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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
7962 | What are the requirements for a dish to be kosher?
I see a lot of restaurants and grocery stores advertising kosher food. What qualifies a kosher dish?
http://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/23312/759 http://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/17/759
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is about religious rules
For meat, the answer is basically that the animal must have cloven hooves, and chew the cud. It must also be properly slaughtered, and the meat salted to remove the blood. There are all sorts of interesting edge cases to this, like giraffes, which are theoretically kosher animals, but no-one knows the way to slaughter them correctly.
Also, fish (which must have scales and fins, I think) is not meat for this purpose, but poultry is.
You can't cook meat products and dairy products in the same set of pans, or serve them in the same dishes. There are all sorts of knock-on effects to this. For instance, some traditional cheeses are made with rennet, exracted from the stomach of a calf, which means that they've mixed "meat" and "milk" and are therefore unkosher.
Any leafy vegetable must be inspected to make sure there are no insects in it. grains and legumes need to be sorted to make sure that nothing inedible is accidentally included.
Any fruit or vegetable is unkosher if it was grown on Jewish land during the seventh year, when the land must rest. This rule doesn't apply for non-Jewish land.
A tenth of any food grown must be given to charity or left to rot. This is usually done by the growers, and if they're not Jewish then it doesn't usually matter.
That's all I can remember from my time in the Israeli Navy.
There's a lot of other details which are too numerous for this medium. There are also a lot of things to do with passover specifically, which you should probably ask about in a separate question.
To be specific about meat, the cloven hooves and cud-chewing is for mammals. For birds, there's actually a list in the bible (http://www.oukosher.org/index.php/articles/single_print/10264). It comes down to the fact that kosher birds generally aren't birds of prey or scavengers. For animals that swim, they must have fins and scales. (There are some marginal cases here, like swordfish, which have scales as young animals, but lose them as they get older.)
You have your Shmita and Maaser rules somewhat confused.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.677235 | 2010-10-08T23:50:10 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7962",
"authors": [
"Double AA",
"Martha F.",
"Paulette Becker",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8291",
"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
} |
6948 | How to Get a Nice, Round Home-made Corn Tortilla
My corn tortillas have been turning out great in taste but the shape is not so good. I have a press that works OK, but I think it may be part of the problem. The tortillas always have jagged edges, and are not perfectly round. And I can't get them them to the size I want at the thickness I want.
When I try more masa mix, they turn out too thick, and when I use less masa mix, the edges split and they look like stars...
I once saw a gal at a Mexican restaurant making tortillas on a big flat grill. She got the mix, rolled in her hands, pressed them out and they were perfectly round and very tasty... I'm not so focused here on the taste because mine taste good, but the shape...
Still new to making tortillas and working with masa so any help would be great!
Are you letting the dough hydrate/rest before pressing?
I roll them into a ball and use a cast iron press, similar to this one:
I think the official name is a "tortilladora". You can find them online or at restaurant/cooking stores for $10 to $20.
I wouldn't worry too much about getting them perfectly round. Store-bought tortillas are perfectly round because they're made by a big machine.
If you're still having problems with a press, I would look into a different recipe or maybe use more shortening/lard.
you should try using wax paper or plastic wrap on each side of the press which will help keep your smaller tortillas from fraying and splitting. I actually put about a 1/2 teaspoon of oil into the dough mix which helps keep it together better as well.
But the best tip is probably to just press less hard on those smaller ones. I used to have the same problem, and I was putting my full weight down on the press handle (like the one pictured in the other answer). When I simply closed the press and pushed much lighter on the press, it helped create a better thickness for my tortillas.
I use a home made wooden (maple) press, with a couple sheets of flexible plastic to make tortillas.
There seem to be two keys to getting nice circular tortillas with non-jaggy edges:
1) Get the hydration just right: Too much water, and your tortillas will tear when you try to get them off the press, too little and they'll be prone to both cracking and irregular edges.
2)Flatten the masa ball with your hand before applying the press plate. A 1.5" (40mm) sphere will scooch out from under the angled press plate asymmetrically, while a 1/2" (12mm) thick disk will yield a nice circular tortilla after pressing.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.677451 | 2010-09-07T23:55:06 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6948",
"authors": [
"Anne",
"Cindy Seguin",
"Joe",
"Terri",
"e_frog",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14121",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89118",
"user14121"
],
"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
} |
711 | Ground beef storage and use past sell-by date
When I buy food it's at least a few weeks worth, and I bought some ground beef the other day with the intention of using it over a couple weeks. I have a couple questions regarding storage:
I use about a pound of it a time, so I took it out of its wrapping, cut it up, and put the pieces into sealable plastic bags, wrapped in foil, and then stuck them in the freezer. Is this an acceptable storage?
The sell-by date will be coming up very soon. However I was looking at this website which states ground beef can be frozen for 3-4 months. Is it safe to store past the sell-by date?
More generally, is sell-by meant to be different than "use by" dates I also see on certain items?
Thanks!
(1) Yes, that's fine. If you use freezer bags, you don't need foil even. For longer-term frozen storage, vacuum sealed bags work better.
(2) Frozen food stored at 0°F (or lower) is basically safe to eat forever. Eventually, the flavor will be affected and you won't want to eat it (but it won't make you sick). Three to four months is reasonable in tightly-sealed freezer bags. Longer in vacuum sealed bags. The storage time is entirely a flavor thing, so you can get away with a little longer for strongly-seasoned meat (e.g., tacos) vs. lightly seasoned (hamburger). The sell-by date assumes storage at around 30°F (normal for refrigerated meat)
(3) I believe so, stuff should still be good a few days after the sell by date.
As far as I'm aware the 'Sell by date' is the date the store has to have legally sold the item, unless the consumer is made aware of the situation. The 'Use by date' is the date by which the contents should be consumed. There's generally a difference between the two dates. There can also find a 'Best before date' which is the date by which the contents should be consumed to enjoy the full flavour.
Sell by is effectively meaningless. Use your nose: if it smells off, it probably is.
Don't worry if it loses that pretty red color: the supermarket keeps it that color with a generous whack of CO2 CO. As soon as it hits oxygen, it'll start to oxidize and turn brown.
+1 Thanks for the color info, I always wondered if that meant it was bad. I knew they colored it, but thought it was CO, as there are many articles that advocate its ban for such use :)
Yes, it's Carbon Monoxide (CO), not CO₂
Woops. Learn something every day.
Derobert has answered your first two questions, but on the third I have something to add.
More generally, is sell-by meant to be different than "use by" dates I also see on certain items?
As SatanicPuppy says Sellby is effectively meaningless to you as it is primarily for the shop to help them with stock control. It is usually a couple of days before the other dates. The two you need to look at are 'Best Before' and 'Use by'. They have distinct and differnt meanings.
Best Before is placed on items that will not make you ill if you eat them after their best but will for best flavour they are 'Best' consumed 'before' the date. It is LEGAL with consumer knowledge to sell products past their Best Before date. Best before will be found on cerials, chocolate bars, flour etc.
Use By is placed on items that may make you ill if you consume them after this date. It is ILLEGAL to sell items past their useby date. You will find useby on meat items, ready meals, etc.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.677714 | 2010-07-12T04:46:30 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/711",
"authors": [
"Alan",
"Carl Manaster",
"Corey",
"Kryptic",
"Pulse",
"Ricket",
"Satanicpuppy",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1315",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
580 | Substituting garlic powder for garlic salt?
I love using garlic powder but I also see recipes call for garlic salt. I thought that you could just add garlic powder instead of garlic salt (which of course is sold separately!) and then just add some actual salt if necessary. What is the difference in doing this as opposed to using store-bought garlic salt?
Thanks!
Taste-wise there will be little to not difference in the result. Just be careful to use the proper ratio of garlic to salt (generally 3-to-1 salt to garlic powder).
I use sea salt with garlic powder instead
Garlic salt is 3 parts salt and 1 part garlic, plus an anti-caking agent. That means that 1 tsp of garlic salt contains 1/4 tsp of garlic powder, or a 4 to 1 substitution ratio.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garlic_salt
That equates to 3 to 1.
1 part + 3 parts = 4 parts.
1 part out of 4 parts = 1/4.
Right. And that's 3 to 1. Not 4 to 1 as your answer says.
You are confusing substitution ratio and part ratio. There is 1/4 tsp garlic powder in 1 tsp garlic salt. So to substitute garlic powder in a recipe that calls for 1 tsp, we must add 4 tsp of garlic salt to get the required amount of garlic powder (and deal with the 3 teaspoons of added salt).
Vice versa, to substitute 1 tsp garlic salt, we would use 1/4 tsp garlic powder (and add 3/4 tsp regular salt).
I'd never heard the term substitution ratio, so my brain just ignored the word substitution. It makes sense now, but is still confusing.
Heh, your brain substituted the word substitution. :-)
My family watches our salt intake so we usually use garlic powder in place of garlic salt and just add a tiny bit of salt to recipes. It works perfectly for us.
Plus garlic salt is a remarkably Expensive way to purchase table salt.
The quality , type and freshness of the garlic powder will dictate how much to use. Hardneck garlic powder is so flavorful, that you would mix it 5 parts salt to one part garlic powder. Softneck garlic powder is mixed 3 to 1. Store bought garlic powder is from the softneck variety and usually shipped in large vats from China. The older the powder is, the weaker the flavor. For best results, buy dehydrated hardneck garlic and grind (I use an inexpensive coffee grinder) in small batches prior to using.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.678016 | 2010-07-11T01:40:59 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/580",
"authors": [
"Ambo100",
"Ben Sewards",
"Boaz",
"Kimmy",
"Präriewolf",
"Sean Kearon",
"Steve",
"Tim Gilbert",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"Zippy",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1081",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1083",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1085",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80899",
"user1085"
],
"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
} |
1796 | When is the right time to pick blueberries?
My neighbor brought over a fresh batch of blueberries. Some are sweet and some are sour. He told us to come over and pick some whenever we wanted, but I don't know the right time to pick them so that they taste the best. Any advice?
In the case of most bush berries (blueberries, raspberries, blackberries) depth of color and ease of picking are the most indicative signs of ripeness. The berries that are on the sunniest side of the bushes will ripen first. The greater more sun exposure they receive the quicker they ripen, thus the reason that a grouping of berries even in one area will ripen at different rates.
Many people say that the larger berries are sweeter but my experience is that is more anecdotal than preciese. Most fruits will be more plump with access to more water during the growing season but that doesn't necessarily make them sweeter. Grapes that have to struggle generally tend to produce better wines with more concentrated flavor because the natural sugars aren't watered down by high quantities of water.
To reiterate, look for deep dark color and ease of picking.
When it's plump, and happily jumps off when lightly tickled. :-)
Seriously, you can put a container under the berries and whichever ones easily fall off (with gentle encouragement) are the right ones to get. If you had to really pull them off, then they're not ready yet.
This seems somehow related to the question of taking food writers to bed.
This reminds me of the adage: "They're ripe the day before the birds eat them." That is, the longer they're on the bush, the more sugar they'll get.
In my experience, if they come off the branch easily, they're good. If you have to exercise force to pick them, you're usually in for a bunch of sourness.
This varies significantly by state and variety:
For Louisiana, the season starts in May and goes through July
For Maine it will be later
Here in Western Washington I picked some more blueberries this afternoon (Sept 2)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.678237 | 2010-07-18T18:09:21 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1796",
"authors": [
"Jay",
"Otávio Décio",
"Peter V",
"Raymund",
"Steve Hiner",
"Theo Belaire",
"bmargulies",
"gypsybird",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3256",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3281",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/982",
"onestop"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
3498 | When is it appropriate to serve shrimp with the tail still attached?
I ate at a local Italian dive last night and ordered Shrimp Fra Diavolo, which included a spicy sauce served over linguini noodles. The dish was great, but the tail was still attached to the shrimps and I was annoyed that I had to remove the tail to eat my dinner. Is this normal?
Other than shrimp coctail, when is it appropriate to serve shrimp with the tail still attached? Are there flavor/seasoning benefits to cooking shrimp in the tail?
I think "local italian dive" pretty much answers your question. I doubt the cooks were "local italians" much less highly trained ones.
Tails on are fine if it's a finger food dish. If silverware is included, I'd assume tails are off.
If you're not big on shrimp with tails, don't ever order cioppino if you're in the San Franciso area.
@Joe I don't mind shrimp tails in general, but I just find it odd to have to remove tails with my hands when I'm devouring a pasta dish with a fork!
You don't have to remove anything, the tails are delicious. I'd rather eat shrimp intact than shelled at all.
When I was in Italy (Lago di Como area), I had several pasta dishes with shrimps which were not peeled at all. It got pretty messy. Similar thing happened to me with paella in Spain. It's still yummy, but I don't comprehend this way of serving food.
It's quite common. I had Garlic Prawns (shrimps) in a faily exclusive restaurant in Darling Harbour (Sydney) last weekend, with shells still attached to the tail.
From what I can gather it's mostly about aesthetics. I suspect there is some truth in the idea that it gives the impression of more shrimp for your money as well.
Some also argue that it adds flavour during roasting or sauteeing.
It should also be noted that many people will in fact eat the tail. (The entire shrimp is edible.) It's not my preference, so a simple pinch at the base of the shell and the shrimp will slide right out. (They usually - or at least should - provide you with a small finger bowl filled with water, and sometimes a slice of lemon, when you're expected to remove the tail shells yourself.)
You do get some flavor benefits from cooking with the tail on, just like you do by cooking meat on the bone vs. removing the bones. It makes the shrimp more shrimpy which helps the shrimp stand up to rubust flavors like those found in Fra Diavole.
As for when its appropriate to serve tails on, I've always used size of the shrimp and final application be the judge. If the final application is to be mixed in to something else, like rice or pasta, I remove the the tails, but if the shrimp are to be laid on top of something, I would typically leave the tails on. It is alway approiate to leave tails on if the shrimp are large and not a good idea if the shrimp are small, as tail removal is hard to do in small shrimp after cooking.
Another point is that if it is intended to be consumed with the hands, you should leave the tails on as they give you a very nice handle to grasp and eat from.
Soups and anything else that is intended to be eaten with out a knife beside it should be served tail off to facilitate easy consumption.
And it is normal for Fra Diavole to be served tails on.
It's also a bit of a culture thing. Where I was born shrimp was always served without shells or tails. Whereas in Europe, shrimp is mostly served with tails and shells. At first came as a bit of a shock to me, because it's more work to no perceived benefit. But, after the initial shock, I've come to realize that very likely there is a flavor component that shell & tail add.
Exactly -- it's all about cultural norms. Americans seem to expect everything on the place to be edible. Fish don't have bones; olives and grapes don't have pits; shrimp don't have tails. In the case of McDonalds, McRib doesn't have bones.
Hey, play fair. Don't bring the McRib into this.
Trampling on holy ground there @Joe
I might be alone here since no one else has mentioned this, but you can actually eat the shrimp tail and shell. I generally only do if the shrimp are fried so that the tail becomes nice and crispy. I also only do it when in the company of friends; you'll get a lot of strange looks and gasps otherwise.
You have to chew them well, though. My first time eating tiger shrimp (heads and all), I didn't chew well enough, and the tail scratched my throat on the way down. It wasn't the most fun experience.
Yea. This is why I only do it for fried/sauteed shrimp. If they are boiled or steamed the texture just isn't conducive to chewing
I know is is late, but +1. The amount of people that don't seem to realize you can eat the tail of a shrimp is unsettling, and the fact the highest upvoted answer here doesn't even mention it is a huge issue.
Tails, or shells? The tail makes a great handle, but the shell/legs and all, I don't want to handle hot saucy foods with my fingers!
Since it's less expensive for the guest to remove the shells than for the chef to do it, I've learned how to remove shells from a shrimp without fingers, but I resent finishing the meal when the chef or line cook could have done it before OR after cooking it.
In my experience, a popular (and similarly-named) Mexican dish camarones a la diabla is without exception served with the tails still on. Yes, it is kind of annoying if you don't want to eat the shrimp tails, but I think it helps make the shrimp appear more substantial (because there often aren't many of them), so they're typically left on.
I think it's popular to leave the tail on to give the impression that the shrimp is somehow fresher, larger, and more "homemade" as it was procured with the shell on and shelled on premises. I don't believe it has anything to do with flavor, otherwise, they'd leave the head on, not just the tail.
I have grown up in Fla... we eat shrimp several times a week..I have eaten in 5 star restaurants, and sent my order back to have the tails removed... there is Never a good reason to leave them on in a sauce.. I do not care if you are Bobby Flay, or Morimoto or Paula Deen, or some guy doing street vendor stuff.... IT IS NEVER, NEVER, NEVER...appropriate to leave the tails on shrimp that are served whole in a sauce..NEVER!..it might look good, but someone has to put the shrimp in their mouth, and then?... whatt to do with the tails... pull them out of your mouth with your fingers?, poof them out on the ground?... nice manners.. discretely spit them in to a napkin? NO NO NO.... I have been a private chef for 12 years... I have never had someone come back and tell me that my scampi would have been better with tails... some writers here have mentioned how hard it is to get them off... if it is?... go out for dinner... a slight pinch at the base of the tail pops them off... and the dog loves 'em... people dont...
Tail your shrimp going into a sauce... make your guests remember the shrimp, not what they had to do with the tails.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.678580 | 2010-07-27T23:12:53 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3498",
"authors": [
"Adam",
"Bella Belle",
"Ben McCormack",
"Bill Cheatham",
"Bitsplease",
"DJ Bouche",
"Joe",
"JohnEye",
"Murray",
"Ocaasi",
"Preston",
"Renee'",
"Tacticus",
"TechieGurl",
"Wipqozn",
"buttlord",
"caribou",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6350",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6352",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6362",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6366",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6387",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6396",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6981",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7894",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81628",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9475",
"thechrisproject",
"ujjwalesri"
],
"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
} |
16224 | What does adding dark rum give to a fajita stir-fry?
I'm looking at a recipe for a fajita stir-fry that includes an optional 2 tbsp of dark rum. The introduction for the recipe mentions,
Latin spices combined with the optional kick of dark Jamaican rum make an interesting marriage of flavors.
What does the rum offer to the recipe? I ask because I'm not sure I want to buy a whole bottle of dark rum just for one recipe.
I'm not sure I want to buy a whole bottle of dark rum just for one recipe. -- Very small bottles ("airline size") bottles are available at most full service liquor stores. I have occasionally used these sizes to experiment with for a recipe.
@Cos that's a good suggestion!
I ended up getting a small bottle of "gold" Puerto Rican rum. When I re-checked the recipe, it actually called for dark Jamaican rum, which I imagine is different than what I bought. Either way, the dish turned out OK, but I need other elements of the recipe before I worry about spending upwards of $30 on a bottle of dark Jamaican rum to make it perfect.
In the Caribbean and other Rum producing areas, you find Rum in all sorts of recipes
It is sometimes an unusual flavour pairing, but not necessarily bad. In savoury cooking it adds a semi-burnt sweetness, more like toffee or butterscotch than straight Rum
Caribbean and Mexican cooking is well blended and harmonious with many common ingredients (chilli, coriander, avocado etc.)
Considering the popularity of spicy jerk meat and Rum, the Rum Fajitas would be an interesting experiment
It adds the flavour of rum.
I'd love to go into a detailed exposition of how rum is a fantastic pairing for "latin spices", but as far as I can tell, no such relationship is documented. It's just a theme ingredient, something that the author evidently felt would make an interesting combination.
Rum is more commonly associated with sweet fruits, chocolate, and apparently certain dairy products. It's not something I'd consider adding to the typical fajita mix (peppers, onions, cumin, chili) - seems like a waste of perfectly good rum to me.
If you don't want to spend the money on rum, just buy some rum extract in the grocery store. It's not as good as genuine rum, of course, but as a first-time recipe experiment it will give you a pretty good idea of whether or not it's worth using real rum the next time (assuming you like the recipe at all).
I suspect the pairing is more of the "one for the food... and one for the cook" variety. The best kind of pairing!
@BobMcGee: I would prefer a recipe like 'stir-fry everything while drinking 50ml of dark rum'.
Any kind of alcohol added to sharp spices like ancho, cayenne, chipoltle, or even paprika, will bring out more of their spiciness. Alcohol, in it's most raw state (Think cheap vodka) is bitter. The five tastes that we can perceive are sweet, sour, salty, bitter, and umami, these tastes play off each other and can react with certain ingredients. Any bitter agent in a dish will make it taste more spicy than it is. Where as something with umami flavor (Think red meat) will lessen spice. Of course these rules can be broken, but what rules can't? Especially in cooking.
As far as rum goes, it is a strange pair, I might just add a dash of the beer or wine I already had open, but who knows? Only one way to find out.
Alcohol is actually a solvent for capsaicin (the "piquant" element in peppers) as MSalters mentions in his answer. If anything, it will reduce the heat in the same way that fat does. Acidity will bring out the piquance, which is one reason why hot sauces almost always contain vinegar.
Alcohol is a better solvent than water for many chemicals, in particular for "non-polar" chemicals. This still works when mixed with water (as in rum), as alcohol works like soap in that respect. But unlike soap, alcohol doesn't add a significant flavor of its own.
Rum is of course not just alcohol, so you do get those flavors as well.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.679171 | 2011-07-17T19:41:09 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16224",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Alan Schoen",
"Ben McCormack",
"BobMcGee",
"Cos Callis",
"David",
"M. Gibson",
"Mien",
"Rick",
"Roy Edmonson",
"Steve Cooper",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34634",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
1027 | How do you prepare and grill blackened salmon?
I've never grilled blackened salmon before, but is there anything more involved than simply sprinkling blackened seasoning on both sides and grilling it for 5-7 minutes on each side?
That's all there is to it. It seems you already know this, but just to be sure, be aware that "blackened" refers to the spice and not any burning or charring that is done. Burnt spices taste horrendous.
thanks for the note on "blackened." I was actually not sure what blackened meant exactly, so thanks for the clarificaiton. Do I need to oil to the salmon to get the seasoning to "stick" before throwing it on the grill?
No you don't need to. I've seen recipes that direct you to oil/butter the steaks/filets before spicing, and ones that just go with a dry rub. I personally do mine dry.
What would you put in your spice mix? I'd go ground black pepper, salt, paprika, cumin, and coriander. Or black pepper, salt, ginger, cayenne, and clove. Or...
Should't you dry it before grill?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.679500 | 2010-07-15T16:28:40 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1027",
"authors": [
"Ben McCormack",
"Elliot JJ",
"Firdous",
"Martha F.",
"Nick Craver",
"Ocaasi",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1886",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1904",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"tttppp"
],
"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
} |
1056 | How do you steam vegetables?
Assuming you don't have a "vegetable steamer" that you received as a wedding gift, how do you steam vegetables?
If you have a metal strainer then I
Fill a large pot with water. Just enough so it almost comes up to the bottom of the strainer when you place it on top.
Insert the strainer so it is balanced above the water.
Fill strainer with vegetables and cover with a lid
Boil
Take off when the vegetables are steamed to your specifications
Enjoy
Why bother filling with water up to the bottom of the pot? you are steaming not shallow boiling. Just fill with a little water, definitely below the bottom of the strainer, but enough to not boil away during the steaming. This way your veg will cook in the steam from the water. and your water will boil quicker and you will use less energy getting it up to the boil...
Technically correct, but why do all this when you can just microwave it?
If you steam it you could also add flavors to it... for example (http://www.howtodothings.com/video/how-to-cook-with-tea) adds flavor by adding tea to the water.
This method works better than a proper "steamer" I think because the strainer is more porous, so steam passes through it more readily.
MGOwen, because not everyone has a microwave oven, e.g. me. We haven't had one for nearly three years, and don't miss it.
If they're frozen I often stab the bag a few times with a fork and then throw it in the microwave for a few minutes. To be safe make sure your bag is a plastic known to be microwave safe. It will either be labeled "microwave safe", but you can also check the recycling stamp. Type 4 LDPE is considered microwave safe plastic.
Why does your question imply that vegetable steamers can only be obtained via wedding gift? Buying a generic steamer insert/basket is relatively inexpensive. For example: Progressive International Easy Reach Steamer Basket
I would be worried about the chemicals in the bag. I only do that with the packages of vegetables that are specified for the microwave and even then only sometimes.
Eh, it's harmless. I've see Alton Brown do it dozens of times. During the 2006 or 2007 Thanksgiving special he even scoffed at Paula Dean I think when she questioned why he was did it. The only time I don't do it is when I don't want to cook the entire bag.
I strongly suspect the "made for the microwave" ones are just clever marketing. They are the same food-grade plastic, just a little sturdier.
@hobodave, if you have ever nuked a plastic container that wasn't made for the microwave you will know! The plastic goes a similar texture to melted cheese and the fumes stinks the place out!!!
-1 - Plastic in the microwave on a regular basis (cooking vegetables generally happens all the time) is not a good idea. Among other sources, http://www.ewg.org/node/18544 - look for the section beginning with "Microwaving plastic?"
See also http://www.plasticsinfo.org/s_plasticsinfo/sec_level2_faq.asp?CID=703&DID=2837#1
For what it's worth, my bag of broccoli specifically suggested poking holes in the top and putting it in the microwave for 3 minutes, and it wasn't even frozen. Tasted fine.
Also, we did receive a vegetable steamer of the plug-in variety as a wedding gift, but as we didn't have very much cabinet space in our apartment, we took it back.
I've never had that with any of the frozen vegetables I've cooked using this method. Maybe it's a brand thing? I don't buy the cheapie veggies, I always go with big label or trader joe's stuff.
@s_hewitt: Thanks for the links; I read both articles carefully. That article is warning about "plastic" in general. If you read carefully you'll see that it uses Saran/Reynolds plastic wrap as an example. Both used to be made of PVC, which is most certainly not microwave safe. Saran wrap then switched to using polyethylene (Type 4 LDPE if you check a box) which is microwave safe, and is marketed as such. I checked my freezer and all my bags are labeled Type 4 LDPE. Which stands for low-density polyethylene. All plastic is not created equal. I think you should reconsider your downvote.
Of course, but I can't change it now unless answer is edited. Perhaps a note about making sure the plastic is labeled as microwave safe?
I prepare/chop the veggies, put them in a glass bowl with a couple of tablespoons of water, lay a microwave lid over it and nuke for 3 or 4 minutes. Carrots take a bit longer, so if I'm including carrots I'll give those a couple of minutes first and then add the other veg.
Use a large pot and a metal collander. Fill the pot with enough water so it is just below the bottom of the collander and bring it to a boil, add your veges and cover with a loose lid or kitchen towel. Steam until desired doneness.
I had a metal steamer basket (as suggested by hobodave), but I prefer a silicone steamer basket ... it will last forever, is dishwasher safe, and doesn't rust or get hard to fold up.
I don't care for the steamer bags because they are wasteful (and expensive), and I don't care for the microwave because it is too easy to overcook, particularly small quantities.
My procedure ...
Chop the veggies into whatever size/shape desired.
Put the steamer in the pot, and fill to just below it with water.
Boil the water.
Add the veggies, keep the water boiling, cover.
Wait a few minutes, then check every few minutes. Turn off the heat when done to your preference .. time depends on the amount and type of vegetable and desired crispness.
Glad and other plastic bag manufacturers make microwave steaming bags - they're basically heavy duty zippered bags with a vent. Pop the veggies in, microwave the specified amount of time, and you're done.
Here's Glad's version.
They work, but IMHO they are both wasteful and far too expensive.
I've got 13 month old twins - convenience trumps those frequently.
The vent is not really necessary. Just use ordinary glad wrap (also called cling film or saran wrap) over an ordinary bowl (glass or other microwave safe material).
Forget the steamer.
The easiest, fastest, cheapest, and best way I've found is to put three tablespoons of water in a large pan, put in the vegetables, and counting from when the water starts to boil, boil for two minutes on high heat with a properly fitting lid. This makes then perfect every time. Not mushy, soft, but perfect. Cook another minute to make them softer.
Seriously, this method is cheap, fast, and requires no extra gadgets.
And not nearly as good, fast or convenient as the microwave.
If you don't want a dedicated steamer, my rice cooker doubles as a steamer (or even at the same time).
It has a round piece of metal that sits on top of the rice bowl with holes in the bottom of it, solid sides and then the lid fits on top of it.
While you have the rice cooking, your veggies cook above. If you don't need the rice that time, just toss some water in it and use it just as a steamer.
http://www.bedbathandbeyond.com/product.asp?SKU=13383065
This is the one I have, I'm sure others also include the steamer piece.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.679648 | 2010-07-15T21:47:44 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1056",
"authors": [
"Andre",
"Ben McCormack",
"BobMcGee",
"Chris Vesper",
"Christian Payne",
"Free Wildebeest",
"Kyra",
"MGOwen",
"Paul G",
"Phil M Jones",
"Sam Holder",
"Stefano Ricciardi",
"Sven",
"ceejayoz",
"dF_",
"elmarco",
"haydenmuhl",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17240",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1947",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1951",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1954",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1967",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1981",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/222",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"kevin42",
"s_hewitt",
"tomjedrz"
],
"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
} |
1188 | Good ways to store coffee?
What are some key points to store coffee to preserve freshness?
Different methods for whole beans vs ground?
You definitely want to keep beans whole as long as possible. Ideally, grind just the amount you need right before you brew the coffee. Keep the whole beans airtight, and freezing probably isn't necessary unless you buy a month of beans in advance.
I buy a pound of beans at a time, so I freeze them, and then grind what I want for that morning in the morning.
I've never seen coffee shops store beans at anything but room temperature, even those who import large amounts and store them for months. Keeping them airtight (even in vacuum bags) and whole, on the other hand, is taken very seriously by everybody I've seen. I'm guessing the temperature doesn't matter nearly as much as the oxygen.
In my experience, freezing a non-airtight container with beans or powder does preserve the aroma.
From StarbucksStore.com:
Freshness
Use freshly ground coffee. Think of coffee as fresh produce. The enemies of coffee are oxygen, light, heat, and moisture. To keep coffee fresh, store it in an opaque, airtight container at room temperature. Storing coffee in the refrigerator or freezer for daily use can damage the coffee as warm, moist air condenses to the beans whenever the container is opened. Whole bean coffee stays fresh longer because there is less surface area exposed to oxygen. For the best results, coffee should be ground just before brewing and used or stored immediately.
So if you do use the freezer be sure to allow the beens to return to room temperature before opening the bag.
That advice sounds as if temperature isn't even closely as important as air and moisture.
Sweet Maria's, my principal vendor, has a page dedicated to this very topic. Basically: store roasted beans air-tight at room temperature. If you're roasting them yourself, don't seal the container until 8-24 hours after roasting.
Don't store ground coffee at all if you can avoid it. It goes stale very quickly.
With ground I have found the best way to keep it fresh is to store it in an air tight container, then keep it either in the fridge or in a cool dry place. Avoid any sort of moisture is the key thing I find.
Not in the fridge. You'll halve its life-span.
As others have said, keep them whole if you can. This will keep them the freshest. The other main comments here and typical advise, is to keep them airtight and in the freezer. The truth behind this is that it does work, and it all has to do with moisture. Keeping moisture out will prevent them from breaking down. The freezer happens to be a dry place, so it works. Airtight the same thing. In the winter in a dry home, they will be fine too.
Another good tip for whole coffee is to grind them using a burr grinder. Using a cheap blade based grinder will produce a lot of dust, that will make you coffee bitter. We recently switched from a $20 blade grinder to a $50 burr grinder and it makes a world of difference.
The best way to store roast coffee beans is NOT in the freezer. The freezer will damage the beans when condensation forms. The oils will break down, and you'll lose some of the flavour. Also, opening your freezer regularly, anything that will cause your beans to fluctuate in temperature enough for ice crystals to form will damage it.
The best place to keep coffee beans is in a air-tight, opaque container. Buy in smaller quantities if possible.
If you absolutely must store coffee for long time in the freezer, there is one way that you could minimize any damage. I would probably take the original, unopened bags of coffee, put them in multiple layers of ziplock bags, removing as much air from each layer and freezing the bags whole. When you are ready to consume it, take one bag out and transfer to your air-tight, opaque container, to be consumed in the next few weeks. In short, freeze and thaw at most once. Light, air, moisture are bad for coffee.
The fridge would be the worse possible place to store it. Coffee should never go in the fridge.
See:
http://www.coffeeam.com/coffee-storage.html
http://drinks.seriouseats.com/2010/10/taste-test-to-freeze-or-not-to-freeze-coffee-beans-v20.html
I keep whole beans in mason jars and vacuum seal them. They sell an attachment that works with my foodsaver. It keeps them fresh for months in on the shelf in the cellar.
When storing roasted coffee beans you're wanting to keep it away from four things:
Sunlight
Moisture
Oxygen
Fluctuations in temperature
Additionally, the first few days after the beans are roasted they are emitting CO2 gas, which is why many coffee packages have a one-way valve on them to they don't pop.
I use resealable bags (zip-lock) with the one-way valves on them, and store them in the pantry. You can squeeze most of the air out of them as you seal them back up again. I get the bags from a local roaster. Use several smaller bags (about 250g) instead of one big bag. This is good for two to three weeks.
I'm not a fan of storing in the fridge or freezer as the cold and fluctuations in temperature every time you take the bag out will cause condensation.
The reason I think the bags are superior to an airtight container is because you can get most of the air out of the bag, whereas with the container whatever space isn't taken up with beans is taken up with air. (Maybe store the bag in a container if you're a fan of overkill.)
I've seen these Vacu Vin containers where you can suck the air out, but the low pressure created by the vacuum is detrimental to the oils in the beans. (I just found these which may be an option.)
If you need to store your beans for longer than three weeks, bag as above, then in a couple of zip-lock bags and put them in the freezer. Take each bag out and put it in the pantry as you start using it.
Only store whole beans and grind them as you use them. If you are storing pre-ground, it is already going stale.
Whole beans store best in the dark, at room temperature with as little air/moisture ingress as possible.
Because the oils when the beans are fresh-roasted are quite volatile - hence the little 'breather' valve in retail bags - a hard-seal container is not ideal.
So… these foil/plastic bags the coffee comes in are, unsurprisingly, about the best thing to keep coffee in. Roll down the top tightly & put a bulldog/binder clip over the roll. Keep in a kitchen cupboard/pantry at 18-21°C or at least minimal temperature fluctuation for where you live.
Good for a month, after opening. Before opening, use the best before date on the pack of course.
Don't keep coffee in the fridge or freezer.
Whole beans keep much much better than ground. It's not necessary to keep the beans in the freezer, as long as they're in a pretty air-tight container, they're fine at room temperature.
I place the bag of beans in the freezer. I have been told that this keeps the oils from escaping.
I have heard that this is effective as well.
I haven't found this particularly useful, unless you just like to chew on cold beans. On a humid day, you'll get condensation faster, so unless you're trying for long-term storage, it probably does more harm than good... You're really looking to keep the oil from going rancid, and the fridge should suffice for this.
Simple and to the point.
Keep the roasted bean in a dry place.
Grind the bean just before brewing
Brew the bean just before dringing
Think of coffee as bread, after 7 days is not good anymore.
M. Torres
I've always been told that storing coffee beans in the freezer is a no-no.
Also, storing coffee beans in an airtight container might not be a good idea, as the beans release gas as they mature, which could cause the container to break (this is why the bags from Starbucks and similar places have escape valves).
The rules I've heard the most from my local baristas are to avoid temperature changes, to keep it in the dark and to just buy enough for 2-3 weeks.
I keep my pre-ground beans in the freezer in their original packaging (to re-close, I use tape or the bend-ends tie they came with). I do not defrost them before grinding.
I don't have any particularly good reason for keeping the beans in the freezer; it's just how my parents did it, so I do it too.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.680296 | 2010-07-16T20:13:00 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1188",
"authors": [
"Adam Barney",
"AlirezaAhmadi",
"Debny",
"Foovanadil",
"Hanno Fietz",
"Hokiedood",
"Jason",
"Kim Peverill",
"Mark Davidson",
"Marvin M",
"Mike Sickler",
"Mischa Arefiev",
"Nick",
"Sam",
"Shirley A Hair",
"Shog9",
"Silent Warrior",
"Stacks",
"Susan Sciascia",
"Tetsujin",
"demonkoryu",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155500",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155510",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2222",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27495",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2911",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55224",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55255",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55256",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55258",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"jane",
"spraff"
],
"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
} |
5894 | Make crispy rice noodles without frying
Everywhere I've read about cooking puffed rice noodles says that the soaked noodles need to be fried. I need a less messy alternative to frying. Is there a way I could bake them to get the same or similar consistency?
Why is frying too messy? Grease spatters?
grease spatters, cleaning the oil off the pan... I mean it's not a big deal, I'm just wondering if anyone has had success with an alternative method
To stop spatters, you can use a splatter screen (http://www.google.com/products?hl=en&q=splatter+screen). It is a fine mesh that stops oil splatter while letting moisture escape.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.681332 | 2010-08-24T19:14:35 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5894",
"authors": [
"Adam Shiemke",
"Shog9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2154",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"user2154"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
1011 | What is the effect of using pasteurized milk in cheese making?
I am new to cheese making and I do not want to use raw milk to make cheese for health reasons. So, my next option is to use pasteurized milk. However, since pasteurization destroys some of the proteins one can say that there will be some differences considering there are going to be less proteins to coagulate.
I heard that most cheese makers are adding ingredients to help pasteurize milk coagulate. What are these ingredients? Are they natural?
What is the best approach to take for making good cheese with pasteurized milk?
Unfortunately, the usual store bought pasteurised milk undergoes a process that kills virtually everything needed for coagulation to occur, which basically means making cheese becomes a whole lot harder.
The cheese you buy from stores that is made from pasteurised milk is either made from low heat pasteurisation or by the addition of additional ingredients, typically calcium chloride.
I have no idea where you may be able to acquire calcium chloride where you live but you may be able to obtain low heat pasteurised milk from health food stores, maybe some of the larger supermarkets will stock it, also.
It's also becoming easier in many places to find raw milk from local producers.
@Pulse, as a very amateur cheesemaker myself I know you can get the ingredients such as Calcium Chloride from your local store that sells cheesemaking supplies. If you can't get it locally try (http://www.cheesemaking.com/cheesemakingadditives.html) Please note, I'm not affiliated with New England Cheesemaking, I have purchased their products in the past and have success with them.
@Nathan Thanks for providing the additional information. I don't live in the US and where I do live, we don't have 'cheese making stores' hence my comment.
I researched and I was just able to find commercial food additive suppliers selling CaCl2 in 25kg/55lb packages which seems to be too much for an amateur. I'll keep looking though.
Talk to a local school chemistry teacher, they may be able to point you in the direction of purchasing the Calcium Chloride.
25 kg of calcium chloride seems fine; you're just not thinking big enough!
@Pulse - I just noticed this answer- a little late admittedly. This isn't strictly true- at least in the US. Pasteurization can damage the milk but it is inaccurate to say that "virtually everything" is killed. It is not hard at all to make cheese with store bought milk but I have never used raw milk so maybe it is much easier in comparison. See my answer below.
Calcium Chloride is also used a water conditioner in beer making. Most home brew supply shops carry it in packages smaller than 25 kg.
Most pasteurization is done at temperatures under 165F and does not damage the milk proteins enough to prevent coagulation.
Milk that has been heated past 165F will be labeled as Ultra Pasteurized and is likely to not be suitable for cheese making because too many casein molecules will have denatured and will be unable to bond with the calcium in the milk.
The calcium chloride is often added as a safety net for milk that may have been mistreated. Both pasteurization and homogenization can damage the milk structure. The extra calcium makes it more likely that the undamaged proteins will be able to find calcium to bind with and the structure of the curd will be acceptable.
Again most store-bought milk in the US is not Ultra Pasteurized and a suitable curd can often be formed with no extra additives. Most home cheese recipes call for store bought milk and I have personally had no instance of store bought milk (or even powdered milk) failing to form a curd.
pasteurization:
http://www.fcs.msue.msu.edu/ff/pdffiles/foodsafety2.pdf
Milk selection in home cheese making:
http://biology.clc.uc.edu/fankhauser/Cheese/Cheese_course/Cheese_course.htm
The standard for pasteurization is 161F, for UHT it is 275F. There is another type called low temperature pasteurization and it is at least 145F and not industrially used.
The proteins in milk are almost totally unaffected by pasteurisation temperatures, but you can use a lower temperature for longer if you prefer: 30 min at 63 degC or 10 min at 65 degC. I heat milk to 71.7 deg C for 15 seconds (HTST pasteurisation)and it coagulates beautifully. Whey proteins are pretty temperature stable too, but less so than the milk proteins. However, apart from ricotta, you usually lose the whey protein anyway. UHT milk is ultra-heat-treated, so much hotter: Above 135 degC and it sterilises the liquid foods.
NZ Cheesemaker
I've seen some recipes that use cultured buttermilk, stirred into the milk as an agent to acidify everything before adding the rennet. I'd say this is your best bet.
pasteurization isn't sterilization, so some types of bacteria may survive, but you have more of a chance to get an infection from something undesirable, I would wager.
No actual experience though. Fair warning.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.681432 | 2010-07-15T07:57:26 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1011",
"authors": [
"Brendan Long",
"Christopher Linklater",
"Jane Sales",
"ManiacZX",
"Nathan Koop",
"Pulse",
"Recep",
"Rich Bruchal",
"Sobachatina",
"Thomas",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1848",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1849",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1850",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79",
"kevins",
"pdemarest",
"sgwill"
],
"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
} |
5198 | Boil an egg in the microwave
Is it possible to boil an egg in the microwave?
Ideally without having to pierce the shell first
Microwaving shell-on eggs is not something worth attempting casually. Please read comments to accepted answer. By the time you have taken all the precautions and calculated the required time, you are better off just boiling it in a pan. I cannot emphasise the risk enough.
Thank you. This was 7 years ago and the only kitchen appliance I owned was a microwave, so "just boiling it in a pan" was not an option. I have more options now, but it was worrying that the answer I accepted was still YES. I've changed it. Please don't downvote @AttilaNYC's originally accepted answer
@user208 Thanks for updating! Just a note about the last bit of your comment: people can vote as they see fit, and if they agree that answer is dangerously wrong, that's a great reason to downvote.
@user208, thanks for the comments and updates. Glad you never tried it. It is stunning what damage a mere egg can inflict and how long the recovery took. I was lucky that it happened after I removed the shell.
Be careful putting whole eggs in the microwave. A relative of mine was burned on her face (fortunately not severely). After removing the egg from the microwave it exploded.
Yes, it could also explode well after shelling from superheated moisture trapped between the yolk and white speaking from experience. Do not microwave shell-on or even cooked whole eggs even after shelling. If you must, cut a cooked one in half before reheating. If you are not concerned about a few blisters on your lips and face, think about your cornea.
I asked this question a long time ago when the only appliance I had in my kitchen was a microwave. I accepted @AttilaNYC's (surely well-meaning) answer at the time because it was the answer I wanted. I didn't even try the method, because of all the other advice in the answers and comments.
It's possible to blow open the door of your microwave if you try it on high for too long.
For best results, watch it from about a foot away.
I did this by accident. Two eggs in a glass and some water for 5 mins. What a mess!
Just don't do this at all.
I decided to post this as an answer instead of a reply to @AttilaNYC . I think you're better off just boiling it. I'm a big of fan of doing and cooking stuff fast; however, eggs are too perfect and to lean to do that. Boil the damn water, dump your egg in it until it's done. I don't love, but I like this site.
I've been using the Nordic Ware Microwave Egg Boiler for a few years. Depending on the size of the eggs, you'll need between 6.5 and 8 minutes at 1100 watts. Once you've settled on a brand and size of eggs, you can get them perfect every time - hard boiled, soft yolk etc. by tweaking the cooking time between those two values.
Fantastic gadget, 4.5+ stars on Amazon with over 1200 reviews.
**
DO NOT MICROWAVE EGGS, NOT EVEN IN A BOWL OF WATER.
**
I feel especially strongly about the grossly understated and potentially life-changing danger of doing so, there is no exaggeration. I speak from personal experience, not it-happened-to-someone-I-know.
Don't risk serious burns and high speed flying egg shell fragments JUST DO NOT TOY WITH THIS at all; I had and it was just luck that I did not end up losing my sight, just blistered eye lids and face.
If you must use a microwave, heat a big bowl of water ALONE WITHOUT EGGS (put some baking beads in the water to minimise superheating). Then take the hot bowl of water out of the microwave and put the eggs into the hot water to cook. Wrap the entire bowl with a thick towel as insulation to preserve the heat. You do not need to maintain a boil or water at close to boiling point to cook eggs
Water makes up nearly 90% of egg white and nearly half of egg yolk. So an egg is >75% water. Microwave cannot distinguish between water in a container and water in the egg and just heat one part preferentially or selectively. Fats in the egg yolk also have dipoles capable of absorbing microwave for heat conversion too.
I've had eggs explode trying to hard boil them. Just add salt to the water and they no longer explode... I've tried to research why that prevents the explosion, but can't seem to find the science behind it ....
BUT .... Trust me ...It does work. I do 3 eggs in 6 minutes on HI now.
Here is a link to this method: https://www.wikihow.com/Hardboil-Eggs-in-a-Microwave. I would still suggest caution when cooking whole eggs in a microwave oven.
I have heard that you can wrap each egg in a piece of alum. foil, being sure all shell is covered. Put in a micro safe dish with water to cover fully or preheat a sufficient qty of water then add eggs. The foil prevents the microwaves from penetrating the shell and causing exploding eggs. The water is supposed to prevent arcing.
Timing would depend on amt of eggs and water, and whether you preheated.
*WARNING*
I HAVE NOT tried this myself, but it sounds reasonable
So... you are using the microwave to cook the water and the egg gets boiled by the conventional heat transfer from water to egg, with not-perfectly-clinging alu foil in the way and the risk of arching if the egg floats above the water? I suppose it can be done... but why?!
If, for example, you had only a microwave available for cooking, as I did for a while (most other cooking equip. prohibited especially hotplates)
I have now tried this method with excellent results:
Also tried it, successfully. Why? 1) Once you get the timing right, you get consistently perfect (for you) eggs every time. 2) Office lunch - our kitchen has a toaster, 3 microwaves and a kettle. Not a stove top or pot/pan in sight. Yet I can still dip my toasted soldiers in my boiled egg :-)
I admit I haven't tried this in the microwave, but it should work and avoid the exploding-egg possibility altogether.
What you would do is, take a large microwave safe container - the larger the better, really. Fill it with water, though leave room for the egg(s). Heat the water until boiling hot. Carefully add your egg, and leave it in the microwave, door closed, until it's cooked - how long will depend on your ratio of egg to water and how cooked you prefer it, but to give an idea four eggs would take about a half hour.
The hot water cooks the egg, and since, beyond heating the water, the microwave is never actively aimed at the egg it won't have an opportunity to explode. The technique would work even if the hot water is kept, say, on the counter - though the residual heat in the microwave, and the insulation of its walls, will help keep the heat up so the egg cooks faster, in the same way turning off the stove but keeping the pot on the still heated surface keeps the heat up a bit.
If you use the same container and roughly the same amount of water each time, you should be able to figure out pretty precisely what works in your microwave with a little trial and error.
Put a microwave safe bowl in the microwave with just enough water to cover the eggs, but don't put the eggs in yet! High setting for 1.5 minutes till it boils, Add about a tablespoon of vinegar and a tablespoon of salt. This will keep the eggs from cracking and will make them easier to peel. Add the eggs and cover with a dish, but leave a slight gap for steam to escape. Medium setting for 8 minutes (check after 5 minutes to see if there is still enough water covering the eggs, some microwaves are more powerful than others. Take out the bowl and let it sit for another 5 minutes or so and you should be ready to peel and eat...
This is obviously for hard boiled.
It sounds like this is ummmm potentially deadly http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4946-microwave-ovens-should-warn-of-exploding-eggs.html
Without stating numerical wattage setting AND mass of water and egg, suggesting cooking times for a shell-on egg in a microwave is bordering on being reckless.
@jefromi, understood, I wasn't seeking a deletion but somehow this I believe is dangerous enough to have some warnings. More worrying is that OP accepted it as a valid answer.
DO NOT DO THIS. From a painful personal experience, I did something almost identical as a work around knowing not to microwave a whole shell-on egg. I was lucky with a burnt face but nearly seared cornea too. The egg did not explode upon shelling, but as I bit into it, the superheated moisture trapped between the yolk and the hardened white erupted with a loud bang. Hot egg fragments covered my face and eye lids along with the ceiling and walls. DO NOT TRY THIS even as an accepted answer.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.681846 | 2010-08-14T21:17:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5198",
"authors": [
"Armen Tsirunyan",
"Carl D",
"Cascabel",
"Chris Cudmore",
"Curry",
"Lee Lowder",
"Mrs.G",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10139",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10140",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10144",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10326",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23276",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81730",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98293",
"intuited",
"mcalex",
"myklbykl",
"rumtscho",
"user110084",
"user1318750",
"user208",
"wanovak"
],
"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
} |
8037 | How do you keep turkey from getting too dry?
It's Thanksgiving up here in Canada, and I'm wondering what can be done to keep the breast meat on a turkey from being too dry?
Blasting it on high heat, while not conducive to stuffing and stuff like that, gets very consistent results. http://www.gourmet.com/magazine/2000s/2005/11/turkey.html
I suggest using a brine. Lots of brining details can be found in the answers to this question:
What are the basics of brining meat?
Alton Brown has a really great recipe for brined roasted turkey. You can watch the Good Eats excerpt on YouTube in which he covers brining turkey.
I also suggest reading The Basics of Brining (PDF) from Cook's Illustrated.
Excellent suggestion! Although, probably too late for Ward's Thanksgiving bird...
Or you could just buy a kosher turkey -- the koshering process involves salting the meat, so it's essentially pre-brined.
@hobo, it seems you have become the Jon Skeet of cooking. Everything you say is gold. (Apparently)
@Justin: Nah, I just watched every Good Eats episode three times over. I'd say Darin Sehnert is the John Skeet of cooking, but he doesn't seem to be active any more :(
@roux -- I looked into it further, and the rinsing and soaking after packing in salt will add much of the moisture back in. See my answer below for a reference from Cooks Illustrated.
+1 once you brine a turkey you won't look back! Another +1 (if I could) for Good Eats. That show and cooking.SE align quite nicely.
Does the same hold true for sauteeing?
Lay a few pieces of bacon across the turkey while cooking. This essentially makes it self-basting as well.
Edit by @SamtheBrand: See here for a recipe.
Follow-up edit by Scivitri: Roasting a turkey is a complex, although usually fairly forgiving process. There are many, many recipes online, and all recipes are best followed as a loose guideline. Personally, I combine ideas from family practice, several recipes, how I feel at the moment, and then cook it to an appropriate temperature. So my original suggestion for applying bacon (which I took from family practice) was meant as something which could be done to almost ANY method you use when roasting a turkey.
For example, this year we wanted to try brining a turkey. I started from Alton Brown's recipe, but applied bacon rather than canola oil. I also turned the temperature down a bit further for roasting, and roasted the bird longer (and to a bit higher temperature). It still came out lovely.
Anyway, I didn't want my general suggestion to turn into a narrow suggestion to follow a specific recipe (which I have not used). Sam's recipe may be great; but the idea is more general.
@roux: Actually, even Walmart carries flavor injector syringes now(!) (Or, at least my local one does)
While on a larger scale than I'm used to thinking of, everything tastes better wrapped in bacon.
I also recommend cooking the bird in a bag. It helps keep in all of the natural juices of the turkey, and you have to supply less of your own.
The first time I ever cooked a turkey, we used one of these. The turkey came out perfectly. We also injected the bird with copious amounts of garlic herb butter under the skin.
The reason a turkey comes out dry (in the breast meat anyway) is because turkeys have two kinds of meat on them (leg and thigh v's breast) that like to be cooked in different ways. The dark meat of the leg and thigh likes long slow cooking whereas the breast likes hot fast cooking. You can do all sorts of fiddly things but removing the legs and cooking them separately then adding the breast (still on the bone if you like) later. You can then assemble the pieces to look like a whole turkey on a platter, all perfectly cooked! In the UK we don't have thanksgiving and many people now opt for a goose at Christmas rather than a turkey, for the reason they have more flavour and don't get so dry.
Perhaps the biggest thing for me: don't overcook it. The best tool you have available to you is a probe thermometer, preferably one with a temperature alarm.
Dark meat is done at a higher temperature than white meat is, and if you cook at one temperature until the legs are done, the breast will be parched. I'm a big fan of the Alton Brown method: in addition to brining, start the turkey at high temperature (500F) for half an hour or so, then drop the temperature to 350 and take the bird out when a thermometer in the breast reads 161F. It's come out perfect every time for me.
This site recommends three steps: cook it breast-side down for most of the time, don't overcook, and use chicken stock in the bottom of the pan and for basting.
Another technique is to brine your turkey, or use a kosher one. (Using a kosher bird allows you to skip the brining step.) I've never really tried non-kosher turkey, but here are some references from Cook's Illustrated that talk about why they like kosher turkey/chicken over non-kosher.
An illustrative quote: "Appearance aside, perhaps the most noticeable difference between the winning bird and the others we sampled was that the winning bird tasted juicy and well-seasoned. To remove as many impurities as possible,the chickens are buried in salt for one hour and then rinsed off with cold spring water. The combination of salt and water acts like a brine, encouraging the fibers in the meat to open and trap the salt and water, leading to a juicier, more flavorful bird." From this article.
A similar discussion about chicken breasts.
Stuff under the breast skin with a sausage meat based stuffing, rub the whole bird with butter and then lay bacon over the breast. See:
http://www.deliaonline.com/recipes/cuisine/european/english/traditional-roast-turkey-with-pork-sage-and-onion-stuffing.html
You have to weigh the bird again and recalculate time before cooking if you stuff a bird (I wouldn't recommend stuffing the cavity as it seems to slow cooking too much)
@roux: The secret is to make the stuffing blazing hot to start with. That way the temperature doesn't have as far to go. When I stuff mine, I mix the dry ingredients with wet ingredients that are (literally) boiling hot. Couple of turns with a spatula, spoon it into the bird, throw it right in the oven.
Brining is good. Basting is also good. Martha Stewart does this thing where she covers the turkey with cheesecloth, and bastes the cheesecloth with a mixture of wine and butter (a bottle and a pound, respectively), and that works better than you'd ever believe. The cheesecloth comes out looking black and disgusting, and the turkey underneath looks like you cut it out of a magazine.
In the end though, the best thing you can do is cook it the correct amount of time. I'd cook it to ~165 degrees (unstuffed), even though the gov't usually says something like 180 degrees. 180 is way too high. Remember also, that the internal temperature of the bird will continue to increase for a while after you take it out of the oven, so take it out when it's still a bit below your desired temperature.
Here's an oddball that I heard about on NPR (food scientist Harold McGee (someone should tell him about this site!)): ice packs on the breasts for one hour before cooking.
Sounds weird? Yeah I thought so too. I've cooked about 6 turkeys in my time and this method yielded by far the best breast meat.
Why? Because there are two kinds of meat. So you want them to cook at different rates. There are a few methods to do this, but the ice pack is the only method I've heard of that leaves a nice looking intact bird.
Place one ice pack on each breast and hold them in place with gauze wraps. Let the turkey come up to room temp. Then proceed to cook normally. I tested this out this Thanksgiving and it resulted in breast meat that was much more succulent. The breast meat started out at 42 F and ended at 160 F while the thigh meat started at 54 F and ended at 172 F. The important thing here is that the temperature difference that you started with is the temperature difference you end with.
See my answer here: Does brining a chicken/turkey before roasting really make a difference?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.682565 | 2010-10-11T19:02:08 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8037",
"authors": [
"Chris",
"Dryden Long",
"Martha F.",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Shog9",
"Tom",
"derobert",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/923",
"jjnguy"
],
"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
} |
7257 | What is the difference between Devil's Food and Chocolate cake?
I always thought they were (perhaps regionally) different labels for the same cake. While at a local fair, I noticed that there were separate categories for Devil's Food and Chocolate cake.
I've always wondered this! Can't wait to see a good answer.
PracticallyEdible has a nice description of Devil's Food Cake.
Originally, Devil's Food Cake had a medium dense texture. The colour had a reddish tint that was probably caused by baking soda reacting with cocoa powder. In fact, I have an old cookbook (The Day by Day Cook Book, 1939) that contains a recipe for Red Devil's Food Cake. This recipe calls for 2 oz. unsweetened chocolate and 1 tsp. of baking soda.
Wikipedia says:
Devil's food cake is generally more
moist and airy than other chocolate
cakes, and often uses cocoa as
opposed to chocolate for the flavor as
well as coffee.1 The lack of melted
chocolate and the addition of coffee
is typically what distinguishes a
'devil's food cake' from a chocolate
cake, though some recipes call for
all, resulting in an even richer
chocolate flavor.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.683250 | 2010-09-13T21:34:52 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7257",
"authors": [
"David MacCrimmon",
"Jay",
"Luke",
"Yang Xia",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14842",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14844",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2299"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
7574 | How long do eggs last in the refrigerator out of the shell?
I dropped my carton of eggs when putting away groceries. The eggs were broken severely enough that the internal membrane ruptured and I had to remove them from their shells. I went ahead and used these eggs right away (changed dinner plans to quiche).
If I just cracked the eggs into a bowl, covered and refrigerated it, how long would they last and still be safe to eat?
Eggs will last two to four days in the refrigerator.
Source:
StillTasty (yolk & white)
Yeah, I figured that was about the case, I just didn't know, and get paranoid about these things. Now, need to find out about a cracked shell with membrane intact!
When keeping an egg out of the shell after one day the egg in the container looks awful. Eggs are
reletively inexpensive. I either change my breakfast menu from sunny side up to scrambled or omelet. Or I just toss it.
Easy, pour them into a container so it fills to the top, put the lid on tightly and freeze. When ready to use them, place them in the fridge and once defrosted use them. This way they don't get all funky looking. Can also take them out of the freezer, wrap them up in clothing and take them to use hiking. Less mess this way. Yum, yum, eat em up...
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.683477 | 2010-09-24T02:51:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7574",
"authors": [
"Bratch",
"Juju",
"Matvii Hodovaniuk",
"Muz",
"cyberhicham",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2239",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80097"
],
"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
} |
8444 | Oatmeal used in apple crisp topping
The recipe I am looking at for Apple Crisp by Ina Garten calls for 1 cup of oatmeal. It doesn't say prepared oatmeal, or rolled oats, just "Oatmeal".
Is the recipe asking for 1 cup of prepared oatmeal (rolled oats + water)? 1 cup of rolled oats and then prepared into oatmeal?
Or is it something else?
It's definitely asking for rolled oats, not prepared oats. It's just like oatmeal cookies.
It's up to you whether you use normal rolled oats, quick-cooking, or instant. I use normal in my crumbles, but you might choose quick or instant if you think the normal retain too much texture. Personal preference! They'll all work, though, so you can just use what you've got on hand.
(When I do oatmeal for breakfast, I prepare normal rolled oats as if they were instant - just add boiling water. I like some texture.)
And while I'm at it, general advice: crumble topping is something you can easily do without a recipe, just throwing in the ingredients until it holds together a bit, but is nice and crumbly. So don't worry too much about exactness here. It'll come out great.
I would use quick-cooking oats (do not prepare with water).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.683620 | 2010-10-23T16:14:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8444",
"authors": [
"Kay",
"Shade",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17349",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17350",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17352",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17355",
"joey",
"user173432",
"user17352"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
20652 | What is the difference between grape and cherry tomatoes?
What is the flavor difference between grape and cherry tomatoes? The store had both and they looked rather similar.
The difference in their name is - not surprisingly - because of their form. Cherry tomatoes are round, while grape tomatoes are more oblong. Wikipedia mentions that grape tomatoes are 'sweet as cherry tomatoes', so not much difference in flavour according to this. Perhaps grape tomatoes are more similar to small plum tomatoes.
This site claims grape tomatoes to be sweeter, having a thicker skin and a lower water content than cherry tomatoes. Interestingly, it also says that grape tomatoes are a cross between cherry tomatoes and other tomatoes.
The claims of the second site are in agreement with this site ("grape tomatoes have thicker skin, lower water content and intense sweetness"). It also states "a grape tomato is half the size of a cherry tomato", so perhaps they are smaller. Due to the lower water content, grape tomatoes have less chance of 'squirting' when being bitten into.
I find grape tomatoes are the better choice as in general they have more tomato flavor, the cherry tomatoes are good if you want to stuff them with salad for a small bite.
Grape and cherry refer to the shape more than anything else. With so many different varieties you can get different characteristics from one type of cherry to another. Also how ripe they are will cause huge differences as well. As a general rule though...grape tomoatoes are the Roma's compared to the cherry's being the field type. Roma being slightly more fleshy and less pulp is what I'm getting at.
Cherry Tomatoes depending on variety are usually more tangy than sweet.
A popular variety sold in Australia is Genio (unsure spelling) has a long shelf life with tangy flavor. Suitable for salads as a replacement for tomatoes. They also tend to hold their shape better during cooking compared to the run of the mill variety of grape tomatoes.
Whilst grape tomatoes generally have a sweeter flavor over their cherry counterparts. These usually have a shorter shelf life but ripen quicker as a result. In terms of cooking, grape tomatoes usually have a stronger flavor and may over power other ingredients.
Lastly another issue is when the fruit is harvested. For commercial production cherry and grape tomatoes are typically harvested when they are light orange in colour. With cherry tomatoes some varieties will be sugary sweet if left on the vine until full colour.
Overall, the main issue is identifying which variety is being sold.
General terms
Cherry = Tangy
Grape = Sweet
It's interesting because in Canada the Cherry tomatoes are far more sweet than the Grape. Here Cherry tomatoes are basically perfectly round, and grape are oblong.
If there is a difference, I think it's smaller than all of the normal variations in supermarket tomatoes. Buying either kind, I've gotten plump/juicy ones, drier/mealy ones, sweet ones, bland ones. I think this is mostly attributable to the wide variation in quality of storebought tomatoes, notably seasonal variation and how unripe they were when picked. Some may actually be different types of tomatoes, too: I know there are a few reasonably widespread cultivars sold as cherry tomatoes.
I think the primary reason for the "grape" name is just the shape; cherries are more spherical and grapes are oblong. Both grape and cherry tomatoes should usually be sweeter than larger tomatoes.
If you're a gardener or are lucky enough to know someone who can supply you, I think you'll find much more variety in flavor among all the types of little tomatoes that people grow at home. I've had some that were so sweet I felt like I was eating delicious tomato candy off a vine, and I've had others with a full tomato flavor but not so much sweetness. Unfortunately I don't know names of varieties here, but I'm sure if you sought out that sort of thing, you could discover the ones you like most!
Not so much difference between these two varieties of tomatoes. Cherry tomatoes are good for cooking and grape tomatoes are good for dressings. That's all in my point of view.
Renaming was inevitable once 'cherry' size became golfballs...
Round or oblong 'grape' tomato? I tried a nice golden egg-shaped wee one; more a texture difference than flavor: crispy juicy rather than mealy squishy.
Blessedly more variety these days in tomatoes.
How about pulling aside your supermarket green-grocer and asking for a sample? Not possible with prepackaged punnets but why shop where you can't touch and smell, hmmm?
I'm not sure how useful this is; I still see cherry-sized cherry tomtoes, and I've had mealy and juicy tomatoes of both names.
-1 for the totally irrelevant and condescending 3rd paragraph.
sorry to have offended. poster mentioned they looked similar but hadn't tasted... never had a grocer turn me down for tasting while most of us are not bold enough to ask.
Labeling. The only difference is what you call them.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.683753 | 2012-01-21T04:28:24 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20652",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Cascabel",
"Chef Flambe",
"Joshua Schmitt",
"Manako",
"Michelle Everson",
"Pat Sommer",
"Puvendran Pillay",
"daftar kingkong39",
"emma seewald",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104764",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118331",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153038",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45410",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45464",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8766",
"sjakubowski",
"vextorspace"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
21565 | How to get uniform slices from bread?
We make bread for sandwiches a few times a week, but slicing them is always a pain. The pieces just don't come out uniform. I end up with angled pieces as the knife doesn't end up going straight down.
Is there a trick to getting uniform pieces from a loaf?
Normally I'd guess that your trouble is from not having a sharp enough knife, but you seem like you know what you're doing.
Definitely not a sharp knife issue, and thanks!
Try using a bow style bread knife. It works well because it allows you to put pressure on the opposite side of the loaf. Also, the bow helps you visually line up the slice.
Yes! My spouse made one of these and I always have an easier time cutting with it.
Try an electric knife if you have one hanging around for carving meat. The small stroke of the two blades causes far less squashing/skewing of the loaf than the conventional serrated bread knife and leaves only one dimension to focus on, down.
When I really need accuracy, I'll cut the loaf in half lengthwise and with the cut faces placed against the countertop, cut slices horizontally off from the bottom of each.
A serrated blade, sharpened bevel on one side only.
Use the flat non-beveled edge against the loaf, the beveled side on the slice being cut.
Use a bread board. Keep the knife for bread only, so that it stays sharp, hand wash & dry.
Take your time starting through the crust, so you don't crush the loaf.
If you start near the loaf center, the two halfs can be slid back together for freshness.
A variety of bread slicers are available - it's just a box that you put the bread in, where the sides have pre-cut slots that guide your knife so you get the uniformity you desire.
I don't use one of these for two main reasons:
You can't adjust the thickness of the slice - whatever the manufacturer decides is what you are stuck with.
Some breads just don't fit in them. Most of the bread slicers I've seen are designed for a sandwich-loaf-shaped bread: very rectangular. If I make a loaf of no-knead bread in my cast iron dutch oven, it ends up as a round loaf with too big a diameter to fit in any bread slicer I've seen.
But if you're making a rectangular sandwich loaf, getting a bread slicer is probably the way to go.
However, I've found that I can get straighter slices by experimenting with the angle at which I am holding and cutting the bread. It will vary by the size and shape of your loaf, but with the big round loaves I was talking about earlier (which usually are not very tall), I find that I can cut straighter if I turn the loaf on its side so that I have a much narrower piece of bread to deal with. That reduces the likeliness of my knife getting stuck.
I would add a third reason- they take up space. I agree with your cutting process. I cut rectangular sandwich loaves often and get perfectly straight cuts just with a very sharp, unserrated knife.
That last paragraph is definitely the most helpful part of this answer.
I often encounter this problem when using a serrated one-sided blade. Having the bevel on one side of the knife seems to make the knife angle toward the opposite edge.
I haven't successfully been able to compensate for this while cutting, so I threw away that (cheap) knife. Maybe this is part of your problem?
To be honest, I've had no problem whatsoever when using a blade with both sides sharpened (unless cutting a very wide or otherwise difficult loaf).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.684150 | 2012-02-21T17:07:27 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21565",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Daniel P",
"Noelia",
"SPPearce",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47847",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47881",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61396",
"justkt",
"kietnguyen",
"micro buster",
"rfusca",
"user765195"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
21627 | How can I create steam in a normal oven to promote bread oven spring?
Oven spring and a crisp crust on bread are largely due to high heat and high humidity. Commercial bakery ovens have steam injectors. How can I replicate this high humidity environment in my home oven? I've tried spritzing and ice cubes and neither really work. Pouring hot water in a hot pan is better but is still severely lacking.
Is there a way the home baker can replicate with without laying out a lot of money for a commercial oven?
Check your oven for leaks. Many modern ovens leak huge amounts of hot air (and therefore steam) as part of their thermal design
Ya, I noticed yesterday that my door doesn't seal well - is that something you can fix?
Not easily if it is a design flaw. A test is to fill the gaps with high temp silicone sealant. Line the door edges with foil. Lay a smooth bead of silicone on the oven frame where you think there are gaps between the frame and door. Gently close the door and let it set. The first time you heat the oven up it may stink! Test with same recipe and see if it improves
Ok, I'll play along. ;) The moist, hot environment improves oven spring by transferring heat more rapidly to the dough (moist air is more thermally conductive than dry air), keeping the dough surface from drying out and getting stiff. It improves crust quality by gelatinizing the starches on the surface of the dough, causing them to brown better, and form a more distinct "crust", rather than just a skin of browner bread.
To get more steam in your oven, in addition to the simple methods you noted, spritzing and pans of hot water, you can:
Bake inside a vessel like a dutch oven preheated in the oven. Gives both thermal mass for browning, and traps naturally produced steam around the bread. Remove the lid for the last 10 minutes of baking.
Cover the baking bread with a large bowl or pan for the first 10-15 minutes of the bake to trap naturally released steam.
Use one of several commercial steam injection kits (most look like a steam cleaner that allows you to blast some steam manually into the oven when loading).
Build your own steam injector, like this handy baker. The gist is that they use a pressure cooker with a flexible metal hose attached to an output port and directed into the oven. Boiling water in the pressure cooker produces steam. Pre-steaming the oven for 10 minutes before baking and for the first portion of the bake produces impressive results.
In addition to getting more steam in, you can improve the crust and oven spring by using delayed or cold fermentation, which creates more sugars (better browning), and more extensible dough (better oven spring).
+1 The dutch oven is the simple answer. Long and cold fermentation is the real answer. Our instant world has killed off the traditional processes; bread takes time, not work
I doubt that the naturally released steam is enough for the effect @rfusca wants to achieve. Especially seeing that he wants it for crust-setting, which happens early in the baking, before the inside has reached steaming temperature.
@rumtscho - it actually is plenty and works quite well.
I have good luck with the dutch oven method. The heat storage helps a lot with the initial spring and release of steam. The downside is that you are stuck with only certain bread shapes, and you have a longer pre-heat.
What I built today - http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/432028_287014481364527_100001679334236_676155_1408786604_n.jpg
Sweet! Let us know how it goes - I've been very interested in seeing how it works and duplicating it if it is successful.
@Sam - it works awesome. My pressure cooker already had a threaded outlet at the top for the rocker, so I just hooked on to that. It produces great steam. I can really see better spring and much better crust from the loaves. I'll post some pictures later today or tomorrow.
@rfusca You've convinced me - I'll build one myself! Once you have some experience we should just ask a question about it so it is well tagged.
@Sam - definitely. I've got some pain ancienne going in the oven tomorrow, so I'll get pics of that.
@SamLey - finally took some decent pics of bread coming out of the 'machine'.- https://i.sstatic.net/h11Nq.jpg . Pop into chat if you want to discuss. Note: Its a loaf shape you couldn't do in a dutch oven.
Agree with the Dutch oven approach/putting a bowl in there. Having a preheated baking stone or cast iron pan in the oven will also help retain heat in the oven so that the temperature drops less when you add the bread, thereby aiding in steam formation.
I have 3 kg of stainless steel screws in a rack on the lowest level of the oven.
The screws are in the oven while preheating.
After 1 hour of preheating, I put the bread on my pizza stone one level above the screws and use a syringe in order to squirt 60 ml of water directly onto the screaming hot screws.
Needs a bit of caution in order to not burn yourself, and you need to hurry a bit but results in excellent oven spring.
The screws have a rather large surface and because of their weight they keep their temperature good enough so that the 60 ml of water turn into steam immediately.
After 10 minutes of baking, you simply open the oven door and release the steam. Much easier than having to fiddle around with a bowl of boiling water when you need no steam anymore.
And for a good crunch, put a wooden spoon between oven door and its frame the last 5 minutes of baking. This will let the remaining humidity pass out of the oven while keeping the temperature still high.
Edit: There's also a kitchen gadget that looks far nicer than my homegrown solution: the Schwadomat.
Edit2: I just want to note that this is not my invention but was taken from http://schellikocht.de/post/view/schwaden-im-haushaltsofen-die-alusch-methode
+1 for a creative solution. If oven-produced steam is sufficient for you, then this sounds indeed better than bowls etc.
+1 from me also, this is great and I'll likely use it in the future :-)
The other answers are excellent. I just want to say, be very careful adding water/ice to your oven. You can get steam burns very quickly, warp the oven sides and bottom, crack or break the glass in the door. I use a "la cloche", but care also needs to be taken. They are subject to thermal shock, and removing a very hot cover that has a small handle can be a hazard. In the past I ran a couple feet of copper tubing into the bottom of the oven, and just after placing the dough in the oven, I used a baster to inject water into the cool end of the tubing that came through the top edge of the door. This can also burn.
I use the method described in the Tartine cookbooks. I soak 3 dish towels in water and put them in a cookie sheet. As I preheat the oven to 500 degrees they release a lot of steam. And during the first 15 minutes of baking I keep them in the oven. Sometimes adding water. After 15 minutes take them out. This has worked better for me then the spray bottle on the side of the oven, or dumping water into a hot pan. I've known people to break baking stones and other ceramics with spray bottles. My oven leaks as well but the dish towels keep a nice steady flow going.
To effectively use steam for baking bread, one needs to understand the related physics. One cannot guess, as much of what happens defies intuition, and guessing can easily be off by orders of magnitude.
First, prepare a list of relevant questions: How much energy does it take to melt ice, raise the temperature of water, or turn water into steam? What happens to that energy when steam condenses back to water? What is the volume of steam produced by a given quantity of water, and how does that compare to the volume of one's oven? How much heat energy can be stored by a given mass of metal or stones, and how does that compare to the energy required to heat a comparable mass of water?
If you are not absolutely sure of the answers to these questions (as sure as our predecessors were that the first atomic test wouldn't ignite the atmosphere) then begin your research with a period of peaceful meditation, ridding your mind of preconceptions. Compared to science, cooking is more prone to accepting authority and propagating group think, which can often be wrong. Learn peaceful resistance to ideas propagated by authority. One has spent a lifetime observing people spritzing ovens with a plant mister, little more than genuflection. Rid one's mind of the preconception that this works.
The idea of using ample steam at home was popularized by the Bouchon
Bakery cookbook, though it can be found in earlier professional sources. 350g
of water will produce enough steam to fill a home oven or an outdoor ceramic barbecue cooker several
times over. In contrast, a few spritzes from a spray bottle will be 10g of
water if one is lucky.
It takes 80 calories to thaw a gram of ice, 100 calories to bring that gram to
the boiling point, and a whopping 540 calories to then turn that gram of water
to steam. By weight, steel holds about 13% as much heat energy as water. These
numbers explain why one needs so much metal to boil the water, and why it
hardly matters whether the water starts out as ice or hot water.
For example, to turn 350g of cold water into steam, using metal heated to 450 F (132 C above boiling) takes about 28 pounds of metal. To turn ice into steam (giving one a slower fuse) takes about 32 pounds of metal. I accomplish this by filling a giant cast iron skillet with two spools of stainless steel chain. Indoors, I quickly but carefully pour water from a metal hiking water bottle, wearing gloves and standing back. Outdoors in a Komodo Kamado ceramic barbecue cooker, I use a slab of ice frozen for this purpose, to buy extra time setting up.
What does the steam do? It isn't simply keeping the crust damp, or one would far more easily spritz the dough. (In grade school a teacher tried to tell us that candle wax slowed down the burning wick; similar skepticism is called for here.) The dough is the only thing in the oven cold enough to condense steam back to water. The energy used to turn water to steam is delivered to the bread as the steam turns back to water. Physics abounds in conservation principles, and this is one: The energy has to go somewhere. As a thought experiment, imagine bashing the bread with a baseball bat, with all your force. Then imagine spritzing with a plant mister. Trust your intuition; which is more force? As a second thought experiment, imagine spritzing your bare hand and sticking it into the hot oven for a few seconds. Now imagine sticking in your bare hand as you turn 350g of water into steam. In which scenario do you then imagine a visit to the emergency room?
Scale matters.
I put a cup of hot water into a shallow pan in the preheated oven at the same time that I put the bread dough in. (The bread is on a pizza stone on one rack, and the pan is on a rack below that, and both the stone and the pan are in the oven during the preheat.) This is working great. Wear an oven mitt when you pour the water, because it boils when it hits the hot pan.
I have very hard water and am thinking of using a sacrificial foil pan for this, because scale is accumulating on the broiler pan I've been using.
Unrelated to the bread part, but I have very hard water too (kettle gets scale from 1 use) and started using a filtering jug for drinking/cooking water. I can recommend it, it is like using bottled water, but many times cheaper. The mineral deposits build up much slower, so you won't have to assign a pan to evaporation duty only.
You probably know by now, but regular baths in white vinegar will solve that problem (reuse the same batch for all items that come in contact with heated hard water like kettles, mugs, and pots, starting with the most caked on to least)
I have had success using a tightly foiled 600 pan as a larger scaled dutch oven, just put what ever style baking pan you are using, loaf pan, sheet tray etc, inside and seal up for 5-15 minutes depending on what you are baking...gives the loaf a nice steam glazed crust like a dutch oven would.
I made some multigrain loaves with this method and kept them covered the entire 40 minutes it took to bake and they came out awesome
Use the nozzle from an espresso machine with a steam wand. Remove the burner element from above the oven vent, usually the back right, and leave the reflector, Fire up the espresso machine right before you are ready to put the bread into the oven, aim the steam wand into the vent (you can slide a piece of heat-proof silicone tubing over the wand to make it go into the oven just a little if you want. I don't. Put your bread in the oven, turn the espresso machine to "steam" and shoot the steam into the oven for about 1 minute. Perfection.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.684485 | 2012-02-23T04:18:09 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21627",
"authors": [
"Chris Macksey",
"David W. Keith",
"Dugan ",
"Harish Kumar",
"Maria",
"MyStackRunnethOver",
"Rachel S",
"Sam Ley",
"TFD",
"TomRiver",
"allen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47994",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47995",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48003",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48021",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61395",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81097",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9091",
"nelomad",
"rfusca",
"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
} |
21659 | Why do some recipes recommend a short rest after mixing but before kneading the bread?
Some recipes I see for bread dough recommend a short rest between the mixing (just enough to make the ingredients homogeneous) and kneading stage - often 10 to 30 minutes. The dough seems to be a little easier to work after the rest, but what is going on there in such a short time?
Besides the initial gluten relaxing that mrwienerdog wrote about, another important effect is the absorption of liquid.
It takes time for the flour to fully hydrate with the available liquid. Before it does the dough will be more sticky and there will be less gluten available for kneading. Giving the recently incorporated dough a short rest allows the flour to pull in all the liquid it can and become much easier to work with.
A similar effect can be seen with pastry doughs. Even though often the goal is to minimize gluten development, a short rest gives the flour time to hydrate and can turn pastry dough from difficult to work and crumbly to soft and smooth.
I have seen a variation of this process in some recipes: mix flour with water only and let it rest (and absorb the water) before continuing with other ingredients.
You give the gluten a chance to relax. If you work a bread too soon, the gluten tears. You should always allow your doughs to rest between makeup stages, for this very reason. Of course, if you are careful, you can skip it. However, as you mentioned, the dough will be far more 'bucky' (as my old instructor called it) and harder to work.
I don't think there is a lot of gluten to relax at this stage (just after just mixing the ingredients).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.685505 | 2012-02-23T20:53:44 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21659",
"authors": [
"Huseyin Yagli",
"Jacek Konieczny",
"Matt Robertson",
"ghostpanther",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48088",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48090",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/535",
"user48088",
"user48090"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
4006 | How to create kebabs that taste Greek
I'm planning to do a Barbeque at the end of the month and I'd like to serve a variety of different 'Greek' style kebabs. I'm not looking for recipies, but what is the essence of creating grilled / barbeque food that tastes Greek. Whenever I have kebabs in Greece or in a Greek restaurant they taste different to kebabs I have had elsewhere but it's really difficult to tell what the difference is. One issue I think that might be important is the particualr mix of aromatic herbs such as Greek Basil. Does anyone else have any ideas what I can do?
The primary flavors of Greek meats are lemon, oregano, and olive oil. Typically either (or both) thyme and mint are present as well. I'd start with the following base for a marinade:
1/2 cup olive oil
1/4 cup lemon juice (2-ish lemons)
2 Tbsp oregano
1.5 tsp thyme
1.5 tsp mint
I'd also suggest adding some garlic and onion to this. Maybe 1/2 an onion and 4 cloves of garlic. Adding a 1/4 to 1/2 cup of red wine could add some depth as well (I'm assuming lamb or steak, use white for pork or chicken).
A good soak in this overnight, perhaps with some tweaks, should equate to Greek kebabs.
Other herbs & spices common in Greek cuisine include: marjoram, paprika (sweet & hot), and pepper. You can also find, in small quantities: cinnamon, nutmeg, cumin, anise, coriander, fennel, and allspice.
I have tried similar, but it still doesn't quite taste Greek. I'm not sure if I've got the Greek Salad problem that a Greek Salad doesn't taste the same as it does in Greece?
I've never heard of that problem, but I've also never been to Greece. When I eat Greek kebabs I definitely taste lemon and oregano. You could try adding marjoram and basil perhaps. It might also be Greek oregano? I've never seen any, but I know it exists.
Yes, if you can get Greek (or at least Sicilian) dried oregano, it'll have a substantially more authentic taste than a standard supermarket oregano. If you don't happen to have Greek groceries where you live, you might have an Italian grocery, and they should have dried Sicilian oregano on the branch, which is damn good stuff.
Have you considered togas? It's all about the atmospherics.
TBH, we don't really use that much mint in Greece. I'm not sure where that misconception came from. Same with lamb. It's customary to eat lamb on Easter, but not that often during the rest of the year.
In Greece, traditionally, they used Chicken or Goat as a white meat and lamb as a dark meat.
As for a marinade, try, Olive Oil, minced Garlic, fresh Tarragon and Oregano. I especially like this on Chicken.
Alternatively, try a Tarragon, Garlic and Yoghurt marinade. This is good on Goat or Lamb as the Yoghurt also acts as a tenderizer.
Leave it in the marinade for at least a couple of hours or preferably over night. Salt after you remove from the marinade.
I think the yogurt-tenderized meat is key here.
Real Greeks do use a lot of white wine vinegar so this may add to the taste.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.685788 | 2010-08-02T16:11:47 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4006",
"authors": [
"Florian",
"Harlan",
"Ian Turner",
"Ocaasi",
"Seth Rogers",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10492",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7517",
"morgueanna",
"mwnz",
"surfmadpig"
],
"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
} |
18275 | How long will Sous Vide food keep?
I'm part of an international rescue team and one of the things we need to do is to be self sufficient. At the minute we take ready made boil in the bag food which is not particularly great and is quite expensive.
I recently saw Heston Blumthall proposing the use of Sous Vide food for preservation of food on a submarine and wondered if the same approach could be used by my rescue team. So the question is if the food is cooked by can it be kept on a store cupboard shelf and if it can, what would the shelf life be? I'm assuming that the quality of the packaging could have an effect. If it can how could this be taken into account?
You'll want to read What is the sous vide botulism risk if storing meat post-cooking at home? Make sure you store it properly.
@IanTurner with a Turbomolecular pump, no oxygen and no liquid : a very long time. Though everything will be dried and crispy. And such a vacuum setup would cost you over 10,000€. Though it remains a good way to turn any piece of meat into chips without using oil.
There's a misunderstanding possibly of what Heston suggested for the British Navy. He suggested to sous vide it and then store it in the freezer. They couldn't just toss it in the cupboard. Sous vide food is not typically shelf stable. It has been pasteurized - not sterilized.
Pasteurization reduces pathogens to a safe level, not to a 0 level. It doesn't typically reduce botulism spores to 0. Once the food is exposed to normal temperatures, any anaerobic pathogens will start to reproduce again.
To sterilize you'll need to pressure cook meat through to 121 C for 2.4 minutes - at which point its rather not tasty. You might be able to sous vide at a lower temp for much longer, but I suspect it'll still be past the point of being tasty. Sterilized meat tastes like your typical potted meat.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.686059 | 2011-10-09T22:05:25 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18275",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Asad Refai",
"freekvd",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39503",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"peggym7",
"user2284570"
],
"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
} |
1257 | How can I choose good avocados at the supermarket?
I've been trying to ignore my burning desire to make some guacamole because every time I go to the supermarket to buy avocados I can't manage to pick out good ones. They always either become too soft before I have a chance to do anything with them or are hard and not very tasty. How can I tell when an avocado is perfectly ripe?
Depends on if you'll buy for instant consumption or for storage.
If you want to eat/prepare them right away, you want an avocado that feels soft on the inside, when pressing them they will cede and have that soft feeling ripe avocado has. It shouldn't cede very much though, as those are past their prime. The very good ones even smell in a nice avocadoey way a bit (or maybe that's just my insanity.)
If you want to prepare them later, you want firm ones that cede only a tiny little bit (the rock hard ones mostly never ripen in my experience,) you then store them in a porous bag (the typical brown paper bag or a newspaper) to let them ripe. To speed up the ripening, you can add an apple to the bag.
See also this related question
Avocados don't ripen until picked, so you may find under-ripe ones in the store; these will be hard and bright green. You can allow them to ripen at home quickly by placing them in a paper bag and sealing it. Already ripened avocados will have a bit of give to them when squeezed, without being too hard or too soft. They'll also be dark green to green-black in color.
I love avocados, and it's absolutely worth it to plan ahead and buy some harder ones. Buying ones that have gotten ripe-ish in the store is a good way to get bruised and blemished ones. The paper bag thing will generally take an avocado from hard to ripe in 24 hours or so, and a hard avocado will last a good long while in the refrigerator.
Don't really need bag, just keep out of direct sunlight, and not too warm. One rip eat or put in fridge for up to a week
Your best bet is to plan ahead and purchase the firmer ones and allow them to ripen at home. If they're ripe before you need to use them, refrigeration at that point will extend the life. If you're not using the whole thing at once, then use the side without the pit first. Leave the pit in the other half and give it a quick shot of vegetable spray (pan coating) and then cover with plastic wrap before refrigerating.
Plastic wrap alone is still porous and will allow the avocado to oxidize and brown. Spraying with veg. spray first will help to coat the surface and protect against browning.
In my experience, this is definitely the way to go. Add that ripe avocados at the store are usually bruised and this feels like the perfect answer. +1
If you can squish a avocado in your hand, it's much too ripe. Everyone else has had a squish of this avocado, and it's been manhandled.
Depending on the variety in your supermarket (In Australia, we usually get Hass Avocados, which go from a green colour to a black colour), you want one that's still firm when you buy it, and after a few days in the fruitbowl with the apples, it will become a nice constancy: still not completely soft to touch, but you can't play football with the thing anymore.
Give it a good mush with the lemon/lime/sour cream, and that avo is ready to become a GUACAMOLE!
A perfect avocado will be firm but not hard, and will not be squishy at the stem end. It will smell good, and the skin will be an even color all over.
I got this from Rick Bayless's TV show recently: A fully ripe avocado will give when you press on the end opposite the stem. The flesh ripens/softens from the stem down, so if the end farthest from the stem gives when pressed, you can be assured the rest is at least as ripe.
As to how soft it should be? Well, that's up to you. Buy one that's soft on the end, and cut into it as soon as you get home. See if that's too soft or not soft enough. Try to remember how it worked out for you the next time you buy. Eventually you'll get a sense of how you like them.
Things to look for in an avocado:
Make sure it has the little nub of
stem still on it. If that's missing,
that end will likely be all brown
under the skin.
It should give when pressed, but
should not feel like it's loose
inside the skin.
Avoid ones with places that are
significantly softer than the rest of
the avocado.
Avoid ones with cuts in the skin.
Avoid ones that have obvious bruising
or discolored areas in the skin.
The easiest way to know that an avocado is ripe is by how easy it peels. Unfortunately, you can't do that at the store. Color and firmness are good indicators of ripeness, but a bit less reliable. In my own opinion, I'd prefer to get avocados I know are unripened and ripen myself instead of risk buying overripe avocados.
There are a few things you can do to get ripe avocados fast:
As luls mentions, place them in a paper bag. The trapped ethylene gas will cause faster ripening.
If they are very unripened, throw a ripe tomato in the bag as well. The extra ethylene gas will only help to ripen the avocado quicker.
Will a plastic bag work to rippen them as well?
Someone taught me a method that hasn't failed me yet: the "reverse turkey-timer" (as I call it).
You could gently squeeze an avocado to see if it's soft, but I think you're more likely to feel bruising than ripeness. Other shoppers (like you!) could have damaged it with aggressive squeeze-testing, and unless you have the luxury of local fruit (it's a berry!), it may have been banged around in transit.
The method I use is to push the stem (gently!) into the avocado with your thumb. See how much resistance it gives. If it yields easily, it's ripe. In the process, you should see a bit of the flesh if the stem pushes in. If it's over-ripe, it'll be brownish.
Some posts say you should try removing the stem. This may be valid, but I think it's too destructive a test. It leave your grocer with produce which a) others cannot test in this way and b) is susceptible to rot.
Press lightly near the stem. If it gives to the touch, but doesn't give anywhere else, it's a keeper. If it doesn't give at all near the stem, it needs more time.
Here is how I tell (in the store) if an Avocado is worth buying or not. I pick up the avocado in my hand, and squeeze it, but only gently. I'm looking for an avocado that is firm; it shouldn't be too soft or too hard.
As a test for the kind of firmness we're looking for, take your thumb of your left hand and with it, touch your pinky finger of the same hand (your thumb and pinky should be touching). Take your other hand, using your index finger, feel the muscle on your palm under your thumb. There should be a little give when you push it. Now squeeze your pinky and thumb together really tight! Feel your muscle again. That is the kind of firmness we are looking for.
The avocado flesh should give when you poke it when and apply a decent amount of pressure. You'll soon learn when soft is too soft, and when hard is too hard. It just takes some practice!
-1 So you put the squeezed ones back that don't qualify so the next customer can buy bruised fruit, not nice!
Of the avocados I squeeze, I only put back the under ripe or over ripe avocados anyway. Hopefully the next customer won't buy those either.
Unless you are very lucky, it is almost impossible to find ripe avocados at the store. I buy 4-5 at a time and let them ripen on the kitchen counter.
When they are ripe, I store them in a zip-lock bag in the salad drawer of the refrigerator. They will keep for 1-2 weeks, but continue to ripen slowly. Eventually, they will go "bad".
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.686278 | 2010-07-16T23:11:59 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1257",
"authors": [
"AaronN",
"Aptos",
"Brandon",
"Catsunami",
"Chloe",
"Darryl Braaten",
"David Anderson",
"Enrique Moreno Tent",
"ForeverDebugging",
"Jolenealaska",
"Jonathan Rauch",
"Klaus Byskov Hoffmann",
"Lillian Fujii",
"Lyn Leonard",
"Matheus E. Mordorst",
"Rosalie",
"Satanicpuppy",
"TFD",
"Tim Lytle",
"Xavi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1347",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22306",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2314",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2315",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2325",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2333",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2375",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58989",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6629",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6829",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80021",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80024",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80025",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9679",
"karen e",
"krolley",
"rid",
"softwarematter"
],
"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
} |
586 | How long should I saute garlic?
I always have trouble figuring out how long to saute garlic for before adding it to a dish. How do I know when it is ready?
Not long at all. Usually 1 minute is enough.
If it starts to turn brown, it's been in there too long.
Exact time depends on the heat of the pan how you've cut the garlic (thick slices can go much longer than thin slices or minced), and if you're cooking it on its own, or with something else -- if you toss it in at the same time as onion, you're much less likely to burn it, but you might not get the exact same flavor out of it as it wasn't subjected to as high of heat.
When it's on its own (or with only crushed red pepper), minced, and the olive oil was shimmering when it went in, I maybe give it maybe 30sec before I toss in something else to cool down the pan.
If you saute the garlic by itself it really doesn't take very long--depending on the heat of your oil it can take from just a few seconds to a minute. It burns easily so you need to watch carefully, but I've found smell to be the best indicator that it's done--as soon as you smell that strong garlic scent it's ready even though it often won't look much different. Large pieces or whole garlic cloves are done (but not yet overdone) when they just start to turn brown, but with small pieces brown means burnt.
If you saute your garlic at the same time as (or after) the onions or other ingredients you won't get that strong scent and your garlic flavor will be less intense, but your garlic is also much less likely to burn. In these cases it's usually best to focus on whether the other ingredients are done to your liking and let the garlic take care of itself.
Start with olive oil in a cold pan. Add the minced garlic. Prepare whatever you wish to be added in advance. Turn on the heat to medium. Just keep smelling it. Once the harsh scent has gone away, and before it starts to get any more than slightly golden brown, add the other stuff to reduce the pans temperature. The garlic will be flavorful, but not acrid or burnt. You're on your own from there
Olfactorally, there is an unmistakable bloom of fragrance released. As soon as you smell that, the garlic is done.
Visually, the color will just start to change. You can use that as a queue to take a big sniff.
Use a medium to medium-low heat. High heat can overcook parts of the garlic to a tan color before most of it has even gotten cooked enough.
I used to cook all ingredients together, adding them to a frying pan in the order of decreasing cooking time, but that in turn is related to how much is in the pot. Garlic only needs 15-60 seconds, say--if it is getting the full heat on the bottom of the pan. If you have garlic and onions in the pan, then a garlic slice lying flat on the bottom can easily burn before another piece suspended in a nest of onion even becomes fragrant.
So, now, I cook the garlic by itself to perfection, either throwing it into a bowl while I cook everything else, or put everything else into a bowl temporarily while I cook the garlic exactly.
Warning: as you get experienced with garlic, you'll probably get more picky about it too. I went decades not caring too much, but once I realized how much is missing in undercooked garlic, and how bad overcooked garlic tastes, I'm too fussy.
BTW other answers mention mincing vs. thick slices or whole garlic. Personally I cook thin slices in every cuisine. I think they're attractive in the final product so mince is usually a lost opportunity. I also haven't ever seen a case requiring fried garlic to be any thicker than thinly-sliced. I'll certainly braise or roast whole cloves but I've never found cause to cook them in a frying pan.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.686967 | 2010-07-11T02:55:21 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/586",
"authors": [
"Ben M",
"Jessica Ibarra",
"Michael Hart",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1094",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1095",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126048",
"leancz"
],
"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
} |
921 | What all fruits/crops can be stored in natural temperature for a long time?
I want to know about foods (fruits/crops) which can be stored in room temperature or natural temperature (20 degree centigrade) for long time (for a year)?.
This is one of the first questions on the site - since then our guidelines have evolved to not accept big-list questions.
Nature has designed some food-stuff to last a long time. Grains (wheat, rice, corn, oats, ...), which are the seeds of grasses, will last the longest, often more than one year. Seeds need a long shelf-life if the plant is going to make it to the next growing season. Next come roots (onions, potatoes, ...), which need to last from one year to the next. Nuts, in the cooking sense, are seeds surrounded by a shell, will also last several years if they are dry. So almonds, peanuts, pine nuts will keep, but not coconuts or chestnuts. Other food types are going to need some help, which basically means getting rid of the water in the food-stuff (lentils, beans, peas, chick peas, soybean, ...) or slowing down bacterial growth (through dehydration, freezing, irradiation, canning, cooling, ...)
I have cooked grains and dried beans and lentils from my pantry that were over a year old. They all made good meals.
Also in my opinion walnuts taste better if they are one year old
Most root vegetables will last a good while: potatoes, carrots, turnips. Onions, horseradish and garlic, with their astringent properties, last a very long time.
Apples used to be preserved by packing them in barrels with water, but the phrase "one bad apple spoils the bunch" is wholly accurate. They last better where it's cool and damp. Likewise oranges and grapefruit. The less the fruit touches the better. With fruit, the best you can hope for is 4-6 months.
Harder varieties of squash last for months and months, in cool temperatures.
If you need things to last a year, I'd look into drying and/or canning. Pack fruit in sugar to leech out the water, and it'll last a year or more.
Onions will last a year as long as they are kept dry. My parents have a wire mesh rack suspended from the garage ceiling and they put the onions up there after harvesting them. Make sure none are touching each other, and although a couple might go bad the rest will be fine for a year.
These five crops can be stored for a long time-
1.PUMPKINS
2.CABBAGE
3.CARROTS
4.SWEET POTATOES
5.ONIONS
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.687601 | 2010-07-14T06:05:30 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/921",
"authors": [
"Kevin Panko",
"Misnomer",
"One Handed Pete",
"Sam Trost",
"b w",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/205",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho",
"tobiw"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
18370 | How can I make my banana bread more moist?
I've followed lots of standard recipes online, and the result is always more cake like: dark on the outside white and dryish in the middle.
When I go to the store and buy it it's always dark and moist in the middle.
What is the secret ingredient?!
Update: A lot better! Suggestions below helped a ton. But the perfect banana bread still eludes me.. Here's somes pointers I picked up:
Freezing bananas helps. It allows you to mix them in easier and gives it a more consistent texture. More bananas is better (try 4 small ones, or 3 big ones).
Try adding Sour Cream (instead of yoghurt). Maybe 1/4 cup for 1 loaf. I had much positive feedback after this experiment!
Molasses helps the color (be darker), but the flavour becomes a little too strong and maybe even bitter. Overall I don't recommend it.
Can you link a specific recipe you've tried and its failed?
I basically just eye it, but here are roughly my measurements: 1 3/4 cup flour, 1/2 cup sugar, 2 eggs, 2-3 bananas, a stick of butter and a tsp/tbsp of all the other stuff (salt,bp,magic powder).
Well...baking and using rough measurements don't go well in general. Especially as there's a big diff between a tsp and tbsp of those listed ingredients....
Turn the oven down by about 25-50F. Quite often, ovens just blast the heck out of baked good, especially smaller apartment ovens. Larger, more expensive ovens tend to be better calibrated and will produce the proper 350F temperature usually required for banana bread. A cheap oven, which is still fine for banana bread, will overshoot the temperature and kill your banana bread. Turn the oven down a bit, and if necessary cook for longer. I have even turned my oven cooler AND cooked it for 15 minutes less time than the recipe required.
Check at 2/3 time. Don't let the bread run through the entire cooking time before checking it. Always check early. For some recipes, I take the banana bread out at 2/3 recommended time!
Don't over-beat the mixture. Despite being called banana "bread" it isn't a bread, it is a cake insomuch as it is made from a batter, not a long-kneaded dough. If you start mixing and it seems already too dry - STOP - and add a few tablespoons of milk to loosen the mixture up. If it's too dry in the initial stages, it will certainly be dry later, but a dry mixture also causes you to push harder, thereby causing the gluten to harden.
Don't cut down on butter/fat. This is really what prevents it drying out. Use creme fraiche, more butter, a bit less flour...
While living in Michigan in the late 1970's, I baked several loaves of banana right before going to church to play the organ for the midweek service. I decided to wrap one of the loaves to give to the pastor and his family right after it finished baking. I wrapped the bread in foil and enclosed it in a Ziploc plastic bag.
The pastor's wife told me that the banana bread was the best she had ever eaten the next day, so I have continued to wrap the hot, freshly baked banana bread in some foil and enclose it tightly in a plastic Ziploc bag and put it in the freezer to cool down for a few hours.
Store banana bread is usually heavier on bananas (they have to get rid of them), and that will make for a heavier, moister, darker banana bread. I generally add at least one more banana than it calls for in the recipe, and you'll get a better flavor if you wait a while, and let the bananas get old and spotty.
If you don't mind getting a bit fussy, this advice from America's Test Kitchen should work great. I haven't tried it yet myself, I'll edit this answer when I do.
You can get 5 bananas (6 including a decorative one on top, not frozen or microwaved) in a loaf if you microwave them first (5 minutes on high, covered with pierced plastic wrap), freezing them accomplishes the same thing. The key step is to then drain them in a fine mesh strainer over a bowl. If using frozen bananas, put them in the strainer frozen, they'll drain as they thaw.
5 peeled bananas should weigh about 2.25lbs (1Kg). Strained, they should produce about 1/2cup-3/4cup of liquid (118mls-177mls) That's too much of the liquid to use in a loaf of bread (it makes the loaf overly dense), so ATK recommends reducing it to 1/4 cup. That syrup becomes the liquid in the loaf.
They also say that the bananas should be very ripe, but that there's really no difference in sugar content between very speckled and black. Either will work just fine.
For their Ultimate Banana Bread they use a full stick of butter, 2 eggs and brown sugar. They also sprinkle granulated sugar on top for a nice crust.
EDIT: I've done this now a few times. Yes, it's fussy, it also makes a great loaf of banana bread. It's very moist and very banana-y Of course the recipe is paywalled ATK Banana Bread Recipe, but they do offer a 14 day free trial.
First, I tend to wait 'til the bananas are completely black, and then freeze them 'til I have enough for a batch of bread baking, then thaw them the day before cooking. This ensures that the bananas are completely broken down (the freezing helps to burst any cell walls), freeing up all of the moisture from the bananas.
I also use a recpipe that uses molasses, which results in a very dense, moist loaf. Not everyone likes it though, as it can be a little bit heavy.
I do the same and I just noticed yesterday while cleaning out the freezer I have enough for banana bread! Think I'm going to make some tonight...
Ok I will try this!
Ok I followed through with this, and I did get a nice brown loaf this time, but it was slightly bitter I guess because of the molasses and not as moist as I was hoping. I think next time I will add less molasses (i had about 3-4 tsps this time) and mroe sugar. thanks.
Yogurt. There's a recipe in a book I have called Baking Illustrated that uses it; I highly reccommend picking up that book, as they discuss what each ingredient does in the bread. I believe their recipe calls for 1/4 cup of plain yogurt added to melted butter, bananas, and egg for the wet ingredients alongside the usual dry ones.
I will try this, but I remember trying it a while back and it came out quite wet inside, not sure if I hadn't baked it long enough, or I didn't wait for it to cool. How long at what temperature do you bake and for how long should I wait before eating it? thanks.
I only use 2 bananas but add 1/2 cup plain applesauce and 1/4th cup half and half. Comes out very moist and yummy.
I use olive oil. You can use light or extra-virgin olive oil. The olive oil will make any bread cake moist. Other things I do for my banana bread are adding a little molasses, just a little bit more sugar and vanilla flavor and more bananas. I usually let it cool a little and then wrap it in aluminum foil.
I use a small box of instant vanilla pudding in the batter and my bread comes out moist every time
Interesting. How does it affect the texture? I know when I took cake decorating classes, they told us to add it to cake mixes to firm them up so we could stack the cakes.
I find when I add apples it makes my breads and cakes very moist.
Chunks of apples? Apple sauce?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.687853 | 2011-10-15T00:27:41 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18370",
"authors": [
"Brock Brown",
"Cascabel",
"Ciara Brady",
"Darlene Floriano",
"David Mclachlan",
"Debbie",
"Dorothy LaPlante",
"Gayli Qiang",
"HoaPhan",
"JRS",
"Joe",
"Michael Malarski",
"Rem Zhang",
"Spammer",
"Totomobile",
"Yuri B",
"frank_black",
"hellyale",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100006",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103253",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145872",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147419",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39733",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39735",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39761",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39837",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40681",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7664",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99996",
"mark klein",
"rfusca",
"riteshs23"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
55951 | Lighter chocolate cake
I am making a Guinness chocolate cake and I need the color of it to turn out lighter to match the colors for a wedding. I have already used non Dutch processed cocoa but the lightest it got was maybe dark chocolate color. What I am going for is a carmel color. Is there anything I can do to bake a lighter cake?
...not chocolate. If you get it as light as you describe, it won't be chocolate cake even if there is some cocoa in it. Match the color on the icing and let the cake be dark if a chocolate cake is desired. An insipid not-quite chocolate cake is going to be a disappointment.
Also, not sure about everyone else but I don't generally expect the inside of a cake to match a theme... that's why the cake is iced/covered with fondant... the outside matches the theme, the inside matches the couple's flavor preferences.
If you have a bridezilla who must have the interior matching, you could recommend that they pick another flavor or try using chocolate extract/oil, which I don't believe has much color... but it will likely taste really fake.
@Catija I think "chocolate extract is the best you can do, but it's not good" is probably pretty much the answer to the question...
@Catija The question already says they used non-Dutched cocoa.
What you are asking for is physically impossible.
There is a reason why the color system when working with physical dyes (as opposed to colored light) is called additive. You cannot take out a color which is already there. When we are talking about a cake, cocoa powder or pure chocolate can be considered a pigment, and Guiness a pre-dyed liquid.
The first of three methods would be to add your cocoa and guiness as they are, but try to mix them with other stuff so You can use them to make new, darker colors by mixing in other pigments, or lighter colors by diluting them. You can certainly mix white cake batter with food coloring of other colors (yellow) and the right amount of chocolate to achieve a caramel color, but this will be very far from the proportion which gives you a chocolate cake which tastes of chocolate and has the right texture.
The second method would be to try to discolor the cocoa and guiness. But the problem is that you cannot change the color of a pigment without changing it chemically. Assuming that somebody can come up with a process which can bleach cocoa or chocolate, it will certainly change the taste a lot, if it is food safe at all. Probably not doable in a home kitchen either.
The third thing would be to replace the chocolate entirely. But there is no substitute which tastes like chocolate. I have never heard of the "chocolate extract" which Catija refers to, but even in cases where a flavor is dominated by a single note which is easily reproduced chemically (vanilla, banana, etc.), the stuff which makes up that single note does not taste like the real deal. And if something had exactly the same composition as cocoa, it would not only taste like cocoa, it would be cocoa, with its normal color. And that part concerns the flavor only. Even cocoa powder changes the texture of a cake, while real chocolate changes it much, much more. If you could make chocolate-perfumed cake, it would still not have the mouthfeel of chocolate cake.
Beside all the reasons why you cannot get chocolate flavor paired with a strange color, there is something else: Human perception is not limited to one sense. People rely a lot on vision when eating, and the experience of eating a strange-colored chocolate cake will not be the same "taste" experience as eating correctly colored chocolate cake. There are some fun studies with gummy bears and red/white wines which got lots of press about that, and some marketing gimmicks like the recent Mystery Mueller Milch in Germany, but this is not the place to elaborate. If you want your guests to enjoy a chocolate cake, you have to make a real chocolate cake, with the correct flavor, texture and color.
For completeness, you have the following options instead of making an amber chocolate cake (some already suggested in comments):
make a non-chocolate cake and use food coloring to make it amber
make a standard-color chocolate cake and decorate it with amber icing (again, use food coloring)
make a standard-color chocolate cake with any color icing, or without icing, and have some color contrast at the wedding :)
You are so right about the color issue. If it doesn't look like chocolate, people are unlikely to taste chocolate.
Another possibility is to marble the cake, part with the correct flavors (and dark color), and part with the desired caramel color.
This seems like cheating. But it's smart cheating so +1.
I like it. Instead of marbling, the OP can also bake several layers, some of them chocolate, others colored yellow cake, and stack them.
Much like vanilla or peppermint extract, there are chocolate extracts that will add chocolate flavor but little or no color. They don't generally taste quite right but if you absolutely must have a caramel-colored chocolate cake, it may be your only option. You can even make your own if you can't get it locally. I have not personally tried the linked product or the recipe, they were just top hits from a Google search.
There are also chocolate oils that are even more concentrated but have the same issue with a slightly off flavor.
Whichever of the two you use, you might consider subbing in a bit of white chocolate for texture purposes.
Best of luck in your endeavor... hopefully it will work out.
Why not use a mixture of white chocolate and milk chocolate? Sure, the taste will be less like that of chocolate and more like that of white chocolate, but something has to give...
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.688565 | 2015-03-22T15:41:13 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55951",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"David Richerby",
"Ecnerwal",
"Eileen Mcbride",
"Helen Quinn",
"JOHN NEWBY",
"Jason Clark",
"Majerly Mahusay",
"Michael Newbould",
"Phil Thorpe",
"Reece Bishell",
"Tanya Mills",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132997",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132998",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133004",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133005",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133007",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"mihaela grosu",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
13928 | is there a downside to using a wood mortar and pestle?
I bought a wooden (uhh, stained bamboo?) mortar and pestle today at an asian supermarket. I liked it because it looked nice and it was pretty large, especially for the price. I was also thinking that the larger size would help with peppercorns not flying out of it -- and landing ... somewhere... wait where did that go anyway?
I have to wonder though: are there any downsides to an MP set made of wood?
There are at least three potential downsides:
wood is quite light, so you will not get the benefit of added weight of the pestle for crushing;
many wooden mortars have a smooth texture, which will not aid in the grinding as much as, e.g., a coarse ceramic mortar; and
wood is porous—increasingly so as it dries over time—so it may have the tendency to pick up the flavors of its contents.
Ack, doesn't seem like such a good deal now. Wonder if I can get my money back.
I think you might find that such a pestle and mortar is only used for crushing herbs that are frequently used (every day) in asian cookery, like cilantro or Kaffir lime leaves. It is going to be difficult to clean, and that wood stain might come out into the food - whatever the stain is.
It might not even be intended for food use - perhaps you should have asked when you bought it.
I have seen these large wooden mortar and pestles in Thailand. They use it for all sorts of som tams (spicy salads). The most recognized and popular one being Thai papaya salad. Its made from unripened shredded papaya and is very delicious. It's not hard to make and you can google recipes easily.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.689047 | 2011-04-10T22:20:34 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13928",
"authors": [
"Anna",
"Eileen",
"Jenny H",
"Peggy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29270",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55030",
"jcollum",
"user29192"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
15002 | Why is a tablespoon defined as 20mL in Australia?
In Australia, a tablespoon is defined as 20mL whereas it is 15mL in nearly all other countries.
I'm interested to know where this comes from, and also what other Australian people do about this because the shops here seem to favour the 15mL variety which isn't a whole lot of use for local recipes.
The following snippet from Wikipedia doesn't fully answer your question, but it's at least suggestive of what might have happened: the UK standardized the tablespoon as a volume measure using its “eating spoon” meaning while Australia used its “serving spoon” meaning.
Before about 1700, people generally brought their own spoons to the table. Spoons were carried as personal property in much the same way as people today carry wallets, key rings, etc. From about 1700 the place setting became popular, and with it the "table-spoon," "table-fork," and "table-knife." The 18th century witnessed a proliferation of different sorts of spoons, including the tea-spoon, coffee-spoon, dessert-spoon, and soup-spoon. In the UK, the dessert-spoon and soup-spoon began to displace the table-spoon as the primary implement for eating from a bowl, at which point the name "table-spoon" took on a secondary meaning as a much larger serving spoon. At the time the first edition of the Oxford English Dictionary was published, "tablespoon" (which by then was no longer hyphenated) still had two definitions in the UK: the original definition (eating spoon) and the new definition (serving spoon). By the time of the second edition, the first definition was relegated to "also, occasionally". However the term "tablespoon" referring to a serving spoon has been on the decline in the UK since cooking books became common; it has more and more been used the same way as in the USA due to the measurement system outlined below.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tablespoon
Here's a list of the definition of the tablespoon measure from older recipe books published in different English-speaking countries. It's a short list, but it does somewhat show that the Australian definition evolved to be generally higher (20ml-25ml) than the UK one (around 18ml), with the South African one on the lower end (12.5ml).
Margaret Powell (British) 1970 Tablespoon = 18 ml
Australian and New Zealand Complete cooking 1973 = Tablespoon = 25 ml
Best of Cooking (Hamlyn) - Tablespoon, (Australia) = 20 ml
Best of Cooking (Hamlyn) - Tablespoon, (British) = 17,7 ml
Best of Cooking (Hamlyn) - Tablespoon, (America) 14,2
Indian Cooking, Chowhary 1952 - = Tablespoon = 25 ml
Cook and Enjoy, De Villiers 1971 (South Africa) = Tablespoon = 12,5 ml
Complete South African Cookbook (South Africa) 1979 Tablespoon = 12,5
The Australian Women's weekly 1978 = 20 ml
Source: http://whitegranny.blogspot.com/2008/11/beware-of-tablespoon.html
The proliferation of spoons mentioned in the Wikipedia snippet above is still evident in recipe books today. British recipes occasionally still use a “dessertspoon” to mean a 10ml measure. In Dutch recipes (link to a page in Dutch), a 5ml measure is referred to as a “coffeespoon,” while a “teaspoon” refers to a 3ml measure.
I would basically ignore it. Domestic recipes are generally never that accurate anyway. Does the recipe mention level or heaped tablespoons? Does it say 20 ml for a tablespoon?
For rising agents you may want to be a little more accurate, so how about 1 tablespoon and one teaspoon, or just 4 teaspoons, or even just heap it a little?
I have a few Australian published recipes with dual measurements, and they show tablespoon as 15 ml, so the whole 20 ml thing may not be so universal in Australia in more recent times. Some examples are:
Smoked Loin Roast
Beef Stroganoff II
Many Australians are recent immigrants, including 500,000+ from New Zealand and they all use 15 ml tablespoons
Another issue being that now all the basic kitchen utensils are made in China, so they get what every one else gets, 15 ml
In the history of the tablespoon it has meant many different sizes in many different cultures, from South Africa with 12.5 ml, to India with 25 ml
Most recipe books here say that 1tbsp = 20mL in the back somewhere, although you're probably right that it doesn't matter too much. I just find it weird that it's different here than everywhere else.
Back in history, a tablespoon was what you might call a serving spoon nowadays, perhaps 20ml-30ml, and teaspoons were more like 7ml-8ml. In these parts, old style teaspoons are still common.
Somewhere in the 1960s, in an effort to prevent people having problems with medicinal doses, teaspoons were standardised to 5ml and tablespoons to 15ml in the US and Europe.
Australia has standardised the tablespoon to something that reflects the old usage, although my mother's idea of a tablespoon was actually more like 25ml. It is like those old recipes where a "cup" turns out to be 6 fluid oz ...
I still have the booklet issued to all Australian households by the Government when Australia adopted metric measurements.
The standard adopted by the Australian Government for one tablespoon is 20 ml.
The reason given was that the Australian tablespoon had always been larger than 15 ml, at a fraction under 18 ml, and so 20 ml was the closest measurement.
(It was recognised that in the UK, USA, and NZ, a tablespoon was around 15 ml.) So now, because most such things in stores are mass-produced overseas for world-wide markets, almost all available tablespoons, at 15 ml, are not of the Australian Metric Standard.
A 15mL tablespoon is three 5mL teaspoons. The Australian tablespoon would just be four instead of three. Equivalently, that would be one 15mL tablespoon plus one 5mL teaspoon.
Yeah, so far that's what I've been doing. I'd just like to be able to have a nice 1tbsp measure that works for my local cookbooks.
In Australia, a tablespoon is defined as four teaspoons, equaling to 20 ml (0.68 US fl oz). In writing volume-based recipes, an abbreviation like tbsp. is usually used to refer to a tablespoon, to differentiate it from the smaller teaspoon (tsp.).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.689227 | 2011-05-24T09:24:44 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15002",
"authors": [
"Flash",
"Ye Wang",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54597",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5833",
"samanto"
],
"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
} |
88473 | Matza balls 'explode' at high altitude
We now live in the mountains at 8,500’ (2600 m) and I cannot make matza balls for chicken soup up here. They explode into dust in boiling water. Water boils at 190 F (88 °C) here, that's probably a factor.
I’ve even tried freezing the balls before boiling , but only about half came out right.
What else can I do?
I'm no expert but I wonder if dough hydration is an issue if they're falling apart to dust. Please post your recipe, with particular consideration for anything to do with adding liquid.
when you say explode, do you mean they are violently coming apart, or just not holding together?
Additional clarification needed, such as what recipe you're using, and what you mean by "explode". While it's possible that the matzah balls are disintegrating because of the low temperature of the water, other explanations seem more likely.
I don't have experience of Matza balls , but I wonder if the high altitude means lower pressure, which might be changed by using a pressure cooker?
How are you making your matzah balls? What kind of fat, when do you add them to the water (at boil or earlier?), and how long do you cook them? Do you chill the dough first? Finally, have you made (successful) matzah balls before moving to high altitude, or have you only tried making them since moving to where you are now?
Some recipes for mazta have chemical leavening. Chemical leaveners operate very differently at varied elevations. See here for conversion and tips. This is a very common problem. Judging by the problem, it seems like you were previously closer to sea level and this recipe worked fine. Am I right?
Basically [no pun intended], baking powder is a mixture of desiccant, baking soda, and cream of tartar. When water mixes to make a solution, the chemical reaction ensues releasing CO2 gas as a byproduct of soda bicarbonate and cream of tartar (an acid).
Higher elevation causes this reaction to carry out much faster, and this is how your balls are blowing apart. The solution [no pun intended] is to make a stronger dough with more flour, more kneading, and more powder so that the rise is slower, more controlled, and better tolerated by the ball.
Heat also causes the reaction to take place faster. It may be annoying, but try pulling the soup off to cool for a bit, then bring it slowly back up to temperature.
I initially started boiling 1/2 of the balls when I noticed they totally fell apart. I'm at 7,000 ft. I simply added 1/2 cup matzo meal to the rest (I used two envelopes matzo ball mix) and they turned out perfect!! BTW: I always make up the balls ahead of time on a plate then boil all at the same time.
The answer has more to do with pressure than temperature. The higher your altitude the lower the pressure. Because the water is at a lower pressure than at sea level there are fewer water molecules in a given water volume so the water does not place as much force on the surface of your Matza balls as they cook. That allows them to expand and explode. A pressure cooker would fix the problem or you could try to wrap them in mulsin or similar to simulate pressure. While this may sound silly (I won’t go into the science)you could also try making them bigger.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.689668 | 2018-03-21T01:14:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88473",
"authors": [
"Agos",
"Chris H",
"FuzzyChef",
"Mona Vine",
"Monica Cellio",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6541",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66058",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"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
} |
20214 | What type of cheesecake is the most common in southern US SuperMarkets?
I know there are dozens of types of cheesecake. But I have noticed supermarkets seem to all be making the same type of cake. It has a firm white creamcheese texture that is never tart.
What type of cheesecake is normally found in supermarkets?
The ingredients include (heavy) cream
This strikes me as being impossible to answer accurately without an extensive international research study.
I'll remove my question, if nobody knows what I am talking about
I think the type of cheesecake that Gabriel is describing is fairly specific: it's that generic stuff, not too fluffy, probably no flavor besides vanilla. I don't know if it has a name, but I think it's a reasonable question.
My answer isn't very specific but might help point people who know more about cheesecake in the right direction.
I think Elendil's point was that unless you expect us to read your mind and know what scope you intend (e.g. major supermarkets in Helsinki) we have to go on the only scope you've provided, which appears to be all supermarkets in the world. Why don't you buy one and add its ingredients and a photo of a cross-section?
Fair enough. I will update this post when I get the information.
Google search for various grocery store cheesecakes reveals:
http://www.gianteagle.com/entertain/entertaining-guide/dazzling-desserts (Scroll down a little)
http://www.grocerycouponnetwork.com/images/food-products/Safeway_Select_New_York_Cheesecake.jpg
http://s3-media2.ak.yelpcdn.com/bphoto/wN7AQw4j1DrckCZWxyMgYw/l.jpg
http://images.mysupermarket.co.uk/ProductsDetailed/77/177077.jpg
http://newyork.seriouseats.com/images/20091016cheesecake-sleebox.jpg
Is that what is meant? If so, it appears to be a fairly generic baked New York style cheesecake. Wiki says frozen ones often include sour cream instead of heavy cream, so they'll freeze better.
This is what I was asking about. Thank you. Sorry for the vagueness.
If it's just based on cream cheese and eggs, it's just a generic cheesecake, for which I don't think there's a name besides simply "cheesecake". (Call it "basic" or "plain" for emphasis if you like.) I believe I've seen plenty of this in stores.
If the ingredients include (heavy) cream, then it's a New York-style cheesecake. It's still a very basic one.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.689953 | 2012-01-06T04:13:21 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20214",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Dartagnan",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Gabriel Fair",
"Peter Taylor",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44270",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44292",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8332",
"leah",
"simplyjon"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
19828 | Mayonnaise substitute in cake batter
My wife's chicken cake recipe calls for mayonnaise as one of the batter ingredients. In my opinion, mayonnaise is completely unsuitable for high-temperature processing (as in baking), but I was unable to come up with a substitute for it.
So, my question is, what can we put into cake batter instead of mayonnaise?
Update:
I think mayonnaise is unsuitable for baking because it is an emulsion which separates into its ingredients when heated, emulsifying agents used in a commercial mayo are not particularly healthy, and mayonnaise does not taste any good when it is broken into its components.
The components of the batter are: 6 table spoons of flour, 3 eggs, 200gram mayo, 200gram sour cream.
The components of the filling are: chopped prepared chicken meat, chopped sauteed onions, boiled eggs, etc.
Never heard of a chicken cake, or of any cake which contains mayonnaise. Can you post the whole recipe?
Why do you think it is unsuitable? Have you tried the recipe before? I've been served 'chocolate mayonnaise cake' in the past, and it was delicious. Mayonnaise is, after all, just eggs and oil.
I can only hope you're not trying to make this: http://phineasandferb.wikia.com/wiki/File:Look_at_this_cake,_it_has_a_chicken_in_it.png
@rumtscho, I added the ingredients list.
@slim: I have eaten the cake and it is tasty. Unfortunately commercial mayo is more than just eggs and oil. Since the emulsion breaks up during the heating anyway, I don't see any value in adding all this into my food.
In this recipe, your mayonnaise won't separate. It stops being an emulsion and becomes part of the batter. You know how butter separates when melted by itself, but a batter made with butter is smooth? The same happens here. But both the emulsifiers and the air in the mayo are active ingredients (in baking, structure is more important than constituents!) so I agree with @Sobachatina's answer. You'll make it worse if you substitute.
If you're worried about the ingredients in commercial mayo (which one? the preservative is the only questionable in e.g, Hellmans, the emulsifier is egg) just make your own. Pretty easy to do with an immersion blender, food processor, or stand mixer. Or even by hand with a whisk.
Many cake batters call for mayonnaise. It makes for moister cakes. Using mayonnaise instead of its constituent ingredients adds convenience as well as extra emulsifiers. It is true that mayonnaise doesn't handle high heat on its own but it doesn't have to. It is part of a batter that will set.
If you really don't trust the recipe- the mayonnaise can be replaced with egg yolks that have oil whipped into them to form an emulsion. You can add a little vinegar for flavor. :)
So you're saying that the emulsifiers are active ingredients in the recipe, and are needed for batter to set properly and be moist?
The emulsifiers wouldn't help the cake set- the eggs do that. Emulsifiers will improve the texture. This makes me want to do some experiments with cakes with lecithin added to them to see how much of a difference it would make.
@Sobachatina it definitely makes a difference, commercial bakeries use it all the time.
A suitable substitute for if you dont have mayo is renees ceasar salad dressing. I used about a table spoon in my white cupcake batter with a small amount of vanilla added. The final product was deffinitely more moist and tasted almost the same as regular cupcakes. The only way you could tell there was salad dressing was if you knew it was there.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.690161 | 2011-12-20T17:17:38 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19828",
"authors": [
"Acorn",
"J Day",
"N. Hanks",
"Nick Gammon",
"SeoulComp",
"Sobachatina",
"derobert",
"haimg",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43246",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8400",
"lwblack",
"rfusca",
"rumtscho",
"slim",
"whistlepig"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
19914 | How to boil pork knuckle?
My family would like to eat pork knuckle (ideally the Germany/Austrian style but not necessary as long as they taste fine). I looked up various receipt but most require an oven, which I don't have (No! I do not have an oven!). I also do not have large enough fry pan - just one small enough to cook up the gravy.
I do have a very large boiling pot though; so I wonder in what way can I cook the pork knuckle just by boiling it and still manage to make it tasty. Should I add salt, tomato sauce, oil or what sort of seasoning in the boiling water? And normally in what way and how long it takes to boil pork knuckle to tender?
Some has suggest to boil pork knuckle in Coca Cola to make it tender and taste...Any creative receipt is also welcome.
When I was a child every christmas day we would have ragout des pattes de cochon (pigs feet stew) With meatballs in it. It is definetly possible to cook pigs feet in a pot!
That being said, I have never done it myself. This looks like a good recipe, you can get a good idea of what to do.
http://www.food.com/recipe/rago-t-de-pattes-de-cochon-pork-stew-with-meatballs-398226
Indians call Knuckle recipe Paya - if you google "How To Cook Paya" - you will find many interesting recipes - all are boiled, not roasted - eat with roti (indian bread) or rice.... We don't each Pork and use lamb knuckles instead. Best wishes
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.690449 | 2011-12-23T02:57:03 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19914",
"authors": [
"D Allen",
"Margo taylor",
"RMC",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43431",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43433",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77074"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
7355 | What are the most effective wheat flour substitutes?
While not something I'm overly dogmatic about I try to keep my carbohydrate intake relatively low, especially during the day so as to not become tired.
I've found that in some recipes, particularly for pancakes or breading (for frying) I can substitute almond meal or a combination of almond meal and fine parmesan and usually come out okay. In fact almond meal pancakes turn out great.
I'm interested to hear of any other flour substitutes others have used, even if they aren't low carb as it might serve for inspiration to find further subs.
Cheers.
Wheat Flours at Cook's Thesaurus discusses varieties of wheat flours and their substitutions in general baking, yeast breads, and as breading agents.
And here's a reference discussing "the carbohydrate-content, dietary fiber content and 'net carbs' in all types of flour": Carbohydrates in Flour and Baking Foods.
I consult these pages as jumping off points when I'm altering my baking recipes. I'm a big fan of mixing flours to come up with lower-carbohydrate and more nutritionally sound baked goods (white flour isn't the most nutritional option out there, no matter that it's one of the most common options in baking). Oat, spelt, and soy flours figure in a lot of my recipes (note that using soy flour calls reducing the baking temperature called for in a recipe by 25°F, and that soy has a very pronounced flavor that not everyone likes).
The more you learn about the various flour options, the easier it is to make substitutions with confidence, so I encourage you to do a bit of reading. Of course, if you're rushed, baking sites (ones that sell high-quality flour, such as Bob's Red Mill) tend to tell you right on the page how much of their flour to substitute for wheat flour.
As a general rule, the more whole grain flours you use the better because of their higher fiber contents. If you subtract the fiber from the carbohydrate count, you find the net carbohydrate of the flour in question, and it's the net carbohydrate that tells you how your sugar levels will be affected. One carbohydrate serving is 15 grams of carbohydrate total.
One cup of all-purpose flour has 95 grams of carbohydrate and 3 grams of dietary fiber, which gives each cup a net carbohydrate amount of 92 grams (which is 6.13 carb. servings). One cup of whole wheat flour, on the other hand, has 87 grams of carbohydrate and 15 grams of dietary fiber, which gives each cup a net carbohydrate amount of 72 grams (which is 4.8 carb. servings). Even if you're baking a bread that isn't particularly low in carbohydrate, getting the benefit of the increased nutrition and fiber from a whole grain flour will benefit you.
If you are looking for wheat flour substitutes, you might want to look into gluten free baking. While it's more than you need, in gluten-free baking no wheat flour is used. Note that gluten-free baking has many subtleties and complexities (as opposed to almond meal and parmesan breading, which is quite tasty and similar to panko or other breadcrumbs).
If you want to just mix in other grains with your wheat flour, the book Good to the Grain might provide the sort of thing you are looking for.
On this Q&A site I've seen rye touted as a low-carb flour, and you can make 100% rye sourdough bread, for example.
Coconut Flour can also be used in place is several recipes
Some Recipes featuring coconut flour
I make a lot of GF food and coconut flour is awesome!
Flours/Meals
Flaxseed (linseed) meal is a favorite flour of mine. While I prefer golden over brown, but they are both quite tasty. ¼ cup (28 g) has over 6 g of omega-3s and only 0.5 g of net carbs, as most of the carbs it contains are fiber. The coarser texture and nuttier flavor of flaxseed meal make it more suited to types of recipes that would be fitting for whole wheat flour: pancakes, quick breads, muffins, crackers, flatbreads, and yeast-risen breads. In my experience — albeit, limited, as I don't generally bake sweeter things like cakes and cookies — it is less suited to desert-type recipes, as the texture seems out of place. Note that the soluble fiber it contains tends to want to hold onto moisture for dear life and not let go. In cases like that, it works well to pair it with other "drying agent" type flours like whey protein powder and egg white protein powder (see below). It doesn't make a good breading or filler (i.e. for meatballs or meatloaf) because the soluble fiber can result in a slimy mouthfeel. Flaxseed can also be cheaper than other types of flours (e.g. almond flour).
Almond meal or almond flour is another low-carb flour. It has a more neutral flavor and fine texture that lends itself to desert-type recipes (cookies and cakes). Slightly higher in net carbs than flaxseed and also more expensive. Almond flour is relatively similar to flaxseed in its absorbency, at least when compared to some other flours (i.e. coconut flour). I've found 4 Tbsp of almond flour + 1 Tbsp of psyllium husk powder to be equivalent to 5 Tbsp of flaxseed meal.
Coconut flour is another low-carb flour. It has a fine texture and sweeter flavor, but it is extremely absorbent. Many recipes combat this problem by simply throwing more eggs at it, with the unsurprising consequence that the baked goods are notoriously eggy. A better solution is to mimic the function of an egg with, say, 40 g of a low-carb milk (almond milk, buttermilk, etc.), and a small amount of psyllium husk powder (to help retain moisture and contain gasses), and unflavored whey protein (to help provide the structure an egg provides).
While not a viable flour in and of itself, Vital Wheat Gluten is a staple in making low-carb yeast-risen breads (yes, they are possible). An example recipe is https://www.reddit.com/r/ketorecipes/comments/8xe3np/ultimate_keto_bread_v20/. (In baker's percents, that recipe's about 26% flaxseed meal, 26% oat fiber, and 48% vital wheat gluten. It also borrows techniques used in gluten-free baking like using xanthan gum and eggs to help improve structure). I've been able to adapt that same bread recipe to flatbreads, pizza, and tortillas.
Wheat bran and wheat germ are lower-carb parts of the wheat kernel that when used in small amounts can provide some wheat texture and flavor without all of the carbs.
While not really a flour, oat fiber is a useful no-calorie, no-carb filler. It's used in the yeast dough recipe above as a filler to lower the calorie count somewhat (as flaxseed meal is fairly high in fat).
Whey protein powder is a low-carb "drying-agent" type flour ingredient. It can help boost the protein content and provide structure. It also helps dry out ingredients like flaxseed meal. For example, I developed a low-carb buttermilk pancake recipe that uses 60% flaxseed meal and 40% whey protein powder. (100% flaxseed resulted in pancakes that had set on the outside, yet were raw on the inside). Unflavored whey protein powder also makes a great breading component for fried foods.
Grated parmesan cheese also makes a great breading component. (I usually dredge in unflavored whey protein first, then egg, then parmesan cheese). Once it's fried, you'd never know it was parmesan cheese. Parmesan also makes a good thickener in savory type dishes.
Other flours I've heard of but haven't used are lupin flour, resistant wheat starch, carbalose flour, wheat protein isolates, and carb-quick.
Thickeners/Gelling agents
Xanthan gum, psyllium husk powder, guar gum, are all low-carb and useful in helping retain moisture and gasses in baked products. Xanthan gum, unflavored gelatin, and vital wheat gluten are sometimes used in cookies to provide chew and/or prevent a crumbly texture. Psyllium husk powder works well to retain gasses in quick breads and yeast breads. It needs to be used in small amounts or otherwise combined with drying-type ingredients to allow the middle of baked goods to get fully baked. For example, https://www.dietdoctor.com/recipes/the-keto-bread uses a combination of almond flour, psyllium husk powder, and egg whites to create a quick-bread dinner roll.
I am currently using a low carb "flour" blend of Bamboo Fiber, Almond Flour, egg white protein powder in my recipes. Supposedly, you can use it 1:1 in place of white flour. I have been having great success with it, and enjoying it. Bamboo Fiber is new to me but i'm very excited about what i've experienced since changing to this flour blend. If you want to know more, look up Victoria's Keto Kitchen on youtube videos - I believe she is the one who perfected it, and from that you can see how many grams of each of the above listed ingredients she uses to create the "flour" blend.
Easy cooked milled oats that is steeped in water for a few hours dissolve. This mix can be used to make an good waffle recipe.
I have too much sugar in my blood, unfortunately. My cooking style has changed to adapt to this, and hopefully keep me slim.
I recently tried “Carbalose flour “ I have only used it for a pizza crust so far. Carbalose is a lot like regular flour but, it is low in carbohydrates and does not have the issues that other alternatives have when it comes to binding. I found I had to use double the yeast in my dough to get a good pizza crust.
The Manufacture claims it has 80% less carbs than regular wheat flour, which is ideal for me. I needed to drop the oven temperature by 25° compared to regular recipes for pizza crust. I had to add a little extra cooking time as well.
I’m still exploring this new flour, and will post more about this, as I continue to experiment with it.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.690697 | 2010-09-16T04:27:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7355",
"authors": [
"Daniel Díaz Carrete",
"Elspeth",
"Eric Goodwin",
"Jakatak",
"OmniaFaciat",
"bthatch",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15078",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15079",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15105",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15110",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2094",
"user15079"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
25159 | Japanese cold soba broth?
I remember having been in Japan and ate several meals of cold soba. Their cold soba broth taste like soy sauce with only a stint of saltiness; it doesn't taste like it's made of sushi type sweetened soy sauce; neither does it taste like a simple mixture of soy sauce and water.
Instead of using pre-made cold soba broth, I want to replicate these Japanese cold soba broth at home. Googling directs me to different recipes: some suggest mixing soy sauce with chicken broth (I can't recall any stock-ish taste); some suggest mixing with Mirin (alcohol in a soba broth - I don't think so..).
Does any know how to make cold soba broth or at least know the essential ingredients?
The basis for any sort of Japanese soup dish is going to be dashi stock, a stock made of fish and seaweed. It has a much lighter flavor than chicken broth, so you might not have identified it easily. You can buy it in a powder form for convenience, and it can be sprinkled into other liquids rather than reconstituted.
This recipe is for soba with a dipping sauce, but it'll give you a good idea of the flavor profile you're looking for: Dashi stock plus kaeshi, which is made of soy sauce, mirin, and sugar (and simmered so it's not strongly alcoholic).
I've got to disagree with one of your statements. As long as they can get the ingredients and boil water anyone can make a basic dashi stock. That being said, powdered Hon Dashi (http://kobikitchen.wordpress.com/2010/05/26/what-is-hon-dashi/) is a useful thing to have if you are in a hurry or can't get konbu or bonito flake. As David Chang says "...there’s no reason in the world not to have a jar of instant dashi powder on hand: it’s cheap, it has some flavor, and it really is instant. Sometimes it’s a lifesaver"
@Didgeridrew I was thinking from scratch as in hand-shaving your bonito and all that -- I forgot about the existence of shaved bonito flakes. Mea culpa,.
I didn't consider hand-shaving bonito... or starting from fresh skipjack either...(http://www.cheftaro.com/foodamentals/how-katsuobushi-made) So I'll take a little of that culpa too.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.691339 | 2012-07-21T05:56:33 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25159",
"authors": [
"Dave McDonald",
"Didgeridrew",
"George McFadden",
"Joleen Garza",
"Laura Reininger",
"R Tyler McLaughlin",
"TastyScience",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57515",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57547",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"knat"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
7490 | What is the difference between Alaskan King Salmon and Scottish Salmon?
I'm considering throwing a dinner party, and I don't have much experience cooking salmon. What are the main differences between these two types of salmon in terms of price, taste, and cooking methods?
Price is going to depend primarily on location. If you live in Scotland then obviously Scottish salmon will be cheaper, but if you're in America, specifically the Pacific Northwest, then Alaskan King will be cheaper.
Alaskan King, or Chinook, salmon is generally wild, generally caught in the Pacific Northwest, often but not exclusively in Alaska. Scottish salmon is generally farm-raised Atlantic salmon, and as far as that goes is essentially identical to farm-raised salmon from Chile or Norway.
Price: hobodave's comment is correct that the price will vary based on location, but in fact the king salmon will be more expensive almost everywhere. Generic farmed Scottish salmon is a commodity product that generally sells for about $1 more than other farmed salmon for no particularly good reason, but wild salmon can easily cost twice as much regardless. Short of actually being in the Pacific Northwest it's likely that the Scottish is substantially cheaper.
Taste: the quality comparison is the big one here rather than species. King is usually treated much better (shipped quicker, wild diet) because it's not a commodity, but not necessarily. Scottish will vary depending on the farmer, but I think you have to prefer the King to any generically-farmed Scottish salmon.
Cooking methods: no necessary difference. Smoked on a plank is a common method in the Pacific Northwest, but no real reason you couldn't do either in that way. Pick your favorite method.
I have had wild Scottish Salmon before, hard to tell whether how it compared to Alaskan, but was definitely better than farmed salmon. Seems to me the redder the better, although now you have to watch for artificially dyed salmon.
All salmon is colored in more or less the same way -- by ingesting astaxanthin or canthaxanthin, from the shells of shrimp and krill that they eat in the wild or as a feed additive in a farm (it actually helps them grow better in addition to coloring the flesh). The notion that some salmon is "dyed" and some isn't doesn't really hold. That said, wild does generally have a fuller color than farmed, in no small part because coloring is expensive.
There are five significant species of Pacific salmon, and only one species of Atlantic salmon, which actually runs into the east coast of North America as well as in Europe.
In terms of cooking, the same processes apply to all - you don't have to adjust for the species, the process works similarly.
For taste, wild salmon definitely tastes better, and the Atlantic salmon is mostly farmed, but you can buy wild Scottsh salmon.
There is a substantial industry in wild Scottish salmon, so if you know you are buying that type you are buying the best. Here in the UK Norwegian salmon sells for high prices which it does not warrant, they farm it just like the Scots.
For taste, go for wild Atlantic salmon, then fresh wild Pacific salmon. Beyond those considerations, the farmed stuff is worth having - balance the local price against what you are going to do with it. If you're going for one of those flavor-drowning salmon mousse recipes, a can of Cohoe goes a long way ...
Firstly, I'm British, so I may be biased, but in my experience, farmed Atlantic Salmon tastes just as good as wild. It's certainly cheaper, and they're not exactly farmed intensively like battery chickens.
Speaking from personal preference, my wife would not be happy if I brought Pacific salmon home. I did once, and the flakes were smaller, tighter and less succulent than the Atlantic we normally have. Never again. Curiously, if you buy cheap frozen salmon in the UK, it's Pacific, which has never made sense to me. It would do for a mousse or pie, but for a fillet or whole fish, we find it just too coarse.
In terms of cooking, you can do almost anything, although "gently" would be my keyword. You can marinate it in pretty much any spice/herb marinade, although dill is the classic herb to go with salmon. You can grill (broil) it, steam it, pan-fry it. I prefer to put it in a dish with some fish stock and bake for 15-20 minutes at about 300F (150C), with foil over the top. You can tell it's cooked when the shine has gone off the flesh throughout. Then a dill cream sauce over the top is divine. There are literally so many ways of cooking salmon, I couldn't choose a favourite!
With all due respect to the Brits and Scots (and certainly the Canadians), The Pacific salmon fishery is the largest producer of the best quality salmon. ( The Russian fishery I would consider as Pacific). I have never fished a Scottish Wild Run, I believe most of those fish are taken by the remains of the Aristocracy as sport fish. (read expensive).
If you are NOT within 100 miles of the point of origin, the lowest cost salmon is Farmed. Almost all farmed salmon are Atlantic, dyed color or not.
Farmed salmon have a milder flavor because of a limited diet, selective breeding, and antibiotics.
2.Wild salmon have flavor based on the type and size of salmon, (using USA terms, mild to strong flavor,) 'Steelhead'(rainbow trout returning from ocean), Chum, Coho (also called Silvers), Pinks (pink flesh), Kings (also called Chinook) (larger fish, redder color,stronger flavor), Sockeye, (deep red flesh, very strong flavor).
My Father grew up seining on the Columbia River Bar, sometimes when young I helped smoke salmon with local tribes. My mother hated cooking salmon because it "stunk up the house".
Cooking: Most chefs use heavy sauces (egg sauce, creamed dill type sauces) when cooking stronger flavor salmon. Milder pink fleshed, light red color salmon can use any French sauce for trout, simply use Escoffier or Larousse cookbooks. For smoking, the Scots and the Norwegians have techniques on the Internet. The American/Alaskan natives have theirs mostly secret. It is very suitable for outdoor,backyard grilling, oven baked pain with lemon and butter, maybe a bottled Chinese Oyster sauce. Great poached in wine, or poached and served later cold on a salad. Or bake a whole small fish stuffed with crab, shrimp or ? stuffing.
Wild Kings, Sockeye, are far superior to the Atlantic version. They spend more time gorging on krill and by extension, plankton, giving their flesh it's beautiful color, fatty oils, and silky texture. The farm-raised stuff is crap full of chemicals and bacteria. Atlantic stocks have been infiltrated by farmed fish for a century now, diluting the dna and spreading disease, Sea Lice, etc. The preponderence of lineolic acids and omega 3s set them apart from their Atlantic cousins and put them in a league with Iberico pigs and dry-aged grass-fed beef. When given the chance chefs always choose wild Pacific
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.691546 | 2010-09-21T13:45:26 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7490",
"authors": [
"Ali Murray",
"Carissa",
"Dennis",
"Manako",
"Mary Therese",
"Paul",
"billyjojo",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116648",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15384",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15417",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58729",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79292",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/986",
"lbonn",
"resultsway",
"sakthivel",
"sunn0"
],
"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
} |
32167 | Can adequate heating transform spoiled food into safe food?
Suppose I have some food that became unsafe or contaminated by any means besides explicitly adding dangerous substances. It could be past the expiration date, or handled unsafely by leaving at room temperature too long, etc. Another possibility to consider is botulism from damaged cans.
Would it be possible to resurrect food from these situations, making it safe, by sufficiently heating it?
I highly doubt it, once food's gone off, it's gone off and you're likely to regret the choice to try reheating it.
If the spoilage has messed with the taste or texture (and it may well have), safe may not mean you'd want to eat it.
I'm much more concerned about the safety than its taste; though obviously if it tasted off or bad I would discard it. The problem is that contrary to popular belief, smell and taste can result in false negatives when trying to determine if something is safe to eat.
How expensive is this food that it's worth the risk to even attempt this rather than just throwing it out?
Also, does this question really break any new ground that wasn't covered in Why is it dangerous to eat meat which has been left out and then cooked? or various similar questions?
That'd depend on the exact microbes involved in making it unsafe (or, since you probably don't know, the short answer is "no").
There are basically two ways microbial growth makes food unsafe: either by the presence of the microbes themselves, or by toxins the microbes create. Sufficiently heating the food will kill enough microbes, so those ones will be taken care of. Unfortunately, some of the toxins are heat stable, and it just isn't possible to heat the food to a high enough temperature to destroy these toxins without turning the food to charcoal.
The FDA's Bad Bug Book gives details about specific pathogens and their heat-stable and heat-labile toxins.
As others have said, this will depend on what has caused the food to spoil. I would add however, that there is a third route that has not been mentioned - spores. Spores are basically kind of the bacterial equivalent of a space suit - bacteria can form spores when conditions are bad and as spores can often survive extremely hostile conditions, including heat, acid, bleach, etc. Spores are especially important in the case of botulism.
If the food has spoiled due to botulism, there is not much you can do to make sure it is safe. You may be able to kill the bacteria and destroy toxin directly in the food by prolonged heating (at least according to the USDA fact sheet below), but even so the spores of the bacteria are heat resistant. If you consume the spores, they can activate and become live bacteria which will then produce the toxin directly in your body, and it is the toxin which can cause serious or fatal damage.
For a good summary of botulism and botulinum toxin, see:
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/food-safety-education/get-answers/food-safety-fact-sheets/foodborne-illness-and-disease/clostridium-botulinum/ct_index
From the link you posted, "these spores are found everywhere. While the spores are generally harmless, the danger can occur once the spores begin to grow out into active bacteria and produce neurotoxins.". The spores aren't a problem (except possibly children under 1 year in age).
Spores would also be a problem if you were to re-cook and then save leftovers again, thinking it was safe. The spores can then reactivate and grow and produce toxins, basically providing a giant head start to bacterial growth.
Man! Don't even risk it!
Toxins, spores, and the like reap peoples lives every day.
If any question on a food in fridge throw it out!
Your freezer is your freind in barf, sweat, hurt and die prevention, Its easy and safe right?
Otherwise don't take anyone's word on refrigerator spoilage made good to eat again tactics.
Are you nuts? Don't even think about it, bin it.
It really depends on the toxin, but honestly, since you probably will not be able to know that in advance, don't bother, just throw it out.
You've posted some good answers, but you've also posted a few like this that are essentially just information that was already in another answer. Your answers will be more valuable (and collect more upvotes) if they provide new information.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.692074 | 2013-02-24T02:59:51 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32167",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Cascabel",
"DJ Robinson",
"Don Snyder",
"Jeff Axelrod",
"Kathy Livermore",
"Mordio",
"New2Math",
"Thomas Augustyn",
"Umesh Patadiya",
"Wilhelm Leitner",
"amanda witt",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139224",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74065"
],
"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
} |
27348 | What's the purpose of adding water to an egg wash?
Many recipes I've seen call for beating a tablespoon or so of water in with the egg for an egg wash.
What is the effect of adding the water to the egg wash when baking?
The proteins in a fresh egg are too viscous, even when thoroughly beaten, to wash a baked good.
The water thins the proteins so you get a nice glaze instead of a layer of scrambled egg.
Older eggs have sometimes degraded enough that they don't need the water but it is easier to always add water than to make a subjective judgement on the state of your egg proteins.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.692444 | 2012-09-23T20:21:10 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27348",
"authors": [
"Davey",
"Gourav Damotra",
"Kim Beasley-Barnett",
"Mark Cassidy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61611"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
41104 | What temperature to freeze meat at to preserve quality?
My new refrigerator has a configurable-temperature compartment. Samsung claims that the "soft freeze" mode will keep meat and fish fresh longer.
When you select Soft Freeze mode 23 °F (-5 °C) regardless of the
overall temperature setting of the refrigerator. This feature helps
keep meat and fish fresh for longer.
However, every reputable reference I've found claims that you should freeze meats below 0 °F. What would the effect be of storing meat at 23 °F rather than at 0 °F other than presumably shorter storage time?
Summary: think of the so-called 'soft freeze' as an extension of your refrigerator, not of your freezer.
The major things that happen to frozen foods that degrade their quality are:
Expansion of ice crystals during warming and cooling cycles of the freezer, degrading the texture of the food item (making meats, for example, exude more juice or even appear weepy)
Enzymatic or chemical changes over time. These are slowed more and more the colder the freeze.
Fats become rancid due to interaction with oxygen, again slowed the colder the freeze
Freezer burn, as water sublimates from the food, again exacerbated by warming and cooling cycles and the freezer, and proceeding more quickly at warmer temperatures
You will note that almost everything that degrades the quality of the food items proceeds faster at warmer temperatures (even when those relatively warmer temperatures are below freezing).
So, in general, the colder you can keep your freezer (within reasonable limits), the longer the quality life of the food products stored within it.
As reported by the University of Illinois Extension, food is safely stored at 0 F (-18 C). All (relevant, before someone points out cryophiles) bacteria are dormant at these temperatures. The University of Nevada Las Vegas indicates
Most foods will maintain good quality longer if the freezer
temperature is -10 to -20 °F. At temperatures between 0 and 32 °F, food
deteriorates more rapidly. Fluctuating temperatures, such as those in
self-defrosting freezers, also may damage food quality. Do not plan to
store frozen foods for the maximum suggested time if your freezing
unit cannot maintain zero degree temperatures.
The soft freeze temperature of 23 F / -5 C simply does not meet these standards, and is not useful for long term freezing.
So given all of this, what is the point of the soft-freeze feature of your new refrigerator? It is to allow you to keep food ready to use fairly quickly, as meats will not generally freeze completely solid at these borderline freezing temperatures, and are quicker to warm for preparation. It allows you to hold them for longer than you could at normal refrigerator temperatures, but not to store for the long term as in freezing to the recommended temperatures.
This is in line with the information given by Samsung:
The Soft-Freeze temperature helps keep meats or fish fresh longer.
So if I understand correctly, it sounds like you're saying that it's not going to improve the quality of the meat vs. sub-zero freezing; that instead it's a matter of thawing more quickly and conveniently?
That is correct; in fact the quality will be worse than sub-zero freezing. It is meant as an alternative to the refrigerator compartment, not your main freezer.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.692533 | 2014-01-12T19:04:58 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41104",
"authors": [
"Bouncy",
"Jeff Axelrod",
"Mitzi Smith",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Scott",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95730",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95731",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95732",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95736",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95746"
],
"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
} |
21569 | Why should I let bread cool before slicing and eating?
Many recipes for bread and such suggest that bread should be fully cooled (like 2 hours or so) before eating. It's sooooo tasty right out of the oven - why wait? Does something important happen in the cooling time that's worth waiting for?
Short answer? It isn't actually done baking yet. ;) The answers below have the details.
It is because of the way starch retrogrades. It does so in stages. The first stage needs between 1 and 2 hours, the second one a few days.
You have probably seen it more clearly in starch-thickened puddings: they thicken a bit on stovetop, but are only ready to unmold after a few hours, else they wuoldn't keep their shape. In a bread, the starch granules are the same way: right after baking, they contain too much moisture.
Sure, if you eat the bread right away, the aroma is very good. But the texture is problematic. It gets doughy and dense at the smallest amount of pressure. Tearing instead of cutting helps a bit. And if you are at home, eating with your family, go for it and eat the tasty still-hot bread. It is especially good with soft, low-gluten breads made with AP flour with the least amount of bran (50% milling grade or even less), my grandma would say that they "melt in the mouth" when they are hot. But if you serve bread slices to guests, or want to spread something on the bread, wait for its starch to set.
On a side note, the second stage of starch retrogradation is the reason why you should use day-old bread for crumbs for thickening, and the third stage is the one which makes bread inedible. But this goes too far away from the original question.
Can you rush it - the cooling - or does it need to happen slowly?
You can rush it a bit by using a cooling rack, and having some air flow over the bread, but it may dry the crust out a bit.
Something very important happens- a lot of steam escapes and the proteins set up.
We will usually eat one loaf of each batch right when it comes out- but it is very tender and moist. Delicious but difficult to slice without smashing and not good for a sandwich. Perhaps not what someone following the recipe would expect.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.692911 | 2012-02-21T17:53:14 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21569",
"authors": [
"Dan",
"Daniel Samuel",
"Dmitry Grigoryev",
"Sam Ley",
"Steve Ellis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47856",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47858",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47859",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9091",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
21432 | What temperatures do low-medium-high on the stove correspond to?
I'm quite suspicious that my electric stove runs hot. Recipes that suggest medium-high on my stove are incredibly, incredibly hot and you can feel 'high' radiating heat from across the kitchen.
As such, I've semi-recently purchased an IR thermometer - what pan surface temperature should low, medium-low,medium,medium-high, and high approximately register as?
It might not be a bad idea to have a qualified repair person check the stove. It may be unsafe, and/or it may be using far more energy than is necessary or helpful.
Yes, Wye vs Delta wiring confusion could show exactly the effect described. If you have no idea what I mean, have an electrician look at it.
They don't correspond to a temperature, they correspond to a rate of heat input.
The elements in your oven are connected to a thermostat with regulates their temperature, they are really constant heat/fixed temperature devices, like the heat in your home. The oven turns the elements on and off to regulate temperature, but the elements are only ever ON or OFF.
The stovetop elements, by contrast, are variable heat/variable temperature. There is no thermostat, but the elements can be variably adjusted between MAX and OFF. For every setting the temperature will just keep getting hotter and hotter (unless something is removing the heat, like cooking food) - the higher settings will just get hotter faster.
The important thing to know (for an electric range) is the wattage of the elements - most 8" elements are ~2500W, and most 6" elements are ~1500W. But there is a lot of variability. Additionally, if you are living in a home with 240V power but have recently lived in an apartment (which likely had 208V power, but 240V elements installed in the oven, even if you didn't realize it), your heater elements will seem much hotter than before. It is also possible that the oven maker or previous owner installed higher wattage elements (perhaps by installing elements intended for a 208V service in a home with 240V service, which would have the effect of "turbocharging" them a bit).
Temperature measured with an IR thermometer may not be useful for you to determine if your oven is hotter than usual, since an empty pan on Low will still reach 400+ degrees (it will just get there slower).
What might be more useful is to find out what setting people do certain cooking tasks at, and see if that is different than what works on your oven. You can also remove the elements and find the voltage/wattage stamped on the bottom - let us know what those values are and we may be able to tell you if they are abnormally high.
Personally, I sweat onions on 4/10, fry an egg at 6/10, simmer soup at 2/10, and maintain 1 gallon water at a consistent, but not vigorous boil at 8/10.
Hmmm...I have an empty pan on low, I'm going to monitor temp. My stove burners don't have a wattage marked.
We could probably do a little informal experiment if you used a pan that many people have, like a 10" Lodge Cast Iron? Then you could compare temperature at 30 sec, 60 sec, 90 sec, etc. That would give us the clearest view of RATE, which is the important quantity here.
So, this just totally isn't my experience here. I set my burner on low-medium and after about 15 minutes it had risen to ~ 380. In the last 20 minutes it hasn't risen a single degree. By that logic, 380F would be the max of my stove. I turn it to medium and within seconds it jumps to 450....so, explain that?
Note, I'm not saying you're wrong about how they work, I'm just trying to justify what I see empirically.
You are seeing the effect of equilibrium - the heating element is pumping heat IN, the pan is radiating heat OUT, and at some temperature the IN and OUT will match, and the temperature will stabilize. But this will be very pan dependent, and could be hazardous to test in every case because some pans/settings will form an equilibrium that would be above a safe temperature for non-stick surfaces, or in some cases, could melt thinner aluminum pans. If we tried the same pan that you are using on a few stoves, we could get a better comparison of different equilibrium temps, which would be useful.
(This is a 10" Lodge griddle) that was my suspicion, but then it means that there's still a practical temperature for each setting/pan/food combo. Low and medium do not correspond to the same temp if left on long enough - which is the answer above.
I've got a 10" Lodge Skillet, which should be pretty close. I'll try it out and give you a low and medium equilibrium temp. Though it should be noted that these equilibrium temps aren't that useful for cooking, because they will drop very quickly when food is in the pan, and many cooking processes depend on pumping heat into the foot at a certain speed, rather than a max temp. What they can be good for is comparing different stove tops against each other.
So, fun fact. Leaving my stove on high for 15 minutes or so was enough to ignite whatever previously charred bits of whatever were left in the drip pan. There's a reason for a fire extinguisher in the kitchen.
I've got the 10" Skillet too, I'll fire it up on the lowest setting and medium. Any above that starts to take my seasoning off the pan :/
10" Lodge skillet - 15 minutes on 4/11 - 360F. 4 more minutes on 6/11 got to 470F and started to smoke, so I backed it off.
Mine has seven positions, trying to match yours decimal-wise - 10" Lodge skillet 2.5/7 340F - 4 more minutes on ~3.8 (just under 4)/7 - 580F.
Just a nit-pick. Stove-top burner controls have a thermostat fully contained inside the switch. It's a bi-metal spring where turning the know adjusts the tension on the spring, causing the heating element to stay on longer/shorter. There is no feedback to the thermostat from the burner. In practice, you can think of it as a sort of timer that controls the on/off duty cycle.
Steve - apartment buildings supplied with 120/208V three-phase power aren't transformed to 240V. They can't be, because the apparent 208V is due to the 120 degree shift between the phases, and transformers can only affect magnitude, not phase angle. Because of this, there are many situations where 240V appliances will run at 208V - for a heating element this isn't a big deal, it will just run at a slightly lower wattage, since the resistance of the element is fixed. I design commercial and residential electrical distribution systems and we run into this all the time.
Power for a purely resistive element is V^2/R... Going from 208V to 240V on the same element means a 33% increase in its power output....
Here is what cook surface temperatures correspond to these labels:
High: 450° to 650°+
Medium-High: 375° to 449°
Medium: 325° to 374°
Medium-Low: 250° to 324°
Low: < 225° to 249°
On my electric stove, I've so far roughly figured out this system, using an IF thermometer, measuring a matte cooking surface:
High: 5 to 10 = 465° to 700°
Medium-High: 4.0 = 429°
Medium-Low: 2.8 = 272°
I'd say calibrate your own electric range, you should be able to find a reliable thermometer for under $20. Use a flat pan, preferably enameled steel, put some oil in it with a high smoke point, and measure away. Careful not to damage your pan, of course.
It's possible that the common quick-boil feature serves to distort the heat output - I do know someone with a gas stove where the highest setting is quick-boil, and there's a similar temperature distortion (where the simmer setting is much hotter than it should be, etc).
This is probably in Fahrenheit, but you should have made that clear.
Rather than empty pan temperature, I suggest adding a quantity (like 2 cups) of water and measuring the time from off to boil. As other posters have indicated, stoves vary in power (heat input over time) without respect to temperature. By the way, electric ovens usually come in constant power (except those with "preheat" and "clean" settings -- which use the broil as well as bake element) and a thermostat (which is a switch activated by a temperature sensor) to turn the element on and off. (the knob for the burner eyes also has a thermostat, but it's not connected to the eye -- it uses a tiny heater inside the switch assembly to open and close a bi- metal switch -- it's turning on and off all the time. They use these because they're relatively cheap.)
Assuming that your electric stove elements are "overheating," you can simply not use the "high" setting. Electrical heating elements have negative temperature coefficients -- resistance (and power) goes down as the temperature of the element goes up. Also, as the element gets brighter, more energy is radiated and less is conducted, which means that a lot more energy is required for not much change in temperature once the element starts glowing brightly (you feel the radiant energy from across the room). When heating elements fail, they just stop working -- they won't catch fire or explode.
The biggest problem of too much power is that food gets too hot on the bottom of pots and pans. The food then sticks, cooks unevenly, or is overcooked. The best solution for that is to get to know your stove really well. The IR thermometer is great, but it's great for measuring the temperature of your food and hot oil. The temperature of the bottom of an empty pan is pretty useless information. Also, most IR thermometers have an upper limit of 400f or less. Since most foods char at less than 400f, they're great for food.
In my experience, burners vary in calibration pretty significantly. As Sam Ley has pointed out some electric burners may even be installed with the wrong voltage settings, causing them to operate outside of their calibrations.
What I've done for low, medium and high settings in recipes is to develop my own sense of what's low, medium and high. This can be as precise or rough, but universal.
An example of precise would be using an IR thermometer to read pan temps after a fixed time on the stove, which sounds like what you're after. I've only used my IR gun for bbq cooking, since I wanted to make sure I was getting the best possible sear on my steaks.
An example of rough and universal is what I do for stove top--use the smoke point of a common oil, i.e. canola oil, as an indicator of how much heat the stove can deliver in a fixed time.
My personal experience has been that medium-high and high on many recipes means canola oil is slightly smoking and quickly smoking, respectively. Medium would boil a few drops of water in under 5 seconds, whereas low would be where a few drops of water just barely sizzle, if at all. All this is on a medium-thickness saucepan, not cast iron or a cheap, thin skillet (i.e. 5 dollar pan from Ikea)
The advantage of the rough and universal method is that it can be applied to calibrate when switching cooking environments. I've used it while cooking at friends' houses and in vacation homes.
If the stove does not use any thermostatic mechanism, there is a way to find out what wattage the hobplates are actually running at: Make sure your home is as "electrically quiet" (nothing turned on that doesn't need to be) as it can be, then run the hobplate with a big pot of water on it for a given time, and check your electricity meter for what is being consumed - if, eg, you get 0,6 kWh after running half an hour, the plate is effectively running at 1200W.
Quicker way: IF you can access a few cm of the actual wires going to the stove (no need to be able to make an electrical contact!), get or borrow a clamp current meter, measure current and multiply by voltage to get wattage.
You can calculate the power actually reaching the water as well.... (You might want to close it to limit losses...). 4,2kJ heats up 1kg (or 1ℓ) of water 1 °(Celsius / Kelvin)... If you are at sea level (boiling at 100°C) and 1l of water started at 20°C and boils after 5 min (300s), the power is ((80*4.2k)/300) W = 1.12kW
I have found that, using an IR thermometer to read pan bottom temperature after 5 minutes of heating (the temperature is no longer rising), that high corresponds to 375 degrees F, medium high to 330 degrees, medium to 300 degrees, and low to about 275 degrees.
empty-pan temperatures depend on both stove model and pan construction/size. 2) stovetop cooking temperatures depend on many different factors including amount of food you are cooking; the achieved empty-pan temperatures at some point of time are rarely useful for any kind of decision.
Electric frying pans go up to 400 degs. Judging from that, the pots and pans on your range don't need to be heated above 400 or 500 degs, for any cooking task. (If the heating element on your range is glowing light red, it's between 800 and 900 degs.)
Just because a particular appliance (which is limited by the power available through the outlet) has a peak temperature doesn't imply that is the highest needed temperature for all similar forms of cooking.
Some commercial equipment, as well as gas stoves, can go hotter ... while the given range might be what is needed for MOST cooking tasks, as well as being the best range to restrict yourself to if you want to be SAFE even if inexperienced.... sometimes it is rather helpful to be able to preheat the bottom of an empty wok to 400 degrees. Centigrade, that is.
Looking at Sam's comment on top, I must disagree. A newer stove will have different electrical components the the VERY old stove in my apartment, but both are shooting for the same thing. The idea that one setting simply determines the rate of climb to a max wattage is incorrect. The elements in the oven are switched on and off at a rate that is determined by the set temperature, and the set temperature is what determines the rate of temperature rise in the food. I am going to make a guess here and say it may not go completely off, but rather partially off so you don't have any sharp current spikes, but I would have to look at the electrical schematic to be better informed about that. Now as far as the stove is concerned, on an older one such as mine, everything is purely resistive. In other words it is nothing more than a matter of limiting the current going through the heating element. When the burner is set to low, less current. When the burner is set to high, more current flows through the element. Since the burner element is a fixed resistance, the different setting choices, low, high etc., will have a produce higher or lower temperature being emitted from the element. And just like the oven,food will cook more quickly if the temperature is higher. As anyone who has accidentally left a burner set at low overnight like, ahem, me, can tell you that it never reaches the cherry red that a burner set on high will after only a few minutes.
This was a very wordy way of saying yes, the stove setting is going to give you different maximum temperatures for the element. It would be easier to contact the manufacturer of your stove, and they will be able to give you an approximate answer to your question. You can expect resistance values to change somewhat with age.
You've misunderstood Sam Levy's answer. The wattage used by an element is constant for a particular setting and as a result the heat output of the element is constant for a particular setting. This results in the temperature in the pan gradually rising as more an more heat is pumped into it. Eventually it reaches an equilibrium point where the heat put into the pan equals the heat escaping the pan and so the temperature remains constant. This is why the element never glows red hot on a low setting, the equilibrium temperature is lower. Remember, heat and temperature aren't the same thing.
Well I'm not sure what temp they can reach but I do know they can reach a temp high enough to melt down lead and leads melting point is around 620° f
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! Unfortunately, every stove has a different output and even different burners on the same stove can have different output. Knowing that one burner on your stove can do this doesn't answer the question because it is very complex. See the other answers, particularly the highly upvoted ones for more info.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.693151 | 2012-02-17T02:35:26 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21432",
"authors": [
"Antonio Tahhan",
"Caleb",
"Catija",
"Electric-Gecko",
"Gert van den Berg",
"Ismot Ara",
"Les",
"Lisa Young",
"Marine",
"Olivia Wanty",
"RD017",
"Rob Swan",
"Ross Ridge",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sam Ley",
"carmine indindoli",
"cinthia",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47441",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47448",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69745",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70713",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9091",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93861",
"rackandboneman",
"rfusca",
"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
} |
21558 | What kind of flour keeps bread dough from sticking in a proofing basket?
When proofing down in a bread basket (not just a smooth bowl), what kind of flour keeps the dough from actually sticking? Is there a technique that works? Normal wheat flour seems to be to readily absorbed and then its a nightmare to get unstuck.
Does it have to be a kind of flour?
I suppose not, but liquids won't work in a basket.
Never tried it in a basket, but I suspect that semolina will do better than flour.
The best seems to be a 1:1 ratio of normal wheat-based flour and rice flour - others agree.
First the wheat flour sticks to the dough and creates a nice smooth surface.
Then the rice flour (which doesn't adsorb very quickly) creates small 'rollers' that keep the dough from dragging, like ball bearings. This is similar to semonlina or cornmeal for working with pizza.
A key part of the technique to a banneton is to sprinkle and rub some flour mix on the surface of the dough first, then sprinkle some flour mix in the basket, then put it seem side up in the basket. No sticking.
This same mix and similar technique works wonders for using a peel as well.
Regular old flour works -bread or all-purose or even cake- but the dough had best be proofed away from too much moisture, ie no steam. Use an overly generous amount sifted onto the basket and with each success reduce a bit til you find a happy place.
Even spongy rye masses have come out in one piece with a jiggle-jiggle here and a hop hop tip. Think of that as walking the dough out instead of inverting.
Bits may stick but only minor flesh-wounds. Let basket dry and scrape clean.
If the problem is related to brand-new basket, may need to search for some 'seasoning' tips first.
It seems using enough of the flour used to prepare the dough will do. Though, it may be tricky to properly cover the basket with the flour. That is why I prefer to line the box with a cloth and sprinkle the cloth with the flour instead. Much easier and the effect is quite similar.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.694602 | 2012-02-21T16:40:30 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21558",
"authors": [
"ChileLuv",
"Gep",
"Mien",
"Steven pyle",
"William W.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47829",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50493",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50504",
"rfusca",
"rumtscho",
"snakile"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
13105 | Is it possible to keep battered deep-fried (pork) crunchy?
I like the pork in sweet and sour pork to be crunchy, so I deep-fry it and only add the sauce at the last second - or often just have it on the side. I'm thinking of making a big batch of S&S for a party, and I'm trying to figure out if I can do the deep-frying early, but still have the pork be crunchy.
Is there any way to do this, either by changing my cooking technique or by storing it a certain way? Even if I can do it the day before, it'd dramatically simplify the party logistics.
I think what you're trying to do is covered here: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3890/crispy-fried-chicken-goes-limp-picnic-disaster
The secret to crisp sweet and sour pork is mostly how you serve it
Roast, BBQ, grill (whatever you like) the pork so it fully cooked, but on the lighter side of done. Cut into bite sized pieces
If you want to deep fry (not actually required) use a thin and light tempura style batter (flour, baking soda, beer mixed for ten seconds works OK). Drain well. This can be done the day before and keep it in an airtight container, but reheating is as much trouble as fresh deep frying. Remember, when using a thin light batter deep frying only takes a minute
If not deep frying, finish and reheat under the grill (broiler) till it just starts to smoke
Use a hot Chinese style serving platter and poor in all your sweet and sour sauce fresh from the wok. The sauce and the platter should be piping hot, it doesn't matter if the the pork is not that hot
Pile the middle of the platter with freshly shredded raw cabbage and onion. This should make a low flat island in the sauce just breaking the surface of the sauce. You can use wok fried capsicum, onion, carrots etc instead of cabbage (not as good!)
Carefully pile the pork pieces onto the island
For extra zing add more shredded raw onion on top
For a coastal style, and some fresh shredded coconut and/or mango (not to everyone's taste)
Serve immediately with a large serving spoon, so guests can scoop up the sauce and pork all in one go
Fry, freeze, and re-heat in oven
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.694806 | 2011-03-14T04:38:03 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13105",
"authors": [
"Anthony Kong",
"bongbang",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27150",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27161",
"koma",
"stephennmcdonald"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
8028 | Are any retail vacuum-sealing systems worth the expense?
Living alone means that my leftovers tend to go a pretty long way, and I don't end up using raw ingredients as quickly as the supermarkets expect me to.
For a while I've been considering investing in a vacuum-sealing system to avoid having to throw out so much food, for the sake of both finances and convenience. Unfortunately, I don't know anyone who owns one, so it's hard to get good advice. Most of the advice I got was "read some reviews."
Well, I read the reviews, and did the best I could to exclude the obvious PR blitzes from my sample, and it turned out that the reviews weren't very good. For any of the products that I see sold in stores.
I'm not really looking for advice on how to choose a vacuum-sealer. I already have a pretty good idea what criteria I should be looking for. The problem is that I can't find any products that meet it, and I suspect that like so many food-related products, the really good ones may not be advertised or even very easy to find.
So to clarify what I mean by "worth the expense" - I'm looking for something that:
Actually makes a proper seal at least 4 out of 5 times (it's amazing how many products on the market seem to fail this one).
Will last at least 2 years; the break-even point for costs seems to be about 1 year, and many if not most products have been reported as breaking down after 3-6 months.
Will not instantly die if there's even a drop of liquid in the bag.
Does not take up significantly more space than, say, one of the wide George Foreman grills (a little bit bigger is OK).
Does not waste a significant amount of sealing material if it fails to form a seal.
Preferably, can also be used with some kind of reusable container or canister. This is one of the things I liked about the new Food Saver products in spite of their many reported shortcomings.
Costs under $500 (US). That's not a hard upper limit if it's going to last 5 or 10 years, but if I have to spend $1000 on something that'll only last 2-3 years, then the economics of it break down.
I suspect that there are at least a few, and possibly many, "professional" models used by the food industry that at least meet criteria 1-6. Some of these companies may even sell retail-ish models to the general public but probably don't actively market them as such (how many home cooks/bakers have heard of Hobart?). That would especially be the kind of thing I'm looking for.
But, failing that, if anybody's had an exceptionally good experience with a more mainstream product (i.e. has owned one for at least a few years and/or worked with it in a professional capacity), I'd like to hear about that too.
And, if somebody out there has tried hundreds of these things, had nothing but awful experiences and wants to give a definitive "no" as an answer to this question - please do (and please elaborate).
This is the cheapest chamber vacuum sealer that I've come across: VacMaster VP112. At $669, it's half the price of most other chamber sealers. Chamber models are far more "professional" than the stuff marketed to the home, and my understanding is that they are far more reliable.
The difference between a chamber model and a home model is that you place your food in a bag in a chamber. The entire chamber is used to create a vacuum, meaning that liquid won't leave the bag. A home sealer will also not go below atmospheric pressure while a chamber unit can get a much higher vacuum allowing for vacuum marination, compression or fruits, and better flavor penetration during sous vide, which may or may not hold any interest for you.
In terms of your specific questions:
My understanding is that these consistently make a good seal.
I can't speak to longevity, but these are the kind of units that restaurants use for sous vide prep, so I assume they take a beating in those environments.
Because it's in a vacuum chamber, liquid is no problem, and you can actually vacuum seal just liquid.
Major Fail. These things are big and heavy. The one I mentioned is 24" x 16" x 9" and weighs 53 lbs.
Shouldn't fail to seal. Not sure about waste if it does.
Cannot be used with a container, but why would you need to rather than using a bag?
Minor Fail. The model I listed is a little over your price range. Most other models of this type will be between $1,250 and $7,000.
The other consideration is chamber size. You obviously can't vacuum pack anything that's larger than the vacuum chamber. The one is listed has a chamber size of 12" x 11" x 5".
I'm OK with the price, although I think the size is a bit of a deal breaker (it actually says 53 lbs, I laughed at the word "portable"). Being able to use reusable containers would obviously make it a lot more cost-effective and it's also way more convenient to seal something not-quite-solid in a canister. Still, this is pretty close, and the "chamber" keyword might help my search.
@Aaron, Whoops on the weight. I got confused because it's 30lbs lighter than it's 'brother'. I think that chamber models will get bigger and more expensive with more searching, unfortunately.
Searching for chamber sealers, I quickly found the miniVAC; no idea if it's any good but looks promising.
@aaron, the minivac looks interesting. Did you find a price on it? I did a quick google and didn't see any obvious retailer.
Apparently it's not cheap (€1,350). I'd definitely want to get more information before splurging on one of those, especially since I wouldn't be using it for sous-vide (at least not yet).
@aaron, Sous Vide is definitely worth the time, cost, and energy. But that's another topic all together.
@roux: I'm not really planning to get into sous-vide, though, I don't have room here for that kind of thing - it's purely for preservation. The miniVAC does appear to be a chamber sealer, mind you, but it's also priced accordingly.
IMHO chamber sealers are absolutely overkill for home use. OPs problem was (by my reading) most cheap models not really sealing right, athmospheric pressure is more than enough for 99% of stuff a regular person would freeze at home.
I've been happy with my FoodSaver, which is still working fine after at least six years of use. I mainly use it with the sealable bags, though I do have some of the canisters, and have not had any problem with those. There have been times when fluid has gotten into the machine - usually my fault through cutting the bag too small - but it's been easy enough to clean up.
The device's small profile works beautifully for me, too.
I do take care to follow the instructions, allowing cool-off time in between sealings, making sure the bags are clean inside at the sealing point, that kind of thing. And I try to position any rough-edged items in such a way that they won't puncture the plastic.
I must admit that it's possible that if I simply wrapped the to-be-frozen items carefully, with plastic and freezer-wraps, they might hold up almost as well as the vacuum-packed items, but given the time it takes to do the "proper" wrapping, I'm happy with my vacuum-sealer. And it does seem to improve the keeping-power of refrigerated leftovers if they're vacuum-sealed into one of the canisters.
I can't compare this model with other types of vacuum-sealers, but I am happy with it. Hope that's of some help!
Which model is this? I remember a few reviews I read where people said that their old Food Savers were built like tanks but all of the new ones are built like pintos. I wonder if it's still possible to get these 6-year-old models.
It's a Vac 550; you might be able to find one on eBay or perhaps at a local secondhand-goods outlet. [I checked my records and it turns out I got mine in 2001, so it's lasted even longer than I thought!]
The cheapest horizontal FoodSaver (no roll storage or cutter) works great in terms of sealing most of the things I have tried (so long as you freeze some of them first and then seal - such as cream cheese). The bags are very expensive relative to the chamber units' bags, but you need to take into account how much you plan to use it. If you are using a few rolls of the special FoodSaver material per year it is probably cheaper to get that rather than invest in a high-quality chamber sealer with cheap bags that is going to cost an order of magnitude more than the FoodSaver.
I own the VP112 and I will second the opinions here on the VP112 as a high quality machine.
It's a very nice looking machine with a polished metal gleam and nice styling for the controls and display. The plastic chamber lid is heavy and reinforced and manages to not look cheap even though it is plastic. My only complaint is there was an large ugly warning sticker that I had to use sticker remover on to get completely off the plastic lid.
So although it weighs 53 lbs, it looks nice and "high end". And it can be easily used while still tucked away in the otherwise hard to use corner in my galley kitchen.
It makes a perfect, high quality wide seal 100% of the time.
You can get heavy duty thick bags perfect for freezing and sous-vide that cost much less than the price of the "textured" bags required for cheaper non-chamber vacuum sealers. I think I bought 1,000 more bags (500 each in two sizes) for about $70 total with the machine or 7 cents each. The textured bags for cheaper machines often costs as much as $0.50 each. If you vacuum seal a lot, the ability to use less expensive (yet higher quality) bags and rolls will save you some money in the long run.
I paid $670 for the machine from http://www.qualitymatters.com and I would advise buying sealing bags at the same time because you will get free shipping on the bags with your purchase.
Here are my answers to your Questions:
Q: Actually makes a proper seal at least 4 out of 5 times...
A: The VP112 makes a good seal 100% of the time I have tried it (about 100 times without a single failure). It makes strong thick seals on even heavy untextured (vs light textured) bags and the seals will stand up to long term sous-vide cooking.
Q: Will last at least 2 years...
A: This is an industrial quality machine meant to seal thousands of packages in it's lifetime. Although it has a 1 yr warrantee, it's possible to get replacement parts and service on the machine after the warrantee period. The VP112 is seriously over-built and tank-like and not likely to fail like the cheapo machines.
Q: Will not instantly die if there's even a drop of liquid in the bag.
A: You can seal soup in this thing. Or water for that matter. I've sealed Pineapple spears liberally doused with Malibu Coconut Rum to make Compressed Fruit Pina Colada Bites.
Q: Does not take up significantly more space than, say, one of the wide George Foreman grills (a little bit bigger is OK).
A: The VP112 takes up roughly twice the counter space of a medium sized GF grill or 1.5 times the space of the large GF grill.
Q: Does not waste a significant amount of sealing material if it fails to form a seal.
A: Not applicable, my VP112 has never failed to form a seal... EVER!
Q: Preferably, can also be used with some kind of reusable container or canister...
A: It comes with a hose to use with canisters or containers with a hose attachment. You can use them with Mason Jars with an adapter too. That said, the plastic bags I bought with the machine cost 7 cents each.
Q: Costs under $500 (US). That's not a hard upper limit if it's going to last 5 or 10 years
A: The price I paid is $670 (free shipping no tax) but I expect it to last at least as long as a good car.
Thanks for the information. Great to hear from somebody who owns one.
Fwiw, I had the cheaper vertical sealer from BB&B first and I took it back. Very low vacuum pressure and the seals failed a lot during sous vide. I messed up 3 lobster tails from failed seals and took the thing back after it ruined $100 of food. I am very happy with my VP112. Just make sure wherever you put it you don't plan on moving it a lot... it is much heavier than it looks.
Feel free to ask any more questions and I will try to answer.
Also, if anyone is interested I have the Polyscience 7306C Immersion Circulator kit from ABT. This and the VP112 were my "splurge" on myself this year. http://www.abt.com/product/43554/PolyScience-7306AC1B9.html
I did a bunch of research on this a while back to accompany my sous vide cooking, and just decided to use water displacement rather than a vacuum sealer because the home versions seemed to be cheap, couldn't handle liquids, and didn't create a strong vacuum while the pro versions were expensive, noisy, and huge.
Maybe you should get a roommate! ;)
(hoping that someone has a better answer than this, since I'd still like a good solution to accompany my Sous Vide Supreme)
Haha on roommates - been there, done that. Unless they know how to cook (and clean), forget it!
@aaron, hehe, my wife actually taught me how to do both of those. All though, in the long run, we decided it was easier to pay someone else to clean...
water displacement - good idea...
I live in Alaska and process a lot of fish and game meat. I also preprocess meals and snacks for camping. The chamber sealers have bags designed to be boiled. This allows me to cook my meals, package them and just put them in boiling water while camping (or just take leftovers that I sealed). There are also bags for putting snacks in with a Ziploc top that is sealed. This allows me to make jerky and such for eating camping.
I have owned all kinds of foodsavers and burned them up. I purchased the VP 112 and was extremely happy with it but opted to upgrade to the VP 215 with an oiled pump due to my heavy use. I will never own another foodsaver again. However I do process about 50 salmon a year, hundreds of razor clams, moose, caribou and prepackaging camping meals. I would say I use about 500 bags a year. I have been using the Vacmaster VP products for years and have never had a bad seal or had the machines break down.
Hello fellow Alaskan! Welcome to Seasoned Advice!
But is it really worth vacuum sealing an opened packet of bacon? For example, I'll buy a packet of Tesco bacon (8 rashers) and it will last me over several breakfasts and of course I store it in the fridge. By the end of the week, though, the last two or three rashers are looking a bit old. If they smell funny, I discard them. But the bacon only costs me £1.25 and the vacuum sealing bags cost money, too. At least vac sealing keeps the food fresh for longer, so far less gets thrown away.
Welcome to SA! You're attempting to answer a question that is more than 10 years old. Perhaps try answering something more recent?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.695030 | 2010-10-11T14:13:00 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8028",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Adisak",
"Andy",
"FuzzyChef",
"GoryDetails",
"Hobbamok",
"Jolenealaska",
"RudyB",
"S K",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11332",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25454",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87591",
"nicorellius",
"yossarian",
"zeepad"
],
"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
} |
41628 | Alternatives to massaging fresh kale?
I plan on making a raw kale salad for a large group and was wondering if there is another technique besides massaging it with my hands, which will likely get sore after breaking down a large quantity of kale.
Other than cooking or slicing the raw kale, is there a shortcut or tool I could use to make easier work of massaging the fresh kale?
I have never massaged kale, eat it raw in salads and sandwiches regularly, and am not sure what you're referring to. Is this to make it into smaller pieces or to soften it somehow while leaving it in whole leaves?
@KateGregory you still cut it into bite-sized pieces, but it's to break it down, making it more tender--similar to a blanch but while retaining more texture. It's a very common technique for kale salads--look it up.
I'm kinda with Kate on this, I think it's perfect as-is. Maybe next time I'll try this out, but I still insist that the fastest way to do something is to not do it at all.
If you put batches of cut kale into a ricer like the Oxo one shown below, and give it a good hard squeeze until a little of the kale juice comes out, it will make easier work of the massaging process. You should see the kale come out broken down as much as when massaged by hand. If not, squeeze again.
I do it over the salad bowl to capture the juices as well as any dropped leaves. It seemed to work more easily with lacinato (dinosaur) kale than curly leaf.
Huffington Post, in their article on kale massage, says:
If rubbing your greens is not something you can get into, kale also calms its wintery ways if tossed in olive oil and left to sit overnight.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.696229 | 2014-01-31T15:59:03 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41628",
"authors": [
"Doug Kavendek",
"Jeff Axelrod",
"Kate Gregory",
"Mike",
"Sourabh singh",
"Spammer",
"ahmadservice center spam",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97074",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97075",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97077",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97081",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97183",
"sarah"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
32993 | Is it possible to oversoak wood chips for smoking?
I wanted to prepare for a long day of cooking and get the wood chip soak out of the way. My barbequed brisket recipe calls for soaking the (hickory) wood chips for 30 minutes.
If I soak the wood chips longer, is it possible that they would become so saturated that they wouldn't smoke or would take so long to dry out as to become impractical? Or should they already be fully saturated after 30 minutes?
My gut says that it shouldn't matter--given that one of the batches of chips actually sits in water on the grill.
What are you trying to achieve by soaking the wood? This seems a pointless step
No, it isn't possible to over soak wood chips, chunks, planks, or any other size that you want to throw on the grill (within reason, I wouldn't soak them for weeks because the water would get scummy). In fact, the directions given often grossly underestimate optimal soaking time. I assume this is because the manufacturer doesn't want to scare people off by saying "soak for 12-24 hours before use."
Wood smokes better when it's wet. If it's dry, it catches on fire and produces less smoke for a shorter period of time. What you really want is for the wood to be thoroughly wet so that it smolders rather than flames and produces lots of smoke for a long time.
As you would expect, the larger the piece of wood, the longer it will smoke and the longer you need to soak it. My general soak times are as follows:
Small Chips - These are very small, coin sized. Generally get totally saturated in 2-3 hours.
Large Chips - Between Small Chips and Chunks. Soak for 12 - 24 hours.
Chunks - These tend to be about 1/2 to a whole fist sized. These want to soak for at least 24 hours.
Planks - For plank smoking. Soak for 8 - 12 hours.
You can always soak for less time, you just won't get quite as much smoke production. Judge the need based on what you're cooking. If you want a little smoke on a steak that you're only cooking for 5-8 mins, then you don't need to worry about it. If you're trying to smoke salmon, it matters more. If you want to smoke a butt for 12 hours, it matters a lot.
I agree with @yossarian, 30 minutes is not nearly enough time to soak even small wood chips. With only 30 minutes they'll start to burn almost immediately.
There's no need to soak wood prior to smoking. It does not take long for the wood to dry and catch fire, so hours of soaking really brings little value. It is better to limit the supply of oxygen to the smoke wood. This will lead to the wood smoldering and not catching fire.
Sean, that doesn't work in a lot of cases, particularly if you're using chips or planks, a gas grill, or a cheap charcoal grill.
Sure it does. If you wrap the wood in foil, and poke one or two holes in it, that will allow for the offgassing of the wood without full ignition.
Soaking wood chips accomplishes almost nothing, as proven here.
Summary from amazing ribs link: Soaking wood does not work, as it takes more than days to saturate wood. And temperature measurements from wood soaked for a day show little change
Their recommendation: have two containers of wood, one dry, and one covered with water (steam is required as well). The water filled container of wood will boil dry by the time the first lot of dry wood has smoked out, and it will then smoke away too
Interesting. My personal experience (at least with chips and planks) doesn't jive with this at all. Here's a video making the same claim, but only addressing wood chunks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv7y1TWyKEw, if you got that much penetration in smaller chips, they would be soaked through completely. Definitely warrants some experimentation at home.
I think it does delay the smoking in the sense that a wet log takes time to start burning. Proximity of the chips to the hot flame may be more important than them being soaked. Nice link @carey Gregory
The smoking chapter in "Modernist Cuisine" makes the same conclusion. The book does note that high (70-80%) humidity is essential for full smoke absorption, so the evaporation off the wet chips probably helps from that respect.
@BillRabourn - Did you read the link? He proved it makes no difference.
I agree soak the wood. The larger the piece (pieces) the longer you soak...just don't go overboard; water does become stagnant.
Read the link in my answer. He proved scientifically that soaking accomplishes almost nothing.
One layperson's conclusions from an experiment do not constitute a scientific consensus.
@JeffAxelrod One doesn't need to be the scientific community to read an experiment and make a fairly sound judgement of its results when it comes to something as simple as soaking wood chips. If soaking them accomplished anything, it would increase their weight significantly. It does not. I can't imagine what magical properties you think might otherwise exist.
I'm not suggesting that an individual can't perform science, only that a single person's investigation shouldn't be considered conclusive, let alone "proof."
What I've found though a great deal of research and trial and error is that soaking, not soaking to get the best condition is dependent on many factors. If you think about it if the moister of the wood was critical, why wouldn't you smoke with green wood. Though some green woods give off a more acrid smoke.
First is the type of smoker you're using. What you use will change how you smoke things. If you have an indirect smoker, like a barrel with a side fire box you can run a hotter fire because you are not applying direct heat as you are with say a grill, vertical barrel or electric smokers. In my view it's useless to soak the wood for indirect smoking. The quality of the smoker is also a factor. A poorly made smoker which air flow control is inconsistent will make the job of controlling temperature more difficult. Soaking might help initially, but as it's been mentioned the wood can dry out fairly quickly and flare up causing inconsistent temps and inconsistent cooking. If you are having this problem, you have to tend the smoker more frequently. I like to keep a spray bottle nearby to quiet any flare ups.
Then there's the format of the wood. Logs and large chunks will not absorb much water unless you soak them for a long time, days even weeks. Don't forget, this is wood which has been dried and is quite hard. The cell structures have been fundamentally destroyed and are less able to take on water. Construction lumber is dried to make it more durable.
Now chips and small chunks on the other hand almost have to be soaked. Chips have a great deal more surface area per volume, meaning more of the surface is exposed to heat as compared to logs or chunks. This makes them burn very fast and hot making it harder to control by airflow alone. Chips, because of the increased surface area will absorb more water which keeps them from burning up.
In the end, when smoking you have to adjust the processes based on the equipment, the smoke medium and the desired result. This is why professionals that prepare smoked foods will seldom vary the recipe and the method.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.696427 | 2013-03-25T13:15:37 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32993",
"authors": [
"C.G. Constantinou",
"Carey Gregory",
"Christie Copper",
"Didgeridrew",
"Francisco Vieira",
"GdD",
"Jeff Axelrod",
"Laurent B",
"Lucas de Freitas Miranda",
"MandoMando",
"Sean Hart",
"Spammer",
"TFD",
"cyberdeck",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117473",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124072",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76326",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76327",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76329",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76370",
"user76370",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
28282 | How can I safely reuse tea?
I regularly reuse my tea bags, sometimes over as much as a five hour span.
I am sure that there are limits to the safe re-use of tea, but I can't find any USDA or other authoritative guidance.
What are reasonable precautions I can take to ensure that I am not putting myself at risk for foodborne illness?
Please provide evidence-based answers, not anecdotal reports. I don't mind if the answers are somewhat speculative based on evidence from analogous food preparations.
A five-hour span is totally fine.
Dupe: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18353/is-it-safe-to-reuse-loose-tea-leaves-the-next-day-what-precautions-need-to-be-t
okay well, this is about tea "bags" not about loose tea - should that make a difference in determining the duplicate?
The issue here is how long do you steep the tea, at what temperature, and under what conditions do you store the used tea bags? The reason "sun tea" has been discouraged has been because of the likelihood that the tea leaves that are in the bags are contaminated with bacteria such that a long soak in luke-warm water such as that of the "sun tea" causes them to multiply to the extent that they become a serious health risk. Tea leaves are not typically pasteurized during their processing, and may carry viable bacteria and/ or bacterial spores.
If you were to soak the tea bag in warm water not hot enough to get a good bacterial kill initially, there may be enough viable bacteria in the tea leaves to grow during that 5 hour interval such that the next cup may be seriously dangerous (some may divide every 15 minutes, for example). However, if you were to adequately kill the bacteria and spores off by a nice hot soak (for this example, you would need to use a pressure cooker since some bacterial spores are not even killed by boiling water at atmospheric pressure), refrigerate the tea bag afterwards, and then reuse it 5 hours later it would likely be perfectly fine.
I think the final answer to your question comes down to your own personal risk tolerance and the conditions above. If you brew in luke-warm water or for a very brief time and then leave the bags out at room temperature you are just asking for trouble and eventually you may hit the loaded chamber in your own personal Russian roulette game.
For empiric answers, take your particular brewing temperature and time and compare it to the USDA tables for pasteurization. Then, look up the growth curves for the major pathogens at your storage temperature and figure out how many would likely be present after 5 hours (20 generations at 15 minutes per generation or 2^20 times more bacteria than viable after the brewing event at the end of the storage interval).
Great answer; thanks so much. For some reason it didn't occur to me to refrigerate the tea in between brewings. Typically I reuse green tea that is recommended to be brewed at ~160 for around three minutes. And of course that temperature declines as it's brewing.
Tea bag usually packs a very mild tea concoction unlike the regular tea granules. So for a tea bag, even a second reuse will not give you a suitable taste for your taste buds. As for experimenting I have used the teabags a second time after a gap of 10 hours (in tropical Indian climate). So far no molding came for that much time.
But if you are planning to reuse teabags for economy purpose, the best choice will be to shift from tea bag to tea leaf or tea granules or tea dust which comes cheaper as you are not going to pay the cost of the filter bags and strings, and the labour of packing each tea bag.
It's absolutely not true that reused tea bags will not taste good. It certainly depends on the type of tea, but some green teas (bagged or not) retain their flavor across three or four brewings.
The only "danger" I can think of would be mold growing on the damp bag, which is not really a concern over a period of five hours.
Really, though, (most) tea isn't all that expensive and it will taste better if you use a new bag.
If you buy a decent quality tea, the leaves are edible so you should be fine using them a couple of times. Even with cheap tea bags you can stretch a few cups out of a tea bag.
Source: http://www.helium.com/items/1173756-leftover-green-tea-leaves-antibacterial-properties-within-green-tea
Plant matter + heat + moisture = potential bacterial growth in only a few hours. Don't reheat tea, unsafe and pretty gross. If you can't afford the tea you use, buy cheaper tea.
Single caveat, if it's continuously steeping and being drunk then no biggie. But if you're talking about leaving it out, don't do that.
I don't really reuse my tea bags because mainly they lose flavour quite drastically after the 2nd cup, but depending on your environment (humid/dry climate), tea bags steeped within a day and tossed out after works fine for me. Each time pouring boiling hot water.
I normally reuse loose tea leaves instead, like puerh, oolong tea leaves (even when they come in individual nylon mesh bags), for up to 2 days even and have no problems with it. I often rinse the tea leaves thrice for puerh before drinking at the first use, then across the days I add on more tea leaves to the filter, and steeped it in fresh boiling water for a couple of minutes before drinking. My mum used to boil them over the stove with the tea leaves kept from the night before.
I would place those used tea bags in the freezer until you are ready to reuse.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.697020 | 2012-11-07T20:30:02 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28282",
"authors": [
"Andrew Chen",
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Burton Kent",
"Cara Leahy",
"E. J.",
"Eknoes",
"Jayden Watson",
"Jeff Axelrod",
"Kyle McVay",
"Laura",
"Shirley Kent",
"Tim Pike",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141716",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141844",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141868",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65139",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65140",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65141",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65156",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65228",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6808",
"user65228"
],
"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
} |
33766 | Distributing small amounts of oil around a non-stick pan
I have difficulty evenly distributing oils (butter, chicken or bacon fat, and other oils) around a non-stick pan. Of course I can use cooking spray, but I need a solution for all fats.
If I don't evenly distribute the oils, when pan frying things in small amounts of oil, I get spots on the food (breaded fish, etc.) that turn out great and other spots that obviously made no contact with the fat.
Oh this is a frustrating problem as the oil would rather glob than spread in non-stick pans. Even using a paper towel to spread isn't perfect. I think you just might have to use more oil to cover the base. When oil gets hotter, it loses viscosity and spread easier so might need less oil than you thought. Also more oil and hotter oil can mean less greasy final product as the steam escaping from the food prevents soaking of the oil.
@MandoMando regarding oil temperature, Cooks Illustrated recently discovered that starting french fries in cold oil resulted in less oil absorbtion than starting in hot oil. I'm not sure whether or not that contradicts your statement about hotter oil--though in general I've experienced the low-temperature-oil = greasy food result myself.
funny enough, I had Jack Bishop's voice from a lecture in my head about the steam escaping from food. I'm a CI member (and love fries/poutine), could you post the link?
@MandoMando I think Jeff is referring to this one: http://www.cooksillustrated.com/recipes/article.asp?docid=19998&parentdocid=19884 ... note they're comparing single-fried to double-fried fries, and finding the single-fried from cold have less oil in them.
@Rumtscho has some good points, especially around using non-non-stick pans. A cast iron frying pan would work better for that. However, if you don't have one my suggestion for pan-frying something like breaded fish would be to pull the fish through the oil puddle with your fingers or tongs as you put it in and then let the fish sit on the non-oily part of the pan. Repeat that for all the pieces.
I think what you'll find doing that though is that the breading will soak up all the oil, and you'll need to add some more in anyway in order to have enough to coat the other side when you turn the fish over. Adding more oil will cool the pan and you won't get as good as a result, so it's counter-productive. You're better off adding more oil at the beginning. If you are worried about health, don't fry in oil!
There is no really good solution for this, as non-stick pans are by nature slick, and oils bead on them.
My preferred solution is to use the right tool/technique for the job. Breaded items are normally meant to be fried in a puddle of oil at least half as high as the item (so it will have been submerged after flipping). If you insist on frying them in less oil, you should use non-coated pans. The items meant for non-stick (eggs, pancakes, etc.) do well without any fat. Dishes which indeed need a little bit of oil, but not too much, tend to be stir-fry or sautee type, and there you can start in a coated pan with the food on the bottom, then drizzle the oil on it and start stirring.
But if you don't want to change the technique or the pan, you can try distributing the fat. As long as the pan still works well, you will get disconnected beads as opposed to a thin film. The usual option is to use a silicone brush (non-silicone works too, but may burn if the pan is already hot). Pour the oil in the pan and brush it everywhere.
The second option, for liquid fats, is to fill your own oil sprayer. Normal water sprayers don't work well due to the viscosity of oil, they create a thin beam of oil as opposed to a spray. But there are special oil sprays on the market, e.g. the Misto one. I hope that they work better (I haven't tried them personally).
For solid fats, just take the block of fat as it is in the packaging and slide it along the room temperature pan bottom, just like using a sponge to clean the pan. It will leave a thin layer of fat which will melt into smallish beads when the pan is heated.
Lastly, if you have older pans where the coating starts to fail, use them for this application. You will get a more even distribution.
Misto sprayers work pretty well. Supposedly, you can fill them with (melted) butter, you just have to keep the butter hot. Haven't tried it myself.
I used to have a Misto, but it always grossed me out, seemed really hard to clean, so I just ended up getting rid of it.
I think non-stick pans are good for one-off use, quick recipes that don't require a lot of even heat (because they'll have movement). Frying a breaded fish seems reasonable for a non-stick. But if you're reusing the oil between heats, then that's a bad idea. Consider fudging with your dredge techniques to get a better cling when you do your fish and chips. A fry station is also not a bad choice.
Because of the absorption/adhesion of most foods, I don't evenly oil my nonsticks, I heat up oil in the center of the pan (hottest part), and lay my food directly on top of it so that oil spreads out evenly across the surface of the food in contact with the surface of the pan.
A very simple solution.
Put your oil (a little) in the pan, turn the pan a little to distribute as much as possible, then move the pan under the faucet of running water. The water provides a fine distribution.
It is also made with butter. When you make the crepes, use a little butter every two or three crepes and passes the pan again under running water, before continuing with other crepes.
My personal experience.
Hmm, mixing oil and water sounds like a really bad idea--not to mention soggy food. Is there something I'm missing here?
if you pass the oil-water on the fire, before putting your food, water goes away and oil rests distributed - just in my experience
Doesn't the oil splatter all over the place?
No, because you don't put the pan under the tap when it is hot, but just when it is warm and just a bit. You don't need lot of water. Then, out water and out fire, round it a little the pan in air to distribute the oil. Then you put again the pan on medium fire. The water evaporates leaving just a film of oil on the bottom of it, all around. Then make the fire high again for your use. Of course, the remaining oil is very little, so this operation should be repeated every two or three uses.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.697474 | 2013-04-26T13:11:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33766",
"authors": [
"Jeff Axelrod",
"MandoMando",
"OliveNation LLC",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78466",
"violadaprile"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
35879 | How can I reduce the sliminiess of okra?
I don't particularly mind the slime in okra, but my wife hates it. Is there a proven technique for reducing the sliminess?
I do wish to make an Indian simmered curry (Bhindi) with it, so frying is out.
Fry it first, then put it in the curry?
I'm with your wife on this: I don't feel any need in my life to eat snot.
If you're simmering it in a decent amount of liquid for a while, like curry, the slimy stuff (mucilage) will all go out into the curry and end up just thickening it. The okra itself won't be slimy. This is one of the traditional ways to thicken gumbo! Even just stewed okra, with a decent amount of tomatoey goop, usually isn't very slimy.
Playing around with the current recipe, I have been simmering it for about a half hour and the okra is very slimy. There's enough liquid that it's fully submerged.
Become one with the slime! :-)
@SAJ14SAJ tell my wife that, not me. I think it just required more simmering time. After about 45 minutes or so the slime seemed to further release from the okra and meld with the sauce. My wife still didn't eat hardly any of the okra :)
@JeffAxelrod I suppose I could've tried to be more specific than "a while". But all I really remember is stews of the "forget about it on the stove" type work out.
My tips:
Do not wash the okra. Just brush off any dirt and wipe with a paper towel.
Wait to cut until it's almost time to cook it. Letting it sit around makes it slimier.
Make sure you have some acid in your recipe (tomatoes, lemon/lime juice, vinegar, etc.). This will cut down on the sliminess.
I love okra in gumbos, soups, curries, etc. But I also dislike the sliminess. And even though it will cook into most broths so that the okra itself is not slimy the actual texture or feel of the broth will be different.
What I have found that works very well is to dry fry the okra before adding to a recipe. Done properly, dry frying should in no way compromise or change the okra other than to remove the slimy liquid.
Simply slice the okra and heat over medium heat in a dry (no oil or water) non-stick skillet and cook tossing or turning until the liquid has been eliminated. You can then add your okra to your recipe. (Doesn't take much time.) The okra will be intact but with no slime or change in the texture or feel of the broth. Plus, you wont't have to adjust any other thickening agents or change your recipe in any other way.
Hope this helps!
I'll give it a try!
I agree with @Paul,
Adding a bit of vinegar/lemon, and heating the cut okra in dry non-stick pan/skillet, takes out the sliminess.
PS: while doing above, if the slime sticks to the spatula/spoon, then use the tissue to wipe it from time to time to take take out the stickiness.
Another way is to cut the okra length wise instead of cutting it in in small. This doesnt cut the seeds, which is the main culprit oozing the mucilage...
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.698120 | 2013-08-08T22:11:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35879",
"authors": [
"Arthur Webb",
"Cascabel",
"Grace Xerri",
"Jeff Axelrod",
"Jeremy Benton",
"Joe",
"Karim",
"Katherine Riley",
"Louis Barrette",
"Marti",
"Rastilin",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110609",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138228",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84081",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84083",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84158",
"racsm"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
40988 | How should I store eggs in the refrigerator?
We just bought a new refrigerator, and it came with the obligatory open egg tray container, which went promptly into the recycle bin--which got me thinking. I have never understood the purpose of this accessory, as I keep my eggs stored in the original carton.
What is the best way to store fresh eggs in the refrigerator?
Keeping Food Fresh by Janet Bailey says:
Keep stored eggs covered. Eggs readily absorb odors from, and lose
moisture to, the air circulating in the refrigerator. The best
container for them is the carton you bought them in. Don't use the
open egg racks in the door of the refrigerator. The rack is too warm
and unprotected.
Store eggs with their broad, rounded ends up. This position helps the
chalaza keep the yolk centered in the white, away from the air pocket
where it might encounter unfriendly bacteria. The rounded end of the
egg is also less likely to break when accidentally bumped.
Don't wash eggs before you store them. If they have been coated in
oil, you would be washing away that valuable protection.
Strangely, that is at least the fourth time today I have seen (or used) the word "chalaza".
If they're less likely to break and safer with the rounded end up, why are they universally in the cartons with the rounded end down?
@Kareeen perhaps it's a conspiracy by egg farms to get us to by more eggs.
@Jolenealaska This is known as the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon. It's oddly common.
I wrap the egg cartons in doubled supermarket plastic bags, tie them shut, and store them in the back of the refrigerator. They will keep for several weeks like this, and they will not lose moisture or take on any unwanted odors.
That sounds incredibly inconvenient. I would never use them if that were the case.
@moscafj : if you're buying multiple cartons of eggs at a time, you only need to have one convenient at a given time. I could see doing this with all but one of the cartons in my fridge.
@Joe perhaps you are correct. I don't have a need to have more than a dozen or two at a time. Even so, anything wrapped, tied or hidden in my fridge is less likely to get used in a timely manner. ...could just be me.
I simple would not bother and use that space for other stuff.
The best way to store is in box, each morning as you pass them turn the box over as this will help keep the yolk in the middle of the eggs! I have heard that this is method used when on boats and they can last for many weeks using this method.
Always use "smell by date" (I am going to get this put on my grave, family of six and we have learnt to throw away next to nothing).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.698410 | 2014-01-09T02:24:10 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40988",
"authors": [
"AppSquadz LLC Spam",
"Flora Amato",
"Jeff Axelrod",
"Jodi cigel",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kareen",
"Paula Riggs",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95466",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95472",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95879",
"moscafj",
"user5561"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
39889 | How close to the top should I fill a pie to avoid overflow?
I'm planning a pot-pie recipe in a casserole dish and was wondering how high I should fill it without worrying about it overflowing during cooking. A traditional vented pie crust will completely cover the contents.
I will put a baking sheet underneath to catch overflow just in case, but I'd like to have some general guidelines.
A basic bechemel or broth based pot-pie filling will not expand significantly when being baked. It may bubble a little under the pastry from being simmered.
You would the casserole up to maybe 1/2 inch (1 cm) below the lip, and apply pastry on top of that.
Less is fine if you have less filling.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.698656 | 2013-11-29T21:09:18 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39889",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
20283 | How to best store not-yet-used frying oil?
I occasionally deep fry using peanut oil. The small amount used in my deep fryer (around one quart/1 liter) is easy enough to store in a polypropylene container that came with the fryer. Originally, I was storing it, after filtering, in the fridge, but it'd still develop off flavors within a month or so. After Cook' Illustrated informed me (sorry, subscription required) that freezing works, I started freezing it, and it does indeed keep the oil fresh much longer. A quick run through the microwave warms it enough to dump into the fryer.
Unfortunately, refined peanut oil is sold either 1 gallon (~4L) or 35lbs (~15.8kg) containers. Those do unfortunately go rancid once opened—even if stored in dark place. Of course, 35lbs is half the unit cost (but is way more than I'd use before it goes rancid, if stored in its original container).
I'm wondering, is a good way to prevent unused peanut oil from going rancid? Would something like 1qt mason jars, with the lids vacuum-sealed on, help (stored in the pantry)? Alternatively, are there some additives that would help (and not prevent its use in deep-frying)?
Getting a gallon in the freezer is possible, but 35lbs is way too much freezer space.
It should be stored in a cool-dark place. Your cupboard is just fine.
You're overlooking an important distinction in the Cook's Illustrated snippet: their oil is used. Used oil is already damaged by the high temperatures required for frying, this greatly shortens its shelf life and makes it much more prone to rancidity. Storage of used cooking oil is covered in other questions here:
Frying oil reuse
How to keep deep frying oil usable?
For peanut oil specifically, the shelf life is two years if unopened and one year if opened.
I have a nearly empty 10-14 month old bottle of peanut oil in my cupboard right now. I used it last night, and it showed no signs of rancidity.
Hmmm, opened I've never gotten a year. Either I'm more sensitive to the rancidity, or my room is warmer. In the summer, it can be almost 80°F, and I unfortunately don't have anywhere in the kitchen cooler (other than the fridge and freezer of course).
I have to concur, admittedly I live in a much colder climate (though we do have warm summers), but I've stored opened oil in the pantry for a few years with not even the tiniest sign of rancidity. I go through peanut oil fast but I'm still on the same bottles of canola and sunflower oil that I bought when I first moved in here over 3 years ago.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.698741 | 2012-01-09T17:19:31 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20283",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44435",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44439",
"mike",
"vicelaine"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
11094 | Differences between cooking a whole duck vs chicken or turkey?
I've cooked whole turkeys and chickens many times, but never a whole duck or any other "gamey" meat. Is there a difference in what should be done or technique in general? I've been told by others that duck is "more difficult", but never how or why.
With chicken and turkey, the most important "trick" to cooking it is to make sure the dark meat gets done before the white meat dries out, and to make sure the skin crisps up somewhat.
Duck is all dark meat, and has a thick layer of fat that must be rendered out. There is not a lot of danger in drying out the breast meat like with a chicken.
Like Martha said, it's best to make a few shallow cuts in the skin over the breast (don't go all the way through to the meat) to help the fat render out. A simple (western) roasted bird would be cooked at 350°F for about 1 hour 45 min, with the oven turned up to 500°F for another 15 minutes to crisp up the skin. There is a LOT of fat rendered out, so it's best to roast in a sturdy roasting pan, on a rack (so it doesn't sit in the fat), and drain the fat about an hour into cooking (save the fat, though; it's delicious).
Personally, I think duck is easier to cook, but it's definitely different from roasting a chicken.
Also, be prepared: there's a lot less meat on a duck than a comparably-sized chicken.
Duck is much fattier than either chicken or turkey, so it is particularly important to include steps such as placing the bird on a rack and scoring the skin to allow the fat to escape.
Duck takes a long time to cook, like turkey but longer. You would cook chicken for a shorter time, maybe an hour.
This difference is only because of the size of the bird, not because of something special about the meat. It is of no concern when you cook by thermometer instead of timer. The OP wanted to know more details about differences based on the specifics of duck meat.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.698958 | 2011-01-16T00:17:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11094",
"authors": [
"Jacques Marais",
"Jenny Pickard",
"Marti",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62166",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62168",
"newlndnfire",
"rumtscho",
"user62168"
],
"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
} |
68484 | How can I successfully glaze asparagus?
I've tried making this recipe a few times, and the glaze never really sticks to the asparagus. I feel like there should be a better technique for getting glaze to adhere. Is there a better technique for glazing asparagus or other smooth vegetables in general?
Would a dip in cornstarch or other binding agent help?
Was the glaze thick and just didn't stick, or was it thin and dripping off?
@Jefromi the glaze was plenty thick; it just didn't stick.
I'm a poet and I know it!
asparagus is smooth, so it will remove, the glaze applied, before your eyes,
Try peeling the asparagus. This would work better with thicker asparagus.
Since the outer skin of asparagus is so smooth, I can see how glaze would just slip off. Peeled asparagus will have a slightly stickier surface for the glaze to hold on to. An added bonus is that some of the glaze should penetrate if the asparagus is peeled.
Be aware that peeled asparagus will cook faster than unpeeled. See also: Should asparagus be peeled before cooking?
Great idea! I'm sure this would help.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.699146 | 2016-04-22T18:11:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68484",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Jeff Axelrod",
"MarsJarsGuitars-n-Chars",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3853"
],
"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
} |
32166 | What is the shelf life of homemade compote?
I made a cooked compote with dried fruit and am wondering what safe refrigerated life I can expect. Ideally, please provide some reasonable rationale or reference for the advice.
There are three major things that will effect the "natural" shelf life of the compote, in that they could extend it considerably past the normal shelf life of the ingredients individually:
How sweet is it? If it is sufficiently sugary, to the level of a jam or jelly, the sugar in the compote will act as a preservative.
This is because any bacteria or mold that try to colonize the product will be dessicated, as water exits their cells into the sugar medium via osmosis.
The problem here is that sugar is hydrophylic, and will easily attract water from the environment when the jar is opened, or when a wet spoon is put into it. If the surface becomes diluted with water, and thus the sugar is less concentrated, mold can get a foothold. So this kind of product is best stored in the refrigerator once opened.
How acid is it? Very, very acidic foods are less hospitable to most pathogens.
How salty is it? This one doesn't usually apply to compote recipes, but high enough salt levels also make foods inhospitable to most pathogens, again due to the dessication of their cells via osmotic pressure.
The specific recipe you linked to--at least the compote portion itself, excluding the vinegar syrup and the rest of the recipe--appears to have none of the characteristics that lead to a long shelf life. It should be held no longer than its most vulnerable ingredient, which would be the weak sugar syrup, so it is probably good for several days to a week in the refrigerator.
Now, in general, things named compotes tend to be far sweeter, and far more acidic than the recipe you have linked to.
In these cases, as ElindilTheTall points out, a very, very sweet recipe (jelly-like or jam-like sweetness) will last for many weeks in the refrigerator, and a couple of weeks at least at normal room temperature.
Finally, many compotes are amenable to home canning, if they are sufficiently acidic.
Canning has risks, especially for botulism, so you should only use recipes and methods from a very reputable source when doing canning, to ensure that the product is sufficiently acidic to be safe for the canning method used. Follow all of the techniques and prescriptions in the methods, as well, but I won't turn this into an essay on canning, which is not my area of expertise.
For those compotes that are properly canned, you should get an indefinite shelf life prior to opening, as long as the seal on the canning jar remains intact.
Thanks for the very thorough answer! I was referring to the leftover compote part of the recipe, not the oatmeal, syrup, etc.
If you placed it in a sterilised jar (boiled for ten minutes, compote added, jar sealed, then boiled for another ten minutes), and assuming it had a decent amount of sugar, it should last weeks even outside of the fridge, especially of unopened. This is standard practice for making homemade jams.
Once opened, it should be kept in the fridge to inhibit mould growth. It should still last a couple of weeks.
If you didn't do all this, I would think it would last a week or two, but there's really too many factors to give an accurate answer. You'll just have to judge its look, smell and taste.
And, critically, that it was sufficiently acidic. I feel compelled to point out the standard canning warning here: always use recipes and methods from impeccably reputable sources when doing canning, to ensure that your product will be safe. This recipe appears to have no acid at all in the compote, so canning is not recommended.
The specific recipe you linked to - Transfer compote to impeccably clean containers. Refrigerate for up to 1 week.
Depending on how the jar was sterilized and the jar quality itself... I'd say indefinite.
I have a few jars of compote in my cellar, made by my grandmother long before my birth. Currently estimating their age at around 50 years. True the natural fruit gelling agents turned the compote into jelly but on special occasions we open a jar of it, and it's always very good, even though you eat it with a spoon instead of drinking.
Note these are original Weck(tm) jars with glass lids and wide rubber seals. The rubber has long turned to dried goo that makes opening the jars a true challenge, and often a hour or more of work, but it seems that only improved the seal. I don't think I had any compote in the modern, metal lid jars to last past 10 years.
The specific compote being asked about is a low-acid, low sweetness condiment which is not suitable for home canning. While properly canned goods are safe as long as the jar remains sealed, this anecdote does not apply to the recipe in the original question.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.699267 | 2013-02-24T02:55:28 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32166",
"authors": [
"Catherine Donoghue",
"Ghos3t",
"Jeff Axelrod",
"Norma Hall",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"epicwhale",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74057",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74058",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74072",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74084",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74086",
"otong",
"samar",
"the_joat",
"user63161"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
21834 | How can I keep from burning a pan sauce?
I'll make a steak or something on the stove and then try to make a pan sauce out of the fond. Add a little wine and other fun ingredients and then I try to reduce it a little bit. 90% of the time, it seems to burn before it reduces to a sauce like consistency.
How can I reduce a pan sauce without it burning?
Have you added any thickeners (e.g., flour or cornstarch)?
@derobert - most of the time, no
A couple things:
make sure you're removing enough of the fat from the pan. Too much fat will keep the sauce thin (and will also tend to separate out afterwards). Also, fat will not evaporate—if your remaining liquid is fat, the temperature will rapidly rise, and very quickly things will burn.
depending on what you're adding, you may need to use a thickener. There is a reason three of the five mother sauces have roux. (Hollandaise has egg, which thickens, Tomate has tomato which has lots of pectin, which also thickens, so those two don't need it). A good stock or broth has plenty of gelatin, which will thicken especially upon cooling.
When you add your deglazing liquid, you need to thoroughly scrape up the fond and stir it in.
Keep stirring, especially towards the end when its somewhat thick. Also especially if your pan has hot spots.
Turn down the temperature. This should go without saying when things are burning. Some heat helps with deglazing, but after that you don't actually need anything more than a low simmer — higher evaporates faster (important, since the meat is often resting & cooling) but not burning the sauce is more important.
I would advice to stir more. I never had your problem, but I also like to stir a lot. Try to scrape the fond of the pan as well. If this doesn't help, I should lower the heat a bit (although you do need a high heat).
And stir with the proper tool. Many people stir with a round wooden spoon, which is nonsense. You need a spoon or spatula with a flat edge.
I stir with a fork. It's very handy to get the fond loose.
You don't really need high heat once you've deglazed, its just nice for getting the sauce done on time. Especially when you've got your protein resting and cooling—the sauce needs to finish before the protein is cold.
Along with stirring frequently, make sure your pan size isn't too big. You want to make sure that the sauce is not too shallow in the pan. If you notice that it's coming up to a boil quickly and frequently, lift the pan (remove from heat) for 15-30 seconds and put it back down. The key to a good sauce is to never let it come to a full boil.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.699642 | 2012-02-28T22:05:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21834",
"authors": [
"Mien",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rfusca",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
22338 | What will happen to my cake if I don't cream the butter enough?
I am preparing for a cake decorating party for some 8-year-olds and was testing a simple butter cake recipe.
I made a small-ish batch of batter (just over a stick of butter, just under 1/2 lb of flour), but I have a large stand mixer and I don't think I really creamed the butter enough. (This isn't the first time I've run into the issue of the large mixer not being ideal for small batches.)
The test cakes seemed to come out fine - they certainly aren't terrible - but I was wondering what, in general, happens to a cake when you're using the creaming method but don't really cream the butter enough? Does the cake come out heavier?
The idea of creaming is definitely to incorporate some air into the fat-sugar mixture, which should give the final product a lighter texture. So perhaps your cake was a little heavier than it was supposed to be. Good creaming also helps distribute the fat well.
But maybe you managed to mix some more air in later in the recipe - certainly I imagine you could do better beating the batter with a stand mixer than I can by hand! And with a stand mixer I'm sure it was all mixed fine, too. So if the cakes weren't too heavy for you, it's not anything to worry about.
I find that it helps to make sure you cream it enough, but not too much.
If you over cream it, like i have before then your cakes become a light messy mess
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.700128 | 2012-03-17T05:04:56 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22338",
"authors": [
"Paul Webster",
"Tyler Ruby",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59279",
"user3653831"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
6606 | What oils are "required" for a decent home kitchen?
What different varieties of oil are really needed in a decent home kitchen?
I ask because I've only two right now (olive & sunflower) that I try to use "correctly" but sometimes use interchangeably. I wonder what I'm missing.
Related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/701/what-oil-or-fat-to-use-for-different-purposes ; http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/670/when-is-a-cooking-oil-not-appropriate-to-substitute-for-another
At a bare minimum, you'll want at least one "flavoured" and one "unflavoured" oil.
Olive oil is definitely the most common choice for a flavoured oil, and sunflower/peanut/canola oil all have pretty neutral flavours (not to mention similar smoke points).
Note that for good flavour you'll want extra virgin olive oil, which also makes it unsuitable for frying/sautéing at high temperatures.
So I would say that you already have the minimum requirement. That said, even the "unflavoured" oils have subtly different flavour characteristics due to their different fat contents, and you'll want to take this into consideration if you like to cook in ethnic cuisines. A short list (and keep in mind that this is partially subjective):
Peanut oil: Asian cuisine, Mexican cuisine (high-temperature frying)
Sesame oil: Asian cuisine (stir-fry or deep-fry [refined only])
Olive oil: Italian cuisine, French cuisine (low-temp)
Sunflower or Canola oil: American cuisine, esp. deep-frying
Grape seed oil: Decent substitute for any of the other oils
Walnut/almond oil: Great for fried desserts (watch the smoke point though).
For the sesame oil, what you want is toasted sesame oil - you can recognize it from the deep, dark brown color. It isn't used for cooking; a few drops are added in a finished dish to add an intense sesame flavor. (Sometimes more than a few drops, in dressing form).
@Michael: Toasted sesame oil is used for frying rice in East Asian cuisine.
@Michael: I thought of pointing that out (I've pointed it out in other answers) but decided to stick to cooking oils. Your point is of course correct, as long as the toasted sesame oil is not used for cooking. I also add 1 tsp - 1 tbsp in many stir-fry sauces. Of course, if we're getting into non-cooking oils then there's also chili oil and many of the more esoteric nut oils, etc. Definitely not an exhaustive list here. :)
@Noldorin - I've never seen the toasted sesame oil used for the frying of fried rice; what I've seen is that you fry with peanut oil and then drizzle in the toasted sesame oil at the end. Reference for the other way?
Sesame oil is great for marinating. (If the flavor fits)
@Michael: Peanut oil is actually a relatively minor oil for use in frying in East Asian cuisine. Anyway, in terms of references: http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/289407 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sesame_oil#Cooking http://www.cooks.com/rec/search/0,1-0,sesame_chicken_stir-fry,FF.html I have read that dark (toasted) sesame oil is unsuitable for deep drying, but this isn't inherent to Chinese cuisine anyway. It's rather commonplace in pan-frying chicken/pork as I understand; certainly always worked for me. :)
If you deep-fry, peanut should be the 2nd. The neutral seed oils (canola, sunflower, corn, etc.) all cook about the same. Peanut has a fairly high smoke point, so is better for deep-frying. Olive has a good flavor. Sesame, almond, walnut and other nut oils are short-lived, and tend to be expensive. They make great additions to salad dressings or as a finishing flavor in some dishes (sesame is great in a stir fry).
Olive oil has a low smoke point (especially extra virgin), and will loose considerable flavor if heated, so it isn't recommended for frying (it costs more than the seed oils, and its a shame to waste it). Any high-temp cooking should not be done in olive oil.
Since I don't deep fry often, I have two cooking oils on hand: good olive, and canola. The olive is used mainly to finish or in lower temp saute/sweat. The canola is used to fry onions, pancakes, meat, and anything else that takes some higher heat. I chose canola because it has a neutral flavor and a fairly good omega-3 content. Plus it was cheap.
I also have some white truffle, walnut, and sesame in the fridge for finishing. They aren't used terribly often, and a bit goes a long way. Also: butter. Although it isn't really an oil, I use lots of butter/ghee(clarified butter) in my cooking. Good one to make sure you always have on hand.
Peanut oil has the same smoke point as sunflower and corn oil. Canola oil is actually higher. I was under the impression that most fried-food (or fast-food) restaurants actually use sunflower oil because it's lower in saturated fat.
Fair food is typically peanut oil from my experience. mmm it is about that time of year anyway!
Olive and canola are my choices as well. That's all I keep on hand.
Hmm... I always thought that peanut was best for deep frying. We always use it to deep-fry turkeys, maybe just because its cheap and we need about 3-5 gallons.
If you're deep-frying, I would think smoke point is less important, as you will be heating such a massive volume that you're unlikely to blow past the proper temperature. For pan frying and stir-fry, your pan may well be far in excess of the oil's proper temperature, where a more tolerant oil will be more forgiving.
If you're looking for a 'must keep on
hand' list -- a mild oil, extra virgin
olive oil and butter will get you
through most anything. Add shortening
if you like baking, and sesame oil if
you like to cook asian food, and
you'll be prepared for most anything.
For the justification see my response to What oil or fat to use for different purposes?
Olive extra virgin and sunflower. Same here. Make sure the olive oil is extra virgin though, for flavor and use sparingly.
We often have much more than two, but I'd say the two you really need are olive oil and some form of vegetable oil (vegetable, cannola, sunflower). The second type will often have a higher smoke point than olive oil. I find olive oil has much more flavor than vegetable or cannola oil. Olive oil is often used in dressings as well.
Once you start to get in to more specific dishes, you may find the number balloons from two though. Sesame oil for asian food, peanut oil for deep frying, a nice evoo for salads. I think we have about 6 different types of oil, but we mostly just use olive and cannola.
I've actually come to find lately that grape seed oil is extremely versatile. It has a very light, mild flavor, and when used in cooking you almost can't taste it at all. When used in its "raw" state, the flavor is a little nutty, and makes a very nice addition to salads/dressings. I've used it to make a basil infusion that was great. And, with a very high smoke point, it's safe to use for frying and sauteing.
I now use grapeseed oil in place of olive and vegetable oils in a whole lot of recipes. It's become my go-to oil lately.
If I had to have only two oils in my kitchen, they would be an olive oil, and grape seed oil.
I agree, it's quite versatile and can substitute well for many other oils. Note that it does have a lower smoke point than the refined peanut/sunflower/canola oils and is probably not suitable for deep-frying (but is still great for pan-frying).
@Aaron: I do very little deep frying, so my knowledge on that is only from reading, not from experience, but from what I understand you deep fry at 375F, 400F max. Peanut and sunflower seem to have a SP of 450, and grape seed is 420, which is obviously different, but should still be in the "safe" range for deep frying, no?
@stephen: 375° F is typical, but I've seen recipes calling for higher temperatures - it depends on what you're frying. You also want a safety margin, since the temperature isn't necessarily going to be perfectly uniform; if you're deep frying at 400° F, then a 450° F smoke point is totally safe, but 420° F is a little on the risky side; one slip and it's burnt. I'm sure that professionals can deal with such tight margins easily, but I wouldn't recommend it to a novive-to-intermediate home cook.
@Aaron: great point, noted in case I ever start using the deep fryer I received as a gift :) Thanks for the info!
Ah, well if you have an actual deep fryer then that's another story; the whole idea of those is that they're basically worry-free. I was really think of deep-frying in a wok or pan, which is considerably less precise (but still just as delicious).
Makes sense - I can only imagine that deep frying in a cast iron dutch oven would be a combination of fun, delicious, and potentially dangerous. Which means it's right up my alley! :)
One oil with a high smoke point, plus any with flavors you like.
I keep:
peanut or canola oil
extra virgin olive oil
sesame oil
and sometime a small quantity of something else if a recipe called for it.
Other fats on hand include:
butter
schmaltz (skimmed from a chicken pot left to cool, rewarmed, poured into ice cube trays to freeze and kept in a baggie in the freezer)
bacon fat (poured hot from the pan into a jar by the stove; mostly used for seasoning my cast iron, but also for flavor)
Olive oil is a must have in a Kitchen. The only other type of oil that you want to keep is something with a neutral flavor and high smoke point. I recommend Canola oil or Vegetable oil.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.700398 | 2010-09-02T18:33:04 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6606",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Adam Shiemke",
"Chris",
"Instance Hunter",
"Joe",
"Michael Natkin",
"Nick T",
"Noldorin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1016",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"stephennmcdonald",
"user2215"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
6934 | Defrosting pizza dough correctly?
Last time I made pizza dough I was a bit...generous with the ingredients - not a problem, I thought, as I'd read before somewhere that pizza dough is nicely freezable. So, I broke the dough in half, sealed up one piece and placed it in the freezer - this was done immediately after kneading, with no time given for rising.
Now I've got a frozen lump of pizza dough in the freezer, and I'm not sure how I defrost it so it also then rises correctly and cooks well.
If I just leave it out uncovered it will presumably rise inconsistently because the middle will take much longer to defrost?
So should I leave it in the fridge first?
Or, is it better left somewhere warm through the entire defrost to help fire up the yeast?
Or have I "done it wrong" and may as well dump this particular piece?
Since my pizza dough recipe makes three 12" pies and I usually make two at a time, I regularly freeze extras just as you did.
To thaw, I have used both the countertop and refrigerator method. Thawing on the countertop produced the best results. The dough rolled as usual and the crust (a thin one) was crispy on the outside and chewy on the inside after baking.
This is three years too late but since your dough was not cold fermented before freezing, I would suggest thawing/cold fermenting the dough in the refrigerator for 24-48 hours. This will allow the yeast to consume more of the fermentable sugars and develop more complex flavors in your dough. Yeast doughs are the easiest to freeze by coating them lightly with olive oil, then bagging them without air and freezing them.
Source: Dedicated Chef at Stanley's Farmhouse Pizza
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.701034 | 2010-09-07T18:00:49 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6934",
"authors": [
"Scott Rehart",
"SpellingD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14071",
"jason",
"pseudosudo"
],
"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
} |
22606 | How do I ripen a Mango?
I've bought a fresh mango for a recipe, I've not used mango fresh before and it's currently pretty green (there didn't seem to be any that were more ripe at the shop) and came with a sticker on informatively saying just "Ripen at home".
So, what's the best environment to help it ripen?
Should it be refrigerated during ripening and/or when ripe?
And how do I reliably tell when it's 'ready'?
You can let it ripe at room temperature.
If you want to slow down the ripening process, put it in the fridge, although this will affect the mango negatively. If you want to speed up the process, put it in a bag with a banana.
When the mango is ready to eat, it will be slightly soft if you press it and you can smell the mango flesh through the peel. The green colour will not totally disappear.
As per themaroon's suggestion of an apple, bananas also produce high quantities of ethylene. As do tomatoes. If you've ever wondered why bunches of bananas ripen together it's because of increasing concentration of ethylene in the bunch. Also, the phrase one bad apple ruins the bunch is directly related to the ethylene production of the single apple increasing the production of ethylene in apples near it. So anyway, Mien says banana, themaroon says apple. I say tomato. :)
There is some information about ethylene itself here http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109/why-does-a-brown-paper-bag-speed-ripening so I didn't feel the need to repeat it now :) But you're absolutely right.
I put an unripe mango into a paper bag. After a couple days, it developed dark/black spots where it was starting to rot, and the rest of the mango was still unripe. I won't do that again.
Fruit ripens due to exposure to a gas called ethylene. If you want fruit to ripen faster, expose it to more ethylene. Industrial agriculture companies often pick fruit under-ripe, ship it, then hit it with ethylene gas to ripen near the point of sale.
One common method is to put the fruit in a paper bag, which will trap the ethylene and therefore expose the fruit to it more. If you're in a hurry, toss an apple in the bag as well. This works for almost all fruit.
Putting the mango into a paper bag (or wrapping it into newspaper) also prevents the mango from drying. Source: my experience. :)
I put an unripe mango into a paper bag. After a couple days, it developed dark/black spots where it was starting to rot, and the rest of the mango was still unripe. I won't do that again.
This is true for all climacteric fruit. And Mango is climacteric. See https://foodandnutrition.org/blogs/student-scoop/ripening-101-climacteric-vs-non-climacteric-fruits/
Back home in India we had a big container filled with rice grains. Placing the mangoes inside the container would hasten the ripening process immensely.
Was there a top on the container?
Place the mango in a bowl with raw popcorn seeds. My boyfriend is from Jalisco, Mexico, and his mother is used to ripen them in this way.
Fruit ripening is largely caused by a plant hormone called ethylene, which is a gas. Most fruits give off ethylene in ever increasing quantities as they ripen.
Temperature is a key determinant of chemical reaction rates and therefore, produce (fruits and vegetables) metabolic rates. Ethylene production increases as temperature rises. Ripening for most fruit is best at or slightly above room temperature, (68 - 70F). Low temperature can inactivate essential enzymes required for full ripening. The fruit may not complete the ripening processes, and/or achieve full flavor.
When detached from the growing plant fresh produce continues to transpire and lose water, therefore it is very important to maintain high relative humidity (85% RH) in the storage atmosphere.
Put fruits that emit a high concentration of ethylene such as apples, pears, bananas, avocados and passion fruit in a paper bag with slower ripening fruit, then inside a plastic bag to contain more of the ethylene gas.
Key variables affecting the storage life and eating quality of fruit and vegetables:
1. •time from harvest
2. •temperature
3. •relative humidity
4. •atmosphere composition
5. •ethylene
6. •pest and disease
7. •pre- and postharvest treatments
Place in dark place, like a cabinet over night- easy.
Store them in a warm place along with Hay.
...hay? Why hay?
In India, we do so. Dry hay acts as probably as insulator.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.701219 | 2012-03-28T09:11:18 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22606",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Caroline And Friends",
"Chasity Hoffman",
"Ching Chong",
"Dave Caravona",
"Dynamic Homeopathy",
"Elijah Lynn",
"Mien",
"Popup",
"Priscilla de Abreu Lopes",
"Roger",
"ekonomim",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101932",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101961",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/111906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126252",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24099",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25423",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50920",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50922",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58990",
"lightawake",
"pacoverflow",
"texnic",
"tuxnani",
"zacechola"
],
"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
} |
6706 | Why would I use Arrowroot instead of Cornstarch?
I've heard that arrowroot can be used just like cornstarch as a thickening agent. If I have both ingredients on hand, under what circumstances would I choose one over the other?
Compared to corn starch, arrowroot:
Results in a clearer, shinier texture;
Survives the freezing process much better; and
Works better in acidic liquids (certain sauces, soups, etc.)
Where it doesn't work so well is in many fruit pies and some other baked goods (because it tends to break down under high heat), and in dairy dishes (you'll end up with a "gooey" texture).
Use arrowroot in place of corn starch whenever your needs match the above.
P.S. Many people are also allergic to corn, and this is probably one of the most common reasons to use arrowroot. If this applies to you, and you're making a dish that is not suited to arrowroot, tapioca flour/starch is another great thickener and actually thickens better than corn starch.
I try to use almost exclusively tapioca in pies. Cornstarch dulls the flavors of fruit, as does flour.
@justkt: Indeed, this has come up before. ;) I rely heavily on tapioca not just in pies and other baked goods but also many sauces because you need so little of it to thicken.
and apparently I repeated myself! Oy.
Agreed on the clear nature of the result, that's what I was taught. Did not know about freezing / acidity though.
You are right about the high heat thing - cornflour gets thick and just stays thick, arrowroot needs more careful attention as it can get thick then with more heat (not necessarily higher, in my experience, just longer) it can "go over" and start to thin out again. Only remedy at this point is to add more (which is not ideal, of course).
Arrowroot is also safe for anyone who has issues with corn.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.701589 | 2010-09-03T16:52:47 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6706",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"AdamV",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1807",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"justkt"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
6819 | Techniques for cooking beef shin in the piece
I have a large (1.5kg/3lb) piece of beef shin, in the piece with skin on. I normally use beef shin for stews, but I would like to try slow-roasting or pot roasting it in a single piece.
Have you tried this? Can you recommend any techniques?
I've never used beef shin, but it's probably a good candidate for braising. Brown the outside in a pan, add aromatics (carrot, onion, celery, herbs) and beef stock, cover and let gently simmer for about 3 hours or so, until it starts to fall apart.
Once it's done, you can separate it from the juice and reduce the braising juices to a sauce that you can serve it with (you might add a bit of cornstarch slurry or a roux if you want to thicken the sauce more).
This basic technique works well for types of meat that have a lot of connective tissue.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.701754 | 2010-09-06T13:00:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6819",
"authors": [
"Lauren",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14253"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
19123 | Reheat a turkey without drying it out?
For reasons not related to this question, I had to cook my turkeys yesterday. My meat themometer died near the end of cooking. So I ran to the store to get one "real fast".
Three stores later I came home to two over done birds (185 degrees).
While not totally dry, I don't want them to dry out any more while reheating them today.
Should I slice them then heat them? Is there a better way to reheat than another? (ie oven vs microwave vs warming drawer vs (some other heating tool).)
You want to use a gentle heating method. For this sort of thing, I prefer steaming. It will gently bring up the heat of your food without wringing the moisture out of it. This is especially helpful if it's already cut into relatively small portions, such as slices of breast meat. Spread everything out on a single layer on the steamer basket before hand.
Warming drawer would be my second choice. Slice, add a few teaspoons of water, and cover and add to your warming drawer, set to your target temperature.
Even better than water is some stock or the roasting juices that came out during initial cooking. Spoon that over in the pan.
One option is to heat them in gravy. But you'll need lots of gravy for that.
Get the gravy hot, and pour it over carved turkey in a casserole. Warm it up in the oven.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.701846 | 2011-11-24T19:10:20 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19123",
"authors": [
"MarsJarsGuitars-n-Chars",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41553",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41555",
"ocean",
"sandra sweatman",
"user41555"
],
"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
} |
620 | Can I freeze egg yolks?
Sometimes when making recipes that require just egg whites, I don't know what to do with the yolks so I just throw them out. Instead of throwing them out, is it possible to freeze them and keep them to use at a later date?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.701990 | 2010-07-11T13:03:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/620",
"authors": [
"Ian Webster",
"Pierre-Luc Simard",
"TryHarder",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1157",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9831",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9836",
"itj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
3155 | What's a good technique for cooking fresh corn in the microwave?
What techniques for cooking fresh corn in the microwave give good results? Should I peel it, should I add water, salt, butter, etc.
I can't imagine throwing an ear of corn into the microwave because it is so good and easy to boil in water. Boil it (sans husk) for about 20 minutes and let each person add butter, salt, and pepper to taste. yummmmmm!
20 minutes? Five works for me.
@Ben : if you're cooking for 1, and it's the middle of the summer (and you don't want to further heat up the house), the microwave is your friend.
I honestly have no clue how long to boil corn, but I know that I've boiled it for 20 minutes with great results. 5 minutes probably will work just as well :-).
@Joe Good point.
I've done it in the husk, when it's fresh (ie, the husk isn't dried out), but I don't like the grassy flavors that the husk imparts.
My neighbor's clued me into a box of dry wax paper sheets to cover food for the microwave (so I can be lazy and not have to clean the microwave as often), so I wrap the corn in it after it's been husked and the silk removed. I just roll in around the corn, twist the ends like the paper wrapping on taffy, then microwave it for a few seconds.
I haven't done it recently, so I can't remember exact times (and the wattage of microwaves differ, anyway) ... you just want to warm it through, though. If you were going to try to get it hot, I'd consider dropping to medium power for a much longer time, so you don't overly cook the outside, as I vaguely recall having an incident once.
That is exactly how I do it -- husk and remove silk, then wrap in wax paper. Place in microwave and cook for about 3 to 5 minutes for the first ear, with an additional 2 minutes or so for each additional ear, or until they give gently when you squeeze them (through a towel or oven mitt, since they'll be hot). Unwrap and serve.
Wrap in wet paper towel and microwave for no more than 5 minutes for 2 cobs, 3 minutes for 1
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.702055 | 2010-07-25T02:56:19 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3155",
"authors": [
"Ben McCormack",
"CriminallyVulgar",
"Joe",
"JoelHess",
"Martha F.",
"Richard",
"Shankar Raju",
"ceejayoz",
"haffax",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5716",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5717",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5718",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5736",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80087"
],
"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
} |
2910 | Does grenadine need to be refrigerated?
I've been looking for a bottle of Rose's Grenadine for quite a while without luck, so when I saw a big ol' liter of Llord's at the liquor store, I grabbed it. I'm not sure I want to allocate that much fridge space to it though. Can I keep it behind the bar instead?
Sugar is a preservative and there's a little bit of alcohol in it too, so my guess is it's ok on the shelf.
I'm not sure about other types of grenadine, but assuming they're the same as Rose's, they do not need to be refrigerated.
It's not just that they contain sugar - they're practically nothing but sugar, water, and a couple of "chemicals." There's really nothing in there that can spoil, unless you put something else into the bottle that wasn't there originally.
Unless you accidentally dropped a piece of chicken in there, definitely don't worry about refrigeration. It can sit on the shelf.
Oh... I accidentally drop chicken into my alcohol all the time... no wonder I get sick.
FYI, the grenadine you buy in stores such as Rose's generally doesn't contain any alcohol. It's like sour mix or margarita mix - just a mixer, not a liqueur.
I called the number on the label. The shelf life of Rose's grenadine is 6 months REFRIGERATED. I had been storing mine in my liquor cabinet for awhile, he told me that it should be good as long as it doesn't smell funky. None of these high-sugar content products really go 'bad' in the traditional sense.
up-vote for using the phone--something I never do ;)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.702247 | 2010-07-23T00:42:31 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2910",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"AnnanFay",
"Mugen",
"Ritwik Bose",
"Shane Delmore",
"adambox",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/390",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5213"
],
"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
} |
35357 | Can I substitute whole anchovies for anchovy paste?
I have several recipes that call for anchovy paste; I think they're typically vinaigrettes. They don't carry the paste at Trader Joe's so I bought a small can of whole anchovies.
Can I substitute the whole (presumably chopped/smashed/pureed) for paste? I assume I would use the same volume? And for others, can paste be substituted for whole in recipes where the whole anchovy is going to be pureed anyhow?
Oh, and since I'll have leftover anchovies from the can, I assume they will freeze fine for further anchovy paste substitutions?
You might want to rinse the salt off of the anchovies first. Sometimes they are too salty and make your paste more salty than you want.
You can easily make your own anchovy paste from canned anchovies. This America's Test Kitchen video shows how:
Chop the anchovies fairly finely
Mash with a fork until smooth
Some sites recommend adding a little oil for a smoother texture.
I have never tried it, but I don't see any reason this would not freeze exceptionally well, as neither whole anchovies nor the paste are used for their texture.
If you've an Asian store handy, you can also buy the dried little fish, and chop them into a powder using your coffee/spice grinder.
yes, paste is just ground anchovy... better to make your own because the paste is made from the anchovies that were not suited to be sold whole.
Not suited to be sold whole might just mean they're, well, not whole. Nothing wrong with making paste out of little bits instead of wasting them.
The paste is just ground up anchovies. I use a mortar and pestle to make it.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.702505 | 2013-07-17T19:41:14 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35357",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"MandoMando",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
32327 | How can I uniformly chop peanuts?
I'd love to get something approximating the nicely uniform chopped peanuts you get when you order a sundae at McDonald's.
I have tried manually chopping the nuts, and they come out all sorts of shapes and sizes. I bought a manual nut chopper, and while this is closer, there's still lots of peanut dust.
Short of buying a commercial nut chopper, is there any trick to get the nuts chopped evenly and with minimal dust?
wear an apron and chef's hat
Use a sieve to remove the dust. A wire mesh kitchen strainer should work.
I would imagine the commercial choppers used for McDonald's nuts generate the same amount of dust. They probably sell that dust for some other purpose.
The dust should be easy enough to remove: just shake them around in a strainer.
I did consider that idea as I was typing the question; thanks for writing it out :)
I've bought 'pecan meal' before, which I suspect is the leftovers from a similar process.
As @Carey Gregory already mentioned about McDonald's, I generally cook for 6-10 people and for small kitty and birthday parties, so for that I use a manual nut chopper (with size adjustment bolt). This gives me fine results of chopped nuts almost in equal shapes. For 2-5 servings, I simply use a sharp knife to chop them. I almost every time try to make them uniformly chopped. But obviously it's a time taking process, but you can do it if you are preparing for 3-5 servings. You can purchase the nut chopper with size adjustment bolt for much better result.
I bet a coffee grinder would also do the trick.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.702655 | 2013-03-01T23:51:09 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32327",
"authors": [
"Jason P Sallinger",
"Jeff Axelrod",
"Joe",
"Sara D Gore",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6711"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
33008 | What temperature range is suitable for grill smoking?
I've noticed when smoking on the grill that sometimes there is no visible smoke, though there's the clear smell of burning wood.
Once the wood has begun to smoke, what grill temperature will ensure the process continues and that the food is smoked? Is the chosen temperature just a matter of maintaining this minimum temperature and stretching or shortening cooking time and smoke exposure?
Is there a specific food you're looking at? I've added a general answer, but I didn't get in to detail on 15min vs 30min vs 12hr smoke times, which can make quite a difference in how you solve the issue.
What sort of wood are you using. How old is it?
@tfd Typically hickory chips from newly purchased to a year old.
If you want good smoke, try a soft wood or shrub wood (cedar, lavender, tea tree). You only need to age wood with running sap. Smoking wood with liquid sap can be nice, but may be too astringent
Don't let the tail wag the dog. When smoking, you want to figure out time and temperature first and worry about smoke second. This can obviously vary widely. That said, there are things you can do to get more smoke going:
If you can smell it, you'll get some smoke flavor. If you can see it, you'll get more. If you're not getting (much) visible smoke then you need some combination of 1) wetter wood 2) lower temperature 3) larger wood. You get less smoke when the wood just goes up in flames. Chips are particularly prone to do this. Larger chunks smolder better. Things also smolder better when they're very wet or the fire isn't so hot. But again, you want to figure out your temperature and then get smoke, not make large temp changes just to get smoke.
If you're doing very low and slow (225F), sometimes that's not enough heat to get your wood smoking well. Smaller chips or higher temperature are the only things I've found that really solve this problem.
Proof that soaking wood chips accomplishes almost nothing.
@CareyGregory That article doesn't sound like proof, only hypothesizing. Or did I miss something? Were there blind tastings and experiments?
@JeffAxelrod He proved how much water is actually absorbed during a 12-hour soak: 3% for chunks and 6% for chips. He makes the point that such a trivial amount of water would evaporate almost immediately, and until it did so it would limit the temperature of the wood to 212F/100C, preventing smoke generation. So, soaking accomplishes nothing. In practice, I've found he's quite right. Soaked wood begins to smoke (not steam) a few moments later than dry wood, but it burns up just as quickly.
The usual temperature range for traditional low-and-slow BBQ is between 200F and 250F, although there's plenty of variation allowed - I've made solid BBQ at 300F. (Cold-smoking, as in for making smoked-salmon, is a wholly different animal)
With a closed grill and smoke-wood mixed in with the coals, there should be plenty of heat to smolder the wood. Note that you DO NOT need to see visible smoke to get smoke-flavor - most pro-BBQ pitmasters will allow the smoke to get to a 'blue-smoke' stage - not thick, billowing white smoke - for best flavor.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.702809 | 2013-03-25T19:42:33 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33008",
"authors": [
"Allee ",
"Carey Gregory",
"Jeff Axelrod",
"L. F.",
"Sam",
"TFD",
"ayip",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76361",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76362",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76363",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79185",
"user76362",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
34000 | What's the trick to wrapping tightly in plastic wrap?
In grocery stores, they seem to have some trick for wrapping produce and other items tightly in what appears to be standard household plastic wrap. At home, I always struggle to get a nice airtight seal, typically with cheeses. I can usually get the "main" four surfaces nice and tight, but I can't figure out how to get the remaining two sides of the block very well sealed.
Is there some magic wrapping technique, say for a block of cheese, that will ensure a nice airtight seal against each side of the block?
Use zipper style plastic bags
The wrap used in most grocery stores isn't the same as your household wrap.
Most of the consumer brands of plastic "cling" wrap are now formulated from low-density polyethylene. It's rolled very thin to give you the best price per unit of length, and has reasonable stickyness.
Most stores use a product called "meat film" which is most commonly made from PVC. It's a little thicker, more wrinkle-resistant to give the product contained inside a better appearance, and it's stickier.
The other thing that grocery stores do to make the seal better is they use a heat sealer on the plastic. These are heated pads where they'll place a wrapped piece of plastic for a few seconds. It's not enough heat to melt the plastic, so in most cases you can still pull it apart, but it is just enough to shrink the joint together, and pull it taut across the front of the packaging.
Ah, that explains it. If I recall correctly, there still is one brand of plastic wrap you can buy at Costco that uses PVC, Stretch-Tite. I suppose my worries about PVC in plastic wrap are somewhat moot if the grocery stores already use it before I get home!
Adding to cpilko's good answer, when storing cheese I generally use plastic bags because they are thicker. In fact, for some of the more stinky types (or delicate ones as it's as much about the cheese absorbing flavors as emitting them) I'll double bag or put the bag into a plastic container.
Even doing that isn't perfect. A few years ago I flew a whole bunch of cheese I bought in Le Touquet, France back to SE England in a Cessna 172. I only cruised at 3000 ft which isn't very high and isn't that much of a pressure drop. I had double bagged the cheeses in ziplock freezer bags, the heavy duty ones, and pushed as much air out as I could, yet the pressure change still pulled out any remaining air from the bags and stank the airplane up something terrible. I week later and I could swear I still smelled cheese.
Wrapping in plastic to keep air out and the cheese fresh, then placing the wrapped cheese into a Ziploc freezer bag would probably help with odors and might even extend the shelf life. Not a bad idea.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.703065 | 2013-05-08T01:14:58 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34000",
"authors": [
"Greg P.",
"Jeff Axelrod",
"Jet",
"Lacrioque",
"Ryan",
"Siddique Ali",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79052",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79065"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
34045 | Effect of adding wet ingredients to dry when making bread?
I inadvertently omitted the eggs from my challah recipe, but realized this only after the final step of mixing in and after fully incorporating the flour. Rather than throwing everything away, I attempted to resuscitate the dough by adding the eggs.
The dough took on a very odd texture initially, then I kept mixing and added a few tablespoons of extra flour very gradually. Eventually it resembled the normal dough.
Should my bread turn out alright? What happens when you add extra liquid to a flour rather than adding the flour last?
The main issue you will face is the extra mixing allows for additional gluten development. In some breads, this could create a risk of over-kneading, which could make the dough less workable, more prone to tearing, and more difficult to get the proper rise.
Challah is a basic egg enriched bread, so other than the eggs themselves (which are fairly effective at helping prevent over-kneading) you don't have a great deal of protection. The worst case scenario is that your bread will be a little flat and crumbly; the best case is that you are still well within the tolerance window and it will be just fine.
Edit: I will leave this for reference, but I was thinking of brioche: in a very sweet, fatty bread like brioche, this risk is minimized. The fat and sugars in the dough act as barriers preventing the glutin-precursors from interacting as frequently or as easily, making it much, much more difficult to over knead.
The main reasons for the traditional order of dough assembly are:
As you no doubt realize, it is much easier to incorporate the liquids evenly into loose flour, rather than a partially formed dough
The yeast acts on the ingredients present, so sometimes ingredients which inhibit yeast growth are held back until after a fermentation phase
You want time for all of the flour to be fully hydrated--normally, in yeast raised doughs, this is hardly an issue.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.703296 | 2013-05-10T12:38:25 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34045",
"authors": [
"David John Baer McNicholas",
"Seana",
"Spam",
"findricecooker",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79166",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79173",
"iAbdullla"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
20675 | How long does butter cream icing keep?
My icing is 1/4 cup butter to 1 1/2 cups of icing sugar and a couple tablespoons of milk, so I'm thinking that with so much sugar, the answer is "almost indefinitely in the fridge."
So, as the title says, how long is it reasonable to keep the remnants of a batch? Although I've made small amounts (like the above recipe) on occasion, I'd like to make a big batch, seal it up, and use it as needed.
(I realize that it might not work as well a month or two down the road, I'll experiment with it if I decide it's ok to use.)
Well you're kinda right about it lasting a long time due to the sugar content. That will help the preserving process to the extreme. However, to be pratical you should be looking at how long the butter fat will survive in the fridge before it starts to take on funky flavours and loses it's moisture.
You'll be fine in an air tight tub for a month or so but then flavour will suffer. If you freeze it (it can be done but the quality will really suffer later) you can get away with 4-6 months before freezer burn kills it.
Honestly, I'd just do smaller batches and enjoy the higher quality product. For what you save on time doing the larger batch, you'll give up on taste and quality later.
In the fridge, in a sealed container, buttercream can be stored for up to two weeks. The amount of sugar it contains has absolutely nothing to do with shelf life.
Seriously, I have butter in my fridge for months. I use half&half which lasts a lot longer than milk in the fridge. Then there is powdered sugar and vanilla. What is there to go bad in a month?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.703483 | 2012-01-22T03:43:27 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20675",
"authors": [
"Ali G",
"Evgeny Soynov",
"Thelma H",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45440",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45578",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97122",
"miracle173"
],
"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
} |
23864 | Can cashews go bad? If so, how do you tell?
We have a tub of cashews that seems "off:" they smell a little different and taste a little different than we're used to.
They don't smell or taste rancid (to us, I don't think I've ever tried cashews that were old enough to possibly be rancid) but I'm wondering if there can be any other type of degredation in them. e.g. I've read that peanuts can get a sort of mold growing on them that's not good for you.
It is possible for mold to form on cashews - or any other nuts - but only if there has been moisture penetration into the container. If the moisture is at a safe (low) level, then mold won't grow.
See for example, Mycology and spoilage of retail cashew nuts, which refers to the maximum acceptable moisture content of 5.8% for retail storage/shipping, although if you look at their data table, it appears that you may still end up with non-trivial amounts of mold in the low 5% range (which is why you are supposed to store nuts sealed and in a cool, dry place).
Honestly, cashews are hard enough such that you would almost certainly see mold on the surface if it were present in harmful quantities. Most likely what you're smelling/tasting is simply oxidation of the fats (the process which causes rancidity) without actual full-blown rancidity. Mold requires moisture but all oxidation requires is light and maybe a little air exposure.
If you really want to be on the safe side - e.g. if your home is particularly hot or humid - then store your nuts in the refrigerator or freezer (sealed, to prevent contamination or off-odours). Although most (all?) nuts are considered shelf-stable, they do keep longer in the fridge or freezer.
Edit: I see the poster speaks to this. Non-the-less, I'm going to leave this as an answer to the title question.
Cashews are pretty oily nuts and stored under less than ideal conditions can go rancid. A few months in a warmer than room temperature environment will do it. Keep them cool and they are very durable.
I speak from bitter experience.
The smell and taste are very much like any other rancid oil: not something I have words for, but you only need experience it once.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.703643 | 2012-05-20T16:30:42 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23864",
"authors": [
"Carol Stevens",
"Elizabeth Inyang",
"LillithSnow123",
"Michael Redbourn",
"P. Bland",
"Sam Apple",
"Zananok",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54144",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54145",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54173",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54222",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54223"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
27407 | How much salt is absorbed by meat during brining?
Has anyone created a table of sodium absorbtion during brining vs. other contributing factors such as brining time, meat type, salt ratio, etc.
I'd like to be able to compute how much sodium is absorbed in a cut of meat during brining.
Cooks Illustrated apparently sent some brined meat off to a lab for analysis:
We were also interested in finding out how much sodium penetrates
during the process. To answer the question, we brined natural pork
chops and boneless, skinless chicken breasts in standard quick-brine
solutions of 1/2 cup table salt dissolved in 2 quarts of cold water.
After 30 minutes, we removed the pork and chicken, patted them dry,
and cooked them in different skillets. We also cooked an “enhanced”
pork chop (injected with a saltwater solution) and a kosher chicken
breast that had been salted during processing. We sent the samples to
a food lab to measure sodium content. The brined pork chops had a
sodium content of 245 milligrams per 100 grams of meat (just under 1/8
teaspoon per serving); the enhanced pork had a bit more, with 268
milligrams. The kosher chicken breast weighed in at 252 milligrams of
sodium. The brined chicken came in with the most sodium of all, at 353
milligrams (just over 1/8 teaspoon per serving). The USDA recommends
limiting your daily sodium intake to 2,300 milligrams, about 1
teaspoon. Why did the chicken absorb more salt during brining than the
pork? The loose white muscle fibers in chicken absorb salt water more
quickly than the tighter muscle fibers in pork.
Seems like an awful lot of work, when you could get a reasonable estimate of the absorption by analyzing the brine water that was left behind.
I think it depends on to many things to give a good guide, the shape of the meat being very hard to model.
I.e. a very thin piece will 'brine' much faster than a sphere.
One way would be to do equilibrium brine (see Modernist Cuisine), i.e. brine for if I remember correctly 2-3 days up to 1-2 weeks (for very large pieces of meat) until equilibrium has been reached, i.e. the meat and the brine have the same salt ration.
Calculate the total weight (excluding any bone) of water and meat and add the percentage of salt that you want to get your meats salt content to.
I.e. you want a 1% saly meat, it weighs 1 kg, you use 1L of water, i.e. 2 KG total weight, 1% salt in 2KG equals 20g. I.e. add 20g salt to the water, let sit for probably 1 week. Now you will have about 1.1 Kg meat, therefore about 11g of salt in the meat.
For a previous question about brining fish I found a source that stated in a normal brine (10-20% salt) the concentration of salt in meat will not exceed about 5% by weight no matter how long it is brined. Since the salt diffuses through the meat along a gradient, extended brining will only make the salt concentration more even from exterior to interior.
EDIT
The article I was referring to can be found here. On a second reading, it appears my earlier statement was incorrect. The article states that wet curing methods can reach a salt concentration of 26%, but that maximum water gain is reached once the the salt concentration in the meat is around 5%. This process takes around 30 days.
Any luck finding your link?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.703846 | 2012-09-26T19:12:03 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27407",
"authors": [
"C. Mills",
"Guy Talla",
"Jeff Axelrod",
"KitchenWoman",
"May C",
"Membio ",
"Sean Hart",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61737",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61738",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61739",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61793",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64236",
"kim",
"maxathousand",
"s.voss"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
108275 | Repackaging shelf-stable products
For products that start out shelf stable but are labeled "refrigerate after opening," I'm wondering if it's possible to safely return them to their shelf-stable status to save refrigerator space. A few specific products come to mind: olives, maple syrup, salad dressing.
For example, could a vacuum sealer and a sterilized jar work? Or does exposure to germs in the air compromise the food requiring refrigeration?
Exposure to germs is the problem, once you open these they are exposed and the clock starts. If you vacuum seal you are vacuum sealing the germs in with the food, and not taking steps to kill the pathogens. Pouring into a sterilized container again just puts contaminated food into an uncontaminated container.
The only way to make them shelf stable again would be to process them. You could vacuum seal and then pasteurize the food inside for example, or re-can and pressure-cook. This takes a lot of time and energy, and each time you do it you lose quality.
Indeed. Properly reprocessing the food is absolutely necessary. Some bacteria such as the one that causes botulism are perfectly fine in anaerobic environments. Vacuum sealing alone does not help against them.
Also the vacuum sealers (and sealing containers) people have in their home aren't even close to up to this task.
What task @eps? They can seal food just fine...
It might be good to preface this by explaining that the reason the sealed item is shelf stable is that it has been sterilized during manufacture (i.e. the product is a good/viable growth medium, but there's nothing in it to grow). That's implied here, but not explicitly stated, and is the part of the key understanding/facts underlying the situation. People who have the question of why something only needs refrigeration after opening, but not before, are not coming into this with the understanding that the product was sterile prior to being opened.
@Makyen: this is a good point, but it does not apply to all those products. E.g. the syrup can easily be with a sugar concentration that acts as conservation agent to make it shelf-stable for months without refrigeration after opening (provided no gross contamination takes place).
@GdD They probably mean the task of sealing it without germs inside. Few home vacuum sealers are located in sterile environments.
@cbeleitesunhappywithSX Yes, but this question is specifically about foods marked "refrigerate after opening". Food safety is a moderately large topic, which can't be fully covered in a single question and answer. While it might be reasonable to very briefly mention other potential circumstances, an answer should, generally, stay focused on what was asked, at least IMO. There are entire courses on food safety, with various certifications available, which can be required in some circumstances. That's just too much to cover.
You say "You could vacuum seal and then pasteurize". depending on the food, it may be necessary to sterilise rather than pasteurize.
The first question is maybe how long they should last after opening? A week or two? Months? Years?
The second question is IMHO the "mode" of spoiling for that produce and what conservation agents are there already. For some produce this is quite doable:
sugar as conservation agent:
Syrups with sufficiently high sugar content (> 80 % or so, that is like honey) can usually be kept in bottles outside the fridge for months after opening.
In case it's in a can originally, I'd put it into a bottle that can be properly closed to keep dust etc. out and also so that one can see if bad things happen.
The same is true for old-fashioned, very concentrated plum butter and the like.
However, most jams/marmalades/jellies that are sold in sealed jars have lower sugar content and are subject to molding outside the fridge or even in the fridge within a week or so. With them, if you find you get only far larger containers/cans than needed, you can also "re-can" this into smaller jars (though, the smaller the jar, the more difficult it is to achieve the required temperature for content + jar - consider putting either the empty jars or the filled jars into the oven)
A special subset of this are some fruit that naturally contain further conservation agents (e.g. lingonberries contain ascorbic, salicylic and benzoic acid)
Acidic brine can also be used to preserve, but again the usual produce sold canned with brine or pickled for immediate consumption do not have sufficiently salty and/or acidic brine to rely purely on the brine for conservation. Or avoid further conservation agents like nitrite.
Expect that the old-fashioned sourkraut in the ceramic jar was far more acidic than what you take out of a can - and moreover the preservation relied pretty much on the opposite of sterilization: it relied on "good" lactobacteria being in such an overwhelming majority that no other microorganisms could thrive [and that is probably again related to these bacteria producing a very acidic microclimate where they are fine, but most other microorganisms are not].
A third category would be dried stuff like olives or tomatoes in oil: here the main modes of spoiling are a) sufficient moisture getting in to allow microbial growth and b) the oil going rancid.
Moisture can be avoided by being careful when taking out olives/tomatoes, and by using a proper lid on the container. Rancidity can come from hydrolysis (water, see moisture) and/or from oxidation by oxygen from the air. So: use a gas-tight lid. If the whole glass will be eaten within a few occasions over a few weeks, that's probably sufficient. Otherwise, vacuum sealing would help here.
If the contents in oil are not properly dried, you need to be more careful, but then their shelf life is limited even while still sealed as the moisture together with even low acidity leads to acid-catalysed hydrolysis of the oil, i.e. this stuff will quicky go rancid. (And double-quick at room temperature, so I'd expect such produce to be sold as requiring refrigeration even before opening)
In all cases you also want to be serious about basic food hygiene procedures like taking out a portion of jam for the meal served with a fresh spoon, immediately closing the pot and maybe not even taking that stock to the table.
Last but not least, there is a difference between storage that is merely safe and storage that keeps the full quality. For most products over here (Germany), the instructions on the label are to conditions under which the producer guarantees full quality including taste, smell and color*.
E.g. many syrups loose flavor over time while they are still perfectly edible. Many of the processes involved in that are slower at lower temperature - so the producer chooses to label "use within 3 weeks after opening, keep refrigerated" rather than "use within 1 week after opening [no refridgeration]"
Another example are fruit preserves that are perfectly safe to eat after decades if the canning was done correctly (and if it was not done correctly, that's obvious comparably soon). But the sugar will be inverted due to the acid, and they'll have lost most of their taste and color with be a universal grayish-brown. So safe to eat, but not so enjoyable (one taste that stays, though, is the unripe taste of gooseberries - I can attest to preserves that even after 2+ decades in the jar still tasted horribly unripe...).
* They are labeled as "best before" if the label says "consume before" then after that date there is a substantial risk of the food being unsafe to consume.
The salad dressing in your list, OTOH is not a candidate for extended shelf life after opening. It will likely contain a nice mixture of water, carbohydrates, lipids and protein and is thus a very good growth medium for all kinds of microorganisms (and in addition, "funny" things may happen if you cook it).
Unless you are talking of a vinaigrette - but then that in itself does not last long since we're back to acid-catalyzed hydrolysis of the oil.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.704152 | 2020-05-11T00:31:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108275",
"authors": [
"Booga Roo",
"GdD",
"Makyen",
"Raphael Schmitz",
"cbeleites",
"eps",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60521",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79694",
"user20637"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
32874 | How can I make matzo meal and matzo farfel?
I have a surplus of matzo this year thanks to Costco, and I assume I can crank out my own matzo meal and matzo farfel at home from whole matzo.
Has anyone done this? Should I just put the matzo in a food processor to make the matzo meal until it looks right?
What about the matzo farfel? Should I just smash up whole matzo with a meat tenderizing mallet in a bag or something?
According to Sassy Radish, yes, you can make your own matzo meal by the obvious method of putting some crumbled matzo sheets into the food processor. She notes that you will get about 1/2 cup from two sheets.
Farfel can be made simply by breaking the matzo into appropriately sized pieces. This site explains that it is easiest to do it by hand to get the uniform size. About.com's Kosher Food section even says that is all farfel is: broken up matzo.
I just crushed my own matzo farfel; and some notes for others: I got one cup of useful pieces from 2 1/2 pieces of matzo. I was able to extract most of the crumbs that were too fine by the fact that they settled to the bottom of the bowl and carefully removing the larger pieces. I put aside the crumbs for recipes that call for matzo meal.
It occurred to me that many recipes that call for matzo farfel usually call for soaking it in hot water. If you add the hot water first before breaking up the whole matzo, it should prevent finer dust from being created. So follow these instructions:
For each cup of matzo farfel called for in the recipe, use two pieces of matzo. Add the hot water as called for in the recipe to the whole matzo, then break up into about 1/2 pinky fingernail sized pieces.
Matzo meal can be created just by putting dry matzo in a food processor until the consistency of cornmeal or flour.
To make matzah farfel, break it into small pieces
in a bowl In another small bowl, beat an egg. Add the egg to the matzah, coating it well. Heat some oil in a frying pan. When hot, add the matzah, spread it out and let the egg cook onto the matzah, stirring constantly. When dry, add just enough boiling water to cover the farfel. Cover the pan and lower the heat. Cook about 5 minutes until water is absorbed. Mix the farfel around with salt and pepper to taste. Serve warm.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.704855 | 2013-03-20T19:24:00 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32874",
"authors": [
"DCook",
"Happy Chef",
"Jeff Axelrod",
"Keifer",
"Mercer",
"Savil",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75994",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75995",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76007",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76021",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76210",
"mary "
],
"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
} |
27628 | How is it that zinfandel can taste spicy?
How can it be that zinfandel wines taste spicy (hot?) I experienced this sensation for the first time recently, but never have sensed this before in cabernets, merlots, or other reds. Subsequently I read zinfandels described as "spicy" elsewhere afterwards.
I'm certain that there are no peppers being used in the process of the wine. Is there significant capsaicin present or is it from the alcohol level?
This has to do with esters, which are flavor compounds created during fermentation.
Each grape variety has a unique physiological make up with aromatic compounds found in trace amounts within the grape skin cells. The concentration of each of these aromatic sensations is dependent on the grape type and is mostly undetectable until the juice is fermented. Fermentation magnifies and makes these aromas more easily perceived by the nose, so think of wine as a caricature of the grape.
From winegeeks.com.
another good reference
about the pepper flavor specifically, although in Shiraz I imagine it's the same or similar to that in Zinfandel:
Australian chemists have identified the compound responsible for the peppery aroma of the country's iconic Shiraz wines - and discovered the same molecule is by far the strongest aroma in peppercorns themselves.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.705071 | 2012-10-05T22:12:05 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27628",
"authors": [
"4wd Supacentre",
"Donna Bent",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62366",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62368",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62384",
"myboyzandme",
"pyronite",
"ryotabs"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
42164 | Do toasted nuts quickly lose flavor?
There are many recipes where freshly toasted nuts are called for, and that got me wondering--how far can I toast them in advance without sacrificing flavor?
If not, how quickly do they lose flavor, and what causes the degradation? Are there any ways to store the nuts to preserve the flavor of freshly toasted? Would freezing and/or vacuum sealing do the trick?
Toasted nuts keep their flavor pretty well, the way to keep them is the same way you'd buy them at the store, ie a sealed container.
What you get from freshly toasting nuts is more aromatics than flavors. Most of the aromatics go pretty quick so there's no preserving them, it's use 'em or lose 'em. Could you substitute pre-toasted nuts? Sure, it won't be quite the same, but it will be close.
I think when the OP said flavor, he was including aromatics.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.705226 | 2014-02-19T15:44:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42164",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Diane Anaid Alexander",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98427",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98429",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98450",
"kinglive china spam",
"user98429"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
41774 | Is it safe to vacuum seal shredded Parmesan?
I was trying to think of a way to more efficiently storing parmesan for quick access. I realized I could shred a batch and vacuum seal it in a jar to better preserve the flavor after shedding.
However, I am aware of the risk of botulism with high moisture content foods. However what I don't know is what the approximate moisture content is of parmesan cheese and whether or not that could pose a botulism risk.
In the past, I have found that simply grating it into a Tupperware or similar container, placing the lid on it, and placing it in the freezer will hold the flavor well of grated Parmesan. It has been how I have always stored it when I bought it. Because of the grating, and the nature of cheese it has never taken long for it to thaw out if you are using it for things like a salad. A vacuum jar placing it in the refrigerator would probably work as well, just more work between each use as compared to just placing the container back into the freezer.
While interesting, your answer doesn't actually address the concerns in the question.
@razumny it is indeed not a direct answer, but StackExchange also allows answers which suggest better solutions to the OP's problem than the one the OP has decided to implement and is asking about. See http://cooking.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-answer, the point "Answer the question" for the policy.
My understanding is that it is safe to freeze parmesan, and you can grate directly from frozen.
I wasn't planning on freezing it, however do you have a reference that documents the fact that freezing prevents botulism?
@JeffAxelrod - Oddly, I first read your question as regarding freezing too and even added comments I have since deleted. Not sure why two of us read the word "freezing" when what you wrote was something else entirely. Just careless, I guess.
@JeffAxelrod That's not something you should need a reference for, really. Proper freezing prevents all food safety issues, not just botulism. Nothing grows at those temperatures, except maybe some pretty crazy extremophile bacteria that you're not going to find in your food.
@Jefromi I would say that proper freezing holds the clock on all food safety issues, because there are always people who are eager to understand prevents as a carte blanche for eating all kinds of already-unsafe-food after a pop in the freezer.
@rumtscho Very true. Maybe even more intuitive: it comes out as safe as it was when you put it in. (I meant "prevents...issues" as in "prevents issues due to time" not "prevents poison from being poisonous.")
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.705370 | 2014-02-04T20:56:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41774",
"authors": [
"Carey Gregory",
"Cascabel",
"Custom made Jewellery Singapor",
"Jeff Axelrod",
"Spammer",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97435",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97436",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97437",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97465",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97736",
"razumny",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
11838 | What is the purpose of turning a pot roast (and can I do without it)?
I recently bought a big outside round oven roast that was on sale for cheap. I've made plenty of roasts before, but I don't remember having used this particular cut, and it seems to have a reputation for being generally tough and flavourless.
So I looked up a few recipes and most recommend cooking it as a pot roast, which I plan to do. Most of these recipes also say to turn every 30 minutes or so. This is something which I am not accustomed to doing and I'm not entirely sure I see the point.
Given that the cooking method is basically a braise - i.e. steam is doing most of the real work - is there a reason why these recipes suggest turning the meat so often (or at all)? Or can I get just as good a result without this inconvenience?
Perhaps the braising liquid seasons the meat better or more evenly if all of the meat is exposed to it at some point.
I've never seen any benefit to turning a roast. If you want to minimize the crust, use a roaster with a lid or a roasting bag, but the rule is always low even temperature and slow roasting for the best meat.
A crock pot is also a good way to slowly braise a tough roast.
Coming from a beef ranch, we'd put a roast in the oven at about 100-125F at 7 in the morning on Sunday, do our chores, go to church and come home at 1 to a well done, tender roast with no turning. It gets a good crust on it which you can amp up with a good dry rub if you feel so inclined, but there's no need for turning.
Just low, slow and in a container of some kind if you don't like a crust on it.
Now, in doing just a bit of Google due diligence I ran across this article that suggests that aging is more important with an inexpensive roast than the cooking environment. We hung our beef for 14 days before packaging, so this wasn't an issue for us.
http://www.cooksillustrated.com/images/document/howto/SO96_HTbeef.pdf
If you have a big back yard and a tolerant spouse I've had very good results with the Polynesian pig-roast style of roasting.
Dig a big hole, line it with rocks, build a fire to burn down to coals, wrap the meat in several layers of tinfoil and place on top of the coals, bury it with more rocks on top and leave for 8 hours. Delicious, fall off the bone beef from the cheapest giant Costco cuts we could buy on a boy scout budget.
No backyard - I live in a condo apartment. 125° F seems awfully low but I was thinking to leave it on 145° F (medium rare USDA minimum) or slightly higher for most of the day.
I don't think that it makes much of a difference. Perhaps, people feel the the top of the roast becomes to crispy and like to turn it. I never turn it and get a nice black crust on top which is actually my favorite part. Every time you open the oven a lot of heat is lost which slows down the cooking.
I searched Google and the first recipe was Alton Brown's on the Food Network. I think the things to note about his recipe is the very slow oven and very tight foil pouch used to seal the roast that isn't opened until half an hour after letting it rest. It's essentially pressure cooking the meat with the very even oven temperature sealing in all the juices. Perhaps, the resting period without opening the pouch enables the juices to seep back into the meat as the proteins relax.
This of course brings of the question of how hot the meat gets in 200 degree oven. Does the meat stay below the boiling point or does the pressure of the steam bring it past 212? Does having the meat in these conditions below the boiling point make a difference?
Alton's recipe doesn't appear to involve opening the pouch half an hour in; it says to cook for 3½ hours straight.
Not half an hour in to cooking, Adam said after cooking.
@Ryan: That was after the edit (and my comment).
I hate to nit pick but the original read "that isn't opened until half an hour after the cooking." - although he did edit it to be more clear.
The phrase 'sealing in the juices' is so misused in so many ways. The slow oven temperature makes the transitions slower, but if you take a hot roast out and slice right in, you lose the liquid. @Adam S yes, the resting allows the juices to settle back into the tissue as it cools. It is unlikely that a foil pouch will pressurize enough to raise water's BP much, but it doesn't have to. The roast cooks at a temperature below water's boiling point.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.705607 | 2011-02-06T00:42:16 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11838",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Joanne Boocks",
"MarsJarsGuitars-n-Chars",
"Peter",
"Ryan Elkins",
"hhayf",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24363",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"tvon"
],
"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
} |
13142 | What type of methylcellulose would be appropriate for gel noodles?
I'd planning to attempt some flavoured methocel noodles; I know that type K is the softest (best for things like marshmallows) but I've never experimented with the firmer kinds and I'm not entirely sure just how firm they get.
I'm pretty sure I'll want one of the high-viscosity types and there's a supplier here selling 4000 cP, but will type A (A4M or maybe A15C according to this chart) be close to the texture of spaghetti or could it end up being too firm?
Which type would be similar in texture to the 1.7% agar solution used in Schellhoss's parmesan spaghetti recipe included in the Khymos collection?
Also, is there any chance that this type might "melt" as it cools back down to room temperature - i.e. would it be imperative to consume the noodles while still hot?
Why do you want to use just Methocel? Do you want to serve hot or cold? From my experience Methocel goes either a gel, plastic, or brittle, it does not do "al dente". K carageenans can do elastic. I am certainly no expert with it, but I have never seen Methocel do noodles?
@TFD: There are over 20 different types of methylcellulose, so if they go all the way to "brittle" then there's almost certainly going to be one in between that and "gel". Al dente is not really the point - no gel noodles are ever truly al dente - but the texture could be similar to the glass rice noodles which are at least palatable. Methocel should be ideal for this application because it stiffens, rather than melts, with heat; agar noodles are OK but difficult to serve hot. Anyway, it's certainly been done before.
There's actually a commercial product designed for the purpose - methocel for gluten replacement can be used to make noodles.
http://www.dow.com/dowwolff/en/food_nutrition/products/gluten_replacer.htm
It would be hard to specify a grade comparable to the agar solution - the two things do not behave similarly when hot and cold. An agar solution giving a particular gel strength will have a much lower viscosity when liquified than a methocel gel of comparable strength. And there are several types of agar - it is a natural product, its properties depend on the seaweed species, locality and processing method.
Experimenting with solutions of E50 would probably get you there, but I'm not sure that the Schellhoss recipe tells the whole story. The combination of seaweed gel with parmesan makes me suspect that the gel is acting as a MSG enhancer on the high natural MSG content of the parmesan.
Whatever, hope these ramblings help your decision.
Thanks for the great link; I really wish they would specify which type of methyl cellulose it is (the brochure seems to indicate that it is pure MC of some grade) but at least I've got something to look for. You're right about the difference with agar; what I meant was the texture at around 50-60° C or so - warm, but well below the melting point of agar and (hopefully) above the melting point of MC.
I think you will find that the methocel for gluten replacement is a specialised mix. There was a lot more info on dowfood. com, but that site has been taken down and redirected to a page on the main site which has also been removed.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.706002 | 2011-03-14T23:50:32 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13142",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Anton Unt",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27232",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5885",
"klypos"
],
"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
} |
10532 | Are there significant differences between different brands/models of immersion blenders?
I'm thinking of purchasing a new immersion blender as a gift for somebody that has a very old one which is quite literally being held together with duct tape.
I own a Sunbeam model which I believe is rather cheap (it was actually a gift to me several years ago) and although I use it infrequently, I haven't had any major problems with it.
My internet research on immersion blenders hasn't uncovered much other than a few unverified statements that molecular cooks prefer the Braun models for foams. No explanation of why, and I haven't even seen a Braun in any store here, but regardless, the intended recipient of this doesn't make foams, she primarily uses it (often) to make creamy soups and maybe a few other purée-based dishes.
I seem to be seeing the same Cuisinart model everywhere and am starting to wonder if I should just get that one and not bother looking for anything more... premium.
Are there actually any characteristics or features that make some immersion blenders better than others, either in general or for a specific purpose? If so, what are they?
Also, I'm not necessarily looking for a recommendation, but a few times in the past I've been told to look for features which were apparently unobtainable, so if there are any unique/premium features I should be on the lookout for, it would help to have at least one example of a model that has them.
Anyone know if Cooks Illustrated or Consumer Reports has done any tests?
@Joe: I think my CR subscription just expired last week. Hobodave has one though.
America's Test Kitchen published a review of eight models in the April 2010 issue of Cook's Country.
Their test covered several common tasks for an immersion blender:
Mayonnaise emulsification
Making soup
Whipping cream
Making smoothies with frozen ingredients
Making pesto
They evaluated the blenders on three criteria: performance, usability, and ease of cleaning. The only blender to perform at the highest level across all three, and the only to win their top honors of "highly recommended" is the Kalorik Sunny Morning Stick Mixer.
The model that I use is the KitchenAid Hand Blender. I have never had a problem with it, and it was the only other model reviewed to be recommended. It was dinged a few points in the soup & whipped cream tests.
The remaining models were either recommended "with reservations", or outright not recommended. The reasons for these included:
No cup included. The cup is important for ensuring optimal mixing.
Battery powered
Having to hold two buttons to use
Ridiculously loud
Excessive vibrations
General discomfort & fatigue
Poor performance with one or more of the food tasks. This was typically attributed to either a weak motor, or a poor blade cage design. A poorly designed cage can restrict the circulation of food resulting in portions being over blended.
None of the models reviewed included a Sunbeam or Braun. However, the Cuisinart model was, and received the lowest marks of all.
Great! Soup is especially important in this case so thanks for mentioning that part about the KitchenAid. Surprising that the highest-recommended also appears to be the cheapest.
The Amazon reviews of the one recommended by Cooks Illustrated are, shall we say, less than glowing. Anyone have a Consumer Reports subscription?
@Marti: I have a CR sub, but they do not seem to have any immersion blender ratings. RE: Amazon, the review sample size (19) is way too low to draw a conclusion imo. You have to account for user idiocy, standard manufacturing defect allowances, and the unsatisfied vocal minority effect. I'm not defending the Kalorik, having never used it, but I've never had a problem with ATK's reviews.
Satanicpuppy's answer encouraged me to do a little more research on food service models, which I didn't even really know existed for immersion blenders - in fact, most of the manufacturers in the food services industry don't even call them "immersion blenders" or any kind of blender; instead they call them power mixers.
The information in hobodave's answer is very helpful, but I was seriously skeptical of Cook's Illustrated (ATK's) recommendation (the Kalorik) for several reasons:
It's one of the cheapest models on the market. While price alone does not guarantee quality, it's difficult for me to believe that other consumer products are being sold at over a 500% profit margin. To sell anything so cheaply, they must be using cheap parts.
It comes with (and requires you to use) a cup. This isn't supposed to be a requirement for a good immersion blender, and the fact that Cook's Illustrated apparently actually considered it to be a feature made me skeptical of their entire review process.
Cook's Illustrated never tests for durability of these products - which is understandable given their timing - but durability is actually one of my chief concerns here, and several of the Amazon reviews seem to indicate that this particular model is less than stellar in that department. The fact that the entire housing seems to be cheap plastic is not a good sign.
So for better or for worse, I decided not to put too much stock in a review of consumer models that (a) did not even include several of the better consumer brands (i.e. Braun), and (b) came to a conclusion that I honestly felt was simply absurd. Instead, I started looking toward the professional brands, specifically:
Bamix is supposedly the "original inventor" of the immersion blender. They are the "prosumer" brand and seem to have quite a good offering and get good reviews. I love the fact that they specialize exclusively in immersion blenders and offer a 10-year warranty. However, a few things bothered me about them:
None of their models appear to have detachable shafts. This isn't a hard requirement, but it is far easier to clean that way.
They offer 2-speed variability at best. This is probably OK for soups but a bit problematic for emulsions where you really need to work it up gradually.
Their prices seem to be just a little higher than what I would consider reasonable. I know that you pay for quality, but given their relatively underwhelming set of features, I would have expected more for that price.
Despite their 10-year warranty, I found this little gem on the USA site:
[The warranty is offered provided...] 4. That the machine has not been subject to damage, misuse, or commercial use.
Even though this isn't going to be used commercially, that last phrase sticks out like a sore thumb to me. If it can really handle anything you throw at it then why would it matter if it's used commercially?
Waring Commercial makes the "Big Stik" and "Quik Stik" line of products. They appear to be the entry-level food-service brand, but offer some nice features in their Big Stik line; they even offer variable-speed models in the $250 range. But the Big Stik models are huge and really not appropriate for a home kitchen, and the Quik Stik models are rather lame (fixed shaft, two-speed) and are still monstrously heavy, weighing in at over 10 pounds.
After careful examination of their product line, I came away feeling that they had the opposite problem of Bamix; that is, they are too inexpensive for a food-service model. They put big beefy motors in there but don't seem to pay as much attention to features or overall construction, and the weight is a huge turnoff.
Dynamic, who seem to really love the colour orange, was one brand that I didn't even know existed until I started searching the inventories of various food service equipment stores. They use the "power mixer" terminology and are moderately priced for a food-service brand. They divide their mixers into 4 product lines, the lowest being the "Minis", and these were the ones I had my eye on. They're not as high-powered as the Waring models, but they claim that the Minis can handle up to 1 gallon / 4 litres. In particular I had my eye on the MiniPro, which offers a detachable shaft, multiple blades, variable speed, and weighs in at just 2.2 pounds, and widely available for $179 (although the actual list price appears to be $250).
They offer only a 1-year warranty; however, since it's a food-service product, the warranty does not have weird conditions like Bamix. And given that this same company makes mixers for up to 50 gallons, they probably know what they're doing.
Finally, there's Robot Coupe, who also sport the "power mixer" terminology. Just one look at both the price and features of one of these and it's obvious that they are the "premium" brand. Everything is removable on these - not just the shaft but also the bell, and you can apparently even get a whisk attachment (Dynamic makes you buy the whisk and blender products separately in the Mini range, although the Junior range has "combi" units). Their MMP 160 VV is comparable to the MiniPro feature-wise; 220 W, 12.5k RPM, and not too heavy (shipping weight is 5 lbs, not sure what the mixer itself weighs). It even seems easy to get spare parts and they publish diagrams for DIY-ers.
The biggest disadvantage with Robot Coupe, of course, is price. The list price of the 160 VV is $287 although it can generally be had for $243. Compared to the Waring and Dynamic models, that's a pretty steep increase, although if money were no object, it definitely appears to pack the biggest punch.
Of the above four brands, I think a lot comes down to personal choice, as there are trade-offs between power, features (variable speed / detachable shaft), warranty, warranty conditions, and price.
I did end up going with the Dynamic MiniPro and can safely say that it is built like a tank - but I don't want this to come across as a recommendation, seeing as how the product is a gift and I haven't actually used it myself. I'm only including that for completeness. Really the parts of this answer that I want to call the most attention to are the sections above describing the different brands and their offerings. If anyone here ever feels like upgrading from some junky Cuisinart or Kitchen-Aid model, then hopefully this will serve as a useful guide.
As always, prospective buyers should do their own research, and some of the information here in terms of specific models may be localized - although I'm fairly confident that the brands themselves don't change that often, since all of these guys have been in business for 30-50 years.
I know nothing about the relative merits of different blades / motor power / grip styles / etc, but I'm guessing that it might affect how well they deal with different things (eg, crushing ice vs. whipping cream or egg whites, etc.)
But I do know that some have a seperate motor housing and blades that can attach on, while others are all one piece.
If you're someone with a dishwasher, it's kinda nice to be able to remove the blade assembly and run it through the wash, rather than having to do it all by hand. (although for me, 'by hand' means running it in a container of hot soapy water, and then spraying it off). Some of them with removable blades also have other attachments (eg, whisk).
Good points. My cheap one has a removable blade assembly, I had thought they were all like that - but hers might actually be a one-piece blender.
Well, it's like everything else: there is your consumer grade version, which is good enough for grandma, but will bog down on any heavy duty task, and then there is the bad ass professional grade model which will chew a hole in a wall if you should need it to.
I've got a kitchen aid that works pretty well, and was pretty cheap.
But if you're looking for the real deal, you'll probably want something like a Waring "Big Stick" or a Robot Coupe MP 800. Those are professional grade, 20-gallons-of-soup-at-a-time, blenders. Should last for a good while, and come with an actual warranty (something which blenders of all kinds often lack).
So the main difference is the motor and warranty? As I understand your answer, basically most of the consumer versions are the same?
@Aaronut : if it's like most other kitchen appliances with motors, there's a thermal shut-off, so using it for too long / making it do too much work might cause it to shut down with little warning, confusing you into thinking it's broken, etc, but then it works again 30 min later.
@Joe: Actually, mine warns about not operating it for too long at a time; maybe there is a thermal shut-off but it would appear that you can at least wear it down if you're not careful.
@aaronut: Motor speed/power still differs on consumer versions: the one I linked has a reasonably powerful motor. But the commercial versions are more than twice as powerful, and they absolutely have nice 1-year warranties. I've broken more than a few consumer grade blenders, they just don't last as long. Still, the pro versions are past my price range AND my need, so you need to balance how much you want to pay vs how much you're going to use it.
Well, as I said, the person who will be receiving this has used theirs so much that it's being held together with duct tape, so it's probably worth the extra cost! Although $400 is a little steep; it'd be nice to find one in the $100-$200 range, the one that's $229 looks like the least expensive one they make that still has the high-power, variable-speed motor.
I've been taking a good hard look at the Waring, it looks to be by far the best value for the money in terms of specs. But I can't help thinking that there must be some reason for Waring's models being so much less expensive than the Robot Coupe or Dynamic models (where you pay upwards of $600 for a 250 W motor). I don't suppose you have any experience with any of these models or could point me toward some decent reviews/comparisons? (Google's been no help here.)
I'm on my second emersion blender. I went with the Wolfgang Puck model because the last one I had was the Cusinert 'Smart Stick' and I wore it out in 2 years. Thus far I'm very happy with the new one I have.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.706560 | 2010-12-27T16:38:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10532",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Drew Neilson",
"Joe",
"Marti",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Wade Mueller",
"bbozo",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21595",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21597",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21612",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23349",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"olivejuice",
"user21595",
"user21610",
"Émile Jetzer"
],
"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
} |
17056 | What types of food are safe for short-term room-temperature storage?
Federal food safety guidelines advise against leaving food in the "danger zone" (4-60° C / 40-140° F) for more than 2 cumulative hours. However, not all food needs refrigeration; some obvious examples are bread, peanut butter, unpeeled potatoes or onions, even some pastries such as fruit pies.
How do I know if a particular food is immune to this danger zone and thus safe to store for several hours or days at room temperature? What about longer-term storage?
Note to answerers - this is intended to be a "canonical" or "reference" question on food safety. Please do not answer unless you can support it with a trusted source. General guidelines are also preferred over a list of specific foods.
Perhaps http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2642/what-do-i-need-to-know-about-temperature-and-food-safety would be a good spot? Disclosure: I wrote the question, long ago.
Incidentally, I believe a large-ish table with notes is the right way to answer this question. For example, storage onions and potatoes are measured in months.
@Peter: I definitely appreciate what you were trying to do with your question. It's very general, though, and I'd like to attack this issue with a bit more precision, since this is a Q&A site and questions with specific (albeit long) answers tend to fare best over time. A table would be a great thing to maintain as a wiki; alternatively, it's not necessary to include detailed times for each, just the particular factors that protect perishable food in the short term - and there are a fairly limited number of those.
This makes a lot of sense. I'm probably not the person to launch it, though. :)
Pie is a good example: fruit pie tends to keep for a good while at room temperature. I have found many sites which stridently claim this not to be the case, and many grocery stores that leave their bakery pies at room temp for about three days (even psycho Mrs. Cookwell says 2 days is fine). I'm siding with the grocery stores. Nut pies tend to last longer still, because they're drier: the presence of dairy and eggs is counteracted by the higher concentration of sugar.
Likewise cake, though it can vary depending on your frosting...The more things besides fat and sugar in your frosting, the more it needs to be refrigerated. In most cases cake will stay edible longer than you'd want to eat it. Again, grocery stores only bother to refrigerate decorated cakes, or ones with cream cheese icing.
Most store bought condiments are fine at room temperature. Obviously not mayonnaise, or anything creamy, but ketchup, mustard, A-1, worstershire...They last a good long time unrefrigerated. Likewise soy sauce, fish sauce, and some of the more popular asian condiments.
I've never seen a pepper sauce (e.g. Tabasco) that needs refrigeration, and they'll last for years, though the color starts going off after a while.
There is no bacterial risk to leaving fruits and vegetables out, but this will dramatically increase the rate of spoilage. The exceptions are root vegetables, and bananas. Root vegetables will last a long time in a cool dark place, so just lump 'em in your garage if you're not going to eat them in the next week or two. And bananas will go south at the same rate regardless (though you can freeze them for future banana bread).
Fresh eggs (like, straight from the chicken) will last a couple of weeks without refrigeration (make sure they're not fertilized, or you may wake up to find baby chickens in your kitchen). The rule of thumb is "Every day unrefrigerated is like 5 days refrigerated." Once eggs are cracked, you should use them immediately.
I'd trust store bought eggs left out on the counter to eat, though its not good to let refrigerated eggs get warm again. Eggs have a wide array of natural antimicrobial tendencies, though the processing store bought eggs go through removes some of this. (citation). An easy way to test for internal contamination is to see if the egg floats in water. If it floats, toss it.
Bacon grease keeps a long time unrefrigerated, as does any sort of fat really, as long as it's strained and filtered. With fats you're more worried about them going rancid, which is a function of light and air (its a type of oxidation), so store your fat in a dark place, in a sealed container. (citation)
Butter can last several days unrefrigerated (it should be covered). I'd say as much as a week, but I have no way of knowing because it never lasts that long. It's much more likely to oxidize (see above) and go rancid than to pick up a significant bacterial colony.
I looked up some info about the cream cheese frosting, because I make this a lot. Basically, you have to have enough sugar to stabilize it, otherwise it is just a sweet dairy product. My recipe uses about 1:4 cream cheese to powder sugar by weight. So it lasts a long time. Some store ones probably won't. Here is the link with its citations: link Also, most condiments generally should be refrigerated after opening to extend use. If you go through a bottle of ketchup a week though, this probably is not an issue.
@jsm: Oh, I don't think it'll go bad. I just think it tastes better, and also, maybe, that it doesn't have as much structural integrity if its warm, so keeping it cool keeps your decorating looking better.
I mostly use it for a carrot cake recipe (that I haven't made in years), or for frosting cookies at christmas. For the latter, it's 3 oz cream cheese, 1 tsp vanilla, and I believe 2-2.5 cups (about 9-10 oz) powdered sugar. It stays soft for a day or two, but forms a nice crust after that. This makes transportation and packaging easier. I have also eaten them after a couple of weeks with no discernable change in flavor; maybe just a little dryer. For cookies I give out though, I try to get it out by day 3, so they have a week or so to eat them. Not that they last that long.
Simple: Walk your favourite super-market's corridors; some food is in the fridge, some other not.
Follow suit and watch out for the expiration dates: they are meant to define expiry under such conditions.
An excellent point -- a grocery store would get shut down if they were storing things improperly. Of course, there are cases where they'll refrigerate things that don't need to be chilled, just to make it seem like it's more fresh (eg, soy & most nut milks; they recommend serving it chilled, but it doesn't need to be stored that way long-term)
@Joe: not only that, but people will often buy a product chilled when you are in warm countries. So truth is, supermarkets will either err on the side of cautiousness OR will chill extra products for their customers' bemusement.
there are also times when I think it's more for 'convenience'. (eg, beer ... fine to store at room temp, but you can grab it already cold on the way to a party and don't have to worry about chilling it down yourself). The same is true for many single-serving drinks (eg, sodas). Oh, and 'expiration' dates are typically 'best by' or 'sell by' dates. See https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/76070/67
Most health codes will have concepts of 'high risk' vs. 'low risk' foods. 'Low risk' are the foods that can be held at room temperature for longer periods of times with a low risk of getting people sick. It includes things such as:
Really dry things (eg, uncooked grains, pasta or beans, bread, cookies, crackers, jerky, etc.).
Specifically preserved things (smoked fish, pickles, salami, etc.)
High sugar, salt or acid items (syrup, most candy, jelly, soy sauce, pickles, etc.)
Canned or jarred items
Of course, you get into trouble as there's always a chance of cross-contamination, so even things like fruits & vegetables aren't always put into this category. And leaving things out and exposed to air for extended periods of time isn't a good idea, either.
Lists out there vary, as they serve different purposes. For instance, foods that you're allowed to make at home and sell in Vancouver, BC doesn't include preserved meats, while lists of what grocery stores don't need to keep chilled typically assume that salami and other preserved meats are being prepared in commercial kitchens and sealed to prevent contamination.
It's possible that your local health department may have specific things that are known to be a problem locally. (eg, if there were specific food recalls or issues with contamination).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.707724 | 2011-08-23T00:24:14 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17056",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"JSM",
"Jami Kruithoff",
"Joe",
"Melifera38",
"Peter V",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Stephen McCann",
"fgeorgatos",
"flora koulendi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27182",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36633",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/982"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
34820 | Do restaurants regularly disinfect baskets and trays?
I certainly hope the answer to this question is yes, but do restaurants regularly disinfect baskets and trays? Even if they are covered with paper wrappers or placemats?
Are there fairly universal state laws requiring this? Any data on noncompliance rates?
I cannot speak to the general case, but when I worked in large scale food service, the answer was absolutely, yes, all trays (we didn't run baskets) were run through the dish machine after every customer.
Why the downvote?
Wasn't me... I did a lot of research, since it has been almost 25 years since I did this stuff for a living. I don't recall direct references in the code then, and I could not find any now. I suspect it is subsumed under smallwares, or just a general interpretation of the various local codes. Even the CA code linked in the answer below only contains one reference to the word "tray" and that is in the context of dishwasher trays.
Unlike @SAJ14SAJ, I spent years working in (lower grade) "professional" kitchens that served on dinnerware, baskets and trays-- none of which were cleaned regularly. That said, they are supposed to be. I think this question is hard to answer in that each restaurant behaves different and each region/state/country has varying laws.
+1 - completely well-formulated question. My complete guess about downvotes: people often just downvote questions they don't like. It's supposed to mean "not useful", but sometimes people use it to mean "I don't like questions like this, I think it's vaguely off-topic/subjective/rubs me the wrong way." I think those concerns are unfounded here, but if they weren't, they're of course better voiced on meta or with a vote to close.
I don't think this is a useful question. How would knowing the answer affect the way you cook?
On Meta: http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/q/1755
I run a restaurant in California and every multi-use item touched by a customer in any way gets washed and sanitized, even if we use wax/paper wrappers.
The actual law is in Chapter 5 of the Cal Code (for California, obviously): http://www.cdph.ca.gov/services/Documents/fdbRFC.pdf
No idea if there's noncompliance rates out there though. (I also don't want to think about that, ewwwww. I hope that means that the restaurant's permits get suspended.)
The actual relevant quote is from Chapter 5:
114097 . Equipment food-contact surfaces and multiservice utensils shall be effectively washed to remove or completely loosen soils by
the use of manual or mechanical methods necessary, such as the
application of detergents containing wetting agents and emulsifiers,
acid, alkaline, or abrasive cleaners, hot water, brushes, scouring
pads, high pressure sprays, or ultrasonic devices.
The edited quoted bit is part of it, here's another: "114113. Food shall only contact surfaces of equipment and utensils that are cleaned and sanitized."
so I wonder if given the quote, the restaurant could defend itself from washing baskets and trays that are lined with paper because (ideally) the food wouldn't touch the plastic. However, we all know that food ends up touching the plastic in practice.
I have been a part of the hospitality industry for many years now. The restaurant owners maintain hygiene as it could affect the customers' health if not done so. They make use of cleansing agents like detergents, solvent cleaners, acid cleaners, abrasive cleaners, etc. They also follow heat and chemical sanitization to disinfect food contact surfaces on a regular basis.
a health inspector can find that out (pH swipe), but they don't come around often enough.
However because the accountability goes to the owner manager (the bus boy/person isn't fined directly), the compliance may not be high. The saying in the industry is: if you can imagine it, it does happen.
You'll do well as a consumer to follow your nose and find places such as janeylicious's place. You get a great sense for the place near closing time when staff turn to cleaning for next day.
I'm incredibly flattered by the idea of someone visiting my restaurant based on how clean it is :) I was so disturbed by the food safety training course I took before taking over the restaurant that I even go overboard where I can (like I'm pretty sure no health inspector is going to care about baskets used with wax paper being sanitized, but whatever). To nobody's surprise, I have a difficult time eating out because I know not everyone is like me.
I bet baby high chair condition is fairly well correlated to the other sanitation as well. I've been handed plenty a filthy high chair.
Personally, I check customer rest rooms....
Yes, restrooms, menus, baby seats, staff apathy, or just take a sniff in the place.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.708364 | 2013-06-21T00:19:45 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34820",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"David DPG",
"Ivan McA",
"Jeff Axelrod",
"KatieK",
"MandoMando",
"Marion",
"Mary Lou",
"Nora Thompson",
"Peter Taylor",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Socialmedia spammer",
"William Johnson",
"colejkeene",
"gna",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81222",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81224",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81228",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81237",
"janeylicious"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
34842 | What might cause a tangy flavor in hummus?
I'm pretty sure that this is an intended flavor; there's a great and authentic middle eastern restaurant nearby and their hummus tastes noticeably tangy. Others in the Yelp reviews have commented on the same flavor, so it's not a bad batch. It's almost as if there's a fermented ingredient that has the same kind of "tang" as kimchi. Their babaganoush doesn't have this same tang.
Is there a secret fermented ingredient in some hummus recipes that might give off this flavor?
Wouldn't it be more reliable to ask at the restaurant? I'd love to hear their answer.
I've frequently purchased hummus in the supermarket which had citric acid added. I imagine that traditional hummus could be eaten slightly fermented, and current quick-and-safe techniques intentionally sour it to give it the original, fermented taste.
[not a definitive answer]
Making good hummus is non-trivial. I think roasting sesame seeds is as volatile as roasting coffee beans with a few seconds or degrees changing the flavour drastically.
It's quite possible the tangy flavour comes from the way they process their sesame seeds. I've had Israeli hummus (from Jerusalem) and it tasted very different from the stuff you get elsewhere. Much smoother and more 'settled' flavour, and likely similar to the tang you describe (almost umami). The ingredients didn't have anything specific listed that could do that. It also could be the lemons or the zest.
Anecdotally, a local hummus manufacturer told me he gets his sesame seeds from that part of middle east because they lead to better tasting hummus.
Next time you're there, please ask the chef. most of the time, they'll share something new with you. (I've been curious as well ever since tasting that particular hummus).
To clarify, it's an almost carbonated effervescent flavor/feeling just like kimchi. I'll ask them.
girl, their hummus is just old
The recipes I've seen include both lemon juice as yogurt. I suppose the tangy flavor comes from the lemon.
I've made hummus from scratch multiple times. The effervescent/fermented flavor you taste may be due to how long the restaurant soaked the chickpeas for. There are different schools of thought on what makes the most nutritious hummus: using chickpeas that have been soaked 1-2 days before they sprout or 2+ days, which means that they would have sprouted by then. I have heard of people using chickpeas that have sprouted quite a bit, after a soaking duration of 4-5 days. Apparently doing so eliminates enzyme inhibitors. I have also read of people using raw, sprouted chickpeas to make hummus, which I have not tasted.
I think that the flavor you are referring to may be due to the restaurant using heavily sprouted chickpeas or raw, sprouted chickpeas to make the hummus. That's my guess.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.708768 | 2013-06-21T18:17:27 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34842",
"authors": [
"B Nistler",
"Bram Meels",
"Djave",
"Jeff Axelrod",
"Josh French",
"StevenXavier",
"Yarin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61074",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81269",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81270",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81289",
"rumtscho",
"slim"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
36379 | How can I susbtitute unseasoned rice vinegar for seasoned?
I have unseasoned rice vinegar but a recipe that calls for seasoned. I assume I should add sugar and salt to substitute for seasoned vinegar, but in what proportions would mimic a typical seasoned rice vinegar?
From my favorite Japanese cooking site, JustHungry:
Mix 1/4 cup of rice vinegar or mild cider vinegar, 1 tablespoon of sugar, 1/2 tablespoon of mirin, sake or sweet brandy, and 1/2 tablespoon of salt. Heat over low heat in a small saucepan, and stir until the sugar and salt have dissolved. This is enough to flavor 4 cups of rice, so adjust the amount according to the amount of rice you have.
Source
For each cup of vinegar, add 3 tablespoons of sugar and one tablespoon of salt. You may also add a piece of kelp or a pinch of kelp powder. And of course, all of these proportions can be adjusted to taste.
How did you arrive at this ratio?
I make it at home. You can also Google "sushi su recipes" and find several with very similar ratios. Some will substitute mirin for the sugar though.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.709014 | 2013-08-28T16:02:37 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36379",
"authors": [
"Jeff Axelrod",
"John Da Boy",
"Louis",
"SourDoh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85361",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85368",
"hwong557",
"irene",
"jcd ines"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
20971 | What are the optimal simmering times for each stage of a traditional phở?
Several of my associates and I consider ourselves phở connoisseurs, of a sort, and one thing we've noticed is the drastic variation in the quality of the broth served at various establishments.
The best takes on it - in terms of my own tasting experience and the comments I'm used to hearing/seeing from friends/reviewers - seem to have a few things in common:
A potent, but not completely overwhelming, beefy flavour. The broth needs to be flavourful enough to eat on its own, but the taste of the noodles as well as any post-serving accompaniments (scallions, basil, etc.) should still be detectable.
An absence, or at least a minimum, of grease or "scum" forming on the top. If it's visible, it's way too greasy, but even an invisible amount can still noticeably (adversely) affect the mouth-feel.
A pronounced tan or even slightly reddish hue; translucent is normal, transparent is a red flag.
Now I am aware that a certain amount of this is going to be affected by the ingredients and proportions, and I think I'm already doing the right things in that area (knuckle and leg bones with about 20% marrow, a generous amount of 1:5 flank:oxtail) but I am convinced that my inability to achieve this perfection in-home is influenced in large part by the chronology.
I've read a lot of recipes and they are all wildly divergent on their timings; if possible, I'd like to understand more about the significance of each stage and subsequently how long the unfinished broth should be left in that stage.
The basic order always seems to be similar:
Bones in cold water ("soak") - in about 10-20% of recipes, anywhere from 2 hours to overnight
Bones in boiling water (pre-clean)
Bones in simmering water (post-clean), with fat-skimming
Bones and meat
Bones, meat, and spices (sometimes spices are added before meat)
Bones, meat, spices, and vegetables
Bones, spices, and vegetables (meat removed/reserved - only in some recipes)
Strained with fish sauce and (sometimes) sugar added
Same, with cooked noodles added
Ready to serve - raw/rare meat and garnishes added
What can be said about the length of time that the broth spends in each of these stages? How important is each one, and what effect can it have if the timing is off - either too long or too short?
(For example, when making a traditional French or North American stock, it's important not to let the mirepoix sit in there too long, because most of the volatiles are extracted within an hour and afterward you're just churning in starches and mush. And when simmering just the chicken bones, most of the gelatin has been rendered within about 8-12 hours for an 8 quart pot. I'm sure that there are similar guidelines and rules of thumb for phở, but I have no idea what they are.)
Note: This is posted in the spirit of soup week. Please participate with your own questions. :)
@Aaronut A quick trip to Vietnam is in order :-) Like most Asian cooking there are vast differences in recipes, by region, or by your mother. Fatty Pho (fried rendered fat) is popular too, but probably just for the manual labourers. Have seen knobs of butter floated on Pho just before serving :-/
@TFD: I've seen all of that too (except for the butter thing). But here I am talking specifically about the classic Phở Tái or Phở Đuôi Bò & Tái (and generally the Saigon style). There are all sorts of funky ingredients you can see in it (some are even made from chicken), but this is generally the first item on the Pho menu in any Vietnamese restaurant. ;)
Like @TFD, this answer isn't directly what you're asking, but I've found that using these techniques has lifted my Pho broth to restaurant quality. Put all of the bones in a roasting pan and cook them at 500 degrees until your fire alarm goes off or the bones crack. Okay, so, just do it for 4-5 hours, and drain the grease every 15 minutes or you really will set off your alarm. I'm almost certain that's what you're missing, since you don't note it in your steps and it allows a great deal more flavor to come out in the boiling process. This step will also dramatically reduce the oil and scum that comes out into your product so the finished broth will be lighter and cleaner feeling on the pallet.
Another tip is to use both leeks and onions, and to caramelize the onions and leeks before adding them to the boil. This step brings way more sugar to the surface of the veg and that sugar will impart way more flavor to your broth. Definitely do not add sugar when doing this as this renders extra sugar completely unnecessary, and even unwanted: Refined sugar imparts a sweetness that is, in my opinion, cloying on the pallet. That is to say, sweetness from refined sugar is harder to wash off my pallet than sugar brought out through caramelization. It also tends to overpower the unrefined sugars present in the onions already.
This is not the answer you are directly looking for, but may be the trick
Some local Phở brewers soak the onion skins in alcohol (rice cooking wine) to extract a stock flavouring (I suspect this is Quercetin?). The resulting dark liquor is added to the broth when the meat is added
This certainly kicks up the broth flavour, a bit like MSG does in Chinese cooking (sort of)
Worth a try...
I don't think there is a magic order or timing to making Phở, as long as the flavours are extracted, and not destroyed, it comes out OK
+1 as I've never thought of chemically extracting onion flavor with liquor.
"a bit like MSG does in Chinese cooking" or you know a bit like MSG in pho? :)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.709139 | 2012-02-01T01:50:53 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20971",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Jenn Giles",
"LiranNis",
"Nathan C. Tresch",
"TFD",
"event_jr",
"gitmach",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46187",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9984",
"orange80",
"user3470151"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
44476 | Will freezing affect the quality of a dry-aged steak?
I'm used to buying moderately-priced meat from the supermarket, with which I can generally never tell the difference between fresh and frozen - it's maybe a little tougher after freezing but that's about it.
Today I happened to be in the area of a good butcher and decided to splurge on a couple of dry-aged ribeye steaks. The first one was, of course, delicious, but I may not have time for a home-cooked dinner during the next few days, so I'm considering freezing the other steak.
Will freezing do anything to ruin or diminish that unique dry-aged flavour and give it the same taste and texture as the supermarket fare? Since dry-aged steaks are already, well, dry, will the additional water loss from freezing turn it into inedible shoe-leather? Should I be worried about anything else?
Or can I just toss it in the freezer for a week?
Dry-aging primarily breaks down the connective tissues in the muscle, naturally tenderizing it. The concentrated flavor is just a result of the moisture loss that you've already identified.
Neither of these should be affected by freezing in any special way. You'll want to be especially careful about further moisture loss, but as long as you properly package your steak for freezing you should be fine.
Freezing will not diminish the dry-aged flavor, barring you don't leave it in there for weeks and get freezer burn. However, the texture will be affected. When you freeze meat, the water in the meat becomes ice crystals, naturally, and those crystals do damage the meat a bit. The quicker the meat is frozen, the smaller the crystals and the less the damage caused (which is why flash freezing techniques are so important for shrimp, berries, and other delicate foods with lots of moisture).
Now, throwing the steak in the freezer once, although it will affect the texture, won't necessarily affect the texture enough to be objectionable. Repeated freezing will cause more damage each time, though. And, hopefully, the fact that dry-aged steak has lost some moisture means yours will suffer even less damage than normal.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.709682 | 2014-05-28T03:01:42 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44476",
"authors": [
"Clay Calhoun",
"Shery Armstrong Adkins",
"Spammer",
"diana fauci",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104556",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104992",
"user104992"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
8322 | What is the best way to reheat leftover grilled fish?
I have rarely (if ever) looked forward to eating leftover grilled fish. What is the best technique to reheat the fish so that it has the best flavor and texture?
I understand that some of the quality is going to be simply lost. If you have a certain technique for a specific type of fish, let me in on that as well.
Is it a lost cause?
Fish tacos FTW - big thanks to mfg for the reheating technique, and to daniel for the fish taco suggestion.
Place on non-stick sprayed foil; broil for ~4 minutes in oven with some source of moisture or a glaze over top (ie, you might take salmon and add a soy/mustard glaze) to protect hydration levels.
~5 minutes in my oven on broil - thanks for the tip.
It really depends on type of the fish you have there..
Option 1. best with Salmon
It's easy for salmon. With Salmon, the asian way is to put the left over on a hot pan and lightly pan fire it. Cook it with some ginger and shallots. Add a mixture of soy sauce, salt, sugar and oyster sauce. It's a pretty dish with rice.
Option 2.
Put them in the oven for 15 mins and it retains the texture pretty well..
Option 3.
Cook left over with cream, lemon juice & dill. Mix them with pasta
I cannot wait to try option 1 - I didn't have leftover salmon this time around.
If you have a steamer, i would go that route. Not long though just enough to warm it up.
I'm thinking on a plate, cover with tin foil and place over a saucepan of simmering water.
Try Steaming it! Good luck ! or
Fish Tacos with black beans, cheese, cilantro and salsa
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! Others have already suggested steaming and fish tacos; your answers will probably be better received if you offer up something new.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.709880 | 2010-10-20T00:56:25 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8322",
"authors": [
"Aine",
"Andrea Caruthers",
"B S kaufman",
"Cascabel",
"Dave Lane",
"John Barclay",
"Jonathan",
"codingNinja",
"face",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17116",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2824",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57057"
],
"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
} |
37675 | Bread Book Suggestions
I want baking my own bread loafs, specially things like sourdough baguettes, ciabatta, flatbead, and multi grain loaf bread.
I've been researching this for a few days, but as usual, there is a tremendous information overload, and I'm not sure if/which book I should get, or is there an online place that would have me better covered.
I'm the kind of person that do actually enjoy knowing the whys and hows of how things work, but I also appreciate quick recipes, so a mix of those two would be great!
Is there any specific book/author/resource that you recommend?
Thanks!
Hi Francisco, book suggestions are generally considered off-topic across the network, sorry. You can get some advice in our chat room, The Frying pan.
A bit of discussion of bread books in the chat room: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/11739134#11739134
Hey, sorry I know this is kind a very subjective question, but I was just hopping to see if there was a kind of "universally accepted" resources, the GOTO book that everybody agrees (to a degree) that is a good resource. Thanks for the Chat link though!
How about a good website? http://www.kingarthurflour.com/ Be aware that the brand of flour that website stresses measures and behaves slightly differently than other brands of flour, but they are usually interchangeable. In other words, a recipe on that site will always say such and such amount of a particular type (bread flour, all-purpose flour, whole wheat flour) of King Arthur Flour. 99 times out of 100 another brand of the same type of flour will give the same results.
I love that the recipes convert from volumetric to weight with one click of the mouse. Also, the reviews are very helpful.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.710070 | 2013-10-17T06:44:00 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37675",
"authors": [
"Francisco Noriega",
"SourDoh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
54200 | How can I light charcoal faster?
I'm terribly impatient but I love cooking on a charcoal grill. How can I get the charcoal ready faster? Currently I have a chimney starter, I use lump charcoal and light some kind of paper under the chimney. It takes about 25 minutes to get ready.
Like this.
This bugged me for a long time, and I assumed that there were better ways. And there are! Mostly notably you want to introduce the coals to more of your friend, Mr. Oxygen!
Plight of firefighters everywhere and friend of blacksmiths, increased oxygen will start the coals much much faster. Three easy ways to accomplish this:
Hairdryer! Just hook up your hairdryer and blow it on the coals. Beware the ash and cinders that get blown about! You'll still need the paper to light though.
Vacumm cleaner in reverse! My shopvac, for example, can be a blower and will put the hairdryer to shame in terms of volume. Beware the ash and cinders that get blown about! You'll still need the paper to light though.
Specialized bbq tools like this one. They have that advantage of being heat proof and also starting the coals with super hot air, but the long term reliability and price have always kept me from purchasing.
Personally, the hairdryer is the easiest and shaves the time down to just a few minutes.
The hairdryer can be dual purpose too. There was an episode of Good Eats with Alton Brown where after dumping the coals, he used a hairdryer to blow the ash off the coals, and then put flank steak directly on top of the coals.
A couple of years ago we bought an electric pump for pumping up the kids swimming pool. It turns out it is brilliant for getting a BBQ going. It's nice and portable and shifts a lot of air very quickly so very quickly gets the BBQ going. It is very aggressive though so I do find that the coals spit a lot whilst doing it so do stand back.
This won't work for your rustic off-the-grid experience, but on a whim I bought an electric charcoal starter for about $10-15 at the hardware store. Place a little lump charcoal down, put this thing on top (but not where charcoal could contact the plastic handle), and put more charcoal over it. Plug it in and wait 6-8 minutes, then unplug and remove.
Basically it's the same kind of heating element you'd find in an electric range or oven.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=eletric+charcoal+starter&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Aeletric+charcoal+starter
There are many designed for using straight on the grill, and possibly some that work well with chimneys. Prior to this I typically used newspaper and gel cubes, but now I don't have to buy the gel cubes or get perfect air flow in my chimney starter.
I'm pretty happy with mine, because usually there's a pretty good flame going by the 6 minute mark and it's been in full conflagration by 8 minutes for me (the maximum time mine is rated for). Once it's there I spread the coals and add some more; I can be cooking in about 15-25 minutes total now.
Like you, with the chimney I usually got results within 20-25 minutes (if something didn't go wrong), but it usually took 40+ minutes to get the grill hot enough to cook.
Interesting, I wouldn't have expected the eletric started to be any faster than actually adding some kind of paper/actual fire underneath.
It basically heats the charcoal to the ignition point, if I understand how it works correctly, so that's a pretty good way of getting them going. It's a pretty impressive fire within a short amount of time.
Best thing I've found is a propane flamethrower that attaches to a standard 20-lb barbecue tank.
Something like this:
http://amzn.to/1yOvMxq
It's also a great for killing weeds.
I'm a pretty impatient person, too. But I have the perfect answer to this question.
I tried everything, including the hairdryer, but nothing quite did it for me. I thought about it so much, I finally developed the right tool to solve this universal problem.
[Sorry for seeming like spam, but when I saw the question I had to offer my answer.]
FiAir is the first and only truly portable battery powered blower for wood and charcoal fires.
Charcoal = first light to cooking temperature in half the time you're used to - typically 8-12 minutes.
Wood = first light to full blaze in about 2 minutes
We've been shipping almost 2 years and people seem to love it for their charcoal grills, smokers, fireplaces, fire pits, wood stoves and campfires.
$24.99 with a 12 month warranty
FiAir is Made in America for Keepers of the Flame worldwide
What makes it better than another kind of fan/blower?
Re spam flags: I'm not going to delete this because it directly answers the question, and the author disclosed their affiliation.
Yes! hairdryer on cold setting and you'll need to dedicate to the BBQ since any hair dried with it will also smell like BBQ.
You won't need the chimney stack anymore and if you aim the hairdryer at the base of the coals (reverse firefighter) you can be up and running on white coals in 90s.
The fastest (somewhat safe) method I've tried is a leaf-blower at 10 feet. Any closer and you can blow the coals and BBQ away. It was more of a fun prank than reliable daily bbq starts. It needed serious fire-starter though.
Let me start by saying I know this post is a couple of years old and I'm late to the game. Maybe this will be helpful to some of y'all. I have had used both lump and briquettes. I had the same problem and before I had a BGE I used a chimney. Well, I noticed over the years that sometimes the charcoal would take a long time to light. I've used the hair dryer, leaf blower and manually fanned the charcoal. All of these options help, but I once had a theory that the charcoal was holding moisture. This was after I was gifted a BGE and I reused old charcoal. That made me start to think about humidity and the effect it was having on the coals. Now I always keep my charcoal in a climate controlled area and when I have a lot of left over coal that's been out in the humitity we get in the SE I push those coals to the edges, and light the good stuff in the middle. Once the dry coals start to burn with a little flame I close the top of my egg and I can feel the moisture steaming out the top of the chimney(this further confirmed my theory). I normally use a small chunch of fire starter(the wax cover sawdust) as opposed to newspaper, even when I had a chimney I was using that option and it worked great as long as the coals were dry. Maybe this is a bunch of cockamami BS but I'm a pretty big believer in keeping the humidity out of my charcoal and I have much faster light to cooking times! Good luck!
I've been charcoal-only for 50 years. I always use an electric starter because it is fast, clean, doesn't leave smells, and the coals can be used before they are completely ashed-over. A chimney is great, but I need to restack the electric-lit coals into the chimney to speed them up. Therefore I don't bother with the chimney, unless I am away from electricity. To speed things up, I use:
Hair dryer, on hot, not held too close. I've never damaged or smoked up the hair dryer.
Heat gun. Hotter than a hair dryer, can be held closer to the coals, but it isn't always at hand.
Vacuum in reverse. Shop vacs in particular are easy to plug the hose into the "out" side.
Leaf blower? I use mine for lots of off-label purposes, but never the bbq. I do use it for leaf burning in the fall, if the damp fire is a bit sluggish, and I want the foil-wrapped potatoes done for dinner.
I added a little vegetable oil on the paper, and that helps a little.
If you are crazy, put out 50 pound of charcoal. Place a lit cigarette on the pile. Pour 3 gallons of liquid oxygen on the cigarette. Note, LOX saturated charcoal may be EXPLOSIVE. But, hey, ready to grill in seconds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjPxDOEdsX8 Lox on charcoal. Foom?
Yeah, foom, not FOOF, that would leave toxic residues (di fluorine di oxide, the scariest oxidizer any one has tried to use).
I see what you did there. Also, that does sound horrible. I only know about the dangers of F from my chemistry professor who loved F and I'm pretty sure did his doctorate on it. He drilled into our heads that even though hydrofluoric acid is much less acidic than hydrochloric acid it is also much much more dangerous. At least hydrochloric acid will wash off of your skin with plain ol' water. HF will slowly eat through your skin, but it loves fat even more than skin, so it will begin eating through your fat. But it loves bone even more than fat so it will then just eat your bones.
For more scary chemistry and good fun http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/things_i_wont_work_with/
Pack some paper on the bottom tight. Take to an open area. Dribble one cup of gasoline. Throw a match at it. 5 minutes good to go.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.710263 | 2015-01-30T19:06:40 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54200",
"authors": [
"Bobye Jean",
"Brian Oneill",
"CY C",
"Cascabel",
"David Duncan",
"Debra Vitale",
"Ian Turner",
"Ilmari Karonen",
"JasonTrue",
"John Hemsley",
"Lewis Fearnhead",
"Michael Butler",
"Ronald Pottol",
"Steve Pletscher",
"Vicki Jakovac",
"Wayne Werner",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127484",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127490",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127503",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127506",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127517",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127523",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133875",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133876",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14988",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33193",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/721",
"rfusca",
"user2836157",
"william"
],
"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
} |
21628 | What can I do to keep high hydration dough from sticking to my hands?
Whenever I try to knead (by hand) or move after kneading, a high hydration dough like ciabatta, it sticks to my hands terribly and often seems ruin any shaping I try. I've tried flour on my hands, but it comes off so quick - what can I do to keep it from sticking so badly?
enough already, what book do you want, I'll buy it! Tip, don't knead by hand, use a food processor
@TFD lol http://www.amazon.com/American-Pie-Search-Perfect-Pizza/dp/1580084222 :)
Pizza dough is perfect after kneading with a machine like this http://i.imgur.com/8gp7M.jpg on high speed. High hydration dough doesn't need a lot of kneading, just lots of time
@TFD - Indeed, but the question also applies to shaping the dough. And not everybody has a food processor (although I do).
That's why I didn't put it as an answer! Also shaping is just dump it out and use a silicone or steel bakers scraper. High hydration shaping isn't exactly an art form
Let the dough rest in the bowl for a while after mixing. Time will not only improve the flavor (insert autolyse proselytism here) but will also give the flour time to hydrate, making the dough somewhat easier to handle.
Dough will become less sticky as you work it -- witness the way dough kneaded in a mixer or food processor initially sticks to the sides but eventually forms a ball and leaves the bowl clean. So, one option is to work it a bit with a mixer first, or just with a wooden spoon in the bowl.
Anil's suggestion to oil your hands is a good one. If the kind of dough you're making allows it, add some oil or butter to the dough during mixing, too.
Flour helps, of course. Instead of trying to coat your hands in flour, throw a bit on the kneading surface and on the top of the dough.
For very sticky dough, a dough knife can help you scrape the dough off the surface and fold it over onto itself until it becomes easier to handle. This is easiest if you're working on a hard, smooth kneading surface like marble.
Oil was the answer for me when trying to shape my rye bread. As the rye flour is stickier then bread flour which in turn makes the blended flours stickier then normal. It made the dough as workable as my regular dough from bread flour alone.
My experience is in using the no knead method. Using the oil on my hand actually worked very well. I had zero dough on my hands between the first and second proofing.
There are two main ways this is accomplished, and one condition which will cause stickiness.
To mitigate sticking:
Use flour
Use water
I usually knead by hand, and keeping my hands generously moist is often enough to prevent sticking (I knead in a bowl). This causes the dough to be a little wetter than I aim for.
Then, while shaping, I will use flour on the surface, since I won't be knead it anymore.
I will put some oil on the baking parchment when baking, to prevent sticking.
What causes dough to stick overly much is not sufficient hydration (time) and gluten formation (time & kneading)
Yes to moist hands to prevent sticking. It absolutely works.
My suggestion is to try it with grease or oil, similar to oiling utensils. This is what you can do when you prepare dough. If you are concerned about the amount of oil in the bread, you can try flour.
Apart from this, the dough consistency plays a major role. If you make your dough a little harder, the stickiness will decrease. If it is too loose, it will stick a lot.
I agree about the oil suggestion. But the second part of the answer makes me think you didn't pay attention to the question: he is intentionally making a very soft dough, because some types of bread require it.
I don't have the reputation to comment, but Max has the right answer in my experience: wet hands for sticky dough. I was a pizza cook for a few years in a few different restaurants in my teens and twenties, although that just taught me to handle dough, not super sticky dough. Now I make pizza from a 78% hydration recipe at home at least twice a month, and wet hands combined with speedy rolling have always been the keys to keep it from sticking to me.
Pick up the dough with both hands and form a ball quickly by folding it in on itself while rotating the thing - fold, rotate, fold, rotate, over and over until you've got a ball. The trick is not to let your fingers or hands rest in the dough for more than a second. I'm about to make ciabatta in the morning following King Arthur Flour's recipe and that's my plan again, despite their guidance to cut the dough on a flat surface.
If your hands are wet and you move quickly, you can knead the dough by hand without any other trickery.
Embrace the sticking. You can do a stretch-and-fold entirely in your hands, and instead of gripping the dough, you let the two ends stick to your hands while separating them and closing them again. It aligns the gluten beautifully. When you are ready, you have to separate/scrape off the dough from your hands. If you need a round boule at this time, you may need to do it in a basin of flour, but for a ciabatta, it is enough to do the triple fold.
An additional tip: kneading faster keeps the dough from sticking too badly. For some reason, speed makes a noticeable difference.
Also, just go with it. At the end, put a little flour on your hands and rub them together; the little dough stuck to your hands is dried out by the extra flour and crumbles off your hands into your dough, so you don't lose any dough.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.710965 | 2012-02-23T04:26:54 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21628",
"authors": [
"Daniel",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48007",
"justkt",
"rfusca",
"rumtscho",
"user45101"
],
"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
} |
15652 | Why does my ice cream leave a waxy texture on the roof of my mouth?
I made a batch of ice cream using the following as the base:
1 pint cream,
1 cup milk,
4 egg yolks,
½ cup sugar,
2 tsp vanilla extract
I simmered that until just boiling and then cooled it for a few hours before finishing it up in my ice cream maker for 20min.
I've used this base a few times and add different fruit and spices based on what I want to make.
The problem I'm having is the ice cream leaves a waxy coating on the roof of my mouth. It still tastes great, but the coating is unpleasant. Should I use a different recipe to start with? Am I doing something wrong when I make it?
the first thing you are doing incorrect is "simmered just until boiling". the critical temperature for custards is somewhere between 83 and 86 degrees C. above that, yolks cook and set. you don't see bubble building in a custard until it's too late.
Check out this question: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/5400/2001 The answers apply here.
Try heating the cream and milk to just below a simmer. Right before adding the milk mixture to the yolks whisk the sugar, vanilla, and eggs together. Pour the hot milk mixture into eggs very slowly. It's best to strain it through a fine strainer. If you use vanilla bean make sure to add it after straining it. Let cool a little before putting it into the fridge. It should be cold before making the ice cream. It's not necessary to fully temper ice cream base like crème anglaise.
If you have a thermometer, use it: Shoot for a temperature between 77–79°C (170–175°F). Do not let it reach or exceed 80°C (176°F). If you are using a vanilla bean, I also like to scrape the seeds and reserve for after straining (as @Adam noted), however, I furthermore put the empty pod in the cream and milk as it simmers.
Oops! I didn't see @rumtscho's comment above. He beat me to the punch!
Your fat content is too high.... cream can be as high as 40%. Milk is 3%.... 40 + 40 + 3 = 83 / 3 is 27.6% milk fat. Ice cream should never be above 16%. It should be more of an even ratio of milk to cream.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.711400 | 2011-06-20T23:12:40 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15652",
"authors": [
"ESultanik",
"James McCorrie",
"Kelsey Loy HangXiang",
"Mababes Miller",
"Shin",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
5131 | Wok and electric hob - which ring to use?
I've a flat electric hob (the gets-very-hot type, not induction) upon which I cook.
When using my wok (which is flat-bottomed) I place it on the largest ring, but obviously the pan only covers a relatively small potion of the ring. I hadn't really thought about it, but for some reason yesterday I was cooking away and it dawned on me maybe the smaller rings would work better.
Do the larger rings normally produce more thermal energy, or the same amount just more spread out?
Would it be better to use the ring that is about the same size as the base of the pan?
The larger ring will transmit more energy, but spread over the size of the ring; so the density is probably roughly the same.
So using an element bigger than your pot/wok bottom is basically just a waste of heat/energy.
Some supporting evidence added by DMA57361:
I've recently gotten a free energy monitor, which tells me the current power consumption of my entire home. So, with a bit of experimentation, I have worked out the approximate power output of each ring on my hob, and this backs up that they have approximately the same output density.
Position | Diameter | Area | Power | Density
| cm | cm² | kW | kW/cm²
-------------+------------+---------+---------+-----------
Back-Left | 18 | 254.5 | 1.90 | 7.46
Back-Right | 16 | 201.0 | 1.45 | 7.19
Front-Left | 14 | 154.0 | 1.25 | 8.11
Front-Right | 18 | 254.5 | 1.84 | 7.24
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.711609 | 2010-08-13T18:41:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5131",
"authors": [
"Kanchana Jayakumar",
"Philip Nicholson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9988",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9989",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9990",
"julia alderman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
1642 | "Prepared" pizza base - does that mean cooked?
I have reproduced on my website a recipe for a pizza, out of my Mediterranean cookbook: http://www.justrightmenus.com/recipe.php?id=275
What I'm looking for help on is whether they more likely meant for one to start with a raw-dough pizza crust or one that's already been cooked. The recipe in the book said to use a "prepared" pizza base.
I would imagine, if the book is of reasonable quality, by prepared, they mean one that you have prepared earlier. If there's a recipe for pizza base in the book, that's probably what they'd like you to use.
Personally, if you're going to the trouble of making home-made pizza, make your own base. Invariably, the pre-made bases you can buy from stores taste like chalk.
There's a few topics here that may be useful:
What is the best flour to use for pizza dough?
How to make pizza crust thin and elastic at the same time?
For Pizza cooking at home. What is the best alternative to the pizza stone?
It would depend on what your pizza dough recipe calls for... Often you just make the dough, roll it out, and thus it is "prepared" and ready for the pizza ingredients, however I have seen pizza dough recipes in which they recommend prebaking the crust a bit before adding other stuff; in this case, it would be "prepared" after that prebake.
Basically, "prepared" means you've completed your pizza dough recipe (or have bough a prepared crust from the store).
A lot of pizza recipes use a "prepared base" to simplify the recipe since making dough is something that usually calls for its own recipe.
It means use a store bought base (e.g. Boboli), make your own dough, or buy dough or use something as a "canvas" for your pizza. The bread is such an important part of the pizza, the recipe should suggest using homemade or store bought dough over premade crusts.
A lot of pizzerias will sell you balls of dough at a very reasonable price.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.711860 | 2010-07-18T04:34:19 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1642",
"authors": [
"Alex",
"Catch22",
"Radu",
"anowack",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11395",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2990"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
1414 | How do I store apples in an apartment?
I am able to receive cheap, great orchard apples in the fall. However, I do not have a cellar to store them in. I find they go bad before I can use them all.
Does anyone know of a reliable storage method to store the fresh apples? I will eventually can or freeze them; however, I'm looking for a way to keep some fresh for eating for a month or so.
I should have specified... I'm talking about a lot of apples, as in a peck or two.
Apples are best stored at 0° C (32° F) at 90% humidity. If you don't have a cellar, you'll have to try to recreate that environment as best you can.
The closest you can come in most small apartments is actually a plastic bag with some holes poked in for ventilation (to prevent excess moisture from building up). Then put that in the refrigerator to get close to the correct temperature; the best location is the vegetable crisper where you have control over the humidity. Don't overpack them, though - about 80-90% full is the densest you should go.
Also be sure to pick only the best apples you can find if you plan to store them long-term. Over-ripe apples will obviously not last as long, and any bruising or piercing will speed up the decay significantly.
Edit: If it's a large number of apples then you can store them in a crate, which provides adequate ventilation, but good luck getting that into the refrigerator. I would still separate them into plastic bags, put whatever I could in the crisper, the rest in the fridge "proper", and put out any that I intend to consume within a week or two in a regular fruit bowl out in the open. If that's still not enough, then you probably need to accept that small apartments aren't very well-suited to storing very large amounts of fresh food; just because they're easy to get, doesn't mean it makes economic sense.
In cooler climates like mine, where temperatures float between 20 and 50 F through most of the fall, I have used a garage, or shady balcony to let nature handle the chilling for me. Covering with a tarp and/or blankets on colder nights may helpful to avoid freezing. A second refrigerator is also a nice addition which fits in some apartments for the home chef who prefers bulk locally harvested food.
Cardboard boxes, separators and paper bags tend to mimic the storage method employed by orchards and markets for shipping apples. You can often inquire with your local market when they restock apples, and can obtain these popular storage devices for free.
I generally just stick them in the crisper in the fridge. Otherwise, a cool cupboard out of the light will help keep them for a while, but I don't think you're going to be able to replicate "cellar" conditions in an apartment
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.712039 | 2010-07-17T13:18:19 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1414",
"authors": [
"Dori",
"JustRightMenus",
"Ryan Tenney",
"aggietech",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16997",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2559",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2564",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"kefir",
"leolobato",
"lucky"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
1837 | How to halve a cake recipe?
An entire cake is too much food (and temptation!) for me and my husband. Generally speaking, how do I halve a cake recipe? I have heard you can't just cut everything in half due to the way baking powder & soda react.
A particular recipe I would like to cut in half is Red Velvet Cake.
(I would then just put all the batter into one cake pan instead of 2.)
I have halved cake recipes before without issue. The most complicated thing to worry about is halving an odd number of eggs, but this question addresses that. The finished product was indistinguishable from the full recipe.
Edit
One thing to note. In your specific case, because it's a two-layer cake, halving is simple because you're only cooking a single layer. Halving other cakes, such as a pound cake, or a bundt cake involves adjustments to the cooking time. A halved cake will cook much quicker, and could possibly need a lower temperature as well as a decreased cooking time.
I halve cake recipes quite often and just round up the number of eggs. So if the full recipe calls for 3 eggs, instead of trying to figure out 1 and 1/2 I put in 2. So far, so good.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.712285 | 2010-07-18T20:53:14 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1837",
"authors": [
"Ilian Iliev",
"Sidar",
"flamingpenguin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69368",
"Łukasz Gruner"
],
"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
} |
5641 | Why is cream curdled in coffee?
Why would liquid half-and-half creamer curdle when poured into hot coffee? This happens to me sometimes, and I'm not sure why. Could it have something to do with either the coffee being too hot or the creamer being too cold?
I would think this is happening because your cream is just about to turn sour.
As cream ages, lactic acid builds up in it. The acidity in your coffee is enough at that point to push the cream over the edge to curdling.
Try newer cream or a very low-acid coffee with old cream and you should be OK.
yep, sounds like you are buying 1/2 & 1/2 in large containers and not using them fast enough; but you might also check to verify that you're buying homogenized 1/2 & 1/2... as i've never seen fresh cream in my supermarket, it seems unlikely though
Bingo! I tried with new cream, same temp coffee (freshly brewed), and there was no problem.
I watched an episode of Blue Bloods where Mr. Selleck explained to his grandkids that the secret to not having your cream curdle in your (Irish) coffee was to hold your spoon upside down over your coffee and pour the cream over the back of the spoon. I tried it and have never had curdled cream in my coffee since. Don't know why it works I just know that it does. I'm guessing it might have something to do with increasing the dispersion of the cream.
I have organic heavy cream expiration date is March 15th 2018. Its Feb 17th. When I pour it in my hot coffee it's still looks like it's curdled until I stir it in. Even if I pour it over the back of a spoon. Still tastes great and it hasn't upset my stomach. But it is odd that it looks like it's curdling, it must be an effect from the coldness of the cream to heat of the coffee, or fat content reacting to heat, acidity. My best guess. Just weird, that it happens.
I had this happen to me in the most bizarre circumstance. I buy green coffee beans and roast them myself at home. I have decaf and regular that I roasted separately, then grind them together to make half decaf and then brew my coffee via pour over ( no machines). I did this and then used soy creamer (brand new, not old). Didn't curdle. Then, I brewed a cup with just the regular beans (no decaf). Same way, same day, everything the same other than it was full caff. Added the same soy creamer and it curdled. I repeated this exactly the next day and it did it again!! My guess is it has to do with the acidity of the coffee beans.
The acid in coffee causes the cream to curdle.
If curdling is caused by the natural occurrence of acid in coffee, wouldn't the cream always curdle?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.712418 | 2010-08-20T14:08:10 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5641",
"authors": [
"Ellie",
"Jolenealaska",
"Junal Ranasinghe",
"JustRightMenus",
"Kevin McCann",
"Nesreen t Alkam",
"annie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11095",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11097",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87954",
"mfg"
],
"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
} |
5705 | Crushed tomatoes - sub with diced or whole?
I have a barbecue sauce recipe that calls for 1 can of crushed tomatoes. I have cans of whole & cans of diced. Could I just run one of those through the food processor and deem it "crushed"?
EDIT: I also have a few pounds of fresh Roma tomatoes.
When cooking magazines compare tinned tomato products they often conclude that flavor wise one should buy whole and dice.
Drain some of the liquid off either of those, whiz it in the food processor, add liquid back as needed to reach the "crushed" consistency.
Just as an aside, whole canned tomatoes tend to be better quality than crushed. The best tomatoes are canned whole because appearances count. The worst go into crushed tomatoes because how would you ever know?
Even easier and less messy than putting canned whole tomatoes in the food processor is to put them in a stainless or glass bowl that has gently sloping sides. Use a pizza cutter to roll back and forth, side to side until tomatoes are of the "diced" or "crushed" texture that you want.
Of the two options use the canned whole tomato, not only for the reason that Jenn mentioned (that they will tend to be of higher quality) but also because canned diced tomatoes are usually treated with calcium chloride to help maintain the shape of the dice. That obviously would work against the purpose of crushing them.
I find a pyrex bowl and a potato masher works well when I only have whole tomatoes and need to crush them up.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.712989 | 2010-08-21T15:26:19 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5705",
"authors": [
"Ehsan Khodarahmi",
"Ilya Bass",
"Jenn",
"Logard",
"Sergey Zarubin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11235",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11440",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1769",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87925",
"ienh",
"jessye",
"papin",
"pendor"
],
"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
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.