected for wholesomeness by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture" seal ensures that the chicken is free from
visible signs of disease.
Chicken Grading
Inspection is mandatory, but grading is voluntary. Chickens are graded
according to the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service's regulations and
standards for meatiness, appearance, and freedom from defects. Grade A
chickens have plump, meaty bodies and clean skin, free of bruises,
broken bones, feathers, cuts, and discoloration.
The actual US poultry grading standards can be found in the USDA document. Grade A chicken overall (the actual standards take 5 pages):
Looks nice--no discolorations, marks, bruises, or inappropriate cuts
Has at least 75% of the skin covering it (where appropriate)
Is plump and "well fleshed"
All the feathers have been removed
Any chicken that was actually graded will almost certainly be labelled, as it is a marketing issue. Otherwise, it is ungraded but inspected chicken. My personal experience is that most retail chicken, at least where I live, is ungraded.
Factors that affect the toughness or quality of the chicken, in decreasing order of importance, include:
The age of the bird
Any injections or additions to the meat, such as a saline brine, by the packer; brining partially denatures the proteins in the meat, and may contribute to the "rubbery" texture mentioned in the question
The way the bird was treated and fed (some heirloom or boutique chickens are raised in a more traditional manner, where they move about much more, and may have a more varied diet, and so have tougher, but more flavorful meat as a result--but I don't want to turn this into a political treatise on poultry production methods)
The breed of the bird
The size of commercial chicken is almost entirely related to the age of the chicken; thus the relative toughness of the meat is fairly well correlated with size.
When I cook one store's chicken, it tends to be more rubbery (no matter the size) or the ?
leftovers have a chew that almost makes me wonder if it's undercooked. Strange.
SAJ14SAJ provided an excellent summary of chicken grading, though I find the chicken in my local stores is not graded.
The texture you're experiencing is likely the result of injecting the chicken with a brine. The packaging will say something along the lines of "may contain up to 8% solution" or something of that nature. It will definitely turn the chicken rubbery! Other than that, chicken is typically "water chilled", where the birds are plunged into an ice bath to get their temperature down. These chickens will absorb some water as well, though they won't be anywhere near as "squishy" as an injected bird.
To find out for sure: search out an "air chilled" bird (these will be marked as well since it's a marketing point) from the same store and see if the texture is more to your liking. I find that I strongly prefer air-chilled chicken, but some people will barely notice the difference.
I find your argumentation unusual. Normally, brine is used because it is supposed to make meat more tender. Why do you say that it will "definitely turn the chicken rubbery"?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.631006
| 2013-02-26T14:26:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32233",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Corinne Riley",
"Kirschenregen",
"Rob",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sheila Go",
"Zara Seymour",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74226",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74227",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
103205
|
Which of these spices do not lose their tang when heated/boiled?
I was looking to substitute chilli for some non capsaicin containing spices.
The best items I can up with was paprika, cumin, black pepper, ancho chillies and oregano.
Initially I tried black pepper and realised it loses its tang when cooking and so it must be used at the end as a raw ingredient which is not what I want.
What other items in this list would lose their spice potency like black pepper when cooked. I’m trying to remove those items so I can use one for cooking as would be the case with chilli.
What are you making? Link to a recipe would be ideal, but at least a description of the dish, cooking times, and methods would help a lot 2) Are you avoiding capsaicin because of an allergy or you just don't want the dish too hot? 3) What do you mean by "tang"?
As bob1 has pointed out -- two of those will have capsaicin. And as for 'tang', I generally go with sour things. (sumac, tamarind, a splash of vinegar, etc.)
Lose is spelled l-o-s-e. Chili is spelled C-h-i-l-i.
Paprika and Ancho contain capsacin, just not very much
@Rob UK and US English are equally acceptable. If you edit, leave the author's choice intact.
My experience with black pepper is the opposite. I usually add it toward the end because I have accidentally added too much black pepper in the past, resulting in overspiced dishes as the pepper infuses during cooking. Then again, I sometimes use a lot of pepper. It's true that black pepper will lose its complexity of flavor during cooking, which is another reason I typically add it toward the end. But on multiple occasions I've accidentally produced dishes that were almost too "peppery" to eat by adding too much pepper at the outset.
I'm not exactly clear about what you are asking. Technically speaking, they are not all spices. Paprika and ancho are dried and ground peppers (though you can certainly get whole ancho). When cooked they will rehydrate somewhat and the flavor will become more integrated into the dish. Oregano is an herb. It will not fade, or go bitter, as much as black pepper when cooked, but there is certainly a difference between dried and fresh herbs. Cumin seed is the only "spice" on your list. It's flavor will certainly persist in cooked food.
Paprika and ancho chillies are both from the same family as the hotter peppers and often contain capsaicin, though this depends exactly on which paprika you have.
Cumin and oregano (and black pepper) are all from other families. I would not rate cumin or oregano as spicy in terms of heat, although cumin can enhance heat when consumed with it. Oregano is the main herb flavour you will find in pasta sauces like bolognese. Cumin is the predominant flavor in many dishes from Mexican/central American and Indian cuisines - if you are making "chili con carne" this is likely a spice you use already. Both of these retain flavour when cooked.
For some non-capsaicin containing alternatives see answers in this thread
also this one : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/64382/67
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.631402
| 2019-10-31T23:19:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103205",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Cascabel",
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe",
"Lee Daniel Crocker",
"Rob",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35002
|
How do you thicken a cold filling?
What product can I use to thick a filling that is sweet and does not get heated? The filling is made of butter and homemade marshmallow.
You might want to provide the full recipe, but it sounds like marshmallow is the thickener here. Marshmallow is essentially a cooked Italian meringue stabilized with gelatin, but gelatin requires heat to thicken, so you cannot add more if you are not willing to heat the filling.
Instant pudding (pick a flavor) will thicken if it's got water to work with, but I'm not seeing any in your recipe.
Cornstarch may help, and homemade marshmallows are commonly dusted with it, so it wouldn't be an odd addition.
The recipe would really help here. Both butter and (most) marshmallow are usually solid while cold, so it would be useful to know what else is in this making it thin out.
The number of available thickeners is very large. Some work for high temperatures, others for low temperatures. For your filling I would use Iota Carageenan (Its used for thickening in many commercial ice cream products). It might be a bit difficult to find. Your second choice would be Xantham Gum.
When using these thickeners be sure to hydrate correctly and measure thickener weight as precisely as possible (to the gram). Between 0.5% and 1% of the liquid's weight is a safe bet but it will require some testing.
Carrageenan must be heated to dissolve into the base liquid, so I don't know that it would work for the submitter. (Source: http://www.willpowder.net/carrageenan.html)
Great observation but it still could work. While the filling itself is not heated, particular ingredients must be heated at some point. Heated ingredients are used to hydrate the carageenan (not just dissolve) and further cooled to use in the rest of the filling (think gelled butter).
What I just described is an attempt to achieve close to perfect results, but carageenan does provide some thickening power when hydrated at lower temperatures.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.631668
| 2013-06-29T11:23:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35002",
"authors": [
"Md Azgur Ali",
"PeterO",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Satanicpuppy",
"SourDoh",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"azerafati",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81678",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81691",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81799",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81803",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81804",
"ido coh",
"japoncem",
"jhericks",
"user7668458",
"user81691"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
99137
|
How does cooking with whole peppercorns compare to ground?
If you buy ground peppercorns you should always go for fresh ground because they taste completely different imo.
In bangladeshi cooking I notice that they use whole black peppercorns in their curry and discard it at the end. However would using it like this be equivalent to cooking with non fresh peppercorns as above?
My thinking is that if the taste between fresh ground and non fresh ground is so different, then cooking a whole peppercorn is like non fresh because the surface has been exposed to air for a long time.
Is my thinking correct or should cooking whole be considered cooking fresh, if so in what way?
I use whole black peppercorns in my Cabbage, vinegar, ground caraway dish. After 10 minutes on the boil, the peppercorns are tender enough to provide a very nice burst of flavor.
Is the flavour different from if you had used non fresh ground pepper. I would imagine no since the out layer of the peppercorn like all parts of ground pepper is exposed to air. Im trying to understand if Im right on this technical point.
The flavor is massively different, as it comes in bursts. I grind my own pepper, in my corn mill. Even that's a big improvement on store-bought ground.
For freshness, it is always best to purchase whole spices and use whole, crack, or grind them as needed. With respect to peppercorns (or, really any whole spices) the effect will be different when they are used whole, just cracked, or ground. The flavor will also be impacted by toasting the spices before use, and when they are added during the cooking process. The taste difference between all of these options can be significant. The bottom line is that you should have some idea of the effect you are trying to create with the spice, and how the treatment of that spice achieves the result you are looking for.
Notably there's no equivalence between whole peppercorns and stale ground pepper (which the question posits).
I have yet to find non-stale ground pepper in stores. Even the pricey stuff pales by comparison with fresh ground.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.631976
| 2019-05-24T00:11:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99137",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"James Wilson",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7945"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
34816
|
How do I cut savoriness of a dish?
I had an interesting sandwich the other day. It was tuna spinach wrap but mixed with a mustard blend with a smidgen of capers. Needless to say, it was quite savory. Was there anything I could have told the chef to add (rather than remove) to reduce the savoriness of the dish?
Savoury is an overloaded word so you will probably have to explain better what you mean by it. Do you mean salty? Not sweet enough? Were the mustard and capers coming through too strong?
Mild, bland cheese cover most sins--but still, you will have to explain in more detail what you didn't like about the sandwich to get a cogent answer, as @ChrisSteinbach suggested above.
@ChrisSteinbach: Why wouldn't you assume the literal definition, i.e. umami flavour? Tuna is generally high in it. It's possible that the OP is using it incorrectly, but it's not an inherently ambiguous culinary term.
@Aaronut I would not make that assumption because I am not sure how widespread knowledge of umami is, and also because none of the ingredients listed are well known as being exceptional sources of umami compared to things like parmesan, fermented soy products, anchovies, Maggie, and the other usual suspects.
@Aaronut In this case I would assume it means salty/spicy/flavorful as in "sweet vs savory" - that's probably a more commonly known meaning in a non-culinary context. The named ingredients only reinforce that.
It sounds as though the distinct caper and tuna flavors were too much for your palette. It is also possible that, smidgeon or not, there was too much of either. If I were you and returning to the same place I would try to cut the flavors
adding mayonaise or some other fat that would absorb the flavor
adding mustard to distract from the intensity
adding lettuce to the wrap to add a fresh, crispness that would mitigate any saltiness
by reducing the quantity of tuna/capers
Savory usually means spicy & salty.
If you wanted to cut the sharp salty taste of the mustard & capers you could have used a 'sweet mustard' preparation.
I'm not sure if the spinach in the 'tuna spinach wrap' was actually leaf spinach or one of those green 'wraps' like a tortilla?
Spinach has a bit of a metallic taste that some people find sharp.
Switch to a mild lettuce like Romaine or even ice berg to offset such strong flavors as tina, mustard, & capers.
A bland cheese or mayonnaise can also help balance too much sharpness or 'tang' also.
I don't know where you get the savory definition. To me, in general English usage, it means the opposite of sweet. As in, "Are those muffins sweet or savory?"
@SAJ14SAJ If you take "spicy" to mean flavorful (not hot), then this is really not that far from your definition. People also often say "sweet or salty".
I got the definition from the Merriam Webster English dictionary. The opposite of sweet could be sour, salty, (umami), and or spicy as in 'hot' given what culture you are from.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.632178
| 2013-06-20T18:15:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34816",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Cascabel",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Markus Miekk-oja",
"Mary",
"Raees Mclennan",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Samsara",
"charmingToad",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81196",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81205",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81250",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81362",
"user81198",
"user81250"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28729
|
How to make flavoured salt for potato chips
A chips shop offers potato chips (french fries, in the US) in different flavour like chicken, chicken roast, bar b q, et cetera. I saw they make simple potato chips and then add a salt type stuff to it which gives flavour to the chips.
How can I to make flavoured salt like that?
You are referring to hot potato chips, AKA French fries?
The US readers are assuming from the title that you're talking about the thin, fried, crispy snack food that comes in bags. Can you edit your title? You might get more accurate suggestions. :-)
I don't think we need to wait for the OP to edit here - US chips shops (crisps, in the UK) don't commonly exist, so chips shop clearly means UK chips, US french fries.
To make seasoned salt, just put salt and dry spices into a spice grinder.
A lot of times they have an additive that makes this salt/powder stick to chips. Also if you are frying them salt and seasoning will stick to them for a few moments after they come out of the fryer.
I think the question is how to make flavored salt, not how to get it to stick.
@derobert , yes you are right i am asking about how to make that salt type stuff
put salt and spices into a spice grinder... blammo salty stuff.
It's best to edit your answer, rather than leave the core of what the OP wanted hidden in a comment. I've gone ahead and done that.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.632434
| 2012-11-28T19:17:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28729",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Comic Sans Seraphim",
"FRUGAL IN TEXAS",
"Ghiasoddin",
"Karthik Sai",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Maggie",
"Marcia Thelemaque",
"Robinette",
"Smartboy",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"TFD",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14506",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66491",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66644",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66645",
"underarock"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24157
|
What type of tea should I use to make Thai Iced Tea?
I love the sweet iced tea you get at Thai restaurants, and want to make my own at home. I used to buy a concentrated solution online (added water and half and half), but they discontinued it. I'm not sure what type of tea is used, but it is reddish in color and has hints of coconut taste in it. Cheers!
Straight-up recipe requests are off-topic here as per the [faq], and there are plenty of Thai iced tea recipes online. Have you tried any?
I currently live in Thailand and there is really only 1 brand that's used (If there is another brand I've never seen anyone use it!) nationwide by all the street vendors to make traditional Thai Ice Tea and that's this one...
I don't know the name of it but I'm pretty sure it's just Number One Brand. I'll confirm the name when I get chance!
BTW, if you have any asian markets nearby you shouldn't have any trouble finding some.
Found it on Amazon easily, we tried both half and half and condensed milk. Half and half is faster, but condensed milk tastes better, even though it takes some stirring to get it all to dissolve.
Most of the recipes I've seen don't have any coconut in them. The most common way to get that flavor would be to use coconut milk instead of some (or even all) of the dairy. This could be pretty rich, but given that you're using half-and-half already, probably won't bother you too much.
As for the type of tea, it really depends on what you have available. If you're lucky, you have a well-stocked grocery store or an Asian one, and you can just get traditional Thai tea. If not, you want black tea. Either way, it should be brewed strongly.
Any vibrant color is generally just from food coloring, not the tea itself. If you can buy Thai tea, it might well have the color in it. If you're using some kind of plain black tea, reproducing the color would probably mean adding a little bit of red and yellow food coloring.
The kind of tea you want is Jasmine. It has a nice floral note to it that is used in Thai Ice Tea, but can taste slightly coconut-y. I bought some bottled jasmine tea from a local store, added some sugar and heavy cream over ice, and it tasted just like the tea you'd get from a Thai place.
Celestial Seasonings makes a Thai Coconut Chai which may get you a little closer in flavor and color. Coconut milk instead of half and half sounds good, too.
As far as I can determine, there is no such thing as "Thai" tea. It's very strongly brewed black tea, and the color (originally) came from Tamarind pulp. In the US, where we don't deal well with tamarind, it's likely to be food coloring. The "secret sauce" is a combination of orange blossom water, star anise, and sometimes other spices like cinnamon or cassia, all sweetened with evaporated milk and sugar. The actual recipe is usually pretty well guarded, so experiment.
There certainly is such a thing as Thai tea. Sure, there are varieties, and you can start from plain black tea, or get it pre-spiced/colored, but, well, look at the picture in Eddy's post. (I've seen other kinds in stores here too.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.632623
| 2012-06-01T22:29:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24157",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"EddyR",
"GThornbird",
"JamesCW",
"Jennifer Pennington",
"Katianie",
"Lobsterman",
"Ricerboy",
"Smoker Jay",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54899",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54900",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54902",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54907",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54914",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54915",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59076",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7490",
"maestrojed",
"matkomat",
"tienthanh0709"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
75067
|
When is fish 'fully cured' using salt?
I was looking at a 'cold smoked salmon' recipe and it says the fish must be 'fully cured' before smoking.
I want to cure using salt so I believe this mean once salt has penetrated throughout the entire flesh rather than a quarter way through or just the surface, it is considered fully cured. After that you then cold smoke it. In the context of my recipe, Is this correct?
I'm not sure if it's correct because wikipedia says 'Cured fish refers to fish which has been cured by subjecting it to fermentation, pickling, smoking, or some combination of these before it is eaten' however in recipe it says fully cured should happen BEFORE smoking.
Please clarify whats is meant by fully cured.
Also if one chooses to cure with salt, how do they know the fish is fully cured using salt?
Since you're asking about a specific phrase used in a specific recipe, it's probably going to be hard for people to answer without seeing the actual recipe - people can throw around terms like "fully cured" pretty casually sometimes. (We discussed this at length in chat too.)
To me fully cured would be when the moisture is removed from the meat to the extent that harmful bacteria cannot survive. You can generally speaking see when this happens, it is when your salt turns dark. When I cure my biltong it generally takes two hours for the salt to turn dark from the moisture it extracts. I have not done this with fish, so the time it takes should be different but still the cocept applies.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.632902
| 2016-10-27T23:50:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75067",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
81362
|
Is it possible to make chocolate with cocoa butter and cocoa powder or any two other ingredients only?
I'm looking to make chocolate with two ingredients only(and a bit of salt also) however all the recipes seem to have a few ingredients listed.
Is it possible to make it with cocoa butter and cocoa powder only or are there minimum other ingredients required to get it to form properly?
Cannot it be done with cocoa powder and any one other ingredient?
When a chocolate says 70% dark chocolate, does it mean 70% of it is cocoa powder and the other is to make it solid? What is the maximum percentage of cocoa powder I can add to ensure the chocolate still forms properly?
Before you worry about your particular variant, you might want to look at whether you can even make chocolate at home at all: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/66948/1672
Why two ingredients only? Rather than focusing on an arbitrary number of ingredients, perhaps tell us what ingredients you are attempting to avoid?
As discussed in the answer to Making dark chocolate at home (and additional detail on Is it possible to sweeten chocolate without making it gritty?), making chocolate at home is basically not feasible. You need specialized equipment, because chocolate is not just a mixture of cocoa and other things, it's been ground and mixed in an extremely time-consuming and specific way.
Setting that rather large issue aside...
Sure, chocolate can be made with only cocoa solids and cocoa butter. It's called unsweetened chocolate, and people usually only use it for baking, since it's pretty bitter on its own. The core ingredients are normally cocoa (solids/butter) and sugar. After that, it's mostly about flavor: milk for milk chocolate, salt, maybe even vanilla, and so on. All that can be omitted, but without the sugar, it won't be what most people think of as chocolate for eating.
The percentage is the amount that's from cocoa, whether solids or butter. Unsweetened chocolate with nothing added is 100%, and 70% dark is likely close to 30% sugar (maybe a bit less if other things have been added). I believe that unsweetened chocolate is usually something like 50-55% cocoa butter and 45-50% solids, so I guess that's about the maximum to retain a normal texture if there's nothing else going on.
But again, unless you've got some serious chocolate manufacturing investment plans, all you can do with that information at home is use it to pick what you buy.
did you mean all you need is cocoa butter and in my case salt. Do you not need the cocoa powder too?
No, as the answer says, chocolate contains cocoa butter and cocoa solids (most likely not originally in the form of powder, though it does ultimately get ground as part of the process).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.633037
| 2017-05-02T13:36:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81362",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"James Wilson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7945"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
88066
|
Can you make fries with coconut oil?
I have seen some recipes saying you can cook fries with coconut oil. The temperature for fries seems to be 350f however this is also the smoking point for unrefined coconut oil.
Does this mean you cannot cook fries with unrefined coconut oil and perhaps these recipes are referring to the refined type?
Why would you assume that the recipes refer to unrefined coconut oil?
@Catija because according to various websites, the smoking point for refined coconut oil is 450f whereas for unrefined it's 350f, the latter being at or below the frying temperature for fries.
That's not what I asked. If a recipe called for "coconut oil", why would you assume that it means "unrefined coconut oil"... why (in your mind) is "unrefined" the default rather than refined?
Potatoes fried or sauteed in unrefined coconut oil? Sounds like you would end up with something tasting more like an indonesian or south indian side dish than fries :)
@catija well it wasn't initially the default, however seeing that the frying temp for chips is the same as the frying point for unrefined coconut oil, i assumed it's not appropriate to use the unrefined version and so they are maybe referring to the refined version?
Use the refined coconut oil. And not only for temperature reasons...
I admit to not liking the taste of coconut in many cases... but I particularly don't want my french fries tasting like them. That may not be universally the case for all people, but if you want a neutral-flavored oil, unrefined coconut oil is not that. You will end up tasting only coconut, not french fry.
This site seems to agree:
Don’t get me wrong: I really dig the occasional coconut macaroon or coconut cream pudding. But I don’t want coconut flavor invading my scrambled eggs, fresh popcorn or homemade chicken broth. And neither does the rest of my family.
We tend to eat more coconut oil when it’s refined and flavorless, because it’s so much easier to blend into any kind of dish.
If you love coconut-flavored anything, then this probably isn’t a big deal. But if you’re like me, refined coconut oil simply fits into your life more seamlessly. Frankly, we’d barely touch our coconut oil if it was the unrefined variety. So I choose refined because I know we’ll actually use it.
Extra virgin coconut oil has a relatively low smoking point of 350 degrees F. This is pretty low as far as a cooking temperature goes. If you’re eating your oil raw or using it mostly for baking, this is probably not an issue. But for stovetop cooking, this is generally too low of a smoking point.
The most important thing you need to understand is that, contrary to popular belief, the smoke point of an oil has nothing whatsoever to do with how well it resists heat; oils smoke primarily due to the presence of free fatty acids and particulates, whereas what you're really after is how resistant the oil is to oxidation. This is almost entirely determined by its fatty acid composition, with saturated fats being the by far most resistant, monounsaturated fats being less resistant, and polyunsaturated fats being the least resistant of all. This is also quite noticeable from how quickly the latter go rancid, in contrast to how the former can be stored for many years without going rancid at all. That is why coconut oil, being very high in saturated fatty acids, and the small remainder being monounsaturated fatty acids, is exceptionally resistant to heat.
The subsection "Oxidative stability" on the Wikipedia article "Smoke point" explains it quite well:
Hydrolysis and oxidation are the two primary degradation processes
that occur in an oil during cooking. Oxidative stability is how
resistant an oil is to reacting with oxygen, breaking down and
potentially producing harmful compounds while exposed to continuous
heat. Oxidative stability is the best predictor of how an oil
behaves during cooking.
The Rancimat method is one of the most common methods for testing
oxidative stability in oils. This determination entails speeding up
the oxidation process in the oil (under heat and forced air), which
enables its stability to be evaluated by monitoring volatile
substances associated with rancidity. It is measured as "induction
time" and recorded as total hours before the oil breaks down. Canola
oil requires 7.5 hours, for example, whereas extra virgin olive oil
(EVOO) and virgin coconut oil will last over a day at 110 °C of
continuous heat. The differing stabilities correlate with lower
levels of polyunsaturated fatty acids, which are more prone to
oxidation. EVOO is high in monounsaturated fatty acids and
antioxidants, conferring stability. Some plant cultivars have been
bred to produce "high-oleic" oils with more monounsaturated oleic acid
and less polyunsaturated linoleic acid for enhanced stability.
The oxidative stability does not directly correspond to the smoke point and thus the latter cannot be used as a reference for safe and
healthy cooking.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.633261
| 2018-03-01T16:43:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88066",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"James Wilson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7945",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35337
|
Can I make pasta with atta flour?
I have purchased a bag of atta flour and am wanting to make pasta - is this flour suitable? And is atta a self raising flour or plain flour?
Atta usually refers to durum flour (often whole wheat) used in Indian/South Asian cuisine. It is used for indian flat breads like chapati, roti and naan. Where it normally isn't self-rising, you can find special self-rising naan atta (that contains some kind of leavening agent), but it will be then labeled as self rising or at least special naan atta.
That said, like any durum flour most attas are well-suited for making dry pasta (which does not require eggs cause it has high enough gluten contents).
I have used atta flour for eggless pasta myself, it worked well and it was easy to roll it really thin to prepare lasagna sheets and ravioli.
Good answer but +1 for the epic mustache!
Yes! You can, in fact, it is used in India to make fresh pasta like Gujarati dal dhokri.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.633605
| 2013-07-16T22:53:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35337",
"authors": [
"Sobachatina",
"Susanne Yorkshire",
"Tony",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107771",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141843",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
36178
|
Substitute for chicken broth in tomato soup
In this recipe, how can I substitute chicken broth?
Just use vegetable broth. It's sold in plenty of stores, though you can certainly make your own too, lots of recipes out there. The most canonical ingredients are onion, carrot, and celery, with some assortment of herbs and seasonings, but you'll also sometimes find things like mushrooms, peppers, tomatoes (surprise!), and even root vegetables! It's hard to recommend anything in particular, though; everyone has their preferences, and stronger flavored broths may not work as well in certain recipes.
Or of course you can go find a tomato soup recipe that doesn't use chicken broth.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.633712
| 2013-08-21T02:54:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36178",
"authors": [
"Aayush Panda",
"AdExHe",
"Cameron Brick",
"Cheslie",
"Jonathan S.",
"Shreya Patel",
"Teemu",
"TrulyJuly",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84844",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84845",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84847",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84848",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84849",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84850",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84891"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35604
|
How to replace polenta in Mexican Polenta Casserole recipe
The recipe asks for one 16 oz. package of precooked polenta, but I only have yellow corn grits (uncooked, from Bob's Red Mill - also labeled as polenta). How much do I cook for it to be equivalent?
Is the recipe looking for the fairly firm kind, maybe to slice or crumble?
Is this "precooked polenta" a meal... that is instant polenta that doesn't require long cooking; or is it a ready-to-eat product of some kind?
@SAJ14SAJ I'm fairly certain it's ready-to-eat, the kind of thing you get with an image search for "precooked polenta" (I've seen it in plenty of stores): http://foodpractice.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/DSC_6256.jpg
Corn grits are not the best possible substitute for polenta:
Polenta is the Italian name for corn meal
Instant polenta is basically polenta that has been cooked, then dried and ground; it is precooked, and and pre-gelatinized, and so does not require long cooking
Precooked polenta is available, in a tube or tub, which is literally a prepared, cooked polenta.
Grits are a ground corn product, where the corn has been treated with lye (it is made from hominy)
A better substitute for uncooked polenta would be plain corn meal (1:1); for precooked polenta would be cornmeal that has been cooked into a thick porridge (1:1).
If you do substitute hominy type grits for plain polenta, your result will be somewhat different, but you can try 1:1, by volume or weight, either way.
Update: evidently some processors label their product "Grits" as well as "Traditional Italian Polenta". While I cannot endorese misusing the word grits, in this case, then, they are the same product so it isn't really a substitution, and 1:1 is the proper use.
There are plenty of grits available that aren't made from hominy. I think the OP's are one of them: http://www.bobsredmill.com/corn-grits_polenta.html (but I've seen this kind of labeling from even generic store brands).
@SAJ14SAJ The corner of the label says "traditional italian polenta. The middle of the label says "Polenta. Corn Grits." And the back has a recipe for "Basic Italian Polenta."
@jefromi If that is the case... wow. It would consider it poor labelling since the hominy thing is essential to what grits are.
@marke Then your answer is 1:1.
Updated based on all this information.
@SAJ14SAJ But a 16 ounce package of precooked polenta contains water weight, so 16 ounces of the dried product I have would end up weighting more right? So I would have to use less of mine to end up with 16 ounces (which I find difficult to approximate/measure), correct? I'm probably wrong as I have no idea what precooked polenta is.
You would cook the grits (polenta), and substitute the cooked products 1:1.
@SAJ14SAJ I interpreted the original question as implicitly including the question of "what's the ratio between weights of dry and cooked polenta". (Fortunately this is just for a casserole, so exact quantities aren't that important.)
@jefromi Cooked polenta can range from a thin gruel to a quite substantial slab that can be sliced and even fried; it isn't possible to really answer that, definitively. By volume, 3:1 (water to polenta) would be fairly thick; 4:1 is common.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.633819
| 2013-07-26T20:42:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35604",
"authors": [
"Alexandra Stoneham",
"Cascabel",
"Chris",
"Claire",
"Ian",
"LadyLuvz3",
"MamaDi ",
"MarkE",
"Robert Clougher",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sav-econ",
"Sean",
"filthyassistant",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83281",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83282",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83284",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83289",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83291",
"taylorsabell"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29264
|
Can cilantro be used for tea or tisane?
I love using my dehydrator. Can I use dried cilantro as tea, or with other herbs to make tea? If so, how would I pick herbs to use with it?
What's wrong with fresh-cilantro tea?
Cilantro is one of the herbs that doesn't retain much flavor when it's dried; it's unlikely to be particularly tasty when made into a tisane. On the other hand, the dried seeds of the plant -- called "coriander (seeds)"* -- have a pleasantly tangy and floral/citrusy taste.
They are occasionally used as a flavoring agent in beer, so it's perfectly reasonable to think of them as a candidate for tisane. The flavor of coriander is not dissimilar to chammomile, and might complement that. It would probably make an interesting mix with black tea, too -- in fact, it should be noted that coriander is sometimes an ingredient in Masala Chai, the sweet Indian tea-milk-spice drink.
*In the US, the leaves are referred to as "cilantro", whereas "coriander" most often means the seeds (although sometimes the leaves).
Beer is hardly the most common use of coriander - it's a basic spice. It's very common in Indian cuisine, and used plenty elsewhere too.
I mentioned beer only because it's a beverage like tea, not because of its frequency. I'll make that clearer
The wierd cilantro (leaves) and corriander (roots/seeds) distinction arose with the sudden rise in popularity of Mexican/Southwestern cuisine in the 1980s. That cuisine tends to use the Spanish word, and tends to only use the leaves--and so the word cilantro came to mean the leaves in English. Before then, it was always coriander or Chinese parsley for all parts of the plant.
According to this The Hour For Tea blog entry, cilantro is one of several ingredients in a tisane for which it claims some medical benefits (emphasis added):
Catnip tea was used as a sedative, along with lavender, chamomile,
coriander or cilantro; peppermint could also be used to loosen phlegm,
and a tisane of thyme with honey was used as a sore throat remedy and
for scratchy coughs.
Note that this was not described as tasting good, or even that flavor was the point.
Cilantro tea is used in several Ayurvedic remedies.
You will need approximately 15 minutes to make cilantro tea.
Here you can get how to make Cilantro tea.
Discussing health/nutrition is off-topic, see the [faq]. I removed this portion of your answer and kept the reference to the tea technique.
In Russia (an all xUSSR) tarhun is very popular carbonated sweet drink that made from tarragon. So why don't try using cilantro? Combination with sugar and maybe a little lemon should be ok.
I think cilantro would make a quite unpleasant-tasting tea. For other herbs, I suggest chammomile, peppermint, spearmint, lemongrass: blends work very well for tea. You could also experiment with dried fruit, like blueberries, hawthorn berries, and lemon zest. And, things I'm unsure how to categorize, such as rosehips, rosebuds, blackberry and blueberry leaves. Experiment and have fun! :)
Re: other uses for cilantro, I think it works well in Italian and Mexican food.
Can you explain why you think it would be unplesant, or why you think it works in Italian or Mexican food? Cilantro (as distinct from coriander, the seeds, may actually be the only herb that is never used in Italian cuisine (aside from a rumor I've heard that they use it in Campania).
Well, it's just my opinion. I actually find dried cilantro to have a rather strong taste, and consider it as a cooking spice, along the lines of basil, oregano, rosemary, thyme, etc., all of which I would also find unpleasant as a tea. It could just be a matter of personal taste, however...
You could transform this from just your opinion into a more informative, expertise-based anwser by describing the flavor and what makes it unsuitable for tea. The ideal behind this site is to build a collection of factual questions, answered with information that is at least somewhat objective and can be applied by anyone who reads it. Your opinion is quite welcome -- personal taste always comes in when discussing food -- but it becomes much more helpful to the asker and to future readers if you can support it with detail and data.
As to why I think it works well in Italian and Mexican food, that is pretty much the same (personal preference). Those are my main uses for cilantro, and I just like the way it tastes, and complements other spices.
I do not have a wealth of data on cilantro, nor do I care enough about it to seek it........
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.634213
| 2012-12-18T23:33:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29264",
"authors": [
"Alex",
"Barbara J. Neff",
"Cascabel",
"Cynthia",
"Evpok",
"Jenny",
"Michele",
"Mike M.",
"Radovanovic",
"Robert Foreman",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Scott Lawton",
"Technophile",
"Thelma",
"Vaelus",
"daisy_ann",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14621",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67907",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67908",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67911",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67920",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67922",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67924",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67928",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67944",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67945",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67984",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68024",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68246",
"jscs",
"mohamed hashi",
"phoenix",
"pikah",
"rumtscho",
"seth",
"stib",
"user67922"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
38310
|
Can I pressure can roasted sweet peppers without sugar or vinegar?
I want the naturally sweet flavor of the pepper preserved, so no pickling or added sugar is desired. Can I pressure can sweet fire roasted peppers without sugar or vinegar, or are those required for safety?
This one seems to be on the borderline: it looks like a recipe request, but the safety issues for canning (especially low acid foods) seem to be a sepcial case, and there is an issue of if it is even possible under home conditions, which is a legitimate question, I think. No sure whether we should close or not.
I tweaked this a bit, avoiding the taboo "is there a recipe" - I think it's probably okay now. The reason we don't do recipe requests is that they're subjective with many answers, and that doesn't really apply here. You can either do it or not, and there's no subjective variation in a basic canning recipe. (The question could probably be more general, but that's a separate issue.)
This question is roughly the general version: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36625/is-acid-required-when-pressure-canning but I neglected to ask what foods can safely be canned that way.
Peppers are a low acid food, so under home conditions, pressure canning will be required to do so.
See for example: NCFHFP recipe for peppers.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.634596
| 2013-11-09T16:47:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/38310",
"authors": [
"Alex",
"Annette",
"Cascabel",
"Hans Schulze",
"Hull",
"Jim",
"Mandy Meliker",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Samuel Makuo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140567",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90232",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90233",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91235",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91236"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18162
|
How do I deal with silverskin in a steak without trimming away all the fat?
Below is an image of a steak I cooked the other night. It is a grass-fed New York Strip steak, I used medium-high heat in a cast-iron pan, seasoned with only salt and pepper and cooked for 3 minutes per side. The steak was roughly 1.5" thick, and it is cooked to roughly medium. (The image looks redder in the center than it was in actuality, but it's close.)
The fat was soft and delicious, as was the steak. But that streak of silverskin that attaches the two was impossible to chew. I have heard that when you're butchering other animals or large cuts of meat, the silverskin is always removed, but if I had done that there would be no fat left on my steak.
How do I deal with this silverskin without losing all the fat?
Hmm... this may be my monitor but that looks definitely rare. I am not familiar enough with cuts of steak or connective tissue in general to say whether cooking only a bit longer (from rare to medium rare) would improve the texture of the connective tissue though.
A good Sirloin (New York Strip steak) has a reasonable marble of fat, so you should not have to worry about edge fat
If you like your fat, pull/trim the silverskin and fat off and render the fat in a medium hot pan BEFORE putting the steak in. When enough fat has melted for your taste, cook the steak in the fat at the temperature and time you like
Add fresh herbs or garlic to the rendering fat for extra zing!
This answer presents a truly elegant solution.
This is probably ludicrously over the top but you could always cut off the fat and remove the silverskin and then use transglutaminase to glue the fat back onto the meat. There's an excellent post on Cooking Issues with some great information here:
http://www.cookingissues.com/primers/transglutaminase-aka-meat-glue/
A technically valid idea, but I choose grass-fed beef specifically because I want to "eat real food", and that would defeat the purpose. Lol
As I said, it's probably over the top; not really much point in getting into the a debate over what constitutes real food so we'll leave it at that.
Ideally, you want the flavor of the fat, without having to eat a blob of fat or the silverskin.
Cooking your steak standing on its fat side to start off with. It will render some of the fat out and help flavor your pan that you're cooking it in. After that, cook the steak as normal and frankly...just don't eat the rest of the fat or the silver skin. You've already melted a good chunk of it into the steak, so just enjoy the meat of the steak flavored with that wonderful fat.
My girlfriend would agree with you about this, but I do eat the fat with my meat.
Cut off slice of steak with fat and silver skin. Chew. Allow flavour to anoint your palate. Swallow the goodness. Spit out tough items as the sliver skin. Problem solved...we are carnivores are we not?
Obviously it's impossible to remove the silverskin without also removing the fat. You should be cooking the steak on a screaming hot pan, but even that won't 'melt' it.
I'd suggest removing the silverskin and fat, then adding a large knob of butter to the pan near the end of cooking, basting over the steak liberally to add richness.
you could cook the steak longer: notice how you've transformed the exterior 2mm of connective tissue on both sides into more edible gelatinous stuff.
another reasonable way to do this is cook the ny strip as a roast (to 100° or 105° by your photo). The hotter temperature to the exterior would transform the connective tissue completely, and leave the fat a little crispy but still there.
if you insist on a steak, a cool temp covered barbecue would do the same trick.
lastly: you could choose a different cut (hello, prime rib) which has fat that's not partitioned by silverskin.
This is the wrong way to go here. Connective tissue starts dissolving at 70°C and dissolving is a slow process which takes hours. A steak is ruined if it reaches 70°C for even a second.
Thanks for the heads up about the prime rib having no silverskin partition!
This is just the nature of the strip loin. If you prefer fatty goodness without this tough stuff along the edge, you would be much happier with a ribeye.
I live in the Ecuadorean Andes where cattle often eat "scrub" and after butchering the meat is not aged. I am constantly having to experiment with the meat I get from the butcher here, in the highlands. In the big cities I can get Argentinian AND US Black Angus beef and it is wonderful but also quite expensive. And I don't always get what I actually order from the butcher, even with a color-coded diagram of the cow. Last week I ordered a tri-tip by colored diagram (have done so successfully, several times, in the past). Instead, I received a whole SKIRT, silver skin, bone, and ALL. A nightmare I will be sure to not repeat.
So, I wonder if you can remove the silver skin, toss it, AND THEN remove the chunk of fat. Then take butcher twine and tie the chunk of fat back on the steak so that it is where it originally was. If we can take the front of the rib bones from a standing rib roast, have them removed, and then tie them back onto the roast, then I don't see why you couldn't tie the fat back on. I would definitely try it.
Don't be afraid to experiment and write down your method and results. Good luck.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.634757
| 2011-10-03T20:15:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18162",
"authors": [
"Adam Starrh",
"Bernd",
"BobMcGee",
"Bryson",
"Katey HW",
"Kishore",
"Stefano",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39232",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39233",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39371",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39404",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7552",
"jeffmcneill",
"rumtscho",
"user2389165",
"user39234",
"user39371"
],
"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
}
|
75093
|
Why does broiled and roasted salmon give these different results?
I ordered roasted and broiled(grilled) salmon form the restuarant and noticed both products tasted quite different. I don't have a great digestive system but noticed that the roasted salmon agreed with me more than the broiled salmon. I want to understand what was it about the specific cooking methods that gave the different end products.
Broiled slamon
The sides were crispy and quite browned. The fish didn't have the natural flavour of salmon/seemed to have lost it. The oil tasted greasy and mechanical if that makes any sense.
Roasted Salmon
It was not browned or crispy like the broiled. It tasted like normal salmon i.e. similar to poached salmon. Oily was present but not greasy/mechanical tasting like the broiled salmon.
Basically the roasted tasted closer to poached salmon. However I read that roasted salmon is to be done at 450f and this would brown it just like grilled.
My guess is that they roasted the salmon was done at a low tempertare and for a short time hence the slamon retained its juices, didn't get too processed. The broiled salmon was probably done very high and also the smoke may have gone in the meat or something to that effect. I want to understand what happened.
I have no idea what happened but based on the cooking methods can you explain why the broild and roasted salmon gave the different results?
If it was due to low temperature and short time as I am guessing, wouldn't I then be able to grill at a low temperature and for a short time and create the same result as with the roasted salmon? Or would the fact that I am broiling still cause other chemical differences in the meat even at low temp and low duration broiling?
Roasting doesn't really imply a specific temperature. The roasted salmon you've had might've been done at 450F, or perhaps a lower temperature. Either way, it doesn't require tons of browning. You don't want to overcook salmon, so you'll cook it until it's cooked through, and even at 450F, that doesn't necessarily mean a ton of browning. If it's on a bare metal pan with plenty of room for juices to get out and evaporate, it'll brown more; if it's in a crowded pan that has water in it most of the roasting time, it might brown a bit on top and none on the bottom.
Broiling, however, basically always means high temperatures. The air temperature might be 500-550F, but there's radiant heat too, and the food is close to the heat source, so it can brown easily and rapidly. On top of that, the main heat is coming from the top, so by the time it cooks through, it can easily brown on the top. Getting things crispy and browned is one of the main points of broiling.
So no, I would not expect roasting to have as much browning as broiling would. If your goal is not to brown too much, then just don't use a broiler - bake/roast at some "normal" oven temperature.
(As for "greasy and mechanical", I don't know - you could've been tasting burned oil, or maybe there was some other variable besides the broiling.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.635190
| 2016-10-29T00:17:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75093",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35651
|
What kinds of milk are low in carbs?
What kinds of milk are low in carbs? I have heard about coconut milk but I'm not sure what's best.
PS: I am from India, maybe someone might want this info:-)
Meta on close vote: http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1771/closing-for-nutrition-or-health-where-is-the-boundary
Nutrition is off topic here - we won't discuss what you should drink as part of any given diet. But the question of carb contents of various milks and milk replacements are (marginally) on topic. So I've edited your question to give you a chance. Feel free to edit further or roll back if you're not happy with it.
How do you define "low in carbs"?
Non-sweetened almond milk is probably what most people on low carb diets drink, when they drink it. It has < 1g of carb per cup.
Personally, I completely stopped drinking milk because of carbs years ago and I don't look back. I only drink a little bit of half and half with coffee, and even though it still has carbs, it's so little that it makes little difference.
Almond milk has 4% carb, and 5% fat, same as cows milk more or less
Just from some quick research, unsweetened almond milk seems to be a lot lower in carbs than dairy. Almond, Dairy
Are you getting carbohydrate percent (per 100 g) or the RDI figure?
Cows, goat, soy, almond, and coconut milk have around the same carbohydrate levels, so there is not enough difference to make the effort to rework recipes etc.
Also coconut milk has more than 20% fat compared to milk having 1% to 5%. A normal human body can use fats as efficiently as sugars, so total energy of coconut milk will be very high
Approximate carbohydrate %, and kJ per 100 g of milk
Skim Cow ..... 5%, 150
Full Cow ....... 7%, 260
Almond ........ 4%, 275
Coconut ....... 5%, 880
Goat .............4%, 290
Human ......... 7%, 290
Soy .............. 6%, 190
Each country, recipe, and supplier will have different figures, these are standardised with Wolfram Alpha, a recognised accurate source, and a neutral source, as they are not involved in the food or dietary industry
In many countries, "standard" milk is homogenised half fat milk, so about half way between skim and full cow milk figures
Whether or not it makes any sense, it's probably best to stick to the facts about carb content (as opposed to caloric content) - it's what the question is about.
I cleaned up the health related discussion, especially seeing that the claim which caused it has been edited out of the answer.
Mammals, including humans, don't generally have the Glyoxylate cycle which would allow them to make sugars from fats. That biochemical pathway is generally reserved for plants, bacteria and fungi: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyoxylate_cycle
Good info but it seems to only account for sweetened varieties which will usually be ~1-2% but can be as low as 0.1%. Also worth considering is lactose-free regular milk.
[Unsweetened Almond Milk] - 2g Carb in 1cup (240g), 1g from sugar and 1g from fiber and fiber should be subtracted from your carb count due to how your body processes it.
Because fiber doesn't absorb like other carbohydrates, don't count it in your overall intake of carbohydrate.
So this would be a NET of 1g Carb in 240g. Considering TFD's Almond milk has 4% in 100g leads me to believe that almond milk is sweetened.
TFD's wolfram alpha link is in fact for sweetened almond milk. The unsweetened matches your numbers. Good catch. FWIW, TFD's post probably has more votes since he included his sources. That's always better than just "because I say so"
Actually- Almond milk has barely any protein, only a tiny bit of fiber, and a bit of minerals. It's really just almond flavored water. Looking at these numbers has dissuaded me from ever buying the stuff.
If you're on a low carb diet then the unsweetened almond milk is obviously the way to go. For those of us looking to add our low carb protein powder to something other than water or regular cows milk, almond milk is a nice solution. Stay low carb, maintain ketosis ;)
Unsweetened Soya alternative to milk has 0.2g per 100g. Though I wish someone would come up with a way to separate the carbohydrate (sugar) out of cow's milk...
Given that lactose free milk is marketed, such a way most certainly exists!
Carbmaster milk is milk that has been put through a filtration process which removes most of the sugar (the carbohydrate in milk is all a form of sugar). It has one quarter the sugar of regular milk (3 g per cup) and is fat free. I prefer some fat content, so I just add a little heavy cream (adds no sugar). With this addition, Carbmaster tastes as good as any regular 2 percent milk I've ever had. It is a product of the Kroger company, which sells it in its supermarkets, and also in a regional chain called Harris Teeter, found mainly in the Carolinas. (Kroger stores are found in many states across the country).
Silk unsweetened Almond Milk is 1 carb .per 1/2 cup . I use the, Silk almond milk with my 1 carb mocha high protein powder by Vega and some ice in blender and with a cup or two of water and make a big chocolate mocha shake that is 2 carbs. I try to keep my carbs at 10 a day.
Hi Grace. What do you mean by "1 carb"? The standard unit of carbohydrate is the gram, and it is pretty clear from your description that you are not using that. So please add the unit, else your answer is very confusing.
@rumtscho : I tried using the nutrition fact labels ... but Silk Unsweetened Almond is listed as '<1g' per 1 cup, while there are three protein powders from Vega with a 'mocha' flavor: Essentials (5g/scoop) ; One (13g/scoop) ; Sport (6g/scoop) ... so it's not a straight conversion to grams. It might be one of those points systems like Weight Watchers has (had?)
@Joe I didn't even realize that "silk unsweetened almond milk" is a brand. A cup of almond milk having 1 g was indeed unusual, and having less than 10 g of carbohydrates a day is an extreme ketogenic diet with lots of side effects, so I was also thinking of a unit from some dietary system, maybe Broteinheiten (I don't even know if BE are used in English speaking countries). At least a name for the unit is needed, then we can link to an explanation how it relates to other units.
@rumtscho it's pretty standard in US carbohydrate conscious groups to omit "gram"... "1 carb" is "one gram of carbohydrates". This is, essentially, identical to Lynds' answer.
@Catija : in looking at the other answers, like spacebread's, it's possible that this point system is possibly total carbohydrates minus the fiber. In that case, Vega Essentials is ~1g/scoop (5g total, 4g fiber); Vega Sport is ~3g/scoop (6g total, 3g fiber). These are approximate, as these numbers are rounded. (Essentials might be 5.4g total, 3.5g fiber, so closer to 2g/scoop)
OK, so we have some evidence that the answer references grams, and some evidence against it. I still find it confusing, and would like to see the OP clarify.
@rumtscho what evidence goes against grams? Even Joe's explanation is still in grams... it's just total grams minus dietary fiber grams.
@Catija a diet which has less than 10 grams in carbohydrates per day is very unusual, even in low carb circles. And very hard to stay on for prolonged periods.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.635459
| 2013-07-29T01:04:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35651",
"authors": [
"Aryan Mundra",
"Carolyn Viglietti",
"Carrie",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"David Ebbo",
"Helaine Miller",
"Joe",
"Judy",
"K. N Transport",
"KDecker",
"KeizerHarm",
"Marian",
"MmfP",
"Niall",
"Pete Baker",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sobachatina",
"SourDoh",
"TFD",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"baka",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131079",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161473",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83466",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83492",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83493",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83520",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83556",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83689",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83721",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho",
"user24238"
],
"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
}
|
88084
|
Did I do anything wong when making fries?
I bought these Maris Piper potatoes. In the instructions for deep fry to make chips, it says put in a bowl of water for 30 minutes to remove starch, dry, then fry for 6-9 minutes.
I did so however when eating the potatoes they tasted a bit sweet on the inside. I'm not sure but does this mean the inside wasn't cooked properly?
Usually I believe you need to boil potatoes before frying. Since it didn't say to do this I didn't, would that have caused the result?
The outside layer was quite brown and I think I left it in too long(9 minutes). I also only left it in the bowl for 15 minutes to remove starch.
Does anyone know if I did anything wrong besides maybe leaving it too long which made the outer layer brown? Does the sweet tasting inside mean anything? To be honest, the end result tasted like the sweetest chips. I never really experienced it like that before so I'm guessing I did something wrong?
The sweetness is due to the choice of potato, not your method. Maris pipers have a slightly sweet flavor, if you bake one and taste it you'll get the same result. If you don't like the taste then try other varieties. No need to boil potatoes before frying, a soak and a dry is the way to go.
I haven't noticed regular potatoes being sweet when overcooked, undercooked, or even raw. So I don't think the sweetness was due to cooking time.
However, according to
http://www.finecooking.com/article/the-science-of-cooking-potatoes-2
(and many other places on the internet), potatoes stored in the refrigerator will turn sweet as their starches convert to sugars at the cold temperatures.
Is it possible you kept these potatoes in your fridge for a significant time after purchasing them, or maybe they were kept refrigerated at Tesco for a while before you got them? If so that could explain it. I routinely keep my potatoes in the fridge, and when they go sweet, it's really noticeable. I happen to like them OK that way, but they are really quite a bit sweeter than you would expect.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.636327
| 2018-03-02T01:35:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88084",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
75769
|
Can you eat the head and guts of anchovies?
I read that you shouldn't eat fish guts and other parts because
(a) fish guts have the fish stool, maybe poisonous, and (b) fish guts can affect the flavour.
I bought some dried small anchovies and some slightly bigger ones (though still small compared to most fish). The small ones are in the top right of the pic, and the larger ones on the bottom shelf:
I notice that if I break the small ones there are some black things inside (I'm guessing it's the stomach). It's all very small and I'm not sure how I'd go about removing the stomach.
Should the small ones be eaten with the stomach or is there some way to remove it? Does the same apply to the slightly bigger ones?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.636615
| 2016-11-23T04:10:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75769",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25733
|
How do you dry homemade lollipops so that they are no longer sticky?
I made homemade lollipops and they are set, but still sticky. How can I dry them, or what I can do so that when I wrap them they won't stick to the wrappers?
Let us know what you try and which one works best!
In case of lollipops you want to use either sugar powder, starch or bees wax.
As far as I know, drying is not necessary the option.
In general, lollipops from the industry are coated with some edible powder, like starch. This prevents the sticking part.
You could use corn starch/corn flour, confectioners' sugar/icing sugar, or a combination of the two and just give it a light dusting.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.636702
| 2012-08-19T13:41:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25733",
"authors": [
"Laura",
"Melissa",
"MichaelFine",
"Rebecca",
"Zblack Rose Jones",
"ajp",
"availanche",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59024",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59027",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59028",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59048",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6808",
"user59024",
"user59048"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
36410
|
Can I use cream of tartar in place of tataric acid
I have an old recipe for Green Tomato/Ginger Jam , it needs 3/4 tsp tartaric acid, can I substitute cream of tartar and if so how much?
Green Tomato/Ginger Jam: Skin 1 3/4 lbs green tomatoes by plunging them into boiling water for 8-12 minutes. Cut the tomatoes into quarters, sprinkle with 3/4 lb sugar, 1 1/2 tsp,powdered ginger and 3/4 tsp tartaric acid. Leave to stand over night. Next day, add 2 oz root ginger and 3/4 tsp lemon essence. Place in a pan and simmer until tender. Add a little extra water if the tomatoes are very hard. Add another 1 3/4 lbs. of sugar. Stir until dissolved and boil in an open pan for about 5 minutes.
Green Tomato Pickles: Slice 3 lbs green tomatoes into a pan with 1 lb onions, sliced, 1 tablespoon salt and 3/4 pt vinegar. Cook about 45 minutes. Add 8 oz brown sugar, 1 tsp ground ginger, 1 tsp dry mustard and 1/2 tsp cayenne pepper, and cook slowly for 1 hour, stirring constantly. Bottle while hot and then seal immediately.
Can I have your recipe? I'm always trying to figure out how to use green tomatoes at the end of the season.
I don't know how good the recipe is as it's an old one of my Mum's.
Green Tomato/Ginger Jam.
@Marg'.user19922 You can supply extra information simply by editing your question! I've gone ahead and done that for you. But I'm a little confused by the second recipe, since it doesn't call for tartaric acid!
Sorry didn't make it clear second recipe was for -Sobachatina. who said they had a glut of green tomatoes left at the end of the season, Thank you -Jefromi for the help editing, I'm still a bit slow on the whole computer scene but can use the microwave though, LOL.
The closest ingredient to Tartaric Acid is lemon juice, I used it to set condense milk in a lemon meringue tart, not sure 'Cream of Tartar' is the same thing.
While normally I would hesitate to recommend this source, eHow has a good article on the difference. Cream of tartar is ground, partially neutralized tartaric acid, and not generally a substitute.
In the end, they recommend:
If your recipe calls for tartaric acid and you don't have it, using
cream of tartar might work. For every teaspoon of tartaric acid,
replace with two teaspoons of cream of tartar. However, using tartaric
acid will produce better results.
However, there are very, very few applications of cream of tartar in cooking. The most prominent is encouraging foaming of egg whites. With good technique and patience in whipping the whites, it can simply be omitted with good results.
It is also used in some candy making, to interfere with crystal formation in sugar work. In this application, substitution may actually be effective, but you might wish to use alternatives such as invert sugars or citric acid.
In the specific jam recipe, if you are canning, one purpose of the tartaric acid is to ensure the canned goods are sufficiently acidic as to prevent the growth of botulism, and keep your put up green tomatoes safe. In this context, you should not substitute. When canning, always follow trusted recipes precisely, to ensure a safe outcome.
Even if you are making refrigerator jam, this is not a good substitution candidate, since you may need the acidity to help get a good gel. You might be able to use citric acid (I am not sure how the acidity levels compare), but don't try this if you are canning.
Next use of cream of tartar is to combine with baking soda to make a baking powder.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.636819
| 2013-08-29T14:21:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36410",
"authors": [
"Amir Šabanović",
"Cascabel",
"Dave Anderson",
"Douglas Held",
"Marg'.user19922",
"Sara",
"Scot Collins",
"Shaun Chillin",
"Sobachatina",
"Trung Dang",
"hobbs",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19922",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85440",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85441",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85444",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85445",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85470",
"user67319"
],
"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
}
|
20380
|
Curing bacon with a wet brine, without nitrates
When making bacon, many of the recipes call for a dry brine using curing salt with nitrates. I've read that it is possible to use a wet brine without the curing salt with the nitrates and just use Kosher salt (or some other salt). Is this possible and safe to use just kosher salt and water? From my understanding curing salt with nitrates can be toxic, but also protects against botulism but I'm still looking for a safer alternative.
Salt inhibits bacterial growth mainly by drawing moisture out of the meat. A wet cure (brine) would be substantially less effective at this than a dry cure, unless you add much more salt to your brine and, also, you take the extra step of drying the meat afterwards. Besides, the texture of the final product is likely to be substantially different, possibly not in a good way.
As you alluded, potassium nitrate (a/k/a saltpeter) is used in cures because, strangely, it does indeed stop the growth of Clostridium botulinum, the bacteria that causes botulism. Other salt cures do not have this property, which might explain why some recipes call for adding a little powdered ascorbic acid to the salt. Hopefully, however, you are not planning to leave your bacon in a vacuum-sealed bag at room temperature, so this should not be a major factor in which cure recipe you use. I would be far more concerned about generating carcinogenic nitrosamines from frying nitrate-laden meat.
For extensive discussions, see the USDA/FSIS bacon fact sheet and the University of Georgia smoke-cure fact page, as well as the University of Minnesota's fact page on nitrites.
@Robert: Happy to help.
Nitrate, through the action of lactobacillus in meat, breaks down into nitrite. Nitrite then rapidly breaks down releasing nitric oxide, which combines with myoglobin present in muscle tissue, 'curing' the meat. When this process is complete, and if the correct amount of nitrates/nitrates were used in the cure, almost* all of the nitrate/nitrites will be broken down, and very little residual nitrates or nitrites will remain in the bacon.
Nitrosamine formation in bacon is the result of cooking it with high heat, but this is not limited to bacon - grilled hamburgers or steaks contain equally high levels of nitrosamines.
To greatly reduce or eliminate nitrosamine formation in bacon, simply fry it at a low temperature. It will take longer to cook this way, but will cook more evenly and spatter less.
But if you're really worried about nitrosamine consumption, give up grilled meat. And just to be safe, better give up green leafy vegetables too. Spinach, for example, and celery (which contains 800 times more nitrate than cured bacon) produce nitrosamines in the stomach and digestive tract.
Ascorbic acid is added to accelerate the curing process and has no effect on botulism prevention.
to prevent the production of botulism toxins, it is generally considered safer to err on the side of a little too much nitrate/nitrite than to little.
400 years of using nitrites when you stored all of your food in the cool larder or cave around the corner was a safe way not to encounter botulism. But we don't do that these days. I can keep the temperature of my brined bacon or dry rubbed bacon same as my refrigerator throughout the entire process except when it goes in the smoker and up to 150F. Then we take those slabs and partially freeze them to slice thin, package and freeze. Amazing stuff homemade bacon and ham. Would never go back to mystery variety in grocery stores.F
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.637117
| 2012-01-11T21:35:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20380",
"authors": [
"Bruce Goldstein",
"Guada",
"Jeffrey Bosboom",
"Kevin Peel",
"Matthew",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44722",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44724",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53503",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8158"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30822
|
Alternative to Food Grade Silicone
I recently bought a new meat grinder and they recommend washing it with hot water, drying it completely, and spraying a food grade silicone to prevent the stainless steel parts from rusting. Can I just use a light coating of oil like I do my cast iron to prevent rust?
Dry stainless steel parts should not rust, and should not need any oil for storage
For non-stainless steel parts, use any food grade oil as a rust preventative coasting. You can wash this off before use
Most meat grinders need a drop or two of oil on the bearing surfaces before you start grinding. Use any food oil you have handy as you will be washing it off when finished
Oil on cast iron pans is not for preventing rust, it's for seasoning - the heat polymerizes the oil and creates a nonstick layer bound to the pan. That's why you don't put oil on the whole pan, just the part you actually cook food on. If you try to oil your meat grinder, it's not going to be bound to it, and you'll just have an oily grinder that gets oil on everything it touches.
So is there no alternative? The problem is I don't know where to buy food grade silicone so I ordered it from LEM and I've already washed the parts. Should I even worry about rust after one wash and dry?
if your worried about rust, store the parts in a big bag of rice and it will soak up all the available moisture. I do this with my grinding blade and stand mixer parts.
@Robert No, stainless steel doesn't really rust (that's why it's called stainless), so I don't really see why you'd need to. I also assumed from the question that it was talking about spraying the whole thing, not just a couple parts - if it's a few odd pieces (say, the cutting blades) then sure, you can put some oil on them, and it won't be a huge mess.
the blade and plates are usually not stainless even if the rest of the unit is. I always figured it was because stainless (while harder and better and holding an edge) is somewhat brittle and could flake off from bits of bone. just a thought though.
Good point. Quality meat grinders have hardened steel blades, and tempered augers
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.637419
| 2013-02-11T00:44:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30822",
"authors": [
"Alistair Norman",
"Brendan",
"Cascabel",
"Dave_St",
"Jimmy",
"John Gordon",
"Karmacoma",
"Robert",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72130",
"wolfson",
"z.daniel"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
40816
|
Why does Tomato Sauce (ketchup) require refrigeration but Barbecue sauce (like Worcestershire sauce) does not?
We have two types of sauce we put on our sausages. Tomato Sauce (Australian - ketchup equivalent) and Barbecue Sauce (Australian - mix of ketchup and Worcestershire sauce). The Tomato sauce indicates it needs refrigeration but the Barbecue sauce (made by the same company) does not say this.
My question is Why does Tomato Sauce (ketchup) require refrigeration but Barbecue sauce (like Worcestershire sauce) does not?
There's a case to be made that ketchup doesn't need refrigerating, given that it's full of sugar and vinegar, and that the directive to refrigerate is a marketing ploy to make sure that the bottle is always 'in your face', generally at eye level in the fridge, which you probably open a lot more than your cupboards. Personally I keep my ketchup in a common or garden cupboard and neither I or the ketchup suffer any ill effects, but I like to live dangerously like that.
Is this true of all brands? As some have noted, even ketchup is inconsistent between bottles, and it's plausible that there's no real reason behind this. It's also easier to just say "refrigerate after opening" than to attempt to prove it's stable at room temperature.
Worcestershire sauce is hardly considered Barbecue sauce.
You don't actually have to refrigerate ketchup. Once it's opened it's good for a month or so with no appreciable change. After that the flavour and colour starts to degrade, but it's still safe to eat.
Worcestershire sauce is fermented for more than a year before it's bottled, so it will change at a much slower rate than an acidic, but unfermented sauce like ketchup. Still, it's only good for a few years after it's opened.
There is no definitive way to answer this without knowing the specific formulations of the products in question, which is almost certainly proprietary to the producing company.
It is likely that the so-called barbecue sauce is in fact more than tomato sauce mixed with Worcestershire; it may be more acidic than the the tomato sauce, giving it greater stability at room temperature.
The added acidicy that Worcestershire sauce and Barbecue sauce both have ensures that they don't go bad nearly as soon as tomato juice does.
Worcestershire sauce is actually the result of an attempt to pickle a few ingredients gone awry.
Further, on a side note (the tomato juice reminded me of this) a great technique that Jeffrey Morgenthaler uses to ensure that his bar can serve bloody mary's easily and efficiently is to mix all of the acidic ingredients together and make a mix that can be stored for about 2 weeks at a time and mix in the other ingredients as the bloody mary is made.
http://www.jeffreymorgenthaler.com/2013/the-bloody-mary-conundrum/
The answer is simple - tomato ketchup does not need to be refrigerated provided it is in a glass bottle - it's only the ones in plastic which advise they need to be kept in the fridge after opening. Quite why that is I've never bothered to check, must be something to do with the material of the container. I've never seen Worcester sauce in anything other than a glass bottle, but I assume, were it in plastic, it might also need refrigerating.
Maybe because the glass bottles tend to be near airtight when properly closed, while the plastic squeeze bottles are far from that...
@rackandboneman - news on that - in the last year, 'refrigerate after opening' has appeared on glass bottled ketchup as well!
Seen that happen on condiments where they decided to leave out benzoates or other strong preservatives :)
maybe that's why, don't have an old bottle to compare ingredients
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.637636
| 2014-01-03T03:01:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40816",
"authors": [
"Alan Gaddy",
"Bernadette",
"Cascabel",
"Chris F",
"Donna C",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Ian",
"KevBurnsJr",
"Maureen Soucy",
"SnakeDoc",
"WhisperinPints",
"aaron",
"bamboo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20302",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95031",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95032",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95033",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95065",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
33912
|
Looking for an accurate nutrition database
I hope that this is the right place to ask this question. My problem is that I wish to plan a diet for myself but - nearly - every database has different values for the same food. How do I know which one is accurate?
For example if I check bodybuilding.com for raw eggs: Eggs on bodybuilding.com and on the USDA webpage: USDA entry for raw eggs I get different values for the same thing.
You should generally trust the USDA. They've put a lot of effort into getting everything accurately measured for nutrition labeling, and in the US at least, pretty much everyone gets their nutrition data from them.
That's true in this case: the bodybuilding.com nutrition page says "This database contains data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service." So there's no good reason they should disagree with the USDA - if they do, I'd assume it's because their data is out of date, or they miscopied it from the USDA database.
That said, the differences are pretty tiny (pretty much insignificant in this case), so assuming they haven't made any big mistakes, you should be fine using either - it's supposed to be the same data. (Personally, I would much prefer the USDA's website or http://nutritiondata.self.com/ because they're a lot easier to read than that bodybuilding site.)
You could register (free) in both http://nutritiondata.self.com/ and https://cronometer.com/ to have a good idea. (They both fetch their data in USDA database but you will find some lights differences due to their final calculation. There is some weird difference with Calcium for instance)
Pro https://cronometer.com/: it's easier to change the quantities (editable table). It has a super important feature: by mousing over on a specific it shows all its intake sources (eg: you see where you got your calcium from your diet). You can also add Vit supplement in your diet.
pro http://nutritiondata.self.com/: its shows glycemic load, and it has interesting graphs and it is globally more detailed (eg on fats). And you could download your diet profile.
Different websites will have different many different factors, including how they calculate their final numbers, such is the problem with any scientific data. For your diet, though, don't worry about it too much. If your diet is so strict that the minor differences in nutrition facts make that much of a difference, then will you have the energy to stick with it in the long term?
Every egg is different, so the chances of the one you eat exactly matching either of those sites is nil. Not to mention that the accuracy of those numbers depends on you measuring ingredients with equal accuracy.
Use the database to learn quick estimates for the foods you commonly eat, so you can make decisions without the computer nearby. If you are out eating, knowing that an egg has about 75 calories and 5 grams of fat, for example, lets you decide how many you want.
Edit:
If you are looking for another database, though, the search at Wolfram Alpha has many foods. Try typing something like "bread nutrition."
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.637947
| 2013-05-02T16:21:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33912",
"authors": [
"Adan Cortes",
"Boris",
"Graphicparadise",
"JinSnow",
"Lewis Creelman",
"Michael Biro",
"Tapan Nallan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31431",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78783",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78784",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78785",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78787",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78788",
"nulla"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
9657
|
Resources that explain the science of cooking?
I have been cooking for a while now, but its mostly what I picked up watching others cook. Now, I am an engineer by profession, and it seems there ought to be a reason for cooking food the way it is done.
I'm curious to understand the science of what's actually happening in cooking. Why it is that everything actually works the way it does?
What resources are there (books, websites, tv/video series) that explain the science behind cooking, as opposed to the art and trial-and-error process that it actually is in practice?
Note: new answers should be added to the existing community wiki answer. They should keep to the existing format: explain what the book is about, your general impressions, pros and cons, scientific depth, etc. No need for a full-page review but please explain your suggestion.
I've edited the question, pushing it a bit away from the (very broad) request for explanations of techniques and so on, and specifically toward science as requested in the title.
IMO, this really would have greater lasting value with a single detailed answer instead of a poll. Here's an annotated list of all the recommendations so far:
On Food And Cooking (Harold McGee) is all science at a very detailed level, combining food chemistry and biology and explaining the interactions between ingredients and the mechanisms behind various cooking methods. If you're looking for a pure science book, this is it.
Good Eats: The Early Years and Good Eats 2: The Middle Years by Alton Brown. His books are less technical/scientific than other authors and tend to focus more on application, making them more accessible to less hardcore cooks.
CookWise (Shirley O. Corriher). Written by a biochemist who has done a lot of consulting in the food industry. This is more practical than McGee and more technical than Alton's books. It also includes a ton of recipes, which can be a good thing or bad thing depending on your personal preferences. She has also written a baking version, BakeWise.
Molecular Gastronomy (Hervé This, translated by Malcolm DeBevoise). This is more of a niche book (about - surprise - Molecular Gastronomy) and as you might expect is a little French-centric. What's really great about this book is how it debunks a lot of popular cooking myths with actual controlled experiments and hard data. It wouldn't be my first choice to recommend to a Food Science newbie, but nevertheless a good one to add to your collection.
The Fat Duck Cookbook (Heston Blumenthal). Written by the founder of the Fat Duck Restaurant in the UK. It's about the history of the Fat Duck and has a big recipe collection (from the restaurant, obviously) and a section at the end dedicated to food science. This one's really for the advanced crowd as it involves a lot of molecular gastronomy, sous-vide and other esoterica - complex preparations, hard-to-find ingredients and unusual/expensive equipment.
Cooking for Geeks (Jeff Potter) is, as the title implies, written to appeal to geeks, and as such has a certain amount of science but tends to be quite a bit more basic as far as actual cooking technique goes. It's more "applied science." Honestly, I wouldn't recommend this for very experienced cooks, but it's great for getting into cooking and gaining an enthusiasm for it (if you're kind of a geek).
Cooking for Engineers is a web site, not a book, which has the obvious advantage of being free and searchable. It's hard to really define this as its scope is so wide, but I will say that I've found it to be a surprisingly useful and detailed resource whenever I need to find out something quickly.
What Einstein Told His Cook (Robert L. Wolke) is also mostly on the science itself but is written to be more accessible to the layperson. As one reviewer on Amazon put it, Wolke is like the Bill Nye of Food Science. One part science, two parts entertainment. Another member has criticized it for making unproven claims (particularly on nutrition).
The Cooks Illustrated annuals (from America's Test Kitchen) are less about the actual chemistry of food but do highlight a very scientific approach to cooking based on up-front research, experimentation and testing. See David LeBauer's Answer for a more detailed explanation.
The Science of Cooking (Peter Barham) focuses on the chemistry and physics of why some recipes work and some fail.
khymos.org - on the surface it's about molecular gastronomy, but you'll find much of the science of cooking (e.g. the chemistry behind "working" flavour pairings etc) on there too.
The Food Lab: Better Home Cooking Through Science (J. Kenji López-Alt) is a collection of detailed recipes, tips and explanations. It's written to be easily accessible to a chef without much experience.
Serious Eats is a website with both recipes and stories about how the recipes were developed (often with pictures of various attempts to compare how changing processes or ingredients affected things). Especially see the 'techniques' section of The Food Lab
I might add "Liquid Intelligence" by Dave Arnold.
The "Cooks Illustrated" annually bound set of issues, all years, with comprehensive index.
We have the set at home and it is the first place that I turn when I want to find a recipe. The reason I find them so valuable is that each recipe is developed using the scientific method.
The authors (America's Test Kitchen/Cook's Illustrated editors) present a hypothesis, usually to make recipe x. They clearly state the particular outcome sought (flavors, textures, ease, ingredients, etc).
Their methods are to first research available recipes, then to explain the range of ingredients, tools, and steps used in the recipes. They choose a few key variables to explore in the recipe and then performs a series of experiments in which these are varied. The finished products are taste-tested.
Results include descriptions of the effects of the different variables on the finished product and a detailed recipe, often with alternate options. I don't think that I have ever been disappointed or surprised by the final result because of the thoroughness of the explanation and testing.
In the past few years (well after this answer was originally written), Cooks Illustrated / America's Test Kitchen has published more cookbooks around particular topics, such as gluten free, sous vide, multi-cookers and pressure cookers. These cookbooks have introductions that explain some of the issues around the topic and some of the changes that needed to be made.
They also released specific 'science' books in 2012 and another in 2016:
The Science of Good Cooking: Master 50 Simple Concepts to Enjoy a Lifetime of Success in the Kitchen
Cook's Science: How to Unlock Flavor in 50 of our Favorite Ingredients
Many people have good things to say about these books, but this is the first time I've ever heard somebody refer to them as books on food science. Can you explain why this fits that category?
@Aaronut please see revised answer.
As a note, as of November 2015, Christopher Kimball is no longer associated with CI/ATK/CC etc.
There's a class/club at UCLA devoted to this. Their blog is pretty good and has links to more resources:
https://scienceandfooducla.wordpress.com/
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.638225
| 2010-12-01T14:57:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9657",
"authors": [
"1800 Emergency",
"A. Calman",
"AAService",
"Aaronut",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"DaSh",
"David LeBauer",
"J Knight-Fryza",
"Kelli Perez",
"Kike Cruz",
"Lee Daniel Crocker",
"Marie-Paule Sachet",
"Marsha Blake",
"Patrick Sebastien",
"Praveen R",
"Raffad Asim",
"SpaceDog",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161868",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161877",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161878",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161880",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161884",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161886",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161890",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161891",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19761",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19762",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20084",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20280",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"martha jenkins"
],
"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
}
|
15371
|
Can Kebabs be frozen?
I have made why I fear is far too many beef and pepper and onion kebabs for a party. Can I freeze any of them beforehand, or will the vegetables be mushy when thawed?
Is there a better way for me to preserve the kebabs (say, for a few days to a week)?
Meat, as long as it's fresh, can be frozen without fanfare. Vegetables are another story. Usually they need to be blanched and cooled before freezing (to stop enzymes from causing them to mature past their prime). However, peppers and onions are fine to freeze "as is". I am concerned, though, that you won't like the vegetable quality once they are defrosted. You were on the right track: all vegetables, regardless of the type, sustain at least some cellular damage due to the freezing process. So cooks usually only use the items in dishes that don't require a "showy" performance (like a small dice for salads, or in cooked products like soup). The reason for this hit in appearance and crunch-ability is this: Veggies are mostly water (70-95%, while beef is only 55-65% water). As veggies begin to freeze, the water expands, causing tiny shards of ice to break through the delicate cell walls. The partial or total collapse = mush.
One additional concern is freezing the kabobs with the sticks still in. Whenever freezing food, you want to keep all moisture IN and air OUT. (Air changes flavors and distorts color). This means that whenever possible, you want to pack items in air tight containers. Obviously all the "empty space" that pre-threaded kabobs require would introduce all sorts of air into the storage container.
If I were you, I would disassemble the extras: freeze the meat to use however you like, and the veggies for less looks-dependent dishes. Or -- just go ahead and grill up every last kabob, then send your guests home with leftovers. (They'll definitely come back again this way.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.638908
| 2011-06-11T05:25:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15371",
"authors": [
"Cecilia Thompson",
"Lyn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32617"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19567
|
How to keep fresh-squeezed fruit juice?
Is there any way to keep fresh-squeezed fruit juice (especially apple or orange) for at least one week without losing taste and vitamins in it? Would a jar with a tight lid be useful?
Some quick research indicates there are enzymes in freshly-squeezed juice that will degrade it fairly rapidly, and that they can be deactivated by heat. Of course, that also changes the flavor (especially since you're not going to be able to quickly heat and cool it, as it apparently only takes 30 seconds, but any method doable in a home kitchen will keep it hot much longer than that). So heat-deactivation is out.
Even commercially-produced (that is, both pasteurized and enzyme-deactivated) juice is only supposed to keep 6 days in the fridge, so that's out.
Your best bet, then, is to freeze it. According to the University of California's Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources Publication 8199, you can freeze in clean glass jars or rigid plastic freeze containers. They also note that navel oranges (and their juice) do not freeze well—they will become bitter.
Well, either that, or store the fruit instead, and only juice it as needed.
Do food sealers prevent the oxidation and degrading at all? For example: http://www.amazon.com/FoodSaver-T03-0006-01-Regular-Mouth-Jar-Sealer/dp/B0000CFFS6
@JSuar It should help somewhat with oxidation (less air, less oxygen), moreso if you hook that up to a real vacuum pump (giving almost complete vacuum). But it won't help with enzymatic degradation.
I have an orange tree and when fruit grows, I hate to see it hit the ground and go to waste. With a funnel, juice reamer, and empty soda bottles, I'm able to stock up on orange juice for weeks.
I know freshly squeezed is the best, but is it really worth the work every time you're thirsty?
If your going to freeze it in a container, make sure to keep the lid or cap open before the freezing process. The pressure will explode if sealed.
Any tightly capped container will explode when fermentation gasses build up if left on counter, in purse or in car. Just had a thick glass jar of OJ explode with shards like a grenade a 3:45 am. Thankfully with no one in there...
Very seldom do I make juice for more than the moment I'm about to drink it as the enzymes in the juice will degrade it quickly and there's not much you can do about that.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.639094
| 2011-12-10T23:52:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19567",
"authors": [
"JSuar",
"Martin H.",
"Michael Lucas",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42592",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42606",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8942",
"mlnjpn"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17228
|
Does sesame seed oil taste like toasted sesame seeds?
When you have sesame seeds on a toasted bun, is that what sesame seed oil tastes like?
There are two types of sesame oil you can normally buy.
Pure sesame oil (or just sesame oil) has a mild sesame taste. Refined sesame oil is used as a cooking oil and only has a hint of sesame flavour.
Toasted sesame oil is made from toasted sesame seeds (and therefore tastes like toasted sesame seeds). Aside from the labeling, you can easily tell it apart from pure sesame oil by its much darker colour and stronger aroma. It is not a cooking oil, it's more of a condiment and used frequently in Asian cooking.
Neither of these taste exactly like sesame seeds on a bun, obviously, but the sesame flavour in toasted sesame oil in particular is very noticeable.
Perfect answer. I didn't realize that the first kind of sesame oil existed until I bought some by mistake. Oh boy was that a disappointment!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.639297
| 2011-08-28T19:16:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17228",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Jack G",
"Stett",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36985",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36996",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"simonnj",
"tpdance"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23299
|
Bisquick breakfast casserole with cooked eggs
I have a breakfast mixture leftover from making breakfast burritos the other day. It has cooked scrambled eggs, sausage, bacon, onion & peppers. I cooked it all and made the burritos. The leftovers I put in a freezer baggie and put in the freezer. Can I add bisquick mix to this and bake it to make a breakfast casserole? My main concern is the eggs since they are already cooked.
What are you asking here? Is it safe to use the leftovers? Will those flavors be compatible with bisquick? Why are you concerned that the eggs are cooked? Are you worried the texture will be off?
@Sobachatina: Based on what I found by googling "bisquick breakfast casserole", I think the question is really just "will I get something edible if I make this recipe with already-cooked eggs".
If had that mix (cooked scrambled eggs, sausage, bacon, onion & peppers), then I would make a breakfast pot pie like this Hearty Chicken Pot Pie. I would butter the casserole dish and then layer like this.
The first layer would be the scrambled eggs, onions and peppers and sausage.
Next layer would be some shredded cheddar.
Now make Bisquick and pour on top
Lastly, I'd lay bacon over the dough
Bake it until golden brown and delicious. Since everything is really cooked safely, you are just setting the dough crust. I think you'd want to keep the crust thin and avoid a lot of dough.
If the idea is something like this breakfast casserole where the bisquick mix is mixed into raw eggs and milk, then baked, then no, this is not a good idea. Bisquick (which is basically flour, baking powder, salt, and fat) needs to be mixed into the wet ingredients, not mixed with chunks of cooked eggs.
If you're determined to get a casserole out of it, rather than just eating the leftovers, the best thing would probably be to mix the bisquick with wet ingredients (milk and additional eggs) and mix with the rest - but be aware that you're going to get something kind of strange, with chunks of egg mixed into the normal casserole.
Basically I want to use the mixture I have. But since the eggs are already cooked, I'm not sure the best way to go about it. I don't have to use the bisquick (and yes I know you add liquid to it) it's just the only thing I can think of.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.639398
| 2012-04-24T21:51:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23299",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Chris Adams",
"Loretta S",
"Ooker",
"Sobachatina",
"Suzanne",
"dale ",
"hamoo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10025",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52753",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52754",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52764",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52951",
"roofinghammer_breakbone",
"swineone"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
53375
|
How do I adjust cooking time when temperature may be off by 5-10C?
Over the holidays, my mom tasked me to prepare a Crown Roast of Pork for our Media Noche (basically it's the meal you have as you approach the New Year with fireworks) meal. All of the recipes I found on youtube used the Fahrenheit. The procedure would go:
Preheat Oven to 450 F
Roast Crown Roast for 20 minutes
Reduce heat to 350 F and wait for another 130 minutes
Our Convection Type Oven has a Celsius Degree Scale. Converting those temperatures to Celsius, I got:
450 F = 232.2222 C ~ 240 C
350 F = 176.6666 C ~ 180 C
Now, the dials (yes, our oven has an old school rotary dial for time, temp, and function) are only divided into 10s, from 50 C to 250 C, so I didn't have a clear 232 and 176. What I did was I rounded up to the nearest tens instead and then used the same cooking time, thinking that the Fahrenheit equivalent of the rounded up Celsius values wouldn't be too far off.
When I took the Crown Roast out, the outside was charred a bit but the inside was cooked well, although a bit dry. My siblings described the char to still be edible and didn't have that bad and bitter burnt taste.
So, after almost botching our dinner, I rescaled my values back:
230 C = 464 F (originally 450 F), cooked for 20 minutes
180 C = 356 F (originally 350 F), cooked for 130 minutes
Now, we see that there is quite a disparity between the new Fahrenheit values, and being cooked at a higher temperature dried up my pork and burnt the outside.
My question is, is there a "time-scaling" rule to follow when converting Fahrenheit to Celsius? What I mean by this is that for example, in my case, it might be:
450 F for 20 minutes or 230 C for 25 minutes or 220 C for 18 minutes
Wherein after converting the temperature from Fahrenheit to Celsius, the time you cook it in that temperature would also change since the temperatures or not the same. The temperature may have been decreased or increased in order to accommodate the limitations of the cookware.
Sorry if this winds up being an opinion based question or something that can only be discussed but not answered. As much as possible, I'd like to see if anyone tried something with regards to this, may it be from experience or from a book or a class or a show and if others have used the same method.
I think your title is a little misleading - obviously if you are able to convert precisely enough you shouldn't have to change the time at all. It seems like what you're actually asking is how to change the time if your temperature is off by 5-10 degrees.
You have it back to front. 180°C is the medium oven temperature as defined in a classic French (metric) cooking school. 350°F is the rough approximation of that :-)
@Jefromi indeed; coming from a physics background, the title of this question struck me as extremely strange. Converting from one unit system to another doesn't change the actual value at all! Your comment makes much more sense.
Something seemed out of whack with the calculations. 230° C = 446° F. (Not 464° F). This would explain the disparity.
Rounding to the nearest 10C is more accurate than your thermostat probably is anyway (don't round up, round to the nearest).
Conversion isn't your issue, your thermostat is much more likely your culprit.
Use an oven thermometer, not your dial.
And keep in mind that ovens hover above and below their set temperature by switching on and off.
Use Google or whatever to do your conversions, and then your oven thermometer to keep your thermostat honest. The natural variances you'll get from rounding are fine.
You should also be using a meat thermometer; pull a roast to rest when it is 5F below your target temperature.
And if you have ten degree increments on your dial you don't have to round to the nearest ten degrees, you round to five degrees and be obsessive and put it halfway between marks. The fact that that's presumably a little tricky goes right along with the point about thermostat accuracy: the oven's not really accurate to that scale anyway, so there wasn't any reason to make it easy to set on that scale.
You might also round the initial hot bit up and the longer slower bit down (or possibly vice versa) as well. But the temperature will vary between different bits of the roast by more than that even in a fan oven, and the cooking time will be affected by more than that for taking it out for basting a different number of times (or faster/slower) to their assumption.
There's nothing wrong with your conversions, they were fine. What you may not have considered is:
Convection versus non-convection ovens. When you see a recipe in F it's most likely from the US, and in the US convection ovens are rare. Convection ovens cook with more intensity than non-convection ovens as the fan blows hot air, so when using a recipe for a non-convection oven you should turn down the temperature. How much depends on the oven but I'd say at least 15C or 30F
Many ovens are inaccurate, sometimes wildly so. I've seen ovens be as much as 40C off the temperature set on the dial. Without an oven thermometer you can't be sure whether you are actually cooking at the temperature you set
My money is on the convection, you simply had too much heat going into the roast. Just turn it down next time. Also, get an oven thermometer, they are cheap and can save your dinner.
The rule of thumb I've seen is 25F for convection, but in any case, yes, using a convection oven without adjustment is likely to cause problems like this!
European cookbooks and convenience food packages mostly give both values, and the difference varies wildly from one recipe/package to another. My frozen potatoes (fries/croquettes/rösti) all want 180°C with fan, 200°C without. The frozen duck even gives different durations, IIRC it was 40-45min@220°C without, and 30-35min@200°C with fan.
One of the conversions was wrong. See my comment above. :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.639630
| 2015-01-07T17:01:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53375",
"authors": [
"Alexander",
"Caroline Henderson",
"Cascabel",
"Chris H",
"Cindy",
"David Z",
"Harold Trainor",
"Janet Love",
"Kristy Johnson",
"Phoebe Donald",
"Richard Adelson",
"Richard Petre",
"Sonia C.",
"TFD",
"Vernita Johnson",
"Wesley Franklin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125346",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125347",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125352",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125354",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125366",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125404",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125406",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1400",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32579",
"missjewels20"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
54247
|
Homemade double/heavy cream separates after setting in the fridge
Good day. I recently made a homemade double cream using 1.5 cups of whole milk and 150 grams of unsalted butter. I followed most recipes I saw online which started with melting the butter so that it becomes liquid and not letting it boil and mixing it with the milk. However, I had several problems as I placed the melted butter in cold milk which lead to the butter forming again which in turn made it difficult for me to mix with a hand mixer. What I did next was I placed the mixture in a saucepan and let it warm over low heat. When the butter turned liquid again and the milk starting to become warm, I took it off the pan and back to my mixing bowl then used a hand mixer for about two and a half minutes.
When the mixture looked mixed to me, I placed it in a container and placed it in the fridge to set. However, upon returning to it a couple of hours later, the double cream separated, the butter formed at the top part and the milk was at the bottom.
My question is, can I still turn this disaster of a double cream and make it usable for cooking/baking purposes? Or should I toss it to the bin and start on a new one? (and this time make sure that the milk is in room temp before mixing the two components)
A lot of the recipes I see say that you will need to remix if you store it in the fridge. http://www.cdkitchen.com/recipes/recs/4/Heavy_Cream_Substitute61129.shtml
Also, what do you mean when you say "placed it in the fridge to set"?
I saw a recipe on wikihow that said I should put it in the fridge for 1-2 days to set.
Oh. Most of the recipes I see just say to use it within 1-2 days, actually, which is the opposite. Are you talking about this one: http://www.wikihow.com/Make-Heavy-Cream I think they mean "you can store it for 1-2 days" not that you have to store it for several days. And, actually, almost every other recipe I see says it can NOT be used for whipped cream... which the wikihow says it can.
OH. Darn so I misunderstood it. Thanks for clearing it up. I'll re-mix it again when I use it. I'm not using it for whipped cream so I think it's gonna be fine. Thanks for clearing it up!
What would happen if I can't use it within 1-2 days after making it?
You cannot make double cream by mixing milk and butter, this is wishful thinking. Some recipes which call for heavy cream, e.g. a cream soup, can indeed be made by adding milk and butter in such quantities that the fat ratio becomes similar to double cream, and will be successful. But for all such cases, there is no reason to mix the milk and butter before adding them to the other ingredients, you can step the step which supposedly makes cream.
A mixture of butter and milk will always be unstable, no matter the temperature at which you added them. You could in theory avoid it by using an emulsifier and a very thorough mixing method (high powered blenders are good here), but the result will have a different taste and somewhat different texture from cream and still won't whip. I've never seen a use case where doing it makes any sense.
Just get a Bel Cream Maker - (often on Ebay) made in the 50's and 60's.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.640113
| 2015-02-01T02:35:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54247",
"authors": [
"Areej Abuqudairi",
"Catija",
"Cherine",
"James Gorman",
"Lisa Hughes",
"Razgriz",
"Tanya Gaspard",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127597",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127598",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127619",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147616",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23869",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
73480
|
Jam stored in hot temperatures
I have store bought jam (still sealed) that has been sitting in my car for over a month, but it has been super hot and humid, would it still be good under the hot temperatures?
Was it factory sealed or had it been opened already?
If you want to be able to edit your post to add information, it'll be easiest if you register your account. (If you've lost access and all you can do is create a new registered account, you can follow the instructions here to merge them: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/help/merging-accounts)
If the jam was properly canned (likely, if it is store-bought) and was still sealed during that time, it shouldn't be spoiled. The temperatures in canning are supposed to kill and seal out the dangerous bacteria, exposing the sterilized jam to more temperature shouldn't make the jam unsafe to eat.
What might have happened, depending on the jam involved, is a change in texture. Pectin, which is found in fruit and acts as a thickener in many jams and jellies, can denature at high temperatures - which would make your jam thinner. If you had started with something more like jelly, it can liquidfy into goop, or even syrup (depending on added pectin vs mechanical thickening) - still tasty, but harder to spread. With a more solidly textured jam, which is also thickened with fruit pulp - it might be a little thinner, but perhaps not as badly so.
If it has turned thinner, you can still use it as a compote, a syrup, or a sweetner in any situation (like baking, for example) where the precise thickness and/or texture doesn't matter. It isn't bad, still has fruit and sweetness to it, and can still be used. I had a jar of jelly that melted this way that still made good syrup.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.640387
| 2016-08-26T23:41:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73480",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
75713
|
Beef Barley Soup with too much wine
I put too much red wine in and it tastes like tomato and wine. I need more of the rich beef flavor back but it is a little salty, will low salt beef stock fix it?
Simmer it a while first. Red wine mellows a lot with cooking. A beef base like Better Than Bouillon can add more beef flavor without diluting the stew.
You might find that the stew is better the next day. So I would simmer it for an hour or so today, refrigerate it overnight, and then consider beef broth or base tomorrow.
Since you are going to simmer the soup, consider adding diced potatoes to deal with the "saltiness".
As long as you keep it at a simmer, you won't kill the barley or beef. Don't let it hard boil.
If you like thicker stews, I've been known to grate a potato into the stewpot -- after a few minutes, it's broken down enough that it's just a thickener. (turning it into really runny mashed potatoes, effectively.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.640546
| 2016-11-21T17:11:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75713",
"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
}
|
23574
|
What's the difference between masa for tortillas and for tamales?
I often buy fresh prepared masa from Mexican markets in order to make tamales and pupusas. Mexican cookbook authors stress getting the correct masa for the recipe, either masa for tamales or masa for tortillas. However, the masa at the market is in an unlabelled bag and is identified by the proprietor as just "masa". Questions:
is this more likely to be tamale or tortilla masa?
is there a real difference? What?
if there's a real difference, is there a way you can modify one type of masa into the other?
Clarifying: the above question is about fresh corn masa, not dried flour. Prepared masa, in particular, has at least oil and salt added to the fresh-ground corn.
Interesting question. I've never seen types of masa differentiated either.
When you go to the Mexican store just tell them what you are making and they know what masa you need even if they don't place a label on the bag they usually mix fresh every day.
I found a link that will provide the explanation you are looking for:
http://www.mymexicanrecipes.com/ingredients/masa-harina.html
Here is a direct quote from the site:
Masa is dried corn that has been cooked in limewater (cal), soaked overnight, and then ground up while still wet. Sold in this form, it's called fresh masa, and it makes the lightest, fluffiest tamales. In Mexico, it can be purchased at tortilla factories in two ways: with smooth consistency for making tortillas and, upon request (if you are lucky), with a coarser consistency for making tamales. (Be careful to differentiate between masa para tamales and masa preparada para tamales; the latter, available at some tortilla factories and large Mexican groceries, is the coarse-textured masa mixed with lard and flavorings.
Typically when you post a link, you want to put in the important direct quote that is relevant for the answer. If it is too long as you seemed to suggest in your original answer, then summarize. But that paragraph is no way too long to quote.
So the difference is how finely the cornmeal is ground?
This might be an old question but I still stumbled on it and figured others would too, so it's still worth answering.
Difference:
The grind makes all the difference.
Pre-made masa for tortillas doesn't have lard mixed into it. It's just finely ground and mixed with water to make the dough. Great for tortillas.
Pre-made masa for tamales is very light and fluffy because whipped lard is added to a coarse ground masa. It may also have spices added to it, depending on who made it. I get it from a mexican market and they each have their own recipe.
If you make a tamale with masa for tortillas, it will be much denser/heavier, and not in a good way. The taste will be off because lard gives a lot of flavour.
The other trick is adding broth or some of the sauce you'll use to stuff the tamale to the masa dough and mix it in well. It just gives that extra oomph. You don't have to.
How to altar it if you buy the wrong one:
I just ask the employees if the unmarked bag is "masa preparada para tamales", and I never have to alter. If you end up with the wrong type, it may be the wrong coarseness but the taste may be greatly improved if you add about 1 cup of heavily whipped pork lard to 1 1/2 lbs of prepared masa plain masa dough. Add in your spices and other flavourings if you like but the basic is just adding the lard. You have to whip it until it turns lighter in colour, then mix it into the dough. Normally, you don't mix lard into dough, but this is the only thing I can think of to get that ingredient back in.
Fresh masa the type you buy at your local molino is basicalltly the same. The masa for tamales spreads easier on the cor chuck than the masa fo tortillas. Same holds true with maseca for tortilla or for tamales. Maseca is dried corn flour. Fresh masa is made in a molino (tortilla factory).
Masa para tamales is simply a coarser grind. In some markets it is referred to as masa quebradita. Masa para tortillas is a finer grind. Neither is made from dry powder and neither is made from fresh corn. Both are made from dried corn cooked in cal and ground when wet. If you see only one kind, it is likely the finer masa for tortillas. It will work in tamales if that’s all you can get.
When you are reading the labels on the fresh masa: one has the slated lime soaked corn coarsely ground plus lard or shortening, salt, and baking powder. The other has the ground corn without the other ingredients.
One way of making a tortilla is to use the the masa without lard etc. and add just enough masa harina (ground corn flour)until the wet masa is stiffer. Dry fry it in a hot skillet until it is lightly colored and not dry. Note: the tortillas have a nutty, corn texture to them. Roll into a ball and put between a pieces of a heavy plastic bag or use tortilla press.
Hope this helps.
Which masa is which?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.640659
| 2012-05-04T03:52:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23574",
"authors": [
"Anseh Danesh",
"Cynthia Williams",
"FuzzyChef",
"Jay",
"Manuel",
"Mary Mc",
"Omnitus",
"Robin Nelson",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sam Clark",
"Sobachatina",
"Sven Akkermans",
"Teresa Sudbeck",
"eayvaz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53394",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53434",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53607",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93828",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98639",
"nurimelih"
],
"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
}
|
78363
|
Buying knives and sharpening stones
I've been thinking of getting:
Tojiro DP Gyutou - 8.2" (21cm) knife
King Two Sided Sharpening Stone with Base - #1000 & #6000
Norton Flattening Stone for Waterstones
Winware Stainless Steel Sharpening Steel, 12-Inch
Extra large bamboo cutting board (18x12)
Is it smarter to send your knives to get sharpened, or to do it yourself like this? If I want to sharpen my own knives, are the listed items a good starting place?
Hello, and welcome to Stack Exchange. It's difficult to provide good answers when you ask so many things in one "question". It would be better if you spit this up into separate posts.
"Knives -- tell me everything about them and also about sharpening them!" This is far too much for one question.
Ah, I'm sorry about that. I've done a lot of research on these items and on the subject itself, I just want to make sure I'm getting the right equipment. So instead of a lengthy answer, I more so want reassurance or criticism. And of course a short, decisive, knowledgeable answer to the actual questions posed in my post.
Perhaps a good general rule is that if you can't summarize into a single question in the title, you're asking too much at once. (People who see just the title should have a good idea what you're asking.) Maybe edit with that in mind, and if necessary split this up and ask another question?
Okay, I edited this one down into a fairly manageable question, I think. Feel free to edit more, but try to avoid adding new, distinct questions, and remember to make sure the title is a good summary of the question (not just something generic).
Most of the items mentioned are internationally available and have been for several years, so this is not really short-term/localized shopping advice :)
The DP is on the harder side, and is "too japanese" in blade design to trust old school professional sharpeners with unless they know japanese knives.
A sharpening steel, especially if used without much practice and knowledge, is likely to do more harm than good on these (or anything specified at 60+ HRC). A flat leather or wood strop (no need to load it with abrasive pastes) is often the best touchup tool for that kind of knife.
Th King stone is very good, but requires soaking, very frequent flattening and tends to make a mess - it is great for the workbench, not good for in kitchen use.
Get a decent coarse stone instead of a flattening plate, you'll need it sooner or later anyway.
Bamboo cutting boards aren't the gentlest on the knives, but have less warping problems than true wood boards and are OK to use.
My answer is that there isn't one simple answer, it depends on who you are and what you want to use your knives for.
Me, I'm a slightly disorganized amateur. I use my knives, on average 15 minutes every day, the day before Christmas perhaps 2 hours and on some days only five minutes. For that reason I don't spend a fortune on knives, instead, I buy middle of the range stuff, based on how they feel in my hand, the stiffness of the blade, etc.
Since I'm slightly disorganized, sharpening of my knives happens on a whim - no, this is too dull, I have to do something NOW - for that reason I sharpen my knives at home, sending out takes way more planning than I'm capable of.
Since I haven't spent a fortune on my knives, I don't mind using one of those mini grinders on my knives, they are fast, efficient and gets the job done.
The steel I use for everyday use is my only regret. I should have gone for something longer/bigger. A good quality 12 or 14-inch steel is definitely on my wish list.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.641168
| 2017-02-13T00:16:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78363",
"authors": [
"Calfedon",
"Cascabel",
"Daniel Griscom",
"David Richerby",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54594",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
87146
|
at what temperature is whole wheat durum pasta cooked, and therefore safe to eat?
someone says that temperature is the most reliable way to know if a food is done is or not
they say that there are various signals to know but none of these are actually that reliable
(source: How can I ensure that scrambled eggs will be fully cooked?)
they do not mention the most reliable way, they only mentioned time. the 'suggested time' given on recipes, as we know, is also not very reliable because few recipes are well-tested by the person that made that recipe, but many (a very large percentage) are not tested and or based on significant evidence
(source: How can I tell if the food inside a pressure cooker is done cooking?)
Welcome! I'm removing the second part of your question, because health is off-topic here. It's sufficient to say that you want to know when your pasta is fully cooked; that's not a weird thing to ask for.
I think uncooked pasta is safe to eat
@Paparazzi possible e. coli risk in uncooked flour.
it's not safe, that's why it was important and needed to be mentioned, deleted part --
"also anyone with the relevant personal experience of actually eating whole wheat durum pasta raw would know that wheat can be toxic when eaten raw
(source: me)
(more: https://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/real-reason-for-toxic-wheat-its-not-gluten/)
for example, microwaving eggs and oats explode. i didnt know that until from personal experience
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-certain-foods-explode-when-microwaved
@ambw The issues specifically with whole wheat that you mention are not food safety issues, they're health issues, which are off-topic. If the issue were that the pasta could explode (like eggs in a microwave), sure, that'd be a safety issue - but that's not the case.
For reference, "food safety" is about things with really really clear effects (usually short-term effects) and scientific consensus, the sorts of things governments will make regulations about. It's pretty easy to see that the concerns you're raising are not in this category, and beyond that, there's even a Snopes article detailing how those claims are not even supported by the scientific evidence your article claims support them. So this really isn't the sort of thing we will ever get into here.
It's cooked at 212°F/100°C - it's also underdone at that temperature, before it's cooked at that temperature. if you are at high altitude, it's cooked (and underdone) at lower temperatures. If you are at very high altitude, you might need a pressure cooker (or you might choose to stick with things that are easy to cook when water boils at 85°C rather than dragging a pressure cooker up a mountain.)
Unfortunately, temperature is not a good way to determine when pasta is cooked. It's great for some things that are simply done when they reach a given temperature, without time being a factor. Meat is the most common example, but it will certainly work for eggs too as noted on the question you linked.
Pasta is different - cooking involves hydrating it, not just heating it. If you're cooking it in boiling water, it will most likely all reach 100C/212F before it's done, and then still be at that same temperature when it's done. On top of that, it'd be very difficult to actually stick a thermometer into pasta to get a reliable temperature reading, and it's so small that it'd be cooling down rapidly once you take it out of the water to do that.
The most reliable way to tell if your pasta is done is to simply test it directly - bite through it and see what the texture is, or I suppose cut it with a knife if you don't want to bite possibly underdone pasta for whatever reason. If it's not done yet, you'll see an opaque, whiter bit in the middle. For far more detail, see What's the best way to tell that pasta is done (when boiling)?
The times given on packages are also fairly accurate, though there's some room for personal preference in doneness.If you cook it as instructed, it will definitely be done - but it might be either softer or more "al dente" than you prefer, depending on the brand and your preferences. (Some packages may actually give an "al dente" time and a "fully cooked" time, if you're really lucky.)
If you're looking for consistency, and not having to test every time, you can just time it once. That time will keep on working for you, if you cook it the same way. As a bonus, you can also compare that time to what's on the package. If it matches, you can probably use the time on the package for all types of pasta from that brand, and if you like it cooked 10% less, you can extrapolate a very good guess for other types, and so on.
please edit the answer so that it's specific to whole wheat durum pasta since it's what the question is about. also that link is to something 6 years old and i dont see any scientific evidence backing it. cited links to evidence based on updated science is better and would be helpful. please edit the answer so that it's specific to whole wheat durum pasta, and not 'pasta' in general since that isn't helpful, thanks
This is all true for whole wheat pasta as well. It's safe (from a food safety perspective) if it's fully cooked as described here. The concerns originally in your question are not food safety issues, so I haven't addressed them.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.641463
| 2018-01-17T04:58:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87146",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Ecnerwal",
"ambw",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54960",
"moscafj",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
77545
|
Can I store raw meat in the fridge after defrosting in the microwave?
I had a frozen package of bacon. I only wanted to use half the bacon, but couldn't separate the frozen bacon strips, so I defrosted the whole package in the microwave. The bacon got quite warm - not fully cooked, but smelling like bacon. I used what I needed and put the rest in the fridge immediately. I'm planning on using the rest of the bacon in a few days. Is that a good idea, or should I just throw it away?
You can use it in a few days, that will be fine. Issues with food safety come into play largely when food is kept in the danger zone, around 40-140F for an extended time.
The texture of the bacon might not be quite as good since it's kind of like the second time you'll be cooking it.
You didn't say HOW LONG it was "quite warm" nor how warm "quite" is, but assuming you mean it was a room temp for a few hours, it's fine. In a more general way, if it doesn't smell bad, it is probably OK.
Room temp for a few hours would quite possibly spoil the bacon.
Sorry, I guess I could have been more clear. I put it in the fridge as soon as I took it out of the microwave. "Quite warm" means not fully cooked, but warm enough to smell like bacon, if that makes sense.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.641876
| 2017-01-18T01:00:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77545",
"authors": [
"Caleb",
"ale",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53790"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
79064
|
Making pearl couscous in slow cooker
I've been using a slow cooker to make casseroles lately and would like to try using it to make Israeli couscous. I can't find anything online that tells me how to do this. The reason I would like it to sit is so that it will absorb the herbs and spices I make it with. Most recipes just have you add it in the last 10 mins. That doesn't seem long enough to absorb enough flavor. Anyone have any idea how to achieve what I'm looking to do?
Letting it sit in liquid longer will likely turn it to mush.
I got it to work! I added chicken stock and zucchini and cooked on high until zucchini started to soften. I added sautéed onions, garlic, spinach and let sit for a while so stock would absorb flavors. Then I added canned tomatoes and cooked sausage. I let the liquid get hot and then added the couscous. I let it cook for 20-30 mins. It took longer than I thought for it to soften. It's not "fluffy" but that's not what I was going for. I wanted more of a casserole feel. Then I added some cheese and feta after I turned the heat off. I ended up having to add a lot of salt, but it tastes great!
Glad you found something that worked.
While I agree with the others on it turning to mush if you cook it too long, there is a way to get your desired effect of absorbing more flavor.
What does the couscous absorb really quickly? Liquid! So, let's make some flavored liquid, aka stock.
You can buy stock or make it on your own and add whatever herbs, veggies and spices you like. Then, replace stock for water in the recipe.
This concept is similar to cooking risotto with chicken stock.
Couscous is a pasta. Like any other pasta, couscous would be overcooked and mushy if you cooked it in a slow cooker for any duration longer than 10-15 minutes. Even 15 minutes may be too long. I would stick to the recipe. You'd be surprised how well spices and seasoning adhere to couscous-- especially if the seasonings are steamed with the couscous.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.642013
| 2017-03-12T01:13:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79064",
"authors": [
"CMB92",
"SnakeDoc",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54783"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
75385
|
Gratin without a broiler
I've been wondering, is there a way to gratin food (as in cheese gratin) in a gas oven without a broiler?
I'm used to cook using my parents' big electric oven, which had coils in the upper and lower part, so I was able to heat from below as well as gratin from the top.
Now I only have access to a gas oven without a broiler, but I still want to get those nice gratin crisp cheese on lasagnas and escondidinhos (a traditional dish from the north of Brazil).
"Regular gas ovens" have broilers... Does yours not?
Catija, I believe they are not very common around here (even though they exist). You would be amazed at how many things that sound "basic" change from one culture to another. Off-topic: most people here don't even have a dryer machine along with their washing machines (tropical weather makes drying clothes rather easy hehe)
I think that was Catija's point: if you are aware that something is hugely culture dependent, please don't describe it as "regular" but describe it. Here, it is possible to read between the lines that your oven has lower heat only, but it is not always that easy every time. So the "regular" descriptor only misleads you to think that you have communicated your situation, while it might be a source of a huge misunderstanding.
yeah, I totally agree with you. I actually replied Catija after searching the web and was also surprised about how common gas ovens with broilers are outside of here, which led me to think about and point to the cultural matter. I'm going to change the wording on the question to avoid further confusion.
Every (home) gas oven with broiling capacity I've ever met only has bottom heat - and there's a broiler rack (or supports to put the rack/pan, if it's been lost) in the "drawer" below the oven, under the burner. The only place I've seen gas broiling higher up was a commercial stove's salamander unit - not in an oven.
Okay, as mentioned in the comments, the easiest way is to use a broiler, but if your gas oven doesn't have one.....
When following the instructions for thin crust pizza from Cooks Illustrated (on a pizza stone in my oven), one thing they suggested to help the cheese melt and crisp a bit was to NOT put the pizza on the lower rack.
They figured the oven temperature was going to be high enough to cook the food, so no need to put it closer to the heat source that was below. However, by putting it on the closest rack to the top that would still fit the food, there was some additional heat radiated back to the top of the pizza that was absorbed by the metal roof of the oven.
Whether that works well enough for your purposes or not, I don't know, but it seems to be a similar concept.
that's actually a very nice idea. I'm going to test it out as soon as I can and return to this!
@arvere - definitely let us know if it works for you!
totally worked, although not as good as the usual way, but it took a really long time even for a small dish (tested on the "escondidinho" dish, mainly potatos)
thanks
In some ways, what you're asking is the inverse of What can I use for a Crème brûlée if I don't have a blow torch? . Of course, not everyone has a blow torch for this sort of thing.
For lasagne, if you normally do the 'cook covered 'til heated, then uncover & broil' ... do the opposite. Cook it uncovered 'til the top is brown. If it's not hot enough in the middle, cover with aluminum foil and return to the oven 'til it's done.
You can simply cook the food a bit longer to get that crisp crust on top - it is possible that the dish will be a touch drier for being baked in regular oven heat until it browns, instead of just the top element heating up in a broil (while the rest of the oven can cool a bit) - but I don't think the difference will be huge, just perhaps add a bit more moisture and be aware that all the crusts will be a touch thicker.
You can, as Joe mentioned, cook lasagne style - with foil over the dish for part of the time for slower cooking, and uncovered part of the time to encourage that crust to form. Just like with baking bread, a crust will form because the outer layer is exposed to radiant heat, and it dries a bit more, and you get browning from Mailard reactions and Caramelization.
Again, the difference between it cooking that much in the mostly indirect heat of the oven vs intense directed heat on the broil means it might take a little longer, and the crust might be a bit thicker (as the dish cooks a bit extra from the outside in), but it is still quite doable. It doesn't really matter much if the dish is browned first or last - though it might be a bit moister at the surface if it's browned first (the dish's steam trapped under foil), and the possibility of overcooking it and perhaps a bit drier if crisped at the end, and a bit more control over how brown it gets - but those are.
In general, you can get a crisp crust and browning even without a broil function - I have even managed it with the oven off (and therefore only residual, virtually no radiant heat), when I'm making tortilla pizzas. Usually, the oven is preheated, pizzas are quickly assembled just before getting tossed in to cook and pulled when done, and the oven gets turned off halfway through the second (when the cheese just starts melting) with the crisping and browning of the second, and any subsequent pizzas (sometimes two or three more) all happening with the oven off - and they can still get very crisp and brown, it just takes a bit longer.
The point of that anecdote is, you can still get a nice crisp crust on top. It takes a bit more time, since the dish has to cook through instead of only getting the top heated. It may let the food cook a little bit more around the edges - which I usually find controllable by making a bit wetter, or dripping water to cool and slow any overcooked bits. But it is usually fine, not a huge deal if a broiling setting isn't used or isn't available.
If your gas oven has heating elements just on the bottom of the oven, maybe placing the whole dish on a baking sheet with a bit of water poured on it will cool the bottom and slow its cooking enough to let the top brown before the bottom overcooks. If your oven has heating elements from the top instead or as well, or around the edges, the oven should cook more evenly - and the top will have its opportunity to brown as the dish cooks from the outside in (as ovens do).
I'd avoid the water, as the steam might slow the top browning. Instead, I'd use a silpat sheet, as they're insulating. Another option would be to put a sheet pan or piece of aluminum foil on the shelf below the item being cooked, so it doesn't get the radiant heat directly from the burners.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.642202
| 2016-11-10T12:20:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75385",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Ecnerwal",
"Joe",
"PoloHoleSet",
"arvere",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51848",
"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
}
|
79349
|
How many carbs I will lose by cold fermenting my bread dough?
I made bread dough recently, and I want to know how many carbs I'll lose using the specific method below:
Composition: 6.5 cups of whole wheat flour (21g of carbs per 1/4 cup, per the nutrition facts), 1.5 tsp salt, two packets of yeast (1.5 TBS).
Left it to rise overnight
Put it in Ziploc bags in refrigerator to let the yeast have at the carbs.
I am going to bake some at 3, 5 and 7 days for comparison, so I would love to have data for that, too.
Though it's true that yeast will consume some of the carbs to produce byproducts (such as CO2) that affect the flavor and texture of the bread, the amount that these microorganisms will consume is tiny compared to the amount of carbs that exist in the bread.
It won't be a noticeable amount from a human nutrition perspective.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.642966
| 2017-03-22T21:15:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79349",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
80919
|
Butter Tablet Eruption
I was following a simple butter tablet recipe. After 20 minutes of stirring and boiling the condensed milk, sugar, butter and milk mixture, I removed the pot from the heat, and started to beat. This was looking good, and getting sticky, and a darker brown, when suddenly the thickening mixture started to rise. I was forced to go to the sink to handle the problem, and the now quite porous mixture poured over the edges of the pot.
This happened twice. I blamed the first failure on using an electric hand mixture for the beating phase. I'm using a copper bottom pot. What went wrong?
That is an awesome photo. As long as you weren't injured, this is hilarious. (Sorry if you did get hurt.)
Yes, I'm glad the pot wasn't so hot somehow. The photo makes me smile more than the rotten pot waiting for me in the kitchen...
Note that the recipe refers to reaching a honey caramel color before beating, and the final color looks to be a bit lighter than that, so the darkening during beating does seem like a bad sign.
So it sounds like, before the eruption, you had some continued caramelization during beating. It's a bit of a guess, but possibly your pot was heavy enough to retain enough heat to keep on cooking after removing from the heat. In that case, as the beating thickened it, it might've eventually gotten to where instead of bubbling a bit, it held on to all those bubbles and foamed up.
To address that, I might try transferring to a bowl to beat in, or letting it cool a little bit before beating. I know that for maple fudge, which is a pretty similar texture, you actually do both.
I could also see weird things happening if you got the ingredients wrong somehow, and for example had more liquid than intended, so too much was still left to boil at the end. So it could be worth double-checking quantities, but given that you tried it twice and it's a simple recipe, I assume that's unlikely.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.643069
| 2017-04-14T15:15:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/80919",
"authors": [
"Joshua Engel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57125",
"user2023370"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
64389
|
What are the correct ratios for eggless mayonnaise?
What is the correct ratio of milk, oil and vinegar to make egg-less mayonnaise?
Why does this read suspiciously like a recipe request?
@Stephie : it could also be an attempt to troll for a lawsuit. For context, see http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2015/10/23/american_egg_board_ceo_joanne_ivy_resigns_over_eggless_just_mayo_controversy.html
@stephie We allow questions which are about the correct ratio or ratio range, as opposed to a straight recipe. They are quite answerable for many foods. And for foods where there is no technological reason to use a specific ratio, "as much as you like" is also seen as a valid answer. This is different from suggesting a favorite recipes and readers having to vote each of them.
@rumtscho That's why I didn't VTC straight away - I was hoping that OP would narrow down the question to a slightly more specific question. There are many recepies available online for egg-less mayo baded on the given ingredients. A "came out too runny" or "is more or less X better for Y" gives us more to work from.
Just edit the question so it asks for a mayonnaise substitute.
My go to ratio for eggless mayo: 1 cup oil, 1/2 cup full fat milk, 2 tbsp vinegar or lemon juice. You can adjust the taste with other seasonings.
That sounds about right, 2:1 oil:mayo ratio is also what I use.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.643262
| 2015-12-14T18:06:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64389",
"authors": [
"Alison Fink",
"Bethanie Stone",
"Escoce",
"Joe",
"Ken Gardner",
"Lawrence Delaney",
"Luciano",
"Pam Citrigno",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153518",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153519",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153520",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153542",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153543",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154395",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154396",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"iwona pachana",
"rumtscho",
"thecutedounut "
],
"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
}
|
77840
|
How do these flavors of liquid smoke differ?
When buying liquid smoke I'm generally faced with a choice of:
Hickory
Apple-tree
Mesquite
Pecan
How do these differ? I'm interested in knowing things that'd help me decide what to pair them with.
I've tweaked this to ask a slightly more concrete question. In our experience, when we ask "what does X go with?" answers can get a little subjective - "A and B but not C" "no, B, and C, but definitely not A!"
Mesquite is a very assertive flavor that typically goes with beef, especially fatty beef.
Pecan and hickory are stronger than apple, but milder than mesquite, and are great for pork or poultry, and work just fine with beef.
Applewood is very flexible, a bit lighter and sweeter. It's the only one of the woods you mentioned that I would consider using with fish.
Ultimately, there's no hard and fast rules - taste things and do what works for you!
Liquid smoke is made from distilling actual smoke and so, to some degree, it tastes like the wood it comes from. For example, I can detect fruity apple notes in apple wood.
Of course, the flavor of smoke itself is far more potent than any of the notes imparted by the type of the wood. In my experiments, I have found that any kind of wood (or liquid smoke) will work for my recipes but some of them are complimented by those extra notes. Again using apple as an example. I really like how apple wood compliments smoked pork.
Some woods are more strongly flavored than others. Oak and pecan are milder flavors that can be used anywhere without distracting. Mesquite is more boldly flavored and will be noticeable.
Some of the actual flavor pairings are just traditional. For example, I am more accustomed to mesquite with beef than pork. I can't say it is really better suited except that I'm used to it.
Smoking web sites will give advice on what woods work well for various applications:
http://bbqrsdelight.com/wood-flavors/
This is a good table. It is a BBQ site so it is all about smoking meat. Notice that most woods work well with any kind of meat. There are descriptions of those extra flavor notes that each wood provides. You can use this to tailor your particular dish.
Wow! No one mentions Hickory which is the most often used smoke for Beef and Pork. Mesquite is typically used for fish and chicken. Applewood is for fish
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.643528
| 2017-01-27T17:43:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77840",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672"
],
"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
}
|
21046
|
Sourdough teacakes/hot cross buns?
I've made sourdough before and I'm just making my sponge and I wondered if it was possible to make sourdough hot cross buns/tea cakes? Would it be to heavy too rise or would it not taste right?
Thanks in advance!
NB: don't know whether you have tea cakes in the US but in the UK they are small buns containing currants and/or sultanas and peel eaten at tea or breakfast (toasted with butter).
Sebiddychef, as it stands, you are directly requesting for recipes which is not allowed. I think your question with the recipe request omitted is sufficient and will most likely get you what you need.
I've added sourdough starter to things like pancakes and waffles, but never hot cross buns. However I believe it would be very tasty as the sourdough would take some of the sweetness of the buns. I found this link about sourdough hot cross buns and thought it might be along the lines of what you were looking for https://sourdough.com/recipes/one-penny-two-penny
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.643726
| 2012-02-03T19:31:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21046",
"authors": [
"Jay",
"Queenmum",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51738",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25018
|
Why did my gumbo stored in a metal pot refrigerated overnight change?
I make gumbo all the time and offered to make some for a event I was attending today. I cooked 6 gallons in three separate batches. I added them to a 8 gallon metal pot. I let it cool for a few hours and then placed it in my fridge. I also had some of the same gumbo stored in a tupperware container overnight. The gumbo in the metal pot looked completely different and had an off taste. The batch in the tupperware container tasted perfect.
I often cook large quantities of food and I have never had anything like this happen to me. I would never serve anything that was not perfect for my guests. I had to cancel the gumbo.
I would like to know if I did something wrong or if this was just a fluke. I have taken the Food Prep course and I understand the cooling issues and temps that food should be kept at.
Was it an aluminum pot?
Did you fast-cool the large pot of soup in an ice bath as per standard procedure for bulk stocks and soups?
I can think of a couple answers here:
The larger volume of soup in the pot stayed hot much longer than in tupperware, and so it continued to cook, or fermented/spoiled overnight.
If the pot was aluminum and the gumbo acidic, the two reacted. I've seen this happen with long-simmered, acidic stocks. The color changes, and the flavor sometimes does too.
I'd guess the latter, I'm not convinced cooked food would ferment/spoil overnight
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.643836
| 2012-07-12T19:54:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25018",
"authors": [
"Agneta White",
"BobMcGee",
"David Hayes",
"JoeFish",
"RLongfellow",
"Ray Baxter",
"Sibel",
"diana costin",
"gwmax44907",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57154",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57155",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57156",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57162",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57176",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8522",
"jorgetown",
"talmid 27",
"wizzwizz4"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25200
|
How to peel bell peppers effectively?
We tried everything and there is no easy way to peel bell peppers without doing it with a very sharp knife. Peeled bell peppers are easier to digest (if you or someone in home suffers from Heartburn you should start peeling too :) )
Tried to freeze then dip into hot water, place in hot stove, and directly over a flame, hot oil works but then it gets cooked and soaked.
For those around world (like me), this is bell peppers.
Thanks for any help!
So you want to learn how to peel raw peppers without cooking/roasting it first?
I'm sure you could try blanching them, it works like a charm for other fruits veggies I have a hard time peeling.
Why not... do it with a very sharp knife then? ;)
The key is to use a sawing motion with the peeler. Top and tail the pepper, cut it in half or quarters, remove the seeds and pith, then take a peeler (one like this):
and start peeling, wiggling the peeler side to side, 'sawing' the skin off the flesh.
cutting first into widths just less than the above blade
Never tried the peeler, I will give a try. The tips above are ok but most of time the peppers get soften, quite bad for salads.
Put a flame to the peppers (either on the gas stove or a blowtorch). When it's black, it peels great. The meat will not be cooked.
Another way is to put it in the oven until done. When warm they peel great, but of course the meat will be done.
Edit: the method described here will be better, still.
If you're doing this, the pepper will peel even easier if you put it in a heat-proof bowl and cover with plastic wrap. The skin will steam itself loose.
The flesh does take on a delightful smoky flavor. I love subjecting peppers to this treatment.
You could try to concasse the pepper. Make light cuts through the skin (not through the flesh) then submerge in boiling water for 30 seconds, then shock in ice water? Maybe the peels get loose the same way a tomato releases its skin when treated this way.
I haven't done this myself, so I don't know if it will work.
When you roast a pepper over an open flame, that burning/charring that happens on the outside is just that tougher outer skin that you are trying to get rid of. You are not actually burning the sweet flesh underneath.
So, you hold or place the peppers over the open flame, until the outer skins are blistered and scorched, rotating and turning the pepper with tongs. Once that is done, put the pepper into a paper bag to cool off. That traps some of the moisture escaping and further softens the scorched outer skin.
Give it a few shakes once cooked, take the pepper out, and the skin peels/flakes right off. I just do it under a running faucet so I'm not fighting with little bits and pieces of clinging skin.
The mistake most people make is that they don't thoroughly scorch the outer skin enough, because they mistakenly think they are burning the whole pepper.
For raw peppers, you'll have to go with some other answerers' suggestions.
Choose 3 lobe peppers, after topping, and removing pith and seeds slice down valleys to get 3 pieces. Sawing motion with peeler top to bottom until peeled.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.644016
| 2012-07-23T04:01:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25200",
"authors": [
"Anton Bergman",
"Barbara",
"Chef McCoy",
"Diana",
"Doug Newton",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Jay",
"Jennifer Greenfield",
"Mike Cheel",
"Nicole Gallucci",
"Pat Sommer",
"Sobachatina",
"Susan",
"Ukky Chan",
"dmoz",
"geekly",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10990",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57616",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57628",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57629",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57653",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57793",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90109",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90173",
"lemontwist",
"rackandboneman",
"rphan17"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28479
|
Fixing oily chili
I fried my ground beef and onions for chili in olive oil and didn't drain it. Now my chili tastes oily. Is there any way to fix it?
In the future, you likely don't need to add any oil at all - ground beef usually has plenty in it.
Put the chili in the fridge overnight, and the oil will gather at the top. Then you can just scrape it off with a spoon.
If it's oily enough, it'll lift off in a sheet -- but I sometimes have to readjust the spices, as the fat soluble flavors get taken with it. (and the sheet of grease is bright orange).
Note that the fridge trick works great for hamburger grease, but olive and most vegetable oils won't congeal at that temperature.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.644356
| 2012-11-17T19:53:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28479",
"authors": [
"0x6773",
"Cascabel",
"Everton",
"Joe",
"Jotham",
"Knt kind",
"Neil H",
"The Testosterone Fanatic",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65732",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65733",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65736",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65738",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65739",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
34108
|
How do I accurately take a chicken thigh's temperature?
I tried to bake chicken thighs the other day and I used my probe thermometer to tell me when they were done. Well it seems that I did something wrong when inserting the thermometer because the thighs were still undercooked.
How can you use a probe thermometer on a chicken thigh to accurately take its temperature?
How do you know that they were undercooked? The main reason to use a thermometer is that it's more accurate than other indicators.
Food needs time to cook. Even it's reach the temperature it's still needs to stay there for a while for the texture to change and sometimes takes it longer to become safe to eat.
I assume you cooked your chicken thighs to 165–175°F (74-80°C) (depending on preference). 165°F (74°C) is the recommended temperature for safety (at least by US authorities), 175°F (80°C) is often recommended for texture (in legs and thighs; not for breast).
The best bet is to measure in several spots. You generally want to guess the thickest spot of meat, insert the probe past the center, then slowly withdraw it. How slowly depends on the response time of your probe. You then use the lowest temperature you see, especially if you see anything under the food-safety temperature (165°F or 74°C).
If there are multiple pieces of chicken, you should check several. Especially if they're different sizes.
Probe response times are anywhere from 20 seconds on fairly cheap thermometers, down to 3 seconds on expensive ones (like a Thermopen). 10 seconds is typical. You'll know its finished responding when the numbers stop changing quickly.
You also should rest the chicken, loosely tented, for at least 5 minutes (for just thighs, more like 15 minutes for a full chicken) after taking it off the heat—this lets the heat even out, and also will reduce the amount of juice lost when cutting.
According to the FSIS site you should check the temperature in the thickest part of the thigh. The middle of it is the part that will take the longest to cook, so that's where you should put the tip of the probe.
Take care to not touch the bones, since they can conduct the heat from the "outside" and give an incorrect reading.
Finally, it will depend on your taste, but I would overcook it the first time (let's say, 165 F) and then see if it's more or less to your desired point. Then I would adjust the temperature to the desired taste.
I am on a rampage, I guess. Touching a bone will give a LOWER reading, not higher
You want to:
Stick the thermometer into the thickest part of the thigh, not touching any bone which would give you a falsely high reading
Wait long enough for the temperature reading to stabilize (which may be 5-10 seconds depending on your thermometer)
Note that once you start measuring your temperature, you may be cooking your thighs properly, but may be so used to overcooked meat that properly cooked thighs are unpalatable to you. Of course, you should find the temperature you like as long as it is above the safety threshold.
Typically, thighs would be cooked to about 165-170 F.
When you freshly insert the thermometer, the temperature is going to still be going up—so failing to wait for it (when you've just stuck it in) would result on overcooking.
@derobert Erm... it does say "wait long enough for the temperature reading to stabalize"... what I am I missing?
OP complained of it being undercooked, not overcooked. I'm just saying that failing to wait probably wasn't OP's problem.
This is an answer on properly, not just one form of the error :-)
I am on a rampage, I guess. Touching a bone will give a LOWER reading, not higher
I put the probe in the thickest part of the thigh and try to also hit the bone as the thickest part will have a bone n the middle. Also the last places to reach temperature are always closest to the bone. (I never put the probe near the ends of the bone (where it's not thickest anyway) and I've never had a false high reading. Just let the point touch the bone but don't push it into the bone.
I like to hit the bone with the point at the thickest spot. If it's 165 there then the rest is good. I also pick the thickest piece if they don't vary much in size. If they vary I check the smallest first. I pick them off from smallest to largest as they reach 165.
Interesting, another answer says to never touch the bones because they can falsify the reading. Do you have a source for the bone touching thing?
Unfortunately, the nonsense about the bones being really hot has been passed around for generations. This answer is the correct one.
From this kitchen tips page on my blog:
To use insert the full length of the kitchen thermometers sensing area.
These are usually 2 to 2 1/2 inches for dial and 1 or less for digital thermometers (check manufacturer's directions).
Insert in a way that the sensing area is in the center of the thickest part of the food and not touching bone, fat or gristle.
Ideally you would require about 15 to 20 seconds for the temperature to be accurately displayed on a dial thermometer and about 10 seconds on a digital thermometer.
THINNER FOODS
Insert the thermometer sideways with the sensing area in the center for a thin foods, like hamburger patty or boneless chicken breast.
DISHWASHERS
Kitchen thermometers are not dishwasher safe.
Wash by hand with hot soapy water and consequently rinse with water before and after use.
I've edited this for you as an example of how quotes should look, but this likely does not meet our guidelines - you still didn't use your own words at all, just copied from elsewhere (though thank you for providing a link in this case). I'll check with other mods before doing any more on this one.
Ah, I see that's actually your own blog. That makes a bit of a difference - it's your own words now, just reused - but it means you need to clearly note your affiliation. I edited that in for you too. (See http://cooking.stackexchange.com/help/promotion)
Make sure you're not measuring the temp. of the pan as well. Just put the thermometer into the meat far enough that you're measuring in the middle of the piece of meat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.644495
| 2013-05-13T19:46:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34108",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Cascabel",
"Douglas Held",
"GeneralChef",
"Irsa Anwar",
"La Rae Williams",
"Marie Hagen",
"Marisa Lopez",
"Ngoc Thinh Nguyen",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sandra McClain",
"Sierra67 ",
"Stephanie Marie",
"Trish Pizzuti-Bockus",
"Weeze2712",
"WildLAppers",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122785",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150783",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150784",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79346",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79347",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79349",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79350",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79352",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79360",
"imba Agency",
"olivervbk",
"rumtscho",
"schmat_90",
"user3528438"
],
"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
}
|
26034
|
How do I get the ground spices to mix into my curry?
Here is how I made my curry. In my frying pan I did this:
Added olive oil (maybe one and a half teaspoon)
Added garlic (minced from a jar)
Added about one teaspoon of ground turmeric, ground coriander, and ground cumin
Added veggies
I stirred and after a while I noticed there was something odd. The ground spices on top of the veggies wouldn't go away, no matter how much I tried to stir and how much more olive oil I added.
What did I do wrong?
What do you mean by "ground on top of the veggies"?
ground = "turmeric ground, coriander ground, and cumin ground"? Need to make a sauce then add veges, otherwise you have a dry fry curry which is gritty. What recipe are you following?
@TFD, yes that is correct. Are my ingredients right though? Even before I added the spices, the grounds didn't mix well
@jak With what you described, you got the correct result. If you don't like that, use a recipe with a complex sauce
@TFD well, except for the olive oil. That's kind of odd for a curry. Normally they also include ghee, vegetable oil, or butter, and some sort of liquid to build a sauce base.
But the mixing wasn't going well, was it because I added too much ground? After the disaster ended, I tasted the combination of the grounds and it didn't taste like curry
@jak What did the grounds taste like? Generally they don't get their full flavor until they've cooked into the sauce a bit... but the easiest way to mess up a masala blend is to overtoast it and get bitter results.
What is the correct instruction to make this? Was the garlic even necessary? Because the garlic gets burnt very fast. I used medium heat
Common Indian dry fry (not really a curry) use fat (ghee) and whole spices and fresh herbs. This style does no produce a curry sauce most people are familiar with. Refer to "ground" as "ground spice" or "the ground spices", this would be clearer for most people here. Select a published recipe, and try that :-)
@Jak VERY brief cooking of spices/garlic before you add something to get the seasoning, as in under a minute brief.
@BobMcGee, I didn't understand that sentence very well. English not my first language. I am sorry
@Jak you do not cook the garlic and ground spices (whole spices are better) for very long. They should be less than a minute in the hot oil, and generally only need seconds, like 15 seconds or so.
I like to add unground spices (cumin seeds, mustard seeds, fennel, star anise etc. and of course garlic and chili depending what curry I am making) at the beginning, gives a better flavour to the oil.
Then I would add meat and/or veggies, stir fry them a little bit, and finally add the ground spices and water. Water will dissolve the spices and will make it easies to have them cover the veggies uniformly. This is very important especially for turmeric which, if added in oil, only results in a mess. I find ground cumin or coriander are less problematic.
If the ground spices sticked to the veggies you should have just added some water, not oil, which has probably made things worst.
Also, as I generally use fairly high temperatures with the spices at the beginning, I would use vegetable oil (I use sunflower oil) or ghee (clarified butter) rather than olive oil.
PS: no need to be depressed for a meal that did not come out OK. That is how you learn cooking!
In most Indian restaurants, one only sees the gravy based curries. This is just one side of Indian cooking. For dry curries, the technique is totally different.
For most dry curries, you temper whole spices in hot oil (traditionally sunflower, mustard, canola or groundnut oil). After tempering, the vegetables are added (usually one one kind at a time in a curry or maximum two). Then you add salt and other ground spices and let the vegetables cook.
Depending on whether you desire a north Indian style or a south indian style curry, you would add slightly different whole/ground spices.
Your curry did not come out well for some of these reasons:
Too much turmeric. Turmeric is for color/nutrition properties, but a pinch or two should suffice. A whole tablespoon would only be required if you are cooking like 5 pounds of vegetables.
The olive oil's flavor does not really blend well with traditional Indian spice mixes, so you should try different oil. Also olive oil doesn't get hot enough to temper mustard seeds and the like and might start to smoke if heated too much.
The ground spices should be added to the vegetables and not the oil, as many others have pointed out.
Having eaten south indian curries all my life, the traditional tempering ingredients are mustard seeds, dry lentils(to give a bit of crunch). For the ground spices, usual is a pinch of turmeric, salt, chilli powder(can be substituted with dry/fresh chillies) and asafoetida(for an umami note).
North indian curries have a tendency to include onions to most curries and have mustard seeds, cumin powder, coriander powder, fennel seeds and of course chilli powder.
This is the basic technique for dry curries, and you can use most vegetables, from potatoes to beans to green peppers, though as I mentioned earlier, traditional curries just have one or two vegetables at a time.
+1 Excellent summary of issues. Good to see recognition of main North and South differences. How much change in chilli level from your experience (for North and South)?
@TFD: It is more complicated than that I am afraid. Each state has a variation, some south Indian states like Kerela tend to include coconut in the curries and are generally less spicy whereas Andhra Pradesh, another south Indian state is known for spicing up their dishes considerably. But if you want a broad classification, I would say South Indian curries generally have more chilli heat.
Thanks. Yes, just interested in general observations - the world's a big place! I have had conflicting reports for Indian inports, must be some local pride issue?
haha, yes maybe :)
I've seen and lived curries all my life. So, here it goes:
Olive oil is something I won't use for curries. It has a very sweet flavour to it. Unlike suggestions from everyone else to use ghee, I would personally recommend you to use sunflower oil but definitely more than half a teaspoon even if it is non-stick pan. Even though Ghee adds a lot of flavour to the dish, I personally do not like so much fat in my curries.
Try to use fresh garlic as much as possible, not only does it add a fresher flavour to your dish, it will also add its nutritional values http://lifestyle.iloveindia.com/lounge/benefits-of-garlic-1473.html. Having said that, I'm not a 100% sure about the nutritional values of the bottled garlic.
You need to go easy on the ground turmeric. It has a very very distinct flavour that can over power the whole curry. I generally only add about 1/4 of a teaspoon and that's enough. I remember when I started cooking and I ended up using about 1 teaspoon and it ruined the whole dish. Turmeric is used not only for its distinct yellow colour but also for its anti-septic values. Ground coriander, and ground cumin seem ok though.
Even in a dry curry, you can add finely chopped or minced onion, which actually helps keep the curry dry enough without letting the spices soak up the oil. Once the oil is hot enough, you were absolutely right in adding the garlic but garlic burns very quickly, so you need to keep an eye on it. And if you decide to use onion to the recipe, you can add both onion and garlic at the same time, which will also prevent the garlic to burn. When you add the spices, you need to fry the spices on low heat until the oil separates from the sauce (onion, garlic, spices). That's when you can add the veggies.
A trick to make your sauce smoother is to blend it once its fried, before you add the veggies. And if you like the taste of coriander, it adds beautiful finishing touches.
Hope its helps and there's always a next time to do better :)
Saying that using ghee is unhealthy does not really mean anything. Like for any other ingredient, it depends how much you use, how often you eat it, what else you put in the dish, at what temperature you cook it etc. You cannot generalize.
@nico: I understand and agree with what you're saying. It totally depends upon the regularity and amount of its consumption. But, I personally advocate people not to use it and even without advocating for it, I have friends and family who have cut down on it a lot. For more: http://www.goodmeasures.com.au/is-that-ghee-in-my-curry
Never use olive oil when making Indian curries, the flavour is too strong.
You need to fry your spices right at the start of the dish to bring out their essential oils before you add other ingredients. Many people fry/soften onions and garlic first then add the spices to be fried as doing it this way helps to avoid burning the spices.
Once the spices have been fried you can add your other ingredients and stock/base sauce etc and simmer till done.
+1 -- this is the answer. Fry the spices before adding anything else. Some people call it the "biscuit stage" where you have a dry mixture of oil and ground spices, cooked but not burned. Then add garlic and onion, and cook these. Then add everything else and finish cooking.
If you add the ground spices before the main ingredients (ie. the veggies) the oil will suck up the spices, making the pan much drier when the veggies are added. Therefore, much more oil has to be added, resulting in a less healthy meal.
Only add ground spices once the main ingredient is well on its way, is how I see it.
Fry your chopped onions on a medium heat first in vegetable oil until translucent and starting to brown (5 - 6 mins).
Then add your garlic and freshly grated ginger fry for a further minute
Then add your spices and fry for a further 2 minutes then add your veg.
If you are cooking chicken, fry your chicken first on a high heat to seal in the moisture then remove and add after you've cooked your spices. If you try to do it after you've added spices you need the heat to be higher causing your spices to burn.
I've cooked with and without ghee, and I prefer it without, but that's a personal preference.
you need lots of oil to fry spices, after cooking the pastes, you can skim the oil off. your spices and curry paste "must be cooked" before you add meat or vege.
if recipe asks for whole spices, like curry leave, cloves, cardarmon, cinnamon sticks, then fry these for 1-2 mins first.
If recipe has onions, garlic, ginger, now you add, you need to fry till almost golden brown, the more caramalise the onions, the sweeter and better flavour your curry
Now add the powder / ground spices, and fry
if its too dry, add a little bit of water, and keep frying to "cook" the spices and fresh ingredients
when the oil separates from the ingredients it means your paste is now ready, your paste is now cooked
skim the oil off if you like
now make the sauce, add water, coconut milk, salt, sugar, etc ... make the sauce how you like the curry to taste. dont too much water becos when the meat cooks, the "water" from the meat, will seep into the sauce / gravy and dilute the sauce more
Now that the sauce is how you like it, add the meat and simmer.
when cooked and ready to serve, skim off more off the oil if you like.
Remember you need oil to cook your spices and paste and fresh ingredients
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.645052
| 2012-09-07T02:39:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/26034",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Dharini Chandrasekaran",
"Divi",
"KIRIT SHAH",
"Lemon",
"MrsMac",
"Phil",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11492",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66762",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84683",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9262",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94377",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94398",
"nico",
"oens",
"slim"
],
"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
}
|
23591
|
Why does my ganache keep breaking?
I'm making truffles, and my ganache keeps coming apart. The chocolate acts like it's overheating, but it's not. I've confirmed the temperature of the water in the double boiler several times, and the chocolate never exceeds 120 degrees. Here's my recipe:
20 oz of chopped chocolate (72%)
1 3/4 cups cream
1/4 cup Cognac
2 tbsp Butter
splash of espresso powder
I'm making this in a double boiler, as I find it usually turns out smoother. I don't know why this recipe isn't working today, I've made it twice and it's failed both times, though I've used the recipe many times over the years.
The only difference is the cognac, but I've used other liquid as flavoring. Is there something in liquor that changes the melting properties of chocolate? The liquid is going in with the chocolate, so it's not seizing.
I've destroyed $40 of Valhrona today, so needless to say, I'd like to know why this is happening.
I found an answer in McGee's 'On Food and Cooking: The Science and Lore of the Kitchen'.
The basic ganache is 1:1 chocolate:cream (by weight). With lots of chocolate the emulsion can come apart.
In 'Keys to good cooking' McGee describes how to restore a failed ganache. You put it over a double boiler and when it reaches 33ºC y stir it vigorously. If that fails, start with a smaller batch, just like you'd recover mayonnaisse.
McGee recommends letting it sit on the counter to cool slowly overnight.
The relevant pages are not shown on Google Books preview.
I pulled out my copy of McGee, and I agree that's the issue. Additionally, I used a higher quality chocolate (more chocolate particles.) At this point, it's too late to recover, I threw it out. I'll start again today, and change the recipe.
A 1:1 ratio is probably a cake frosting ratio, not a truffle ratio (although it could be for molded or even piped truffles). If you're hand rolling your truffles, though, a 1:1 ratio is going to be difficult to work with.
A couple of ideas:
You say you're keeping the temperature under 120 degrees, but 120 is very hot for ganache. You might want to try the technique of heating only the cream and then pouring it slowly over finely chopped chocolate. Let the cream sit on the chocolate for a minute or so and then stir slowly.
How are you adding the liquid flavoring? If you're adding it quickly or before the ganache has combined, that could be the issue.
I came looking for prevention - frequently happens to me too, without alcohol (in the truffles; I haven’t noticed that a glass of wine in me makes a difference). I do have a works-every-time solution, at least: mayonnaise method, per Alice Medrich: regardless of the amount of ganache you are trying to fix, bring 3-4 Tb cream to a simmer. Pour it into a clean bowl and whisk in a few Tb of the broken ganache until the mixture looks smooth and thick. Continue to whisk, gradually adding the rest of the broken ganache, as though you were making mayo.
Also works with full-fat canned coconut milk, in case you’re using that instead of dairy milk for vegan truffles.
The way I've rescued a ganache is to use an immersion blender to pummel the mixture... it's amazing how it can turn a grainy, oily mixture into a perfectly smooth, shiny ganache. Always give this a go before throwing away a mixture.
Saved my wife's ganache
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.645952
| 2012-05-05T06:05:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23591",
"authors": [
"Calvin Veasley",
"Catherine O'Donnell",
"Chris",
"Humberto Fioravante Ferro",
"Mark Peters",
"Scribblemacher",
"afkbowflexin",
"aqk",
"bert",
"carly svendsen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126960",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41588",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53435",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53436",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53437",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53441",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53462",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53466",
"user53435"
],
"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
}
|
85459
|
How do I add menthol flavoring to this gum?
My boy's birthday is coming next week, and I was thinking of making some homemade. I read the ingredient of gum on the packet and one of them was menthol flavoring.
I'm using this basic recipe:
Heat the ingredients. Place the gum base, corn syrup, glycerine, citric acid and bubble gum flavoring in the top part of a double boiler. ... Create a powdered sugar well. Pour the gum base into the well. Make bubble gum dough. ... Roll out the dough. Finish the gum.
So, how do I add menthol flavoring to this?
Important information belongs in the question, not in comments. I edited into the question for you.
I'm confused here - the recipe tells you when to add the flavoring. If you want menthol flavored gum, what's the problem with adding menthol flavoring instead of bubble gum flavoring?
i don't know what Should i add Menthol crystal or Powder ?
The recipe already tells you when to add the flavoring. The menthol gives it that minty kick ("cold" feeling) and is used in more than one bubblegum flavoring, like mint, peppermint, sometimes cherry.
For industrial applications it is easier to buy powder and then compound it into the flavor, but for home applications I recommend that you buy a mint flavor solution instead of just straight up adding menthol, since a mint flavor is more than that.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.646270
| 2017-11-05T13:15:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85459",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Deepak Jain",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62648",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
85973
|
Is active dry yeast safe to eat as-is?
I am interested in eating yeast as a protein supplement, likely on toast.
Is active dry yeast safe to eat in this way?
Jeremy, welcome to Seasoned Advice! There are two hints: a) We don't accept questions on health and nutrition (please see our [help] for more details. b) Please read about the difference between Candida albicans and Saccharomyces cervisiae.
That’s like saying, “I’m thinking about eating yogurt but worried I’ll get a bacterial infection”
Look for Vegemite or Marmite. It is autolyzed (dead) yeast that is used as a spread on bread in many parts of the world. It’s likely a lot tastier than baking yeast.
No, but you might end up fluffy, bubbly, double the initial size, and get punched down.
I've edited to try to avoid this being a health question - I removed the specific concern, and simply asked if it's safe to eat active dry yeast, which should be an answerable yes/no question. People are also providing answers about other kinds of yeast that are better to eat. I'm not sure whether you're interested in that or not?
A quick check online suggests it's not far short of 50% protein but how much do you reckon you can get on a slice of toast? Brown bread has about 3g/slice to start with and more than about 1--2g of yeast on that would be like eating dust. Though it is a very cheap source of protein per gram
Not about health. You would need really a lot of yeast. Brewer yeast is a common supplement but I guess for some vitamins (forgot which one (s) ).
If you want to use yeast as an ingredient for umami and protein content, said spreads (any-mite) or so-called "nutritional yeast flakes" are the most palatable yet yeast-rich options.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.646405
| 2017-11-28T08:10:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85973",
"authors": [
"Alchimista",
"Cascabel",
"Chris H",
"Kevin Nowaczyk",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18555",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59209",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
86318
|
How can I make menemen look better?
So, there is this famous Turkish dish called menemen. It does not look very appetizing:
It is prepared using scrambled eggs, tomatoes, green pepper, onion and cheese. Here is a detailed recipe.
There are some variations which don't use scrambled eggs, but sunny side up eggs, which might be a nice solution. However, the original dish is with scrambled eggs and I don't want to alter the recipe.
Are there any ways to prepare menemen and not make it look like vomit?
Under different names is quite common in many places at least in the Mediterranean . In Italy is called eggs with salsa .I can look for a photo of a dish or mine if you want. My trick is to let a little part of the vegetables in big pieces and let a egg less scrambled. I arrived at this because I agree with you and inspired by photo of israeli tsatshuka
sprinklings of garnish (cheese, herbs, whatever) can give a different visual context so it doesn't bring up such descriptions even if the actual dish isn't changed underneath.
I would scramble the eggs, cook, & leave as one solid disc, turning once & allow to brown a bit in the pan, for flavor. Remove it from the pan & cut into 8 slices. Top each slice with the prepared sauce. Garlic sausage on the side. Top with fresh parsley & crumbled feta.
Ohh, love the solid disk idea for the eggs :).
I shortly considered a downvote - for me, a solid disk is not the same dish at all. It certainly tastes different than the mixed version, and if somebody were to serve it to me in a reastaurant, I would return it. I get where you are coming from, and maybe the OP will be happy with this solution though.
Without altering the recipe, that's what it'll look like (which I don't think is a bad thing, I like menemen a lot). However, if looks are more important, you could do a French alternative, piperade, instead. Its basically eggs cracked into salsa, rather than salsa added to eggs.
Exactly what I meant in my comment to the question. Well done.
Well, if it looks tasty would be subjective... to me, it looks like a nice, quick comfort-food for cold winter evenings.
But I think I have an idea what you may be looking for :).
What comes to mind is:
Do the scrambled eggs on the side, making sure you season them well -> arrange in a circle to go around your menemen.
For the rest, only use the non-watery part of the tomato, and keep the pieces larger.
Prepare rest as instructed.
Put into the middle of your scrambled eggs.
Enjoy :).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.646575
| 2017-12-13T10:33:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86318",
"authors": [
"Alchimista",
"Layna",
"Megha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59209",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
79085
|
What can I do with solid cocoa?
Someone game me a lump of solid cocoa (from Samoa, if that matters).
What can I do with it that I cannot do with cocoa powder?
I'm curious exactly what I'm looking at. Is this ground and compressed? How far from the cocoa pod is this? Has it been fermented? Etc
Are you sure it's equivalent to cocoa powder, not chocolate? It looks like the surface has bloomed, which in chocolate means either cocoa butter or sugar rising to the surface, while cocoa powder has neither. Maybe it's equivalent to baking chocolate, or something.
Agree with Megha, there is no product I could imagine as "solid cocoa" that comes in a lump (not a bean). My best guess is that this is either cocoa liquor (an intermediate product in the processing of beans into chocolate) or a highly processed product intended for drinks, which we would call "drinking chocolate" but the Samoans prefer to call "cocoa".
I'm no expert in the matter, but the only use I was really able to find is to make Koko Samoa.
This blog I found to be very informative on the subject: https://chocolateclass.wordpress.com/2015/05/13/koko-samoa-simple-recipe-complex-history/
Basically, you shave the cocoa in small pieces, and infuse in hot water, add some sweetness, and you get a nice drink that you serve hot!
Here's a video explaining: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3wjufJUBhI
And according to this company, that sells that product, you can make large batches and reheat the next day: http://www.kingkoko.com/recipes.html
Interestingly, their website have a "recipes" section containing only a single recipe for koko samoa. Which encourages me to say that product doesn't have a lot other practical uses.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.646801
| 2017-03-12T18:49:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79085",
"authors": [
"Megha",
"Throsby",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
79600
|
Why is Pizza Hut breadstick seasoning and garlic butter not a botulism risk?
I've read all the bad things that can happen from garlic infused oil like homemade. How is this different than let's say Pizza Hut's garlic butter, or their (dry) breadstick seasoning with cheeses and dehydraded garlic? Do they in fact have a safer method that literally reduces the risk or what?
I see the garlic butter has citric acid in it so that makes sense but what about the seasoning? That is just cheeses and dehydrated garlic as well as other things.
Also I see their ingredients include garlic powder
People who may know the answer to this will probably need clarification as to which Pizza Hut product is being compared/contrasted with the garlic infused oil you refer to. Does Pizza Hut sell or use a garlic infused oil? Or are you thinking of the pizza itself? The garlic infused oil may contain botulism spores, which I gather are ok to eat (in that spore-state) because your body can deal with them, but if they are left to sit unmolested in an anaerobic, non-acidic environment (like at the bottom of an oil bottle) they may begin to flourish (waken?) and produce toxin which can kill people.
Also since it is used in a commercial setting. Does the make it safer ? I mean theirndehydrated garlic versus obviously doing it yourself at home ? I just want to know if their would be a risk for it to even become a toxin or is that mainly eliminated since it is not home made.
This is individual servings of things, right? Something that's going to get used after opening, as opposed to a bottle of oil that you'd use bit by bit over time?
The ingredient in the breadstick seasoning is dehydrated garlic. My question is ... since it isn't dehydrated in a home setting... rather is is a commercial company obviously where they get their products from... does this kill the spores that can potentially product the toxin or is the risk still there?
Home made = higher risk... so your last sentence makes no sense. There are processes that can not be done easily (if at all) in a home kitchen.
@ Catija, possibly imperfectly worded sentence, but I think you are misinterpreting it. We aren't professional writers, but it actually does make sense if he meant: Since it isn't home made, is dehydrated garlic safer bc it is dehydrated ... or does it still post a risk ?????
Thank you lorel c. That's what I meant . I know home made poses a higher risk . I'm asking about a dehydrated garlic product used in a food chain restaraunt. I wasn't sure if the dehydrating process would kill the spores hence posing no risk or if the risk is still always there
I don't overly trust commercial processes as being better than home processes, but, for things like botulism control, yes, those processes are going to be safer. The can use higher controlled temps, pressure, chemicals, dehydrate harder, etc. Now, those processes might also render the garlic into something with little of its original taste and character as well, but the botulism risk should be greatly reduced over what we can reasonably do at home. So, theirs is likely safe but artificial tasting at least to me. Yours from home might taste better, but carry increased risk.
I just didn't know if how they dehydrate is enough to kill the spores rendering it being unable to even product the toxin under certain conditions in which it can grow and spread. I was hoping it eliminated the risk 100 percent but I can't seem to find that info out anywhere
Could you please try to clearly describe the products you're asking about? You're talking about breadstick seasoning, which really sounds like a dry thing, not garlic in oil, and "garlic butter" could mean a lot of variations - is it a single-serving prepackaged sauce, something that looks like it's made to order, or what? Safety (and how you achieve it) really depends on details. Keep in mind a lot of people here might not have been in a Pizza Hut in quite a long time, if ever.
Are you sure the garlic butter is not stored refrigerated and/or with a very limited shelf life?
@rackandboneman I think it may actually be a single-serving sealed package, that's shelf-stable long-term, like the one in this picture. (Maybe it's obvious what the OP's talking about if you've been to Pizza Hut recently, but I've had a lot of trouble googling for this.)
http://nchfp.uga.edu/how/freeze/garlic_oil.html matches the USDA statements I have seen which says for home use, garlic oil should be made and used fresh, stored at 40 degrees for no more than 4 days. That of source addresses only the safety issue and if botulism is considered a risk or not. As Jent suggests, garlic powder, may be an option, or even dried garlic which rehydrates in the oil might be a safer option. Commercially available garlic oils tend to be considered shelf safe, but those have been likely heat and pressure treated, possibly chemically treated to make is safe, but attempts at this are not recommended at home.
The USDA recommendation I have seen is to mix the garlic and oil and then freeze that in cubes or sheets. The claim is this will remain semi-pliable, but when I have done it, it froze fairly hard but soft enough I couple cut pieces off to use. It worked fairly well for me.
I have seen sites claim that storing fresh garlic in oil is safe, but the USDA disagrees.
ETA: On the question of if it is safe to use powered or dehydrated garlic to make garlic oil: From my looking around, I could not find an authoritative yes or no. Others might have more luck. Dried itself is considered safe as everything I found said botulism cannot survive low moisture. But the spores can. There seems to be disagreement of weather oil provides the moisture needed for the spores to activate though. Commercially treated product likely is subjected to higher temperatures and treatments to cover this, but that is a statement of likelihood, not something I found lab statements to back. Also, the type of oil may matter. I would think that a high quality olive oil might be more susceptible to growth as it is a pure vegetable extract, than would a refined and heat treated oil. But again, that is just using my logic, not backed by tested evidence.
I have purchased commercial garlic infused oils, and personally, I would go with the frozen or freshly prepared. The commercial versions had clearly been heat treated as the garlic flavor was barely perceptible for the amount visibly in the oil. But I like a strong garlic flavor, not subtle.
I'm still trying to get the OP to clarify, but it sounds like this is individual packages of "garlic sauce" or some such, the kind of thing that obviously has been processed and sealed, and is intended to be opened and eaten right then, not stored for days after opening. Still have no idea about "breadstick seasoning"; it's not even clear if it's an oil or just a dry seasoning mix.
@Jefromi Yeah, not sure on a sauce type. I am thinking from my understanding of the dangers of garlic it oil that if it was more of a paste it would not be as high of a risk. Oil is an issue because it is airless while a paste is not so may help. Not sure, I would assume that a commercial item has been tested as "safe". Nothing is ever 100%, but if it reaches background levels, can'd do much better than that. I would not try to duplicate that at home though.
Sauces with water aren't anaerobic, so they're not as risky. But whether it's purely oil/butter-based or an emulsion, that kind of packaging certainly implies processing you can't reproduce at home, including heat/pressure to kill spores if it's indeed necessary.
I already did clarify. The seasoning for breadsticks. It has dehydrated garlic
It's a dry seasoning I'm assuming. It's mixed with different cheeses and such.
As a dry spicing you should not be in the realm of botulism. Botulism requires a moist and air free environment. Dehydration kills the active agents, but not spores, but it cannot grow in air. Acid kills it. Canned good are a source unless they undergo sustained high temps or have a high acid content (low Ph). Garlic preserved in oil is a source because it becomes an air free environment without acid and no heat treating to kill the spores so they can grow. Not so in a dry spread.
@Jent I've edited that clarification into your question. It was kind of hard to understand still, because the title said "garlic oil" still, so it was unclear that you were asking about a seasoning that's garlic and cheese, not oil.
You have two separate things here: a dry seasoning mix, and commercial processed garlic butter.
The reason garlic oil is often a botulism risk is that it's an anaerobic environment, with a low-acid food, and botulinum likes that. On top of that, botulinum spores aren't killed even by boiling water temperatures, so it's hard to eliminate them, so if the garlic is contaminated, the botulinum can easily multiply to dangerous levels. It is possible to kill the spores with higher temperatures (requiring pressure cooking), though, but that tends to destroy subtle flavors. It's also possible to acidify it, but it's hard to do reliably at home. And yes, dried garlic also reduces risk.
This document from UC Davis has some details, including this on canning:
Canning of garlic is not recommended. Garlic is a low-acid vegetable that requires a pressure canner to be properly processed. Garlic loses most of its flavor when heated in this way. For this reason, adequate processing times have not been determined for canning garlic.
And this on acidification:
By law, commercially prepared garlic in oil has been prepared using strict guidelines and must contain citric or phosphoric acid to increase
the acidity. Unfortunately, there is no easy or reliable method to acidify garlic in the home. Acidifying garlic in vinegar is a lengthy and highly variable process; a whole clove of garlic covered with vinegar can take from 3 days to more than 1 week to sufficiently acidify. As an alternative, properly prepared dried garlic cloves may be safely added to flavor oils.
(There is actually a way to acidify at home, though - see this answer.)
It's unclear exactly what the composition of the Pizza Hut garlic butter is, but presumably if it's something where there is a risk, they've processed it safely - it sounds like maybe just relying on dried garlic, but maybe also acidification (hard to say if the citric acid is just a preservative or actually acidifying it for safety). It appears to be something sold in individual servings, meant to be opened and consumed essentially immediately, so it can just get safely sealed into the packaging, and can't get re-contaminated during storage, so all is well.
Dry seasoning mixes, on the other hand, are basically never a botulism risk. They don't provide that anaerobic environment. Garlic powder is a common seasoning, sold in spice jars, with no safety concerns. Mixing it with other spices (or cheese) doesn't turn it into a risk.
I suppose it's also possible that most of the garlic flavor in their garlic butter is chemical flavorings.
@Catija Maybe, but garlic powder is cheap and easy, and apparently on the ingredient list, so seems likely there's "real" flavor.
Agreed, likely powder, which to my taste is still an artificial flavor, maybe punched up a bit via enhancers, extracts and lab creations but the powder would be cheap enough to just add more until strong enough. Commercially, places may serve stuff that in the long run is not good for you, but botulism is different, it will kill you, and no business is going to be in the habit of risking that. Well, at least not kill you quickly.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.646977
| 2017-04-02T22:42:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79600",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Jent",
"Lorel C.",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55741",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
68932
|
Greasy Pie Crust
I tried making Emeril's quiche lorraine this evening. Made the dough using the ingredients specified (including 7 tablespoons of butter), but forgot to freeze the crust after putting it in the tart pan. It went straight to baking.
My crust while baking became exceedingly greasy... downright inedible! There were pools of butter forming in my oven since butter seeped through the cracks in the pan, and my oven started to smoke. I took the crust out of the oven at the indicated time, and it was really moist looking. When I pressed my finger into the crust, all this grease surfaced (yuck).
Question: Is the greasy dough due to me having forgotten to refrigerate the pie crust for 30 minutes, or could there have been another reason for this grease-fest?
Any guidance is greatly appreciated. I struggle with crusts... this is just another fiasco in a long line of fiascos!
Thanks in advance for your help!
Did you use cold butter? Did you use the food processor method? Did you use ice water? Did you rest the dough in the fridge for an hour before shaping it? Crust can be very temperature sensitive and most of the reviews seem to say the crust is very good (when they don't use a storebought crust)... so it sounds like it might be user error but if you could give us some additional details, that would help.
Thank you for your excellent questions @Catija. I did use cold butter (frozen and grated... maybe this was the wrong thing to do, though I read about this method somewhere, and it made pea-sized curls). I did not use a food processor. I used cold tap water. I did not rest the dough in the fridge. I used a metal tart pan. I used 7 tablespoons from a stick of butter. I wouldn't not be surprised at all that it is user error, though... I just wonder where exactly I made my error... Any insight is welcome, and thank you!
I don't know what it is, but I can tell you it is neither the ratio nor the temperature.
I needed dinner anyway, so I made a small experiment. I made half a batch of crust using the ratios from your recipe, and baked it in three small tartalette pans. I used butter so soft that I had to spoon it out, I couldn't cut it (it sits on the counter as a rule). The water was also room temperature, it had been sitting for 1-2 hours in the filter jug.
For the first tartalette, I placed a small ball in the middle of the pan and pressed it outwards with the fingers. Beside giving it a worse-looking shape, this made sure I had no additional flour sticking to the surface. I didn't roll it between sheets of foil, because it was too sticky for that. While I am probably more experienced at crust baking than you are (but by no means an expert), I purposefully disregarded the usual advice just to exclude the possibility that you missed something of it.
The second and third one, I rolled in sufficient flour to not stick, so the surface had quite a bit more flour, which I figure could bind excess butter.
Then I baked number 1 and 2 straight from the counter, as-is. No preheating the oven, no docking with a fork, no filling in weights or beans. The third went into the open ice compartment of the fridge, which hovers about 0 Celsius (but isn't cold enough to keep ice in a plastic box from melting). I baked that one after a bit over 90 minutes, by that time the oven was cold again. The crust was solid.
The left lower one is the "press with fingers" crust. The lower right one is the one which got floured and baked immediately. The upper one spent time in the fridge. The foto is not perfect, but I can tell you that none is greasy, and none has pooled butter.
This is another phone camera picture, this time of the unwashed pans directly after removal of the crust. None of them contained a visible pool of butter, although it was obvious all three have been in touch with fat. The constellation is the same as in the above picture. The lighter stuff you are seeing is flour, not chafed teflon.
The only difference I saw was that the non-floured one had some obvious tiny (pinhead sized) bubbles of fat while baking. Nothing large enough to drip, and it did not look unpleasantly greasy in the oven or afterwards.
The crusts are crisp and nice, nothing moist or soft or greasy about them. (Using "greasy" as perceived fat content here, because of course they are full of butter, and an experienced cook can tell it).
My conclusion, whatever happened, it was not the fault of the recipe, neither was it the "didn't cool" part. If it was due to too much butter, you must have also mismeasured something by a significant amount.
Wow @rumtscho! Thank you for your thorough and thoughtful post. I appreciate your experiment, and yes, I can see that even with disregarding the conventional wisdom for how to best bake a pie, the crusts you made look like they came out well. I am starting to think that perhaps I did mismeasure something along the way, perhaps the flour and the ratios became off? Again, thank you for sharing your expertise on this... If I attempt this again, I will try to report back.
Hooray for actual experimentation!
Is it not possible also that the oven temperature was for some reason too low? I have seen croissants baked at too low a temperature, and they ended up basically frying in the butter as it melts out of the dough.
I just did a rough conversion of the flour:butter ratio and found 1.5:1 (by weight) which does not match the standard pâte brisée ratio of 2:1.
It is quite possible that your flour couldn't "hold" the fat, leading to the effects you described. Refrigeration will reduce the effect, but if the total amount is too high, you will still get a greasy result.
As a first correction, you should aim for around four tablespoons of butter for your cup of flour1 or increase the flour to 1 3/4 to 2 cups.
Many bakers here (even those from the US) will agree with me that for baking, which can be like chemistry in it's need for precision sometimes, weight measurements are better than volumetric measurements, so consider using a kitchen scale.
1 Assuming 120g per cup, this may vary depending on your method - dipped vs. spooned, sifted or not.
Are you sure of your calculation? 1 1/4 cups of flour are 150 gram, and most converters I find tell me that 7 tablespoons of butter are 100 gram, that would be a 3:2:1 ratio (not 1.2:1). This is standard for Ameriican flaky crusts, to the point that I have heard them called "3-2-1" crusts. Europe tends to use a 2:1 indeed, but the 3:2:1 type also produces very good results without the problems listed above.
@orrect, misread the 1 1/4 cups. Still the ratio remains at 1.5 : 1. 1-2-3 is sugar-butter-flour. If you simply omit the sugar, the ratios are off.
I've always known it as water-butter-flour. Or at least I think that's what I've known. The ones in my picture are made with water-butter-flour, I am eating them now and they are delicious and even flakier than my more carefully made ones.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mürbeteig, 2. Absatz.
(And of course I trust your post.)
http://www.chowhound.com/recipes/basic-pie-dough-10746 - first hit for "3 2 1 pie crust". Probably again a cultural difference hidden by the similar name. It says "This pie crust recipe is known as a 3-2-1 dough because it’s made up of 3 parts flour, 2 parts fat, and 1 part water (by weight). There is a bit of sugar for a slightly sweet crust, but you could also take out the sugar and use the dough with a savory filling".
Thanks @Stephie. I think what I will need to do is be more careful about my measurements next time. It really seems like the likeliest culprit here was that I mis-measured. I do like the idea of the kitchen scale. It will help me be more precise. Also, as a baking newbie, I enjoyed the discussion on the "3-2-1" crusts... much to learn!! Thank you so much for chiming in.
If you used a gluten free flour like almond flour it would be greasy, I tried to make gluten free biscuits for my daughter using almond flour and they came out like greasy pancakes. The flavor was fine but much too greasy.
Gluten free flour of any kind is not a 100%, 1:1 flour substitute no matter what the packaging says. And here, it is generally assumed that such a substitution would have been mentioned in the question.
My first hypothesis was that because you didn't freeze the pie crust right before you put it into the oven, the butter melted before the rest of the crust was able to take shape. Then again, the grease problem would still be around, because as soon as you break apart the crust you're going to get what was formerly crystals of fat running down your fingers.
Coming from another question about fat here...
What is the purpose of oil or butter in bread?
The purpose of the butter is to create a crispy crust that doesn't become elastic in the oven. Therefore the recipe you're using really, really wants to limit the amount of elasticity in your dough.
I suggest that to make the dough less greasy, you're going to have to work in the butter a lot better than you did here. That's all that I can think of for now, but I hope it helps!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.647833
| 2016-05-11T02:30:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68932",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Ecnerwal",
"Guest",
"Stephie",
"canardgras",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50888",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
66972
|
Why does my curry taste so bland?
I'm trying to make a curry, and failing. I'm a decent amateur home-cook, but now that I'm exploring outside of my usual cuisines, I'm at a loss how to improve my preparation of this recipe. Either that, or the recipe might just be of questionable quality... which would also be good to know.
Following this recipe (automatic translation here), I end up with something that looks and smells very much like a curry, but it tastes very flat/bland, while still hot/spicy.
I'm not used to talking about flavour so forgive me for this poor attempt at describing the taste (any hints on how to learn that skill?). It's spicy, but only as an after-taste, mostly in the back of the throat. Most curries I've eaten in Indian restaurants had a real strong flavour right at the first impact, which mine is lacking. Adding questionable amounts of salt after serving helped a little bit, but felt like a cheap trick to mask the issue.
The recipe is easy on spices with (perceived) spiciness: No peppers, just the usual amount of ginger and only 2 cloves. On top of that, close to half a liter of coconut milk gets added, which will sweeten the curry, and dampen the (again: perceived) spiciness.
The main veggies are cauliflower, far from the most exciting taste in the world, and peas, which tend to have a sweet taste.
Also, the amount of veggies (close to a kilo) compared to the amount of the spices seem a tad on the small side.
Personal observation: I'd have to make it myself to see what (if anything) is missing, but as Chris mentions, some cumin (usually an equal or half part compared to the coriander) might help, as would nutmeg and/or mace, all of which (IMHO) go well with cauliflower.
I've found that good Indian recipes are hard to find on the internet (or I'm not very good at searching). They tend to be of the Ginger-Garlic-Coriander-Cumin-Cardamom-Blended-With-Tomato-Puree variety, which although definitely tasty, all merge in to the same taste. Maunika Gowardhan has nice authentic recipes, and the slightly dodgy looking India Curry too, together with lots of spice mixes and background information.
I could drop by in Utrecht to let you have a taste (half an hour by train), but I'll probably save your tastebuds that displeasure. Thanks for the advice, and the links! Do you have any recommendations on what to replace the coconut milk with, to keep fluidity without dampening the taste? Just use water, or something else?
@kander coconut milk can be good. You could use water and ground almonds, yoghurt or just water but a little less of it. All would be suitable but different.
@kander: What Chris says, but keep in mind that coconut milk in curries (massaman curries for instance) is also there for the taste, not just as a convenient sauce maker. If you're using canned coconut milk/cream: I personally prefer to squeeze coconut milk from grated coconut flesh (available frozen in toko's). It's a lot less greasy and fresher than it's canned counterpart.
...and I use dried coconut cream to give me control of the consistency. Just in case there weren't enough parameters! (+1 btw).
Were your dried spices new, or had they been sitting around in the back of the cupboard - ground spices can lose flavour over time.
In terms of tweaking the recipe here are my thoughts but it's a matter of taste: I'd also expect cumin. For the quantities of veg the recipe seems light on spices overall. I'd double them all except the cloves and add a (not too hot) chili to start with (assuming the paprika isn't hot). Some cardamon wouldn't go amiss as well.
Salt in curry recipes can vary wildly. I tend not to add any as such, but most of my "recipes" include tamarind paste or mango chutney which add a bit.
Thank you! I'll give it a shot in a couple of days. I'm looking suspiciously at the turmeric and ground coriander now; can't remember how long ago I've bought them which is probably not a good sign. Will replenish and see if that helps, and add a dose of cumin if during preparation it seems to be heading south again. Really appreciate the answer!
The Michelin starred chef Angela Hartnett was asked about old spices on a TV show and she said don't throw them out just add more
The recipe basically shows how to assemble a curry powder for that "curry" flavor. What the recipe lacks, and may account for the general "blandness" that you can't put your finger on, is salt. Add a little salt, if there isn't any elsewhere in the recipe, and see if that perks up the flavor.
As noted in the question, with all the spices and no salt, one would expect it to have some heat, but to be a bit bland.
This recipe is missing both sugar and an acid (eg. vinegar, lime/lemon, amchur, tomato), so the taste (in a six-basic-tastes sense) beneath all the aroma is unbalanced - there is bitter from the spices, salty from the salt, fat from the coconut oil, but only a bit of sweet from the coconut products, very little umami since no tomatoes are used, hardly any acidity because neither tomatoes nor a stronger acid are used.
If the curry is bland, the most probable reason is the flavor infusing ingredients are added in lesser quantities than needed. The main ingredients should be things like ginger, garlic, tomatoes, chillies and various others.
Adding coconut and coconut milk, although they give a nice, mild flavor and taste, do tend to suppress the spiciness of the dish.
Try adding more quantities of flavor adding ingredients to match the amount of coconut used and the end results are bound to be good. Generally Indian curries taste good when they are bit spicy, tangy and little salty.
All the best.
lightly fry the cauliflower in oil until it starts to turn colour then take out and place on a plate.
now, add your onions into the pan and fry until brown (not translucent but brown)
then carry on following the recipe.
The cauliflower and the onions are your flavour makers.. if you do not fry the cauliflower (or meat) you are in affect boiling it (no flavour). and if you are not browning the onions you are not releasing the sweetness from it.
try it, it will change it completely. nothing wrong with your spice mix as you say it smells good.
There is a lot of coconut milk and not enough spices. Onions garlic and ginger are all the correct amounts. Try adding 1 tsp of cumin seeds and Garam masala each. Fry cumin seeds in the oil before adding onion and add Garam masala at the end. I think it would be fine like that but for tanginess you can add 1 tomato.
Welcome! We don't know what you mean by "last post"; not everyone sees the answers in the same order. Your answer might be clearer if you can just rewrite it as an independent answer to the question. I don't see any other answer suggesting the frying of the cumin seeds, so there's definitely something new to your answer. I'm just too unfamiliar myself to judge if that's a good idea.
Welcome!
Seasoned Advice is a Q/A site, not a discussion forum. I have removed the parts that were addressing other answers, leaving a bare “try this” answer. To learn more about how the site works, I recommend the [tour] and the [help].
A decent curry has always lots of layers flavour and heat. Even the hottest curry should first of all have a savoury flavour with a build-up of heat, with no harshness or roughness. Or to put this another way, the best curries are multi-dimensional.
There are a number of ways of achieving this. Most curry restaurants in the UK use a totally different method to preparing curry in a commercial environment than used at home ("British Indian Restaurant" style versus "Home cooked”). The former consists of a fry-off in lots of oil of fresh garlic, ginger, fresh chillies, spices and tomato puree etc. followed by the pre-cooked meat. Once that has fried for a suitable length of time, a neutral base gravy is added, reduced, and more added as required. The curry is then topped with fresh coriander. This is a totally different method from "Home style" curries where everything is cooked together.
The benefits of using pre-cooked ingredients, apart from speed of assembly of the final dish in a takeaway environment, is that each component has a subtlety different flavour. The garlic and ginger paste for instance, will have had time to bloom and meld together, the meat will have absorbed a mildly spiced flavour, and the base gravy will add a totally different dimension depending on the ingredients used.
BIR style takes a lot of work in preparation, but the results really are second to none. The additional depth of flavours in comparison to a "Home style" curry are like chalk and cheese, provided the freshest spices etc. are used.
MrCK Madras: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IeIWvFhbU1Y
Here's something my boyfriend does - he uses the stalk of coriander and fries it along with the onions and ginger. Says it adds a flavor which nothing else can compete with. Although I scoured my chemistry textbooks for understanding the chemistry of food, his curries are always better than mine. He learnt it from an Indian room-mate. The trick with cooking is to cook and read to understand, while I just read and cook far less.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.648676
| 2016-02-29T18:42:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66972",
"authors": [
"BJ Altizer",
"C.C. Bateman",
"Catherine D.",
"Chris H",
"Karen Johnson",
"MSalters",
"Melissa Stockstill",
"Richard Boyd",
"Robert YellowOwl",
"Stephie",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160564",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160566",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160609",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160635",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37751",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5185",
"kander",
"user23614"
],
"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
}
|
66587
|
How to stop sugar syrup from crystallizing?
How much cream of tartar do you use to keep sugar syrup from crystallizing?
According to this recipe, you will need about a gram for each kilogram of sugar. Roughly, this is about 1/3 to 1/4 of a teaspoon.
Try that and see if it works. If it doesn't, increase the amount slightly.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.649670
| 2016-02-17T08:02:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66587",
"authors": [
"Clyde Dixon",
"David Powell",
"Diane LeVan",
"Mary Cummings-Cosgro",
"Ricky Ellis",
"Simon Outhwaite",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159515",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162279"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
85296
|
How do I knead this dough by hand?
From this whole wheat ciabatta recipe:
Once the dough has rested, knead the dough with the dough hook
attachment at medium speed for about 15 minutes, until the dough has
pulled away from the sides of the bowl. It should be smooth and
elastic at this point.
Is is possible to knead the dough by hand?
Any advice on kneading by hand? Do I need a mixer? I have strong hands.
Long term if it works I will get a mixer but I have no other needs for a mixer so I want to prove it out first. I am trying to create a low fat, low salt, whole wheat ciabatta. I have never been a baker and I know ciabatta is involved but it fits in for what I want to do with a few menus.
Ciabatta is a surprisingly new bread (only been sold as such for ~35 years). But high hydration doughs were used before the stand mixer came about (though it is trickier). I suggest reading this article from King Arthur flour for some tips (the comments section is generally a useful place to look as well on the King Arthur website, for alternative approaches and how people felt about trying the technique or otherwise).
Ciabatta is usually a fairly high hydration dough. You probably won't be kneading as you are thinking. You can use the "slap and fold" method to build the gluten network. There are plenty of videos illustrating the technique, just google. Basically, dump onto counter top. With a hand on either side, lift and pull the dough toward you. The end farthest away should stick to the counter. Stretch but don't tear. Quickly flip the side in your hands onto the dough, essentially folding it in half, and trapping air. With both hands, lift the mass, flip it over, slap it back down, and repeat.
In the recipe there are two stages. You seem to be describing the first. I know nothing about bread so I have not reference.
@Paparazzi not really. Moscafj is talking about the kneading part. For the bigga (day before) and the hydrating step, just keep everything in a bowl and simply stir by hand or with a sturdy(!) spoon.
My first batch was an absolute disaster.
I was hoping to have a success to give the check mark but another disaster. I stretched and slapped for 30 minutes but it never firmed up.
@Paparazzi maybe you should pose a new question with your recipe and your method?
@moscafj I am going to borrow a mixer and see how it goes. Good thing I have dogs.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.649746
| 2017-10-28T18:56:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85296",
"authors": [
"Batman",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"moscafj",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
68478
|
How to store squash?
I live in a small apartment with lots of windows.I do not have a basement.I read you can store squash a in cool, dark place for up to 3 months. Can I use a dark plastic bin to store it in or will it begin to rot without having a way to vent?
To start with I want to store spaghetti squash but I would also to look at storing acorn, butternut, zucchini. I live in an area where can buy lots of fresh vegetables and fruits and would like to buy more in bulk if possible.
There are lots of different kinds of squash and some of them (like pumpkins) store for months very easily... others, like zucchini and yellow squash, don't store for long at all. What specific type of squash are you interested in?
Related (types of squash): http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/40464/1672
It is safe enough to store hardy squashes in an apartment, but more delicate ones such as zucchini and other thin-skinned squashes should probably be stored in the crisper of a refrigerator if you're planning to keep them for more than a week. If that space is not available, you can extend the "keep" time of less hardy squashes with just a bit of advance prep before storing. Seal the stem and blossom ends of the squash with melted candle wax, beeswax or paraffin. In a very clean sink, create a mixture of sterilizing water by making a strong brine, then adding one tablespoon (yes, tablespoon; it is, after all, a sterilizing agent) of bleach per gallon. Sink each squash in this rinse for a few seconds (I generally don't do it for more than 3 seconds, 5 if the peel is uneven or has scarring) and pat excess moisture off with a clean, non-abrasive, absorbent cloth. Allow the exterior of the squash to air dry before storing per the method for hardier squash.
For hardier squash, find the coolest location in your apartment that doesn't include a damp place like a bathroom or laundry. If it has a closet, you just found your storage place. Put down either a few small boards or a few bricks with several layers of cardboard. Perfect base. You can store your squashes right on there, or put them into cardboard boxes on top of that base, which is what I usually do. Don't let the squashes touch each other, as every point of contact is a potential weak spot. Turn your squash once a week; handle very gently to prevent even shallow, minor cosmetic bruising or abrasion of the skin, again in the interest of avoiding weak points. If you live in a relatively humid climate, melt candle wax or paraffin onto the squash where the stem meets the fruit -- after ensuring it is completely dry, of course -- to minimize the formation of molds and fungi.
Check hardy squashes for soft spots or mold each time you turn them, and immediately remove — and use — ones showing those signs. More delicate squashes should be checked every three days and should not be stored longer than two weeks, in case there is spoilage from the inside.
All squash? Including zucchini and yellow squash?
Sorry for the omission. This sounds stupid, but I don't really consider zucchini and such veggies to be real squashes, so I overlooked them. Mental block. By the way, the prep for the delicate stuff also works for cukes, melons, and (without the wax part) celery and grapes.
The common terms are "summer squash" and "winter squash".
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.649979
| 2016-04-22T16:02:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68478",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Shalryn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43782"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
67469
|
Why don't filled doughnuts have compressed dough around the filling?
How are doughnuts filled? I thought they were just injected in but that would compress the dough.
The custard jam etc does not appear to be cooked so I assume it is filled after the cooking process.
But the filling does not share space with the dough. (It is in place of rather than being mixed together).
The dough does not seem to be compressed around where the filling is added.
There are no joining marks where the dough could have been removed and replaced with the filling.
I saw a TV show years ago, where they showed the guy pushing donuts onto nozzles (two, as he was doing a donut in each hand), and from what I recall, he wiggled the donuts around a little bit as he was working ... I would assume to make a pocket inside first.
The doughnuts are pretty open-structure, right? Maybe it's just how the dough works... gets a huge open cavity in the middle due to the frying/leavening process?
@Catija I don't think so, if that were the answer wouldn't an unfilled doughnut have also have a hole?
Unfilled doughnuts usually do have holes... through the center...
Donut dough is extremely fluffy, it's mostly air. The filling takes up a very small volume in the donut. The dough does get squished a bit, but that doesn't look all that different from non-squished dough.
If you don't believe me, take an unfilled donut, or a roll of fluffier bread, tear out a piece so you can see the inside, then squish the whole roll/donut between your fingers until it's 1-2 cm less tall than without the pressure. That's what compressed yeast dough looks like.
The baked donuts are simply injected with the already prepared filling from a nozzle, there are no secrets to it.
Would this not tear the lattice around the centre and crack the glaze?
@PStag The glaze would normally go on after the filling... so, no.
And as for tearing, of course you're tearing a hole into it to get to the middle - you can see the hole, probably with some filling oozing out, in the donut. I don't think forcing in the filling causes tearing, though. It's not an insane amount of pressure, just like poking gently at it with a couple fingers. The donut can easily stretch/compress enough to hold it.
@Jefromi Pressure from filling would be different to pressure from a finger, You would be filling a few individual segments of the lattice with filling rather than an external pressure. It would mean that each part of the lattice is being stretched away from each other. Like a spiders web will hold its structure when the edges it are attached to are moved in but the same pressure from inside a segment will not allow movement.
@PStag I don't really understand the argument here. You can get jelly donuts with that telltale hole. You know that the filling was injected. You know that tore a hole into it, including some amount of tearing in the center. You're not just filling a few tiny little bubbles inside the donut, you're filling a large region along the part you tore into, and it can stretch out all along that. Sure, maybe forcing in the filling causes a little additional tearing, but still most of it was done by pushing in a nozzle. And... if there is tearing, so what? This still seems like an answer.
rumtscho, there is one thing you neglected to mention: the donut can to bulge out on to, so it doesn't actually have to just compress to take in the filling. But I agree, they're definitely just simply injected. You can easily find pictures to prove this: And you can easily find pictures of how it's done: https://www.google.com/search?q=donut+filling+machine&tbm=isch
I'm a baker, I make donuts, they're injected. If by hand, then usually with a piping bag and one of these: http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00MHSMZX8/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1458192351&sr=8-1&pi=SY200_QL40&keywords=piping+filling+tip&dpPl=1&dpID=21evvtDW0gL&ref=plSrch
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.650268
| 2016-03-16T16:25:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67469",
"authors": [
"Andrew Rhodes",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Dan Rollings",
"Dave Watkins",
"James Bishop",
"Joe",
"Lorraine Lawson",
"PStag",
"SourDoh",
"Susan Edwards",
"elaine williamson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161945",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161947",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161965",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161988",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43795",
"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
}
|
20687
|
How to bake lokum rolls well?
These rolls are made by rolling short pastry dough thin (0.5 cm/0.2 inch), cutting it in small squares (ca. 5 cm / 2 inches) and rolling a small log of turkish delight (1x1x4 cm, 0.5x0.5x1.5 inches) in the square, resulting in a cylinder filled with turkish delight. They are baked (the turkish delight melts to a honey-like viscosity in the oven, but usually doesn't flow out), left to cool, then confectioner's sugar is sifted over them. The turkish delight filling resolidifies somewhat after cooling, but not to its completely dry state from before baking. They are not supposed to cook hard and dry and brown, they are more like Russian tea cakes in texture.
The problem with this recipe is that more often than not, the pastry is underbaked in the middle. I think that the combination of a thick roll and getting soggy from the melted filling is responsible for the problem. However, I don't have a solution. Using less crust isn't an option - not only would the ratio of crust to filling be disturbed, but if there isn't substantial overlap in the cylinder walls, the melted lokum is likely to flow out during baking (I've had that happen). Blindbaking isn't an option - not only don't I have an idea how to hold the shape, but also the upper part of the crust will overbake during the real baking later. It is already baked at lowish temperatures, so I don't think that lowing it further will help.
Any ideas how to get well-baked rolls while keeping the nice gooey filling?
I would start by rolling the pastry dough thinner; I often have my dough too thick the first time or two that I work with a recipe. Keep the dough cold to make it easier to work with.
Next, I would try different oven times and temperatures. Try a temperature 25-50 degrees (F) higher, and pull the rolls out 30 seconds to one minute sooner. The nice thing about playing with oven times and temps is that you can go through many tests quickly by just putting a few of the items in for each time/temp combination. (Extra mass in the oven, such as a pizza stone or even some bricks, will help keep the oven temp more steady.)
If the outside of your rolls are getting over done before the inside is done, try chilling the rolls in the refrigerator for 30 minutes or so before baking.
There are two techniques I can think of, that might help. You can try one or the other, or both, as it suits your fancy.
First, you mention that a thinner roll of pastry will affect the ratio of filling? Make the whole log thinner. Take that same square of dough, make it into a longer rectangle. take the same cylinder of turkish delight, make it into a longer cylinder to match. Each pastry has the same amount of each, so the ratio will be the same - but the pastry will bake more quickly and thoroughly. You will have to shorten cooking times, and the thinner rolls will also dry faster if you're not careful, but it can be done.
The second technique is a little more complicated. It helps to have a pizza stone or baking tile, and to make sure the oven is well preheated. Bake them at a somewhat higher temperature, with a shorter baking time, as KatieK suggests - but when the rolls are still underdone, turn off the oven. The residual heat will continue baking the rolls, but since the oven coils are off, the heat won't be directional to brown the upper part of the rolls more quickly than the inside.
The indirect heat means they will take longer during this phase (for example, if you turned off the oven with 5min to go, it may take 10 min or more to actually finish), and it may take some experimentation to find the correct results - if the rolls aren't close enough to being done, the oven may cool before they finish cooking, and if they're too close, they might overcook anyway. But it does give finer control and a bit more flexibility over the top being browned versus a dish being cooked through.
Again, there's a risk the pastry will dry a little more quickly if you're not careful. Depending on the recipe, I might be very careful about cooking times to avoid the effect, keep a dish of water in the oven so the environment is moister, or simply brush the outside in water at some point. If you brush the ops in water when you turn the oven off, it will also help retard any browning or overcooking of the tops of the rolls.
Interesting ideas. I am not sure I can make the rolls thinner. First, the standard roll is already made from a 4 mm thick lokum stick wrapped in a 4 mm thick pastry. Lokum is almost too soft to be cut in a stick shape if it is less than that. Second, there must be a way around the problem, since I'm making the typical size and thickness for these, so all the other bakers must be getting them OK with this thickness. I should try the indirect heat.
The point about standard size is well made, there has to be a way if other bakers do so - though I'm assuming you don't have access to other bakers willing to tell you how, more's the pity. Indirect heat will probably help, as long as the oven has enough heat stored to last through the end of the baking.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.650628
| 2012-01-22T19:57:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20687",
"authors": [
"CNSKnight",
"Joann Duncan",
"Megha",
"a coder",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45470",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"rumtscho"
],
"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.