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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
7204 | What is a "nonreactive" pan?
I just realized the recipe I use for Chardonnay Beurre Blanc requires the use of a "small nonreactive saucepan."
In the past, I have used my 1.5 quart All-Clad saucepan without problems.
What sort of pan materials should I avoid?
Similarly, I've seen recipes indicate one should use a nonreactive bowl. I typically use plastic in those cases. Should I be using something different?
Try cooking tomato sauce in a cast-iron pan some time... You'll learn a whole new meaning for "irony".
A non-reactive pan is one that allows you to cook or store acidic foods without dissolving, leaching, or otherwise causing contamination. Good materials for such pans include glass, stainless steel, food-grade plastic, ceramic, porcelain, and hard anodized aluminum. Bad materials include cast-iron, copper, and aluminum.
Plastic bowls should be fine for most purposes, however keep in mind that small scratches in the plastic may harbor contaminants that will be freed by the acid. So clean them well, or switch to glass.
Can you clarify what is meant by “try cooking tomato sauce in cast iron”? I cook shakshuka in cast iron often and have not had any troubles.
Short cook time in a well-seasoned pan will probably not do anything harmful, @dpollitt. Long cook times are another story: if the acid makes it through the seasoning, the flavor will be ruined. America's Test Kitchen found the flavor noticeable after 30 minutes - this will vary with pan and acidity, but if you're planning a multi-hour simmer, a non-reactive pan will be needed.
Non-reactive means stainless steel or ceramic-lined; not copper, cast-iron, or aluminum which tend to react with acidic foods in particular. Glass is non-reactive as well (for bowls).
I would add aluminum as one to avoid as well. And as for non-reactive bowls, I would use glass.
Quite right, editing my answer.
PTFE nonstick would probably be considered nonreactive as well...
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.713162 | 2010-09-12T21:16:30 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7204",
"authors": [
"Benjamin Cutler",
"Dennis Williamson",
"Martha",
"Michael Natkin",
"Reese",
"Shog9",
"dpollitt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14687",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14689",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"lsiunsuex",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
1513 | What to do about yeast that doesn't work?
I am using a new container of yeast from the store; I keep it well-sealed (it's a small jar) and refrigerated.
I make sure to use warm water in bread recipes - I check the temperature using a digital kitchen thermometer.
I follow instructions to let the dough rise in a warm, moist environment - I put it in the oven (which is off, but was recently warmed to 100 degrees or so) with a steaming cup of hot water.
However, my bread still doesn't rise - not in the breadmaker and not when made by hand.
Should I use more yeast? If so, how much more? (..as in just a pinch more, or as in double or triple the amount?) Should I use more sugar, so the yeast has something to eat? I'm really at a loss here. Should I give it up and use different yeast? If so, what's a trusted brand?
You say you make the bread by hand sometimes. Does the dough rise when it's on the counter? If it's not rising then, I would think you need to simply replace the yeast.
It rises some, but not much.
Proofing the yeast was the most effective solution, but the second best was knowing about the tap water. Four tests performed simultaneously (testing tap water & bottled water each with old and new yeast) resulted in bottled water with new yeast yielding the best results. Now, to go make bread!
Too much iron in the water? Most things in tap won't kill yeast. RO or diistilled water is far cheaper than the fancy bottled stuff.
You can proof your yeast to see if its still alive:
Heat approx. ½ cup (100ml) of water to about 115°F (45°C). Add a tablespoon (10g) or so of sugar, stir. Water should still be above 105°F (40°C). Add a teaspoon of yeast, stir. Within 5 minutes or so, the mixture should be thoroughly foamy.
If its not thoroughly foamy, yeast is bad (dead), dispose of it.
(Note: Metric conversions above are rounded, just like the imperial units. Don't use these conversions for baking, but proofing yeast doesn't need anything exact.)
I'm guessing "thoroughly foamy" isn't just a light skim of foam, huh?
@JustRightMenus: Yep. If you do a Google Image Search for "proof yeast" you'll see pictures that are thoroughly foamy. Doesn't have to be quite that foamy, but you're looking for foam, not a few bubbles on top.
Will the good yeast be foamy even if we don't add sugar?
Here is a video of proofing yeast and what dead yeast looks like: https://youtu.be/SDpCzJw2xm4?t=58
In his book I'm Just Here for More Food: Food x Mixing + Heat = Baking, Alton Brown notes (on pg. 37) that if your tap water is heavily chlorinated, hard or high in other minerals, or acidic (especially where there is lots of acid rain) these things can cause strange problems during baking or even kill your yeast.
When in doubt, he recommends using e.g. a Pur or Brita water filter, or using bottled distilled/mineral water.
I know I've had problems getting yeast to rise with our Chicago/Lake Michigan tap water (which can be so heavily chlorinated that it can smell like a swimming pool!), and more success with bottled water, so it's something to consider.
Neat - I had no idea this could be a problem. I tested my yeast (using derobert's method) using both tap & bottled water, and the bottled water test was a little more foamy. Still not foamy enough, I don't think. Next step: buy new yeast & compare.
More tap water chlorine/chloramine removal suggestions from homebrew here.
I had some yeast that I have bought almost two years ago it wasn’t completely dead, however when I tested it in a bowl of warm water it had very minimal activity. I hated to throw it away since I had bought a huge package of it and still had about 6 oz left. So I addd a little bit of homemade wine to it and it instantly started bubbling. After ten minutes it had a solid layer of foam on top and you could literally hear it bubbling. Glad i tried this now I don’t have to throw away my yeast and I get to make some rolls for dinner tonight.
Why does this work? Fructose, acidity? Is it just the wine yeast feeding on the nutrients?
Red Star is what I have been using for a while, but I have used others in the past with good results.
If there is no rise at all, then the problem is the yeast. It can be a bit temperamental to store, and box stores don't always respect this. You could try doubling the amount of yeast in the recipe, and see if that helps, but they whole bottle is probably dead. Another bottle should solve your problems.
Some general tips for yeast: add to warm water and let sit for a few minutes, don't add yeast and salt at the same time (add some sugar first, then some flour, then the salt, and the rest of the ingredients), don't use metal bowls or utensils (this is actually pretty important--copper kills them, and stainless isn't great).
I doubled the yeast in two different batches of bread (using a bread machine), and it rose okay. Thanks also for the note on not using a metal bowl; I usually do so, but won't any more.
The 100 degree oven worked for me. I put about 1/2 cup tap water @ 115 degrees, added a pinch of sugar, yeast and put it in the oven. In about 5 minutes it had foamed like I never had seen before. This after going through 3 packets of yeast. I used yeast from the same 3 pack earlier, none oven heated, and it failed ...got to stay with the oven proofing method for sure!!
After all it wasnt the yeast. I have water that is high in iron. It basically killed all yeast no matter what. I have to use bottled water.
It could be that the water is too warm and has killed yeast. It should feel tepid, neither hot nor cold. It will quickly adjeust to its envirnomental temperature from there, especially if you use a steel bowl.
Even if your yeast has largely died, if you have some live yeast you can still make bread, although you might need more yeast and more time. I stretch my sourdough out to a three day rise to get a certain type of flavour.
I don't think you need to worry about chlorine, especially with a commercial yeast. I know the modernist cuisine books are not popular around here but Mhyrvold made sourdough with his pool water to prove it. It just slows things down a bit. The thing is, the chlorine becomes "spent", it does not have infinite power. Once the chlorine is spent the rise will proceed as per usual. I used to go to extreme lengths to dechlorinate my water but it turns out I was just an amateur. You probably still want the dissolved minerals in the water but you can still make bread without that.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.713377 | 2010-07-17T18:43:19 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1513",
"authors": [
"Al Crowley",
"AnnanFay",
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Art",
"Axarydax",
"Chloe",
"Jeanette Thorne",
"JustRightMenus",
"Timores",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"austinian",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128075",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2746",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/999"
],
"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
} |
7386 | How to store bagels?
I've seen conflicting advice on how to store bagels.
I make 6 at a time, for use over the course of a week (or less).
Should I store the ones I'm planning on eating tomorrow and the day after differently than the rest?
I know that bagels are best eaten within a day, but I'm not going to make fresh ones daily. I'm looking for what storage method will help the bagel maintain the best quality.
I would keep the one that you are eating the next day out. I would then freeze the rest of them.
If you like them warm, you could freeze them wrapped in foil. Before eating pop them in a toaster oven until gently warmed through.
If not I'd freeze individually until solid then put in a bag to prevent your frozen bagels from sticking together, then thaw overnight (if eating in the morning) or in the morning (if eating for a mid-day meal) to eat.
Just to add some detail to the excellent accepted answer:
Bagels will keep for months in the freezer if wrapped in foil and bagged in small groups in a freezer bag.
In my frequent experience, the best way to reheat them is to place them in a 150C/300F oven, still frozen and wrapped in foil, for about 20 minutes.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.713867 | 2010-09-16T19:40:38 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7386",
"authors": [
"Nidheesh",
"Tim B",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15137",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15140",
"user15138"
],
"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
} |
2831 | How to store homemade granola?
I enjoy homemade granola, but my recipe makes quite a bit. Sometimes I use it all quickly, but sometimes not.
What is a reliable storage method? Should it be frozen? Can it just be refrigerated?
Although ours rarely lasts for more than a week, we typically just store it in an airtight container with the rest of the cereal. I would imagine the fat could eventually go rancid, so if you need to store it for weeks or months, either refrigeration or freezing should work. You'll still want the airtight container, however, to prevent any fridge funk from tainting the taste.
Man, that last sentence was fun to write... ;)
I stayed at a place once, helping out in the kitchen. They had a huge bin of granola in the dry storage room that lasted for weeks. This was in the middle of the desert though, so perhaps humidity will cause it to spoil faster.
It probably depends on what's in your granola. I make large batches of granola and store it in glass or plastic jars and it keeps for at least two months (we usually eat it faster than that, however). It's a pretty dry granola, but I've done this in both dry and humid climates and never had a problem.
I have also read that granola can be frozen successfully.
I made a huge batch of various granola bars for work a while back. Some used sugars (corn syrup, maple syrup, honey, molasses) as the binder; some used butter, flour, or eggs.
I brought them all in, and left them on my desk in ziploc bags until they were gone.
Some of them lasted well over a month, pushing two months (I'm telling you, it was a lot of granola bars) and nobody got sick, and I didn't notice any change in look, smell, or flavor.
Purely anecdotal, but it worked out great for me. If I were going to keep them longer than a month at home, I would probably freeze them - I've frozen granola bars between layers of wax paper in the past and they've thawed back to their original texture.
I store most of my home-made granola in Food Saver canisters. I'm a bit of a FoodSaver junkie. I use it to store almost anything: coffee beans, granola, biscotti, wine ...
I keep a smaller quantity in a zip lock bag. I use that for my daily breakfast / snacks. I have the granola recipe, plus many more on my web site.
For what length of time do you typically keep your granola? I'm having trouble finding guidelines for how long it's okay to keep it at room temperature. Tx for the recipe link.
@galacticcowboy has good recommendation. Just to add to that, the fridge is the last option in my experience because of condensation which stays liquid. Do think about moisture condensing out when you chill/freeze which is always bad for dry foods in storage.
I prefer to break a large amount into smaller quantities and put them into individual sealed bags or air-tight containers, fill them as fully as you can to reduce air (which will have moisture and in most cases dew point above freeze temperature). Small bags are helpful because when you taken them out from the freeze (or fridge), the contents are cold and moisture in the air will want to condense on it. So, small full bags, sealed, freeze would be my suggestion.
I make the paleo version of granola which contains no cereals, just nuts, coconut, dried fruit and honey and olive oil. I keep it in an airtight container in the fridge. I make quite a large amount and as I am the only one that eats it, it lasts me quite a while. I have never tried freezing it and have never had any go off. I am not sure how long it would last, or if it would go off
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.714004 | 2010-07-22T17:42:32 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2831",
"authors": [
"András Salamon",
"Carmi",
"GalacticCowboy",
"JustRightMenus",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/611",
"tak"
],
"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
} |
5712 | How can I safely use a blender with hot liquids?
One instruction in a new barbecue sauce recipe I'm trying out is to take the pot of simmering sauce and run it through a blender or food processor.
I have now learned the hard way that blending hot liquid will cause the lid of the blender to explode off... there is barbecue sauce coating my kitchen, and I have some new burns to treat.
So, what is the proper way to do this? Is there a safe way to use a regular blender like mine, or would I need a different kind of blender?
Hand blender stick: https://www.google.com/search?biw=1269&bih=656&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=Hand+blender+stick%3A&oq=Hand+blender+stick%3A&gs_l=psy-ab.3...14415.16185.0.16663.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1..64.psy-ab..0.0.0.2Uc6BTyPndw
It can be a bit tricky, here are a couple of tips:
Use a lot less liquid in the blender than normal. Do batches if needed.
Vent the lid so the steam can escape. A lot of lids have a center piece that can come out. Using less liquid will stop stuff coming out the top.
As Ocaasi suggests, you can cover the open lid with a kitchen towel as you start to ensure there's no spray.
Start the blender slow and then speed it up. This may not work depending on how fast your slowest setting is. But once the vortex gets going, the liquid won't splash. It's only when the blades start that you have that issue. Slower start speed means less splash (a vita-mix can start very slowly and have no splash at all, great for hot liquids but the price tag is a bit high).
You can get a hand-held blender that you can stick inside the pan you're boiling the sauce in instead of transferring it to another container. I love this tool for soups and sauces such as yours.
Remember though that using a blender or food processor has a more smooth result. I've never had any accidents, but I:
never fill the blender more than half
always put my hand on the lid before turning it on
Do you have any pictures of the end result? Was it this bad?
This is my normal solution, but an immersion blender will never get the liquid as smooth as a blender. Just something to keep in mind.
@EricGoodwin you're absolutely right about that I'll add a heads up.
These are great for anything from pureed soups to nice smooth refried beans.
i prefer waiting-say for 30-40 minutes and then transfer the cooked food from pot to blender.
Seems like a perfectly reasonable solution to the problem at hand.
Sometimes, you can't get cooled things to blend as smoothly as hot things.
You probably don't need to wait that long, just get it all below boiling point. Putting the cooking pan/dish in a sink or basin of cold water for 5 or 10 minutes, stirring a bit, should reduce the temperature enough.
I but some cooled product in the blender. First, I start the blender on slow mode, with the lid on. Once it is running, I remove the lid and then slowly add the hot product, a little at a time (never from the hot pot), with the lid off. I can then slowly adjust the speed. I only fill the blender to 3/4 full and blend until I achieve the right consistency. Then I repeat the process beginning with the cool product first, and slowly adding the hot, repeating the same steps.
You might be able to avoid the initial cooling step and start with only a little bit of hot liquid (1/2cup to a cup ... about 125-250mL), as the explosion seems to be proportional to volume (which makes sense, as it's cavitation)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.714380 | 2010-08-21T17:13:27 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5712",
"authors": [
"Akash Kumar Sharma",
"Batman",
"Carolina Renzi",
"Eric Goodwin",
"Joe",
"Paul Ognibene Cohasset",
"Preston",
"Stuart F",
"Tanmoy",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"Whool91",
"dotancohen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11250",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11255",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2094",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94894",
"iwein",
"jens_bo",
"tricasse"
],
"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
} |
6793 | Why do yolks break so easily (sometimes)?
Separating eggs without breaking the yolk isn't one of those problems that keeps me awake at night. Nevertheless, there are occasions where I can't get a single damn yolk to hold together and other times when I can do anything short of play a round of tennis with 'em.
Could the freshness of the egg determine how likely the yolk is to break? Or maybe the temperature of the egg?
Generally the problem comes not when I crack the egg, but when I start to transfer the yolk from shell to shell.
Yes, the freshness is the factor. In the US eggs are sold in three grades: AA, A, and B (rare). The grading is based primarily on age. AA are the freshest, and B the oldest.
Here is a diagram depicting the internals of an egg:
The characteristics of the freshest eggs are:
A large thick albumen (white)
A small thin albumen
A sturdy thick chalaze
A small air space
A sturdy round yolk when lying flat
As the egg ages the following things happen:
Thick albumen breaks down, getting smaller
Thin albumen gets larger
Chalazae degrades getting thinner and weaker
Air space increases
Yolk membrane weakens, when cracked it lies flatter
Embryo may become visible as a red speck
As a result of the weakening membrane the yolk is indeed easier to break. Michael's suggestion to use your fingers to separate the eggs is spot on. The edge of an egg shell is a little too risky for reliable separation of eggs.
If you want to check if old eggs in your fridge are still safe to eat you can place them in water and see if they float. If they float to the top, the air space is large and they are no good. If they stay on the bottom or lay flat on the bottom you're good to go.
I had to search around a bit to figure out why I had never seen anything other than a grade 'A' egg. In Europe it seems we only have two grades 'A' and 'B'. The relevant standards say '(i) Grade A eggs...should have a “normal, clean and undamaged” shell and cuticle; they will not be washed or cleaned before or after grading, and will be not chilled or treated for preservation.” (ii) Grade B eggs, i.e. eggs “which do not meet requirements applicable to eggs in grade A” may only be used by the food or non-food industries.' So that's a relief.
Regarding Rachael's advice, I tried this with one egg I bought today and another that has been in my fridge for over a week. They both sank like stones. The older egg was one from the batch where the yolks broke, so this isn't a good indication of how well the yolks are going to hold.
@Chris: I think she just intended it as a supplemental tidbit of safety info.
Sometimes the sharp edge of the second shell can cause a break. Try using your hands instead of the shell to do the separation. Just pour the whole egg in your hand and then slowly open your fingers to let the white go through.
I use my hands, too, but I put it in a bowl, and then reach in and grab the egg, and let the whites run back through my fingers.
The reason the egg yolks break up easily on contact with a pan or taking them out of the egg is because the hen has a lack of protein in her diet. That's it in an "eggshell". It could be low quality feed, molting or stress. I raise chickens and fresh eggs.
As stated above, your eggs should not be kept in the refrigerator. Keep them on the counter pointy end down. Cold Temps aren't good for an egg and freezing will ruin it. Eggs laid in winter pose no problem unless they aren't collected right away. Commercial eggs in the US that have been washed (they all get washed) don't fit this rule. Since the bloom has been washed away, they have to be kept in the fridge. For what it's worth, cooking with a cold egg doesn't work as well as cooking with a room temperature egg - at all.
Hi Sarah, welcome to Seasoned Advice! You may be accustomed to discussion forums which simply record a conversation as it happens. We are a specialized Q&A site and want our format to be easy for people to find the desired information. This is why we focus on answering the question in the title very directly. Your explanation about blood drops in the yolk is not related to the breaking of yolk, so it does not belong into an answer to this question. This is why one of our high-reputation users edited this part out. But thank you for contributing the part about the yolk breaking.
@rumtscho thank you for explaining -- I had planned on doing so but didn't want to until the edit had been approved :D (Welcome, Sarah.)
As others have told already, the fresher the egg, the easier to manipulate.
European regulation calls for 28 days for the 'best before' date. If they are sold within nine days after laying, they are called 'Extra'. They cannot be sold after 21 days after laying.
So, look at the date on the box and choose the freshest eggs.
As mentioned the freshness of an egg determines the strength of the yolk. Try buying local, as it doesn't need to travel as far to get to your grocer. Also a trick is to store your eggs pointy side down in the carton, this keeps the interior of the egg in good shape. As you see hobodave posted a diagram. Also stop storing your eggs in door of your fridge, the blast of warm air every time you open your fridge effects the eggs more than you'd assume.
Also, one thing I learned when handling food. Use your hands, just be clean about it. Don't bother with fumbling the yolk from shell to shell. The shell is hard and pointy and will easily break your yolk. I prepare french dishes often, and I know the importance of having no white in my yolk and no yolks in my whites. I simply use my hands and im able to separate the yolk and whites completely by letting the whites slip away between 2 fingers.
I've raised chickens for over 30 years, and while age can be a factor in yolks that break, there are a lot of other unknowns that can cause it. We currently have about a dozen hens out of a flock of 50 who lay eggs that might as well be scrambled inside the shell. The rest of the flock lays perfectly fine eggs. Same diet across the board, and all of these hens are under 2 years old. Summer, winter, fall, rain, shine, doesn't matter with them. Different breeds, all free range. Genetics, perhaps, but their sisters don't have the same issue. We gather eggs three times a day and the oldest eggs in our fridges are never more than 4 days old. Good thing I like my eggs over hard, busted yolks.
I have kept chickens for 30 years and sometimes have trouble with overly delicate yolks. Doesn't seem to follow a seasonal pattern. Sometimes I have blamed the age of the hen (I have had hens live for 11 years) but I'm not sure. I like the 'too much corn' theory. I like to think that my girls have a good life and don't have stress. They have a huge indoor/outdoor run, fresh spring water, a fancy 'bantam' rooster etc.. Being a hot, meditereanian climate they get a lot less greenary in the summer and more corn so maybe I'll keep a closer eye on the seasonal thing.
Here's my input: Our 6 chickens (of different breeds) appear to be healthy. We let them free range from about 2 pm til they go inside themselves. We feed them a balanced organic commercial pelletized feed along with their own forage (as stated above - free ranging). We have never had a rooster for these hens. I keep the eggs (pointy side up) on the counter - unwashed. The overly delicate yolks have been increasing lately. I haven't kept track of which eggs (only 3 out of 6 appear the same - medium brown, the others are large, small and textured, so if I pay attention, I might be able to tell if the eggs are coming from one type of chicken. Other than that, I'm voting for stress - due to the extreme heat lately (late May and especially this week (first week of June) well into the 90's (degrees).
I don't want to start another war like the one in Gulliver's Travels, but why do you store the eggs upside down?
i live in S. Florida, and suspected lack of protein for my weak yolks; but have to note that the girls diet has not changed, and the yolks only got weaker as the temp rose into the 90's. Since i just read "cold," let me add that heat may be a possible culprit; although "stress" might cover both? I'm being advised to limit corn in more extreme temps, trying that now.
I raise my own chickens, and the eggs are fresh. I never had this problem before, but with these chickens, the yolks are breaking -- like in a frying pan, just sitting there cooking happily, or in a bowl, after going through the shell breaking without problems. I decided that it's perhaps dependent on the chicken breed, or perhaps on chance.
You mean it's happening with your current chickens, but not ones you used to have? Or just that you never had it happen with storebought eggs?
I also raise my own chickens and have recently had troubles with the egg yolks breaking as they are gently placed in a frying pan for breakfast being prepared. Although I have not recently changed their feed I have added to their diet more corn they seem to like it and they pick it up quickly. Just trying to be a good chicken owner and give them something they like but I think the corn may be the culprit just to be sure I'm going to add some more protein to their diet and limit the corn
Well, I have been raising chickens for a year and the age of the egg doesn't mean a thing. It is now winter (5 February) and almost all egg yolks break when cracked so I'm saying the cold does it. During the summer, yolks break very seldom.
I won't up- or downvote, but while I disagree with the first sentence, the second one sounds plausible. Temperature really has irreversible effects on egg yolk (if you have ever had an egg freeze and tried to thaw and use it, you know what I'm talking about). It would be great if we could hear more info on this theory, maybe even rigorous data as opposed to the observation of one hen farmer. But I think it is a promising lead.
Could it be the roosters? I have had chickens for about 3years no roosters and never had any problems this year I took on 2 roosters and now I am having issues with my yolks breaking.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.714720 | 2010-09-05T21:41:37 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6793",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Erica",
"Gerry Daly",
"Igor",
"Joe",
"Mike",
"Rachael Wentworth",
"Rattanapong Tsubota",
"Ray Butterworth",
"Reem Saleh",
"Spam",
"TahssG",
"Yivie Wu",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113349",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134456",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134465",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141083",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1862",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34518",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97533",
"rumtscho",
"user134458"
],
"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
} |
25273 | Why do people recommend cream of tartar when whipping egg whites to the exclusion of all other acids?
Virtually every single egg white recipe will say add some cream of tartar to egg whites to help them whip better because the cream of tartar will lower the pH and make it more stable. But if all it's doing is making it more acidic, why exclusively cream of tartar over the dozens of far more common acids found in the kitchen?
One difference is cream of tartar is the only solid acid so it wouldn't add more water to the egg whites except many books also say that adding a tbsp of water to egg whites increases stability as well. Is there something else in cream of tartar that isn't in other acids?
I think 'virtually every single egg white recipe' is coming it a bit strong. They're more likely to recommend white wine vinegar or lemon juice.
Do you have a couple of examples of recipes saying to add water? I don't think I've ever seen that, except in the context of scrambled eggs/omelettes/etc., which isn't really whipping and is just to increase volume.
Ingredient substitution lists say you can use an equal volume of lemon juice or vinegar if you don't have cream of tartar.
Most likely, the assumption has been that a baker will be more likely to have cream of tartar on hand than other acid sources due to the fact that it has multiple uses in the kitchen:
Leavening
Stabilization of egg whites
Prevent crystallization of sugar in things like frostings, syrups, chocolates, etc.
Cream of tartar also has a number of beneficial properties:
It is odorless and practically tasteless, unlike lemon juice or vinegar.
It acidifies without adding water, which might be detrimental in some applications.
Unlike fresh lemons, cream of tartar has a nearly indefinite shelf life.
It also doesn't add liquid.
Joe, I left that out in the original answer because the questioner already mentioned it.
As I understand it, cream of tartar isn't actually an acid, but a salt, albeit one whose pH is fairly acidic (around 3.5). It is substantially less acidic than lemon juice or vinegar (in the 2-2.5 range). Plus, cream of tartar is flavorless.
It is also an acid buffer, meaning that it doesn't just lower the pH of the food, but rather also keeps it at a very specific pH value. Basically, when combined with other acids, it can actually raise the pH.
Meanwhile, egg whites are neutral or alcaline (7.6 to 9.8).
Now I do not know exactly how all this affects whipping egg whites, but my guess is that lemon juice or vinegar simply are both too strong, and not as predictable, as cream of tartar. In addition, lemon juice and vinegar would add a flavor, liquid, and volume to whipped egg whites, all of which could physically interfere with the whippability.
Cream of tartar is most definitely an acid. It's tartaric acid. The powdered form that you buy is a potassium salt, but only with one of the carboxylic acids. The other end still has an acidic proton. If this weren't true (i.e. if you had a di-potassium salt of tartaric acid), you'd end up with a basic salt rather than an acidic salt.
@S.Burt thank you for adding that detail. I think what you said is a more chemically correct version of what I tried to say, along with an explanation of why even the potassium salt form in the powder still is acidic. Much appreciated.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.715528 | 2012-07-26T07:33:40 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25273",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Carol H. ",
"Didgeridrew",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Hazel Duaban",
"Joe",
"Kevin Keane",
"Maggi",
"MycrofD",
"S. Burt",
"Swamy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57803",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57804",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57805",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57911",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"user1676156"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
13086 | What spices taste umami?
Are there natural spices that taste umami? I don't want to use MSG in my food, but I'd like to add some umami flavour.
Note that this isn't the same as What foods are high in umami - I'm asking about spices.
Are you or someone you know/love allergic to MSG? If not, what is your opposition to using it? It is a naturally-occurring substance but as with many things, a small number of people are allergic to it.
Umami is literally defined by glutamates; if you don't want to use MSG, and the foods you're making aren't already high in glutamates, then you're out of luck. If the unfounded mass hysteria over MSG has somehow turned you off of it, rest assured that it is perfectly safe.
@Aaronut: I don't care about mass hysteria but the people I cook for might :)
@configurator: Wikipedia says that “Currently, most of the world production of MSG is by bacterial fermentation in a process similar to wine, vinegar, yogurt and even chocolate.” How could anyone get hysterical over something that's made in a way similar to chocolate?! ;)
You might be able to find potassium glutamate, or calcium glutamate. Heck, you could make them with MSG and an appropriate ion exchange column. Both would likely have a strong umami flavor. Polyglutamic acid, as found in Nattō, apparently has a different flavor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natt%C5%8D
As others have said, there are few spices with umami. However, if you're looking for something that you can use in the same way as a spice, then I suggest simply blitzing dried porcini (cep) mushrooms in a blender or grinder into a fine powder and using that. It has a deep umami flavour - try rubbing it on a steak before cooking and you'll be blown away.
Sounds like a really good trick - I'll try it!
This mushroom powder is fantastic -- but be aware that unlike most spices, it won't completely dissolve in solution. You'll be left with tiny grains.
Yes. It works best in a dish with some liquid or in a sauce. If you are using it as a steak rub it needs to be totally powdered, or you can blitz it coarsely, then soak in boiling water for 30 minutes, and strain through muslin/cheesecloth to make a kind of super-mushroomy duxelle.
Again, not a spice, but similar to ElendilTheTall's suggestion of powdered mushrooms would be to grind up dried kelp. You might be able to find 'dashi kombu' powder in some asian markets, or order it online.
(note, there are other 'dashi' powders, and some of them come from fish; you specifically want 'kombu')
I've personally never used the stuff, so I don't know how readily it'll absorb into other foods; you might need to experiment with it.
Kelp broth is actually how umami was discovered, so this should be a home run!
Though not exactly a spice, fish sauce (nam pla in Thai i believe) is a great source of umami.
Besides MSG you are not going to find umami-rich spices. Not exactly. There are certain foods are a produced as a concentration (such as fish sauce) to maximize glutamates (that which makes umami, umami) and others that are used as an umami source such as the rind from a block of Parmesan cheese in certain soup stocks.
Word of caution about fish sauce: It is very powerful and cannot be used nearly as ubiquitously as MSG. It is very pungent and a drop too many in a bowl of soup will make its presence known, and that is not that you want. With that said, fish sauce is my secret weapon in the kitchen. I use it in any savory dish that lacks depth of flavor (umami.) I've used in classic chilis, all sorts of soups and chowders and of course in Asian-style stir fries.
Turmeric is the superstar spice to add umami - unfortunately, it also adds stain factor.
It works best with fatty/ oily dishes.
Mace and nutmeg can add umami with meat dishes.
As far as spices go, there are not a lot of options.
Kombu has a fairly clean umami-taste, so as a umami-spice it might be your best option. Usually it is used to make stock, although ground kombu could be used like a spice.
http://www.cookingissues.com/2010/01/19/umami-nation-kombu-dashi-smackdown/
The other option that could be used like a spice would be ground mushrooms, particularly shiitake, maybe porcini. Of course this is going to give you a strong mushroom-taste along with the umami. Some people recommend to combine them with miso for more umami and a more balanced taste.
While it can't just be added to the dish to do so, star anise can bring a lot of umami when used right. Specifically, the anethole in it can react with sulfur to create umami-flavors. It's an old chinese trick, and has been rediscovered by Heston Blumenthal, who likes to lightly caramelize onions (as a sulphur-source) with ground star anise (half a star anise per large onion).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2005/jun/11/foodanddrink.shopping4
Non-spice options:
Worcestershire Sauce
Soy sauce
Miso
Parmesan
Marmite/Vegemite
vine-ripened Tomatoes
Fish Sauce
Anchovies
various fermented bean/fish pastes/sauces
One of the best ways to get umami into a dish is to make a umami-laden stock like this:
http://herbivoracious.com/2011/09/umami-packed-vegetarian-broth-recipe-also-vegan.html
My secret weapon, before I became the rampant vegetarian I am today, used to be Worcestershire sauce. It is quite high in umami, probably because of the anchovies involved.
For that reason, other ideas would be anchovie paste, or any far eastern fish sauce.
Aside from that, any reduced mushroom stock would serve you well. I sometimes pour boiling water over dried shiitake mushrooms and let it sit for a while. Then I reduce the liquid and use that as flavouring.
I'm still looking for a good vegetable (not animal/bacteria/fungus) source of umami. Let me know if you find one. Sadly, I don't think one exists.
Tomatoes are high in umami if I'm not mistaken.
Those are all good sources of umami but none of them are spices. This answer should be posted to the original question.
Seaweed is very high in umami. See http://www.umamiinfo.com/umami-rich_food/
@MarthaF. Seaweed is an algae not a vegetable.
The two things that come to mind are Yeast extract (Marmite, Vegemite, Cenovis etc.) and soy sauce. I don't know if you'd classify those as spices, though.
Pretty much umami tastes of umami, spices taste of whichever spice. It's rather like saying which spices taste salty because I don't want to use salt - only spices with salt are going to taste salty
If you don't want to use synthetic MSG you can always use a 'natural' source of it but it's still the same chemical
MSG is not the only glutomate around, is it?
@configurator there are different salts of glutamic acid, but I wouldn't eat them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glutamic_acid_(flavor)
I like to use bonito powder spice and red miso powder spice. You can use them on everything, and they're gluten-free!
We generally avoid recommending specific vendors; bonito powder and miso powder are good suggestions, though, so I'll simply edit your answer.
I found an article that uses umami interchangeably with savory. It touches on the chemical composistion but offers suggestions of lists of spices and flavors that bring that umami/savory flavor out in a dish. Here's the article: http://www.foodprocessing.com/articles/2005/434.html
One thing I use to minimize salt is Bragg's Liquid Aminos. I'm not one to make a claim about the health benefits, but I can attest to the following from their site:
• Gourmet healthy alternative to Soy, Tamari, and Worchestershire Sauce
Try moroccain spices combinations for meats.
I have success with this combo
Sweet Paprika roasted red pepper
Ground Cumin
Sweet mild curry
Very fine chopped onion (sweet or red)
Very fine chopped cilantro
Salt but more if used as a marinate
Olive oil to trap the flavors in
The right ratio of cumin:red pepper:curry will not dominate any one of the spices when well balanced. I believe 1:2:2 parts respectively. The cilantro, onion, salt, and olive oil enhance the flavor but added once the spices are balanced. Not too soapy or bitter from cumin, not to sour from red pepper, not to curryish. They balance each other just right. A sweet mild curry is needed to be able to balance well. Fresh cilantro, olive oil, onion help the balance. Salt brings it further and finally high heat brings the umami into a carmelized saucey surface.
Heat in oven on iron pan on top shelf height at 500 for 5 min to simulate out door fire temperatures.
Fine minced cilantro and onion allow for even distribution around meats. 1 to 2 inch chuncks.
After 2 to 3 hrs marinated seer on high heat 500 degrees for a no more than 5 minutes. Cover to cool before serving.
This high heat for short time. Perhaps out door fire in iron pan moved about quickly to sear each side but not over cook center.
All these steps enhance umami experience on the pallet.
It's more than the spice but the food item, distribution size, method and process of cooking to combine and enhance the flavor.
Use this on tenderloin, sirliin. For chicken add fresh minced tomatoes.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.715850 | 2011-03-13T17:41:30 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13086",
"authors": [
"Aapkanigam",
"Aaronut",
"Adam",
"Cascabel",
"David Conrad",
"Dear Home Cook",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Gary Stevens",
"Jay",
"JayCouture.com",
"Jess Pardue",
"John Snow",
"JustAnotherCoder",
"Martha F.",
"Rinzwind",
"Shiz",
"SourDoh",
"Spencer Alvey",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"brenton",
"configurator",
"ghoppe",
"guestcocktail",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27109",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27111",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27176",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29111",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4012",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80417",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"nopassport1",
"user27109"
],
"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
} |
17836 | How to remove mould from a wooden spoon
One of my wooden spoons has mould on it (black spots, not able to be removed by surface scrubbing - I went on holidays without clearing the dishwasher...).
Is there a way to remove the mould? Or should I just buy a new wooden spoon?
If its soaked in the spoon, I'd not risk it for an inexpensive wooden spoon. A soak in a bleach solution is the common treatment though. I'd buy a new one or replace it with a high temp silicone spoon (no unremovable mold issues in the future then!)
+1: years ago, my Dad had a problem with mould in his homemade beer. He replaced all the equipment with no joy. Turned out it was the wooden spoon he used to stir the malt; soaking it in bleach didn't help. He switched to a metal spoon after that.
Yeah just toss it. Not worth the effort unless it's like your mom's favorite spoon, and in that case, seal it and hang it on the wall as a warning to future spoon users.
yeah, I kind of figured it was a goner when I saw that the mold had gone deep into the spoon. A pity though - it's the spoon I use for all my sweet cooking, and is decorated accordingly! I don't even know why it was in the dishwasher to start with :(
@KimbaF ya, I don't put wood in the washer.
rfusca raises a good point - if you're worried that it's actually penetrated deep, you might just replace it.
That said, I'd just use sandpaper. Hopefully it's just a surface stain, and you won't have to take much off, but you'll be able to see how deep it's gotten as you go!
Please don't use sandpaper on active mold. You'll kick mold spores up everywhere and somebody could get sick.
@rfusca ... good point on the spores -- you might be okay with wet sanding, but in most cases, I'd just replace it. (with another wooden spoon ... silicone has its place, but it's no replacement for a wooden spoon)
@rfusca: I think it's a manageable problem, like Joe said, with wet sanding, or just doing it outdoors with a bit of moving air. It's certainly bad to breathe in high concentrations of spores, but you're not going to get that from this unless you're sitting inside with no ventilation and your nose right in it - and maybe not even then.
@Joe I've never had any issues from when I replaced my wooden spoon with a silicone, nor have I heard a compelling reason before. Could you elaborate? If not here, pop in chat and drop a reason - I'd love to discuss.
@rfusca: Even stronger silicone spoons aren't as solid as wood. You can't really scrape the bottom of a pot with them, for example. (Wood is also just pretty.)
@Jefromi can't argue with wooden aesthetics for sure, but I'm just not sure I've run into the situation that I need a scrap with spoon that the silicone couldn't handle (the dishes I make that I use a spoon and require scraping are pretty limited though and generally the liquid softens the bottom enough that its a non-issue).
@rfusca : I actually use wooden spatulas, not spoons for the most part ... and those are good for scraping. Silicone slowly ablates when used on cast iron pans (sorry, mine aren't fully smooth yet), and I don't want to consume it; it heats up more than wood, and it can't be used for testing to see if oil is ready for frying ... and it's dirt cheap (I stock up when I find 'em for $1 each), and compostable when replaced.
@Joe - spatulas vs spoons totally different to me (spoons don't need a scraping function to me) and I agree in that case.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.716653 | 2011-09-18T18:27:33 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17836",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Joe",
"Katey HW",
"KimbaF",
"Vicky",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7082",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
16980 | Converting kneading times from machine kneading to hand kneading
I have previously tried this recipe, and wish to try it again this weekend (recipe follows at end of question). Since I don't have a mixer, I kneaded it by hand, for longer than the recipe stated, in order to reach the required texture. It could have been the substitute flour I used, or the fact that it didn't rise enough, or that the environment was too cold for the dough to rise, but the bread didn't work.
I am now wondering - is this recipe particularly intended for making with an electric mixer with dough hook? Can one convert it for hand kneading? And if so, is there a rule of thumb for converting between kneading times for electric mixers vs. hand kneading?
Sour Cherry & Walnut Stick (Yotam Ottolenghi, from his 'Ottolenghi' book)
160 ml luke warm water (not higher than 30C)
1.5 tsp active dried yeast
40 ml orange juice
250g country brown flour ("Allinson's country grain brown bread flour or Hovis granary flour) plus extra for dusting
65g buckwheat flour
1tsp salt
50g dried sour cherries
50g walnuts, roughly broken into pieces
(excerpt from method)
Stir the water/yeast in an electric mixer bowl and leave for 10 minutes. Then add OJ, mix, add both flours. Knead for 5 minutes at low speed w/ dough hook until the dough comes together.
Scrape the dough in the bowl, then add salt and knead for 4 miuntes on high. Dough should be smoother and silky. Add cherries & walnuts and mix on medium for one minute.
Knead by hand, turning the dough until you can no longer see the walnuts/cherries and the dough is smooth. Put the dough (shaped into a ball) in a large bowl, covered w/ a damp cloth, for about 1.5 hours in a warm place - or until dough has doubled.
so just to clarify, what I'm wondering is how to tell if a recipe can simply be converted to hand-kneading (eg: the way that Jennifer S recommends in her response), or if it is intended specifically for machine kneading.
If I were to convert a machine kneading time to hand kneading time, I'd take the time and at least double it, perhaps between double and triple, depending on how strong/vigorous you are.
The odds of over-kneading by hand are pretty low, as compared to by machine.
I would guess that the flour substitutions or the coldness were more of an issue than the kneading. I've not heard of this book or either of the flours mentioned, but I do know that mileage can vary a LOT with wholegrain flours, and even basic white flours depending on where you live, due to changes in protein contents for regional differences.
In order to counter the coldness of your cooking area, have you tried warming in your oven at the lowest possible heat setting? My mom would do that occasionally when she was trying to bake on very cold days but she would get annoyed because our oven would spike and get too hot.
During winter I did, but our oven is extremely temperamental. The lowest setting is not that low, and I always end up with a crust on top of the dough which seems to impede the rise. I'm loathe to cover it with cling film, since I imagine that would impede the rising process further.
Maybe with a slightly damp clean cloth over the container? I remember my mom doing that. I wish I had the patience to try baking bread myself, I just can't bring myself to.
For bread-like recipes, upto 500g flour, I'd say:
- Slowly incorporate raw ingredients in the mixing bowl at lowest speed for 1 minute;
- then mix thoroughly at speed 1 for 4 minutes.
Machine kneading requires much less time than hand kneading and I totally agree that overworking a dough is an issue. So for some non-bread recipes, you just need to mix until ingredients are combined. So lowest speed for max of 2 minutes.
Usually the hand-kneading recipe you're following will tell you what kind of final result to expect, such as the dough should spring back if you try to dent it with your thumb (i.e. silky soft).
Kenwood belt drive. 800 watts. Dough hook.
I’ve been told that, as a general rule of thumb, kneading on second speed in a stand mixer, 2 minutes equals 10 minutes of hand kneading. I only proof my bread once, so I have the mixer on 3rd speed and knead in it for 3 minutes. Works like a charm!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.716953 | 2011-08-19T08:36:33 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16980",
"authors": [
"Dallium",
"Katey HW",
"KimbaF",
"Philippe",
"Roy Fuentes",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36377",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36379",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7082"
],
"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
} |
9018 | How to Prevent Apples from turning Brown
I love to use Apples in my Desserts. They look really delicious when I just make them, but by the time they are consumed as dessert, the apples have all turned brown. and suddenly the dessert doesn't look all that nice anymore. How do I prevent this?
UPDATE: I remember reading somewhere that dipping apples in lemon juice prevents the oxidation which turns them brown, but this effects the flavor of my recipe. What else can I do?
The fast food chains that sell pre-cut apples in bags use Nitrogen or similar food inert gas. But I can't see this being practical in a normal kitchen
Acid is the answer, try slightly less noticeable acid sources such as fresh (as in you squeezed it) orange or pineapple juice
They should not taint the taste so much if you just lightly brush it on the exposed surfaces, don't soak the apples in it
Nitrogen tank, here I come!
I use lemon juice. In most dishes this is fine. Rinse before use if needed.
A great place to start is the Scientific American article, Why do apple slices turn brown after being cut?
The discoloration of apples is caused by oxidation, which, in the case of apples, is actually caused by oxygen (this is not always the case). Specifically it's caused by an enzyme in the apple caused polyphenol oxidase (PPO).
There are many things you can try if you want to prevent this browning:
First, choose a type of apple that has lower PPO. Apples classified as "baking" apples tend to be better for this, although that's not always a reliable indicator. Orin, a Japanese apple, is said to have a mild pineapple flavour and has very low PPO (does not brown easily). Golden Delicious and Granny Smith are also good in this respect. Have a look at this annotated list of common apple varieties for more.
The suggestion that most people will give you - to use lemon juice - works for two reasons. One is that lemons are high in antioxidants, which prevent oxidation as the name implies. The other is the acidity; lower pH somewhat inhibits oxidation.
So apply this knowledge; if you're concerned about the taste imparted by lemon juice, understand that almost all fruits (except apples) are high in antioxidants and most fruit juices are at least mildly acidic. Choose something that's closer to the taste of apple, or doesn't clash as much; pineapple, grapefruit, or orange juice might be better bets. Some spices are also high in antioxidants; if your dessert includes a lot of cinnamon then sprinkle that cinnamon directly onto the apples; it's also a mild antioxidant and will at least slow the browning.
Alternative, you can simply lower the amount of oxygen available by either coating with syrup or placing the apples in a sealed (i.e. tupperware) container, or both. This should be fine if the apples are intended as a dessert.
Lastly, blanching (boiling) the apples for 5 minutes will basically kill (inactivate) the PPO enzymes which will totally prevent browning - although it'll obviously also soften the apples a whole lot, so whether or not this is viable depends on exactly how you plan to serve them.
According to the most recent Cook's Illustrated, honey will also deactivate the enzyme, which should fit in well with a dessert application.
If you don't want to use lemon or lime juice, you can get a vitamin-c tablet and dissolve it in water. Same effect, only flavorless.
interesting, how does it work?
@justkt Vitamin C is ascorbic acid, which will kill the oxidixing agents in the apple that causes browning. Using citrus juice does the same thing, which is why most suggestions are for a small amount of lemon or lime juice.
Agree with TFD. I usually use a bit of lemon juice and mix the juice with cold water. I think the ratio would be 1 lemon per 1L water.
just dip the apple in the mix for a few seconds and then the apple should last for a long time
You can use acid, such as some lemon juice.
In your baking aisle at the grocery store in the canning area you also may find Ball Fruit Fresh, which provides preservatives.
It depends on how long you need to preserve the apples for. If it's only between slicing and serving, just submerge the peeled apples in water. No oxygen, no oxidisation.
Depending on the type of apples you're using, you can keep them submerged for more or less time before they start to get soft & pulpy. Keeping them in the fridge will extend that time, but not indefinitely.
I don't prefer to any of above. Generally people find a way which we can use at glance & easily available at home. I prevent my apple from turning brown by spraying some salt on it. And it works for me very well from very long time!
What do you mean by "spraying" salt? As in a brine solution in a spray bottle?
yes. You can use either brine or salt, which is gonna turn in salt water after some time. Inshort both will prevent the apple from turning brown
While soaking apples in brine will delay browning, this is a useless suggestion as then the apple is not really usable in a sweet desert, in fact you will have a hard time eating it in anything
Who voted for this? Have you try eating salted sliced apple? Salt can be used to preserve whole apples, but that is an entirely different process
Who told you to eat salted apple slice. I provided the solution for preventing apple from turning out brown. This solution is quick & easily available at home. I do use this alchemy regularly at home & eat apple slices by washing it..
That is it, you need acid to prevent oxidation. The only other possibility would be to prevent air getting to your apples, but if you cover them with some mass you'd probably not see the brown color anyway...
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.717316 | 2010-11-11T06:22:49 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9018",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Cerberus",
"Code Commander",
"Covar",
"DJH",
"Foram Mukund Shah",
"John Y",
"TFD",
"arachnode.net",
"bobobobo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14943",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18451",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18454",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18462",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18464",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18472",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68619",
"jscs",
"justkt",
"motleydev",
"mstrap",
"user68619"
],
"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
} |
12408 | What would cooking chicken at 140 degrees F for a prolonged period do?
A couple of times I've cooked chicken at 140F in the oven (i.e. with the oven temperature set to 140 degrees). Both times I've followed the advice to cease cooking when an internal temperature of 140 degrees has been reached and maintained for a few minutes.
I wonder what leaving it at that temperature for longer than necessary would do. I'm partly interested because it would be convenient if I could leave the oven unattended overnight. And partly because on the second occasion I tried this, the meat was pink close to the bone despite the temperature probe reading.
For all I know, the meat could taste better the longer it is cooked. Does anyone know?
I don't know where you read 140° F, but no authoritative source considers that an appropriate temperature for poultry. The number is 165° F. If you're doing sous-vide and can afford to leave it cooking for hours then fine, but 140° F for just a few minutes in an oven is not safe! You may have read that temperature on a sous-vide page, as bikeboy hints at, but please do your guests a favour and don't try that in the oven.
Heston Blumenthal's "In Search of Perfection". I remembered one point incorrectly: the chicken is removed from the oven as soon as the internal temperature of 60 degrees C (140F) is reached. The chicken is left to rest for an hour afterwards.
In case I wasn't clear, the chicken is in the oven for several hours and not just "a few minutes". The "few minutes" refer to the period the chicken remains in the oven after reaching 140 degrees.
165F (73,9ºC) is the temperature set by the FDA so an idiot can cook chicken without getting sick. At this temperature, the chicken needs to remain at this temperature for less than 10 seconds so as to achieve an appropriate pathogen decrease.
140 (60ºC) is PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE as long as the chicken remains at this temperature for at least 26 minutes.
The FDA and CFIA use the temperature of 165 because it doesn't require core temperature monitoring and timing. If you know what you're doing in the kitchen, like the OP does, 140 is perfectly acceptable... And in fact, produces the best chicken you've ever eaten in your life!
Source (provided by @roxr in a comment below):https://www.canr.msu.edu/smprv/uploads/files/RTE_Poultry_Tables1.pdf
Please don't post food safety advice without an authoritative source.
This is exactly correct. The FSIS (food safety inspection services) which is part of the USDA has time-temperature charts. These are not supposed to be used by the home chef, but for meat processing, but scientifically the post above is correct: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/9ab2e062-7ac8-49b7-aea1-f070048a113a/RTE_Poultry_Tables.pdf?MOD=AJPERES
@rox0r I've double checked and changed the times
Well, on some level, this is exactly what sous vide cooking aims to do--very gently bring the food up to the target temperature and no further. In theory you wind up with something that's more or less perfectly cooked all the way through with no part overcooked or undercooked. But of course this is typically done in vacuum bags in a water bath, which is very different from doing it in an oven, because the bag keeps all the natural juices in contact with the meat, preventing drying on the outside.
When doing this in the oven, it's unavoidable that some of the outside will get dry. Even at temperatures lower than boiling, some evaporation will occur and the longer you cook (a side effect of low temperatures) the more drying you can get. Beyond that, about the only downsides are that the fat renders very differently so the skin doesn't get crisped, and there's little carry-over cooking that goes on after the bird is removed from the oven.
I think it's definitely a matter for debate whether this kind of method results in better taste. By not getting things hot enough for the Maillard reaction (browning, basically) I think you're leaving a lot of flavor potential untapped. However, it's undeniable that, ignoring possible air-drying that happens, you'll have little to no risk of overcooking. That alone will increase your chances of a good result because overcooking has to be the most common mistake people make.
As to why you got your 140 degree reading when the meat near the bone was still pink, I think there are two things at work. One is that I understand that the meat near the bone is just naturally more pink and that it's fine to eat in that state if the temperature is right--there's some science behind it but I just can't find the article right now. The other thing is that there's always some variability to sticking a thermometer into a roast, and you might not have gotten your probe into the least-done part.
Seeing the notes about proper doneness temperatures for chicken, I'll add that they are right--pretty much nobody calls for 140 degrees as done. I can never remember the right numbers myself and always look them up. So just imagine that the number in my last paragraph is 165, and work from there. The rest is general enough to hold up unedited, I think.
I guess what is meant by "done" is quite variable. Considered purely from the point-of-view of health and safety I understand that poultry cooked at 140 degrees for somewhere between 8 and 30 minutes can be considered pasteurized (see saberdosabor.com.br/sous-vide.pdf p29). The texture of the meat at 140F was slightly different to a bird cooked at "normal" temperatures. I would't cook this for my wife since she wouldn't consider that texture "done".
Leaving food in the oven after it's finished cooking is generally referred to as "over-cooking" and for poultry in particular, is likely going to result in dried out and tough meat.
The chicken will not stop cooking just because you maintain the temperature. In particular, moisture will continue to be lost.
The "pink" you see near the bone (of, say, the leg), is a different type of pink from the raw meat. It may be due to the hemoglobin in the tissue which can form a heat-stable colour, and it is completely safe to eat.
Also, according to the USDA, chicken should be 160-165F.
Note, according to the CFIA (Canadian Food Inspection Agency), the 165F (or 74C) is for pieces. A whole chicken should actually have a temperature of 185F (or 85C).
(I am not a microbiologist but I've thought about this topic a lot -- do your own research if you really want to experiment and be careful)
I added a comment, but also, the FSIS (part of the USDA), had time-temperature charts: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/9ab2e062-7ac8-49b7-aea1-f070048a113a/RTE_Poultry_Tables.pdf?MOD=AJPERES.
They don't really want the average person using these, because you need accurate equipment. The 165F is the temperature that salmonella instantly dies (7 log10 die-off). Notice they never state that all salmonella is eliminated which is why you always need to handle left-overs properly. Note also that they deactivate at a little below 130F, so holding that temperature keeps them from multiplying.
TITLE: Modeling non-linear survival curves to calculate thermal inactivation of
Salmonella
in poultry of different fat levels
AUTHORS: V. K. Juneja, B. S. Eblen, H. M. Marks
JOURNAL: International Journal of
Food Microbiology 70 (2001) 37-51.
These charts are for a certain humidity and fat content which is why the USDA says the 165F number.
For all I know, the meat could taste better the longer it is cooked. Does anyone know?
I have some theories and some ideas about this. I don't have references, but my understanding is that meat generally won't get tough if you keep the temperature low: sous vide style. The reason is that the proteins in meat denature as the temperature goes higher and when they denature, they tangle up and release water (very dumbed-down version). This is why they are tough and dry. The rate at which they denature is exponentially related to temperature (the same goes for the die-off of salmonella if you look at the time-temperature charts).
It's not as complicated as people are presuming.
It works best with smaller pieces.
The 140 degree mark is the internal temp and not the cooking temp. Sous vide cooking has complicated this in some peoples minds as the cooking temperature itself is the same as the desired resulting temperature. This is not the same in an oven where you will need to cook hotter, and then reduce once desires temp has been reached, in this case 140f.
An oven at 250 will obtain this perfectly adequately. Just use a thermometer. Reduce oven to similar temps (not cooler) once the desired temp has been obtained and hold it there for at least 25 minutes.
The 140 must be maintained. it is the duration of time at 140 that kills bacteria, not the temperature of 165, at which point the meat is overcooked, and no potential pathogens remain.
With a meat probe that has low alarms as well as high, it is incredibly easy. your low will be 140. The high is only relevant to not ruining the meat at this stage.
The FDA Food Code recommends cooking chicken to 165°F (74°C). But the pasteurization of chicken is actually a function of both temperature and time. If you can hold your chicken at 145°F (63°C) for 8.5 minutes, you can achieve the same bacterial reduction as at 165°F (74°C). In his book, Kenji López-Alt uses this principle along with the principle of carryover cooking in large masses of meat to achieve succulent, perfectly safe results at a dramatically lower pull temp.
https://blog.thermoworks.com/chicken/chicken-internal-temps-everything-you-need-to-know/
Read the full article to understand the temp vs time. How much bacteria is killed at a specific temp and for what amount of time it would need to be held at that temp
It has been my experience that most smokers run at about 225 degrees F. At that temp it will most likely take a nice thick chicken breast at least 20 minutes to go from 140 to 145. That should be sufficient for health concerns and will prevent the meat from drying out unnecessarily. Also note that if you "glaze" chicken in a hot over after smoking it, you will ruin it.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.717775 | 2011-02-20T21:13:26 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12408",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Alicia Burchwell",
"Allison",
"BaffledCook",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Custom Concrete Spam",
"Danield",
"Metal_Warrior",
"William Moore",
"bikeboy389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11150",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154519",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25560",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95190",
"rox0r",
"user2664911"
],
"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
} |
3915 | What are the mushrooms used in this (video) recipe?
On this video of a recipe for mushroom-onion pudding, I can't seem to recognize which mushrooms are used (at about 2:20 in the video).
What is the name of these big mushrooms?
I'll elaborate on Joe's answer some. It's a little known fact that button mushrooms (also called common, white, or table mushrooms), cremini (crimini, baby portobello, baby bella, brown mushroom), and portbello (portabella) are all the same species. Specifically, agaricus bisporus. The difference in appearance and taste is based solely on maturity. The youngest are white button mushrooms, and the oldest are the big portobello mushrooms. There can be slight differences in skin color for the portobello's, though it tends to be darker than the stark white of the button.
The mushrooms in that video are most certainly fully mature agaricus bisporus, a portobello.
It's a safe bet that anytime you see a mushroom being substituted for a "steak", that it will be a portobello. They have a rich meaty flavor and texture that is perfectly suited for this.
This is sort of a trick question. Technically, it's a crimini mushroom that's been left to mature before harvest. Due to marketing, they're now sold as portabello (or portabella), and the smaller criminis are sometimes sold as 'baby bella' or 'mini portabello'.
update : I should've mentioned; that's what they're called in the US. I believe 'portabello' is used in the UK, based on watching too many cooking shows, but I have no idea if they might go by any other names, or if those names are used in all countries.
I'm UK, and to my mind a "Portobello" mushroom has a much darker outer-skin (compared to the pile at ~0:30 and the one at ~2:40 in the vid) when uncooked. Here's an image I've Googled of a supermarket item that demonstrates what I mean. I think the vid just shows "Standard" big mushrooms another supermarket image.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.718529 | 2010-08-01T11:43:09 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3915",
"authors": [
"Andy E",
"Anthony Mastrean",
"DMA57361",
"Nemo157",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7281",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7282",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7289",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7335",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7376",
"mrTomahawk",
"stoicfury",
"valec"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
39691 | What's the best (minimalist) way to cook venison, specifically the backstrap?
A friend is trying to cook a recently butchered deer. He was going to grill it, but was then advised that venison would do better with a slower cooking method.
The goal is a simple preparation - I'm not looking for recipe ideas, just the recommended way to cook deer backstrap to bring out its natural flavor.
Cut or slice back-strap into medallions. Season with hot sauce, onion and garlic powder and a couple of beaten eggs. Measurement of season dependent on taste/preferences and amount of meat. Mix together seasoned fish fry, cornmeal or just plain flour. If not using seasoned, then season to taste or diet requirements. Spray baking pan with non-stick or olive oil. Drain deer meat from egg and coat with seasoned dry mix of choice. Lay on pan, top with pat of butter. Cover and cook at 350 for 20 minute and check for doneness. This of course is dependent on thickness of meat. When no longer pick, uncover and let coating crisp. This is a very forgiving recipe, but don't overcook without cover or will dry out. We have tried all of the above seasoning and more. We have tried all of the dry coating alone or all mixed together. Good hunting!! The back-strap is the tenderloin and the most prized piece of the deer to many.
You can cut it into medallions or leave it whole. This is a very lean piece of meat. You can handle it as a steak and fry it in a skillet. However the middle should be (medium) rare, whatever your steak preference is. I would advice against a slow cooker method, but I haven't tried it.
After frying it in the skillet, use the sticky bits to make a wonderful sauce (with some red wine).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.718809 | 2013-11-24T14:08:08 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39691",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
10745 | Is there a difference between infused oil and adding the ingredient?
For example, is there any difference (taste, use, health, etc) between using an olive oil infused with lemon and a regular olive oil and adding lemon juice?
If there are differences, do they only apply when not cooking with the oil (e.g. in a dressing or garnish) or also when heating the oil?
There certainly are differences. Specifically regarding lemon there are differences not only in taste, because the lemon olive oil is flavored using the zest of a lemon, but also in acidity. Lemon juice is very acidic, olive oil is not. There are plenty of times where it is completely inappropriate to add an acid.
A better comparison would instead be lemon infused olive oil compared to olive oil and lemon zest. There would still be a difference, but it would be less noticeable. The infused olive oil has had more opportunity to capture the fat soluble flavor compounds in the lemon zest, however the flavor compounds that aren't fat soluble will be forever lost.
That is generally the trade-off when it comes to any infused oil. You will get lots of the fat soluble flavor compounds, but you will lose the non-fat soluble flavor compounds.
As for difference of use in the olive oil and lemon juice case, yes, definitely. You can't always add acids to foods. In the lemon zest case, apart from the slight flavor difference, there's also a texture difference. Of course, if you want something very smooth, pieces of zest wouldn't be a good thing. Apart from those though, not really.
All of these differences still apply both in uncooked as well as cooked preparations.
Excellent answer. For maximum flavor, it is often good to add the same ingredient in multiple forms. You can use both lemon or lemon zest infused olive oil, add fresh lemon juice to the cooking, and finish with a squeeze of completely fresh juice or grating of zest. All of these bring different flavors to the game. The same idea can be varied by using say, lime-infused oil but finishing with lemon zest. This is even more true when ingredients get browned, for example caramelized onions, and thinly sliced raw onions in a garnish.
An obvious one is convenience -- it's easier to just pour stuff out of a bottle if you're going to be doing it anyway for the oil, although you loose the ability to control the two separately, as you can't add more of the flavorant without also adding more oil.
As for questions about heating, if you're dealing with garlic infused oil, there's the advantage that it's much harder to burn than adding the garlic separately; also, it can be drizzled over at the end, without risking there being an overly garliced spot in the food.
In the case of garlic, the taste will be different depending on how you prepare the garlic (either when infusing the oil, or when cooking with it separately) ... so you might have an infused roasted garlic vs. unroasted garlic.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.719220 | 2011-01-05T06:05:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10745",
"authors": [
"Michael Natkin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22016",
"user182115"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
21188 | Why do you need to refrigerate bread dough overnight?
I'm making a no-knead bread (actually my very first time making bread!) and right after mixing the dry ingredients with water, it's supposed to sit for a couple hours to rise and then be placed in the refrigerator for some long period of time. Well wouldn't you know, after mixing the ingredients I accidentally let it sit all night - so it sat at room temperature for some 8-10 hours before I realized it. As soon as I found it in the morning, I put it in the fridge, where it has sat for now about 9 hours.
The dough's consistency seems fine. Is there any reason I shouldn't go ahead and bake it? (after bringing it back down to room temp, as the recipe calls for) Why does it need to be refrigerated after rising at room temperature for a couple hours?
Well I'd still be interested in an answer, but it'd be too late - the bread just came out of the oven! It looks beautiful. So I think for starters, the answer is "you don't"...
The reason for doing delayed fermentation in the fridge is that the yeast development is slowed down, while still allowing the enzymes that naturally occur in the flour to do their work (converting starches to sugars, making a more flavorful dough).
The risk of doing it on the counter instead of the fridge is that the enzymes are working AND the yeast is working, which can over-leaven the bread, and they'll eat up the sugars you are trying to create with enzymes. Over-leavened bread isn't ideal, but it isn't the end of the world either. There is a lot to learn about bread baking if you want to really excel at it, but "just bake it, it'll be fine" is always present as you experiment - glad the loaf turned out well!
"No-Knead" bread is a great introduction to "rustic" doughs (very high water content), and to cold fermentation. Cold fermentation is about the best thing you can do for your bread as a home baker, whether or not you are using the no-knead recipe - I cold ferment nearly everything I bake.
If you want to learn more about the process and jump off the deep end, Peter Reinhart's book "The Bread Baker's Apprentice" is a great place to start. It is detailed without being pedantic, simple without being over-simplified, and oriented for the home baker without forgetting the reasons that professionals do things the way they do.
Welcome to the site, great answer! +1 Spot on.
Thank you very much for such detail! I don't know that I'm going to become a master bread baker (I was mostly just doing it randomly/for fun), but food science interests me, so your answer is fascinating in that respect. And indeed it did turn out to be a thick, high water content bread. I'm sure I'll try again very soon, and I will definitely make sure to refrigerate next time and see if I notice the difference.
I was wondering whether the dough could turn into sourdough (by letting it sit on the counter for a long time) making the bread tasting... sour. Loads of people love sourdough bread.
It would certainly grow pretty wild if you left it out for an extended period of time, but you wouldn't really get what you are looking for. Sourdough (and other indirect fermented breads) are made my making a small quantity of starter, and adding that to fresh dough each time - if you tried to make a starter out of the entire batch it would take so long that the gluten would have started to degrade, and yeast byproducts wouldn't taste great. There is a lot written about sourdough starters - start there if you want sourdough!
i believe the long refrigeration period slows down the yeast, and does over the long sitting period what the routines of kneading and rest periods at room temperature would do.
I think being in the fridge slows the yeast action down and the gluten continues to develop and that is what makes your bread soft and chewy and not crumbly. During this time the flavor develops a great deal; also, the fridge period just gives the bread a great overall taste. In the book 5 Minute a Day Bread, they say you can mix a big batch and leave it in the fridge for up to 14 days pinching off a ball now and then to bake and eat.
Vicki, the "Artisan Bread in 5 Minutes a Day" (and other no-kneed breads) are typically high hydration doughs (based on the ratio of water to flour) in a large container. The wetter dough will collapse upon itself before it climbs out of the container. If you tried holding other doughs in the fridge that long, they'll often push the top off the container and ooze down the sides making a mess. Even when I'm just doing an overnight ferment, if it's not a recipe specifically for that, I'll wedge things above the lid of the container so the lid can't lift more than 5mm (~1/4 inch) or so.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.719457 | 2012-02-08T22:28:46 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21188",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Joe",
"Ricket",
"Sam Ley",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9091",
"rfusca"
],
"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
} |
15919 | What are these little crystals in my Cheese?
In some Mature Cheddar, whilst slicing with a knife, I've noticed some tiny crystals.
What are these crystals are they a sign of good Cheddar or not?
To quote On Food and Cooking (Harold McGee), page 63, about crystals in Cheddar:
In aged Cheddar, there are often
crystals of calcium lactate, formed
when ripening bacteria convert the
usual form of lactic acid into its
less soluble mirror ("D") image.
In blue cheeses:
The white crystals often visible
against the blue mold of a Roquefort,
or detectable in the rind of a
Camembert, are calcium phosphate,
deposited because the Penicillium
molds have made the cheese less acid,
and calcium salts less soluble.
And, in other aged cheeses:
In Parmesan, Gruyere, and aged Gouda,
the crystals may be calcium lactate or
else tyrosine, an amino acid produced
by protein breakdown that has limited
solubility in these low-moisture
cheeses.
So, basically there are a variety of salts present in the milk, and formed from milk by the action of bacteria and molds. As the cheese dries, and ripening micro-organisms act on the cheese, these salts fall out of the solution and crystallize. Personally, I love the slight crystalline texture present in aged cheeses, as it almost always comes with a robust and mature flavor.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.719872 | 2011-07-03T17:17:53 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15919",
"authors": [
"NFHumphreys",
"Norma",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33868",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33871",
"ljs.dev"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
35391 | How is gelatine sold in U.S. grocery stores?
I'm interested in trying a recipe from Alton Brown for marshmallow. I'm not sure what exactly "3 packages unflavored gelatin" refers to.
How much gelatine (in weight) is included in a standard package of gelatine in the U.S.? And what bloom* would that be?
Probably has no bearing, but is that likely to be powdered or leaf gelatine?
* Actually not sure what bloom is used for gelatine from Swedish stores. Awaiting a reply from Dr. Oetker's customer service on that point :-)
From experience, the Oetker-brand powdered gelatin packets you can get in Hungary are totally identical to the Knox-brand powdered gelatin packets you can get in the US. I don't imagine the Swedish ones are any different, either.
The packs typically contain the equivalent of 15mL of gelatine and are in powder form. Each pack is measured to set 500mL or two cups of liquid. As far as weight, it feels like about 6-7 grams of gelatin.
The dominant brand seems to be knox.
As for the bloom, I'm not really sure as I haven't seen it published on the label. However, I have actually made marshmallow using the same Alton Brown recipe and it seemed pretty tolerant. So slightly different bloom should be fine. I also deviated with the corn syrup and didn't use it (I avoid corn). The end result was still awesome.
what did you use as a corn syrup substitute?
@GdD recall Alton saying something about needing invert sugar, so I made invert sugar by adding cream of tartar or lemon juice to real sugar, not sure which. The wikipedia article describes.
Knox doesn't publish the bloom strength but it's 225 so you know.
I suspect what you are really asking is how to convert US recipes based on packets to use gelatin sheets.
Per Modernist Pantry:
You can successfully substitute sheet gelatin for powdered gelatin in
any recipe by using the following scaling.
1 (0.25 oz.) envelope granulated gelatin = 1 tablespoon powdered
gelatin = 3 sheets leaf gelatin.
You can buy either powdered or sheet gelatine in the shops here; I only wanted to know which one to go for. The real sticking points for me are how much a standard package contains, and whether the blooms for US and EU gelatine are similar (comments from Marti suggest that they are).
Well, the quantity info is above, but I have no idea on the bloom--I have never seen this published on consumer grade gelatin.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.720028 | 2013-07-19T13:34:13 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35391",
"authors": [
"Chris Steinbach",
"Fraser Orr",
"GdD",
"MandoMando",
"Marti",
"RosePhilomena",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91866"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
4349 | Tips for Removing Silk from Corn?
Does anyone have any tips for how to easily and quickly remove silk from ears of corn? I find that it takes a long time to pick it all out.
I'm excited for an answer to this one. Drives me crazy.
FYI if you save the silks til they turn black, they are quite satisfactory to smoke as a tobacco substitute. Apparently this was quite common when my father-in-law was growing up. Tastes a bit like almond!
If you're cooking it on the cob, remove the silk after you've cooked it. I typically microwave my corn in the inner husk, when you pull it out the silk just slides right off.
I grill mine in the husk (this works great btw), and the same thing holds true. The silk comes right off.
I've never thought of microwaving it before... do you put it in a dish with water? Covered? About how long do you cook it? I'd like to try this.
If your corn is fresh then it should have plenty of moisture of it's own. With fresh corn I simply take it down to it's inner husk and throw it unadorned in the microwave. My old microwave took about 80s for one ear, my new one is about 45s. Two ears takes a little less than twice as long. Beyond that it's kind of trial and error. Each ear added adds less to the cooking time than the one before. If your corn is meh, you can place it on a couple of damp paper towels.
I also find it much easier to remove corn silk after it's cooked. My preferred method is by oven in the husk. Usually when I go to strip off the husk all the silk goes with it.
There's actually a video from America's Test Kitchen recommending essentially this (also chopping the end off): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35TsFXYfpB0 I was pretty surprised at how well it works.
I use a soft brush (technically, it was sold as a mushroom brush).
Just brush along the length of the ear, towards the stem end, and it removes almost all of the silk. (way more than I'd get done using any other method).
update : So I was husking corn with my step-father, and noticed that I have much less silk left on the corn I was working on that needed to be brushed off, so I think some of it is the initial husk-removal technique:
If you attempt to peel off each leaf of the husk, you'll end up with almost all of the silk still on the corn. If you grab with both hands at the top of the ear, then pull in opposite directions to tear the husk, and pull down (I aim for taking off about 1/3 of the husk at a time), most of the silk will stick to the husk, leaving only a little bit of silk left that can be taken care of with a brush.
I haven't found that to work so well for me (I have both soft and slightly firmer brushes). Will try again now that I know someone else swears by it.
@Michael : it might be all about finding the right brush, and using the right amount of pressure. I also don't know if corn fresh from the farmstand might be easier to clean that corn that's sat around for a day or two. Mine looks like this : http://www.amazon.com/Clipper-Mill-Mushroom-Brush/dp/B0000CFOTH/ (although it doesn't have the white thing under it, it looks like it was molded from a single piece of plastic)
The brush didn't work very well for me, though it did mean I could remove the silk from hot, cooked corn w/o burning my fingers.
@JustRightMenus : I've always done it cold, before cooking. I've never tried it hot. It might be that we need to get one of the kitchen gadget companies to do the research to build the correctly bristled brush (bristle stiffness & number of bristles per square inch) for this task. Anyone have any connections? And does this count as prior art to keep someone from patenting the idea?
Yeah, I tried cold, too. I'll probably try again w/ another batch of corn b/c my family really does not like the silk on their corn and I really don't like how hard it is to remove before cooking.
There are lots of companies that sell corn brushes: http://www.google.com/search?q=corn+brush&hl=en&prmd=ivnse&source=univ&tbm=shop&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=fwBgTufaNI680AGnzvSUAw&ved=0CHIQrQQ -- I haven't actually tried any of them yet.
The husking technique, of grabbing at the top and pulling apart, also works for just the silk. If most of the silk is still on the corn, you can grab the top, pinch half (or a third) in each hand, and pull apart. Most of it comes right off. I do it this way because I tend to cook sweet corn while husked - baked usually - so I peel leaf-atta-time-gently so as not to scorch my fingers.
Both of these techniques are what works for me as well. Almost all the silk should come off when peeling the husk off initially. After that I use a vegetable brush to get the rest. That's if I have to use the corn for some off-the-cob preparation, that is. For corn on the cob, cook the corn in the husk.
:-) Rachel Ray has a suggestion... Use a rubber band to "thread" it off.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tn19YBlw9bc
If after taking out of the microwave you cut off the stem end with a large knife, and include a little of the bottom row of corn, it all just slips off clean as a whistle.
I find that running towel down the cob helps to pull all the silk away from the corn. It would help to wet the corn first, but it's not necessary.
Basically, you're just trying to get a better grip on it. I'm sure you've used towels before to help you open a jar or can - it's the same idea here.
Running it under cold water while rubbing it helps a lot.
For informal meals, I just use dental floss to pick it out of my teeth later.
Ditto. I figure that 15 seconds wasted on teeth-cleaning is better than 15 minutes wasted on picking the damn things apart.
I'm trying to imagine the formal meals at which you serve corn on the cob :).
I also refrigerate it for a bit before I clean the corn. Sticky things get less sticky when they're cold. If the corn's at room temp or higher, the silk is going to stick more.
Use a couple of wet paper towels under cold running water, and rub toward the stem end for a few seconds. Works like a charm.
Corn Silk Removal using "Norwex" Vegtable cleaning cloth (size of dish cloth). Directions:
After cob is husked, and easliy removed silk is pulled off, place cobs in tub of water.
Place the vegtable cleaning cloth product in one hand, cob in the other, keep submerged, rotate in spining motions, then linear movements (two cobs per minute).
Then it's done - 99% effective for silk removal. Blows the doors off of brushes, burning over a gas flame and microwaving.
Easy way to remove Silk from corn. Use a cornsilker machine!!. Can do 15 ears a minute, removes silk from husked corm and does not damage kernels.
This does actually answer the question (though I'm not sure it's something anyone would do at home) so I'll leave it here.
I know this is an old post but I have found a wonderful corn brush just recently. It works better than I hoped it would!
The single review on that says that it doesn't work at all. I'm not sure whether to believe them or you.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.720272 | 2010-08-05T16:24:36 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4349",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Alex M",
"Anique",
"Berlin Brown",
"Boris Bukh",
"Carol Ferry",
"Cascabel",
"Digital Marketing",
"Doug",
"Joe",
"Jonathan Ray",
"JustRightMenus",
"LJVG",
"Maleeka naam",
"Martha F.",
"Megha",
"Michael Chalukian",
"Michael Natkin",
"Rebecca",
"Refine and Dine",
"Rogelio Triviño",
"SChick",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Sharon Reyes Anderson",
"Shirley",
"Ven'Tatsu",
"agrimaldi",
"amazingjxq",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107795",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107883",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143005",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143016",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51645",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51657",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57055",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62497",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80813",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8189",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9063"
],
"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
} |
2202 | Is it safe to eat an apple cooked inside poultry?
My guess is that yes, you can; however, my mother always set them aside, not to be eaten. Any ideas?
They are not safe. An apple used in this manner is an aromatic, not to be eaten. I often use a combination of apple, cinnamon, rosemary and onion inside my bird. This stuff does not reach the necessary temperature to kill the little beasties that will hurt you. If it does, then you'll have one dry bird.
Depends. It increases the thermal mass of the thing to be cooked, making the inside (the apple) come to temp later than the meat parts of the bird.
If the apple gets hot enough, then chances are you've overcooked the bird. So pulling the bird when perfect results in an apple that might have some sort of contamination, although then the inside of the bird probably would as well (since they are touching).
For this reason, many chefs recommend cooking dressing (aka stuffing) outside the bird, either in the bottom of the pan or in a separate container. This allows you to cook the bird more quickly, and not to overcook it.
As an alternative to discarding (which seems a waste) there are any number of ways you could further cook the apple that would be better than just tossing it. Sounds like a nice addition to stuffing, or desert.
But you will need to cook it after you remove it from the bird. Stuffing is bad enough, and, in the case of stuffing, you can raise it to a high temperature before you put it in the bird.
There's a little bit of information at this post:
What do I need to know about temperature and food safety?
In brief, to be certain, test with thermometer that it's over 140F and has been for 10 minutes (hence the 150F or so suggestions here).
That said, the inside of your bird probably shouldn't be getting that hot; cook the bird to desired doneness, the apple is a sideshow item.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.720886 | 2010-07-20T00:48:07 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2202",
"authors": [
"BDD",
"Jon Bringhurst",
"Matthieu Cartier",
"Nathan Wheeler",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36578",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4249"
],
"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
} |
4509 | Tips for Removing Fuzz from Peaches?
I like to use peaches with the skin on when possible, but I'm not a big fan of all that fuzz.
Does anyone have a fuzz-removal method that works particularly well? Currently, I just rub the peaches with a rough cloth. I didn't know if I was missing out on some other, great method.
Really? What's wrong with you? :)
A nice rinse with NAIR? Just kidding....but...no, if you try it you're on your own...
In my defense, they're REALLY fuzzy. I don't mind normal peach fuzziness, but these have so much, the peach is white in areas. They're wonderful otherwise, from the farmers' market.
You can use an old tooth-brush it will give better results
Perfect! I used a new, soft toothbrush. Don't know why these peaches are so very fuzzy, but the toothbrush + a quick rinse in water does the trick!
I've never heard of anyone trying to de-fuzz a peach, so this isn't a direct answer:
It might be simpler to just use nectarines.
It's a myth that it's a cross between a peach and a plum. They are the exact same species, the nectarine is just a peach with the fuzzless recessive genes.
.and nectarines are soo sweet!
It may be simpler, but there are different cultivars of peaches. And if I have a peach I love, I may not be able to find a nectarine which tastes the same way.
Simple... drop the freshly picked peaches in cold water in the sink and wash them with clear water and a dishcloth as you would a dish. It isn't difficult (quick and easy) and you keep all the nutrients that are contained in the skin.
I would recommend a vegetable brush like you would use to clean dirt off of potatoes.
I use a damp paper towel. Typically I give the peach a rinse in case there are pesticides, then rub them with a paper towel which I compost. It's one of the few things I use paper towels for, but I find it works better than a cloth in this case.
I too like the skin for nutrition and color. I've found to fill a bucket half full of peaches. Next turn on your water hose to get that hard fsst spray and wash the fuzz out of them. It doesn't remove it all but that left is negligiible. Now you don't have to peel them, You have a beautiful color for your jam/jelly/cobbler and after boiling and processing, you'll never know they ever had fuzz. Enjoy...another tip from Jimbo in Mississippi.
Only remove fuzz from peaches you Intend to eat that moment. The fuzz protects the peach and without it they bruise in hours turning the fruit soft and much less appetizing. I use a tooth brush and go gently over the skin. No water needed. So much more appealing then taking a fuzzy bite of fruit.
My mother in law would dip them in hot water with a little calgon in it.
Not heard of it before, but maybe using a cook's blowtorch gently on the skin? Just an idea...
Interesting idea :-) Has anyone tried this yet?
Wash the peach. Put it in a bowl. Pour boiling water from the kettle over it.
Give it a 10 to 20 second soak, and the skin should just peal right off.
Get in the bathtub, and eat under the shower.
A peach and nectarine are the same with the exception of a recessive gene that causes the "peach" to be fuzz free thus making it a NECTARINE! Buy a nectarine if you want a fuzz free peach!
hobodave actually already said this, up above! It's still a valid answer, but you'll fare better here if you make new contributions :)
I don't think fuzz removal is common practice... so you'll have to innovate or steal from another fuzz conscious industry. My best guess would be a fine-grain sandpaper, or, if it really bothers you, a beard/side-burn trimmer. They're small, often battery powered, and trim close enough to get facial fuzz, so they should work on peach fuzz too.
Funny! Bzzzzz...
I was actually serious. What's so crazy about shaving your fruit?
lol that sounds dirty
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.721109 | 2010-08-07T04:17:43 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4509",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Chad",
"Darin Sehnert",
"Jesse Kellum",
"Joe Katter",
"John Debs",
"JustRightMenus",
"Justin Bailey",
"MSlocum",
"Marie",
"Ocaasi",
"Simon",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104875",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1603",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/835",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8500",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8510",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8631",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9058",
"jeremy",
"rumtscho",
"sdg",
"systempuntoout"
],
"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
} |
13024 | What features should I consider when getting an ice cream or gelato machine?
Obviously, there's the amount that it can make in one batch, and there seem to be three basic types (ones you freeze the bowl ahead of time; ones you pack it with salt and ice, and ones that refrigerates themselves).
... and I know I'm looking for one that I don't have to hand-crank ... (I did more than enough of that as a kid)
... but beyond that, are there any features I should be looking for when buying a machine?
If it makes a difference ... I'd mostly be making sorbet with it, as I don't handle dairy well, but I might make ice cream or gelato to share with other people.
Semi-related Tip: check out your local thrift stores and garage sales before buying a new one. Ice cream makers are like fondue pots and pasta rollers; people often get them as gifts or thinking they'll use them and then don't, so you can find like-new ones at bargain prices.
You covered the big differences. Everything else is going to be brand and manufacturing quality.
My opinion on the different types:
For small amounts and small budgets I really like my cuisinart with the prefrozen bowl. The bowl gets so cold in my chest freezer that I don't even have to take the time to chill my mixture if I'm in a hurry. It always has plenty of cold leftover.
The ice/salt type either hand cranked (that's what kids are for) or electric are nice if you need to make batches back to back. You can obviously refill them instead of refreezing a bowl.
I don't have experience with the self refrigerating variety as they are out of my budget for the occasional homemade ice cream.
I agree with the entire paragraph about the Cuisinart with the prefrozen bowl. I have the same model and the same great experience with it. Wouldn't trade it for anything. Look for the special package they have that comes with two bowls, it was on a nice sale where the second bowl was essentially free - great to be able to make a "normal" kind (strawberry, chocolate) for certain people and something crazy (chunky monkey) for myself and the more adventurous when we have a dinner night.
I love our cuisinart too! sorbets are surprisingly easy to make and we always keep our bowl in the freezer.
I have a Donvier brand ice cream maker. It's a hand-cranked kind with an insert that you pre-freeze. Unlike the old-fashioned salt/ice kind, the hand-cranking involved is super minimal, so don't necessarily discount that option. (Basically, you just need to scrape the ice cream off the sides of the insert occasionally, so it's usually something like crank it around 2-3 times every 5 minutes and it only takes about 20 minutes to freeze the ice cream.... you'll likely spend more time stirring your ice cream/sorbet mixture during prep, than you will after adding it to the machine!)
I would personally recommend this style since it means there are fewer components to break and they tend to be much less expensive. The pre-frozen container is part of what makes it so speedy, but obviously it means you can only make 1 batch at a time and it takes up space in your freezer. I think the only reason to get the kind with built in refrigeration is if you want to make multiple batches in a row and you plan to use it a lot.
Whichever style you choose, buy the largest one that your kitchen can accommodate since you can make a small batch in a big machine. I got mine at a garage sale and as a result, it's the pint size, rather than the quart size and it's the one thing I don't like about it.
If you really like ice cream and you're prepared to spend the extra money and accept a larger machine then in my experience you'll get better and more reliable results with a machine that has its own compressor.
I initially used an Andrew James machine without a compressor and top drive paddle and it only had enough freezing power for one 700 ml batch of ice cream mix that had been completely pre-chilled in the fridge for many hours and there wasn't any room for error with experimental mixtures that didn't freeze as quickly (e.g. mixtures with added alcohol). If churned too long the mixture started melting again. It also required the bowl to be frozen for 24 hours to work - 8 hours was not enough. Limiting churning power and pretty much impossible to stop churning to check the mix without risking it freezing solid, the paddle sticking and not being able to restart.
I've now got the Cuisinart ICE-100 and it's in a different league. Much more powerful churning mechanism and robust paddles. Longer warranty. The mixture can be churned from warm (well below boiling point for safety though). Completely consistent smooth results. Much less sticky frozen residue on the side of the cannister to jam the paddles. Removable bucket so the mixture can be added easily to the bucket without the paddle or lid in the way. Bottom driven paddles so it's easy to remove the lid during churning to allow warm mixes to cool more quickly, stop and restart the churning, add extra ingredients or check the results. The machine can churn one batch after another. No more than an hour to churn from hot to frozen per batch and much less for cooler mixtures. Highly recommended (disclaimer: I have no connection to Cuisinart and paid full retail price).
I've cooked large amounts of mix and churned the first batch from warm, the second from room temperature, the third from fridge temperature, the fourth after chilling in the fridge overnight - the texture and flavour are the same in each case in my experience. I think the point of the standard advice to leave the mix in the fridge to 'mature' is to make sure that the mixture is cold enough for machines without a compressor.
My only problem with the ICE-100 is that using the optional gelato paddle results in gelato that's so dense that it freezes solid in a standard home freezer after a day and can't be scooped. I think dense gelato with less air really needs to be stored in a higher temperature freezer or served within a few hours. I prefer the standard ice cream paddle. Any other owners care to comment on their ICE-100 gelato paddle experiences?
Thanks for the detailed run-down. I still haven't bought one ... I was leaning towards the ones w/ compressors, but I was finding reviews saying that many of them would break their paddle off when churning gelato. I'm starting to question if that's a sign that that the plastic is bad, or insufficient sensor to determine when it's frozen & bogged down. I'll have to look into how the paddles attach, as you mention bottom mount sounds better.
You're welcome. Ice cream making is my latest obsession :)
The paddles on the ICE-100 are very tough compared with most I've seen and the mechanism is very powerful. I usually turn the machine on to pre-chill, take out the bucket and add the mixture outside the machine (can do this with or without the paddle in place for convenience). The paddle can't stick as the bucket isn't freezing until it's been in the machine a few minutes. I've never managed to make it stick yet. Sticking is much less likely in a compressor machine as the rate of cooling of the mixture is constant - freezer canisters tend to freeze very quickly at the start then slow down.
As long as you don't overfill, the mixture sticks to the paddle when it starts freezing. If lots of mixture sticks to the edge then that can jam the paddle - I reckon that's more likely in a frozen canister machine because of the rapid freezing at the start.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.721575 | 2011-03-11T00:48:30 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13024",
"authors": [
"Allison",
"Ashwin Prasad",
"Gloria",
"Joe",
"John Blankenship",
"Manako",
"bjorne",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133496",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26941",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26943",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26944",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34541",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"marc M",
"persiflage",
"pqnet",
"stephennmcdonald"
],
"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
} |
15341 | How to include soy milk in bechamel
A visitor has left a nearly full bottle of soy milk in our fridge. Personally, I hate the taste of soy milk, I find it too sweet and nutty for me, yet I feel compelled to use it up somehow.
I am going to make a bechamel sauce for a lasagne, and wondered whether I could use 1/3 soy milk and 2/3 regular milk in an effort not to waste the soy.
Will this still taste like soy?? Should I reduce (or increase) the ratio of soy? Will it affect the thickening of my bechamel, or the general texture of the sauce? I will be adding a bit of grated grana padano to the sauce at the end of the cooking process.
I did a bit of searching online, but everything was about a 1:1 substitution rather than the EFFECT of incorporating soy. Advice appreciated.
I decided to test it anyway, so here are the results of a bechamel using 1 part soy to 2 parts regular milk:
Taste:
There was nothing on the label to indicate the soy was sweetened, so I went ahead as if it were unsweetened. However, the sauce was much sweeter than usual, and on checking the ingredients, I note that there is 2% raw sugar (as well as 1% salt). So I guess it was sweetened after all! I added an extra onion and more salt to try to counteract the sweetness, but it was still noticeable to me. My husband said it was fine.
Texture:
In the first stages of adding warm milk (infused with onion, bay leaves and peppercorns) to my butter/flour, I noticed that the roux was a lot stretchier than normal, so I had to add milk more frequently. Otherwise, the overall texture was lovely, very silky.
Thickening:
It seemed to thicken a bit more than usual, but this may have been subjective. It wasn't enough of a difference to affect the use of the sauce in any way. It certainly stuck to the bottom of the pan more than usual :(
Overall:
If I were sure that I were using UNSWEETENED soy, I would try this again if I was again left with soy milk in the fridge. I would reduce the ratio to make 1 part soy to 3 parts regular milk for my personal taste. I added some Emmenthaler and Grana Padano to the sauce, but if using soy milk, I believe the Emmenthaler is too sweet, and should be replaced by a sharper cheese such as Cheddar.
Hope that helps others faced with the same problem.
Thanks for the follow up! Interestingly 2% is not far from the sugar content of cow's milk. Of course that's lactose instead of sucrose so the sweetness wouldn't be the same.
If the soy is "sweetened", I would not suggest using it in a savory sauce. However, if it is unsweetened, it should be ok. I personally like soy, but it all depends on the brand, and whether full fat, sweetened, plain or vanilla as to how I would use it. You might try baking with it, perhaps muffins, cake or biscuits - and substituting the soy for whatever liquid you would otherwise use.
Quite the opposite: Truly unsweetened soy products tend to require some sweetener added if substituting for dairy products 1:1 in savory dishes...
I use soya milk because it fits into my wife's diet. In most cases it is hard to tell it is in a sauce.
If the soya milk is unsweetened it should work OK in any sauce that starts with making a roux. Add onions and it is almost undiscernable until after the meal.
However, if the plates are not washed promptly, the sauce often sets very hard and is difficult to wash off without soaking!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.722184 | 2011-06-09T17:34:06 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15341",
"authors": [
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
17835 | Are my capers still good?
I have a bottle of green capers in brine in the fridge, opened. About half of the capers are sitting on the bottom of the jar, and another half are floating.
Have the floating ones turned bad? Or is this just a quirk of capers? I haven't really noticed this before with previous bottles.
The bottle is just from the supermarket.
I dug around a bit, and most people seem to agree that this is normal caper behaviour, though no one has made any real assertion as to why, other than that capers have varying density, and the brine does not.
The usual tests for freshness (do they look/smell/taste okay?) are recommended. Brined capers should last ~9 months from the time the jar is opened, or 3 years in a dark pantry unopened.
how weird! Yes, both types look/smell/taste fine, I was just curious. Thanks!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.722474 | 2011-09-18T17:26:42 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17835",
"authors": [
"KimbaF",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2939"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
24737 | What is the lowest possible temperature for stewing meat?
If you want to stew meat low and slow, how low can you go and still get collagen break-down?
And would there be any advantage to stewing at the lowest possible temperature?
In regards to the bounty, I think both Stephan and Rumtscho were correct, in the proper context (sous-vide methodology, versus traditional kitchen technique respectively). See my answer below for more detail on that. Much credit to Stephano who provided one of the critical links.
As far as I know, Collagen starts to break down below 60°C/140F, time play a big role, i.e. to get the same breakdown at 60°C as 80°C you might need 24-48h instead of 3-4h.
The higher the heat the more the meat is contracted and it will get dryer, in a stew that might not be as obvious as in other cooking methods but it should still be the fact. Compare tough cuts of meat cooked sous vide at 55°C-60°C for 24-100h, they get very tender and moist.
So the benefit will be moister meat. I think you must cook the veggies at much higher temperature (80°C-95°C) so you would have to separate the two. If the end result is worth the effort I do not know, I have wanted to try doing a 'stew' with meat cooked sous vide at 55°C - 60°C for 24h+, with the veggies done on the side at 80°C-95°C, normal stew style, to see if it would be better, but I have never tried.
Sources
Hum, I'm sure you or anyone can find enough sources to argue that you need 70-80°C(160-180°F), see e.g. On food and cooking(2004) pg 163 "...Meats with a significant amount of tough connective tissue must be cooked to a minimum of 160-180°F/70-80°C to dissolve their collagen into gelatin. "
The only potentially credible and official (what do you mean by that?) source that potentially can trump On Food and Cooking is Modernist Cuisine, I will quote.
MC 3.78-79 "When meat is cooked at temperatures above 50°C/122°F, a different chemical reaction -- the conversion of collagen into gelatin -- becomes prominent." it continues and says "Cookbooks and some scientific sources commonly claim that collagen converts to gelatine "at" some particular temperature. Usually the cited threshold lies between 60°C and 75°C / 140°F and 167°F. In reality, the hydrolysis of collagen is simply another example of a chemical reaction whose rate varies exponentially with temperature." it goes on describing that the exact temperature have not been measured and that it depends on what type of collagen, e.g. breed, cut and age. Finally it says "Tough meats can be cooked until tender at any temperature above 55°C/130°F (and even a bit below, if you are patient enough)."
Also see lots of sous vide recipes on the net saying that you can cook tough meat at much less temperature than 70°C/160°F and get it very tender. Or try it, I have and it works!!! I have stopped eating primary expensive cuts, flank, shin and brisket tastes much better!
See also SAJ14SAJ reply and Stefanos comment below, as per Baldwin which should be almost as good a source as oFaC and MC
Conclusion
The answer to the question, "how low can you go and still get collagen break-down" I would answer 55°C/130°F or even a bit lower. That is NOT a realistic temperature for cooking a stew, especially not if you will put veggies in it, but as far as collagen breakdown goes that is the lowest temperature for 'stewing meat'.
meats cooked between 55-65C for 12+hours are pretty much what unicorns are made of. The texture is pretty much indescribable, they hold together like a very tender steak but with slightly more pressure than a fork and knife they flake like a great roast. Pretty amazing stuff if you have the patience.
also, vegetables are pretty much cooked at a standard 85-88C depending on the age and thickness of the veg and they will rock your world texturally and flavor wise.
@Brendan, yes but have you tried to do a 'stew' of the two combined, should be great, but I have never had the patience :-) and never heard of anyone doing it ....
I am not sure what you mean, I have definitely cooked vegetables and meat sous vide and combined on the plate. Are you referring to cooking them in the same bag?
@Brendan, No, I mean make a more traditional stew like dish where the veg and meat is cooked sous vide individually, then mixed together with a stew like 'gravy'. I.e. a dish looking just like a stew, but meat and veg cooked individually at exact temperature.
I haven't done it that way, not because it's not possible but because I don't prefer to plate that way but I really don't see why that isn't easy to do. Take the meat juices from the bag, combine with veg juices and then thicken with a thickener of your choice (my favorite is xanthan for a nice velvety mouthfeel and no taste impact) and maybe add some red wine to reduce a bit.
It is somewhere in the range between 70°C-80°C (160 to 175 F I think - conversion may not be exact), below that collagen doesn't hydrolyse.
There is no advantage in cooking at this temperature, as your actin has already denatured (that's what you are trying to avoid in roasts and steaks) and is very dry and tough. Without the lubrication from gelatine (hydrolysed collagen's end product), meat cooked at 70°C or above would be tough and unpleasant. So you can increase the temperature as you want.
But the collagen hydrolysis is a long process, and more heat doesn't mean that your meat will cook quicker. You can increase the temperature, but it won't have noticeable effects on cooking times, they will stay in the 2-6 hours range (depending on the amount of collagen in your cut).
Rumtscho's answer is correct for most reasonable practical purposes--see Science of Cooking article on slow cooking, which breaks down the process in great detail, at various temperatures. The article provides primary sources if you wish to investigate further.
Collagen dissolves to gelatin between 160 F and 180 F (71 C and 82 C), but it is a time dependent process, and proceeds more rapidly at the higher end of the temperature range.
There is no advantage to stewing at the low end of this range, as it would take longer, and the effects that squeeze liquids out of the meat have already occurred by 160 F (71 C).
For more references to gelatin formation, mostly in the context of commerical extraction, which is much easier to find, see my answer to What factors affect collagen to gelatin conversion?.
Stefan's answer is also probably technically correct, as collagen conversion is a stochastic endothermic process, so it will occur at reduced rates at lower temperatures, when the local conditions achieve the threshold energy, but the rates will be slow. Unless you are doing very carefully controlled sous-vide type methods, it isn't practical for most cooking to try to do gelatin conversion at 140 F (60 C). It would also take an extraordinarily long time.
No matter what the other quality issues are on the product, I think it is clear you would want to perform sous-vide methods at at least 135 F (57 C) for at least 24 hours, in order to kill pathogens.
That said, the collagen conversion at lower temperatures will slow considerably. Here one blogger describes doing a brisket at 55 C (131 F) for 48 hours, without a lot of success--a lot of the collagen was still present (he also had issues with elastin as well, but not relevant to this discussion).
The snippet of Cooking for Geeks accessible through Google books points out different animals have different types of collagens, which dissolve at different temperatures. It provides more detail than other sources I have seen, so if you are deeply interested in the topic, you might want to buy the book. It indicates myosin begins to denature at 104 F, and actin at 150 F, but again, both denature more quickly at higher temperatures. Evidently the source of this information is Douglas Baldwin's A practical guide to sous-vide cooking, alluded to by Stefano's comment below.
Per the link Stefano provides to Douglas Baldwin's site:
Prolonged cooking (e.g., braising) has been used to make tough cuts of
meat more palatable since ancient times. Indeed, prolonged cooking can
more than double the tenderness of the meat by dissolving all the
collagen into gelatin and reducing inter-fiber adhesion to essentially
nothing (Davey et al., 1976). At 176°F (80°C), Davey et al. (1976)
found that these effects occur within about 12–24 hours with
tenderness increasing only slightly when cooked for 50 to 100 hours.
At lower temperatures (120°F/50°C to 150°F/ 65°C), Bouton and Harris
(1981) found that tough cuts of beef (from animals 0–4 years old) were
the most tender when cooked to between 131°F and 140°F (55°C and
60°C). Cooking the beef for 24 hours at these temperatures
significantly increased its tenderness (with shear forces decreasing
26%–72% compared to 1 hour of cooking). This tenderizing is caused by
weakening of connective tissue and proteolytic enzymes decreasing
myofibrillar tensile strength. Indeed, collagen begins to dissolve
into gelatin above 122°F to 131°F (50°C to 55°C) (Neklyudov, 2003;
This, 2006). Moreover, the sarcoplasmic protein enzyme collagenase
remains active below 140°F (60°C) and can significantly tenderize the
meat if held for more than 6 hours (Tornberg, 2005). This is why beef
chuck roast cooked in a 131°F–140°F (55°C–60°C) water bath for 24–48
hours has the texture of filet mignon.
Conclusion
I would say both original posters are right, in the proper context. For traditional kitchen technique's, Rumtscho's answer is clearly correct. With judicious use of sous-vide type technique, Stefan's answer is also correct.
Collagen conversion starts as low as 50C and the the sarcoplasmic protein enzyme collagenase remains active below 60C but as you note it will take days to tenderise the meat and is really only practical using sous vide. Some good information here with references: http://www.douglasbaldwin.com/sous-vide.html#Tough_Meat
Just an FYI, myself and Stefan are two different people we just have very similar names! :)
Oops, I apologize there, I didn't catch that we have both a Stefan and a Stefano.
I edited your answer and gave us the correct names in th right place :-)
I do not understand why you and rumtscho both state that there is NO advantage to cook meat at 55-60°C compared to 70°C+, there is, the meat will be less dry. Chris specifically asks for advantage at low temp, both of you say NO!
@Stefan I don't think I said that. I said there was no point in cooking at the bottom of the traditional range, because the drying effects had already occurred. I also pointed out that you are getting into tricky territory at temperatures much below 57 C in terms of pathogen control, and 60 C is when the last of the liquid expressing effects occur; these are quite close together. Since I have no sous-vide equipment and haven't experienced it, I cannot comment on its alleged gustatory benefits, and don't think I have. I also said both answers were correct in context.
OK, fair enough, you both say that there is no benefit in the traditional temperature range. Sorry.
I think you really need to cook beef or chicken at 140 to 160 F or above if you plan on eating it that day. In other words, 130 is not hot enough to kill dangerous pathogens that can be present unless you cook for 24 hours, which is ridiculous.
I always stew beef at 165 F for 3-4 hours, especially with veg. Deer takes little longer due to it's very lean and tends to be tough; 4 hours at 165 and it melts in your mouth.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.722589 | 2012-06-29T07:17:06 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24737",
"authors": [
"Allen",
"Andy Z",
"BikerDude",
"Brendan",
"DingDong",
"JCBishop",
"Ricky",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Stefan",
"Stefano",
"Suzanne Shelagh McCarthy",
"bigdavey71",
"bthnksk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70726",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70731",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70732",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70738",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70739",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70740",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70745",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70754",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7552",
"m136487"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
6232 | Possible to freeze jam in glass?
I have read on multiple canning sites that you can freeze jam in glass jars. Has anyone actually done this successfully? Under what circumstances would it be preferable to putting the jam in plastic containers?
It just doesn't seem very safe to me (I fear the glass would break).
Previously, I have bought plastic containers to freeze jam in, but they did not seal very well. I'm wondering if glass could perform better? Or, should I just find better plastic containers?
Yes, I've done this. The key is to ensure that the jam isn't filling the glass container completely so that as it freezes it has room to expand.
I used a typical Ball canning jar, which sealed well enough to keep ice crystals out for several months.
From what I understand, freezer canning is useful when you don't have a pressure canner but want to can lower acid items which otherwise might be dangerous to your health (if not pressure canned).
Freezer canning is also useful when you want to change the recipe. I'm way too scared of botulism badness to mess with "official" recipes that get water-bath- or pressure-canned.
Another common reason for freezer canning is avoiding cooking - you can have something a lot like jam, except as fresh as you want, not even the 5-10 minute processing time.
Can and freeze jars are available. The quart jars I use large canning jar lids. Besides the thick glass, the insides are tapered like a plastic ice cube tray. As the liquid freezes and expands, it moves slightly up instead of breaking the jar open.
I make strawberry freezer jam every year, and as I have a supply of Bernardin glass jars, I tend to use those.
Regular glass freezes very well in general, but cannot handle quick temperature changes. Not really a problem with my kind of jam, when I am mixing at room temperature, then next day putting in the freezer.
Make sure you use freezer tempered jar (freeze-safe) and always leave plenty of room at the top of the jar to leave room for the jam to expand as it freezes.
I just went on a trip for 2 months and had some great German raspberry jam I did not want to throw out so I just put it exactly how it was in the freezer. It was about half full. I came back and took it out and let it stand on the table and about an hour later it is EXACTLY how it was before I left. It was so great! This was an experiment that worked great! I will continue to use this in the future.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.723445 | 2010-08-28T02:04:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6232",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Gerilyn Gruzwalski",
"JustRightMenus",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73819"
],
"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
} |
1609 | What's a good cornstarch/flour to broth ratio for a chicken-broth gravy?
I have found that chicken broth or stock does not thicken as easily as beef broth or stock will. I often find myself adding too much flour or cornstarch, hoping the chicken broth will thicken, but in the end all I have is starchy tasting almost-gravy.
I guess what I'm asking is what's a good stopping point, how not to add too much cornstarch? ...and is there a way to get rid of the starchy taste if I go past that point?
Are you making this as a soup or is it to be used in other dishes?
Question is about a gravy, not soup.
Boil the broth down more before adding the cornstarch.
The broth will continue to thicken as it cools, so aim for a little thin/runny in the pan so it's the right consistency on the table.
Don't be afraid to mix in the cornstarch in multiple, smaller batches.
Edit: For gravy, I prefer the taste of flour to corn starch.
Actually, cornstarch will lose its thickening ability if you cook it too much; you're better off boiling down the broth first, or using a roux, like @Kosta recommended.
That's why I said to boil it down more BEFORE.
What destroys the thickening ability is reaching too high a temperature, not length of time. I start to turn down the heat within a few seconds of adding the first cornstarch.
For gravy, i think it's better to start with the roux and add the hot liquid to it until you get the consistency that you want, instead of the other way around.
To make the roux, after you make a roast, leave a couple of tablespoons of fat in the pan (or just melt some butter) and add an equal amount of flour and cook for a couple of minutes to get rid of the starchy taste. Then add the hot liquid a ladle-full at a time until it's the right thickness.
after growing up with gravy that didn't start with roux, I concur: all gravies must start with roux!
also, the color of the roux is important: it should have a medium-dark copper color when it's ready, so I hear
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.723771 | 2010-07-18T02:47:29 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1609",
"authors": [
"Cipi",
"Hanno Fietz",
"Joe",
"John",
"JustRightMenus",
"Justin",
"Pulse",
"Ryan Anderson",
"Sarfraz",
"Tim Gilbert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2911",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2945",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2947",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2956",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"jcollum"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
1324 | What is a substitute for mascarpone cheese?
I've found mascarpone cheese can be pricey. What would be a good (in taste and price) substitute?
The specific application would be for a dessert with peaches and mascarpone, using this recipe: http://www.cookstr.com/recipes/peaches-with-mascarpone
technically speaking, is mascarpone a cheese?
@Midhat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mascarpone states so
I found a highly rated mascarpone cheese substitute recipe on food.com. I haven't personally tried it, but it's highly rated on that site, and is ridiculously simple.
1 16 oz block of cream cheese
1/2 cup sour cream
1/4 cup heavy whipping cream
Blend until smooth
Try it and let us know? :)
That is definitely quite like mascarpone! I went ahead and bought mascarpone, despite the cost, as a special treat for some guests. I also mixed up some of this substitute. VERY similar. In fact, my husband didn't like the actual mascarpone b/c he said it tasted like cream cheese.
@JustRightMenus: Great! I'm glad it worked for you. I'll make sure to use this if I ever need to sub mascarpone.
8 ounces of full-fat cream cheese blended with 1/4 cup of heavy cream and 2 tablespoons of full-fat sour cream make a decent replacement for mascarpone. A tip: don't try to blend the ingredients when the cream cheese is stone cold!
Really, really good thick Greek yoghurt. Might not bake like mascarpone, but it certainly acts like it when you spoon it over a dessert.
It depends on the application. Try ricotta (much lower fat, so may not be suitable for some recipes) or a mixture of ricotta and generic cream cheese.
It's pretty easy to make your own ricotta, also, if you want to get into that.
She said taste and price. Ricotta definitely does not taste like mascarpone. The texture is entirely different as well.
I agree but based on my experiences ricotta is a good substitute to mascarpone in many recipies, especially desserts. Besides, I'd rather accept a slightly different taste than use some weird mix.
There is an excellent page that describes how to make your own Mascarpone Cheese with just milk and culture at "http://www.cheesemaking.com/Mascarpone.html"
The cheese is very good, and inexpensive.
I bought some mascarpone and tried the cream cheese (full fat) substitute side by side. Cream cheese was creamier. The mascarpone definitely had a grainier texture, sort of like ricotta. I will play with it a bit, but I think mixing about half and half to 1/3,2/3 ricotta and the cream cheese sour cream mixture would hit it right on the head.
Why not make your own? 1 litre of cream makes about 750gm of mascarpone. Pretty easy, but best to have a cooking thermometer.
Can you elaborate on how you can make your own?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.723983 | 2010-07-17T03:52:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1324",
"authors": [
"Bjp",
"Brian Genisio",
"Franck Dernoncourt",
"JustRightMenus",
"Luke Duddridge",
"Midhat",
"Mien",
"Na'Jae Campbell",
"Seshadri",
"Spikolynn",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10703",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1890",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2408",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84307",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8956",
"loscuropresagio",
"oleg"
],
"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
} |
7308 | Sesame Oil vs Toasted Sesame Oil
I normally purchase sesame oil from an Asian market, but this time I bought it from the grocery store. I primarily use sesame oil for making stir-fried cashew chicken in a wok on the stovetop.
Kadoya Brand
100% Pure Sesame Oil
Ingredients: Sesame Seed Oil
La Tourangelle Toasted Sesame Oil
Ingredients: 100% Pure Sesame Oil
The new bottle (toasted sesame oil) says on the back that it is best for low to medium heat, including stir-frying, baking, dipping, dressings, or drizzled on finished dishes.
So, what is the difference between sesame oil and toasted sesame oil? I do not taste a difference.
I think the Kadoya brand you bought was toasted as well, it just didn't bother to mention it. Everything I've bought from Kadoya has been toasted. They are easy to tell apart. Non-toasted is about the same color as say safflower oil, toasted is rather dark brown. Toasted is used primarily for finishing dishes, as a final flavor. A little goes a long way. Non-toasted is a pretty marginalized product; you see it at health food stores some times. I can't think of any culinary reason to prefer it over the many other choices and it is quite expensive. Maybe some folks have particular health reasons for choosing it.
Pure refined sesame oil can be used for the cooking itself and it's pretty good for Asian dishes. For the unrefined oil I agree, it's hard to find a use for it (except... well, toasting it).
So there's 3 products, then? Refined oil (good for cooking), unrefined oil (undetermined best use), and toasted unrefined oil (stronger taste, not great for cooking, best for dressilngs)?
@JustRightMenus: That's correct. Refined sesame oil is actually the least common to find in stores, at least where I live. Pure (unrefined) sesame oil is very common but I never use it; toasted sesame oil, I use in almost every single Asian dish I make. Not just dressings but the majority of stir-fry sauces as well.
@aaronut - well said, i'm the same way
I have a container of Kadoya "100% Sesame Oil" and it is definitely toasted.
Non-toasted sesame oil has a rather nice, refined taste, but NOTHING like the toasted form! I use it when I want a very mild, but not overpowering sesame flavor/smell.
What no one has mentioned is that you shouldn't cook with toasted sesame oil it has a very low smoke point and will burn very easily. No matter what the instructions on the bottle say do not use it for cooking it's only used as an accent after cooking. If you use it for cooking your food will taste very burnt. Most recipes calling for the oil will specifically tell you to add the sesame oil when the pot/pan is off the heat and the pan has cooled for a bit.
The point here is that if you're cooking with sesame oil and it's not burning then you're not start stir frying (or you are not using toasted sesame oil) because the heat required for stir frying will absolutely burn all toasted sesame oil.
The first time I tried to cook with sesame oil It ended up terrible tasting because of how scorched it was. I have not repeated that mistake in the roughly 25 years since!
I use untoasted sesame oil as a cooking oil, and in dressings where I do not want the overwhelming flavor of toasted sesame oil. Untoasted sesame is one of the most common cooking oils in India, and I use it in preference to peanut oil for cooking. When it comes to Asian cuisines, I pretty much only stock untoasted sesame, toasted sesame, and rice bran oils (many Japanese recipes use this). My family has never used any other brand of toasted sesame oil than Kadoya.
So how does this untoasted oil compare to the toasted version?
You CAN cook with toasted sesame oil - but use it lightly! You use whatever type of oil you would normally use to cook with - and then add a small amount of toasted sesame oil as a SEASONING - after frying - not added to the hot pan, but to the food. Cold pressed sesame oil is used by people obsessed with health but smokes easily (great for salad dressings). Heat pressed sesame oil (but not toasted) is used for higher temp cooking or frying/stir frying. And - toasted sesame oil is a SEASONING oil that you add for flavor. If you got a bad taste from toasted sesame oil - then you added too much or overheated it! Toasted sesame oil is something often kept on the table with the soy sauce to be added to Ramen or other foods as a seasoning which adds a "meaty" richness. It is perfect for vegetarians who want to add a "meaty" (almost "bacony" taste) without using animal fats. It is very rich and adds body to vegetarian cooking/sauces/dressings.
Chef Ching-He Huang states to be sure and use toasted sesame oil in her three cup chicken stir fry recipe because it will reduce and become sticky while pure sesame oil will continue to cook. "Wok skills and simple stir fries" on cookingchanneltv.com
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.724227 | 2010-09-14T20:52:28 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7308",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Angel Cartier",
"Arafangion",
"Bob",
"CookingJingalala",
"Debra",
"JustRightMenus",
"Michael Natkin",
"Nichole Danielle",
"Rob LaRubbio",
"Shirley Shaw",
"SourDoh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14978",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151723",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99629"
],
"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
} |
20005 | Is this crab meat cooked?
I purchased a small container (8 oz) of frozen crabmeat. I do not know if it is cooked or not. The contents appear to be grey (it's a clear plastic tub).
The container reads:
Wild Caught Special Crabmeat
Small Pieces of White Meat
Perishable; Pasteurized
There's other writing on the container as well, but I don't think it's relevant.
FWIW, I've never seen frozen or refrigerated crab meat sold which was not already cooked. For one thing, it's very hard to get the meat out of the crab without cooking. For another, you'd have to consume it within 24 hours of thawing it if it was raw.
"Pasteurized" means that it was kept at temperatures below cooking for a prolonged time, which kills most pathogens. Pasteurized food is reasonably safe for consumption without further cooking, provided it has been kept well refrigerated since the pasteurization.
However, I doubt that the taste will be especially good after just a pasteurization. For the sake of taste, and also to further reduce food safety risks, I would cook it before eating.
For crab meat, while it's great cooked, I like it just pasteurized on a salad. Maybe with some mayonnaise and herbs.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.724609 | 2011-12-28T04:35:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20005",
"authors": [
"Elbert Villarreal",
"FuzzyChef",
"ThrowingDwarf",
"gian1200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43683",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
24709 | What meat should be used for Bolognese?
Bolognese sauce is a recipe that has earned my disrespect, despite me always keeping a pound of supermarket ground beef in the freezer ready to make it.
You see, I use it as a fall-back recipe for those days when my interest in cooking is waning and yet I still need to produce food. I therefore never look forward to making it. And since the meaty part of the sauce always turns out a little dry I don't often look forward to eating it either.
This could be a problem with cooking technique, but I'd first like to see what difference it makes using better quality ingredients.
What cuts of meat should I ask the butcher to grind? And is it worth adding ground pork or veal to the mix as some recipes suggest.
It is absolutely worth adding ground pork or veal. I usually use a leaner ground steak and compensate with a fatty ground pork (shoulder is good) - fat = flavour.
Another tip is to take your time. Many people try and cook bolognese in half an hour, but considering ground meat is usually made with tougher cuts, you end up with tough meat and under-developed flavours. Use plenty of onions and garlic, brown your meat well, use good wine, stock, tomatoes and herbs (thyme, rosemary and bay) and gently simmer that bad boy for at least 3 hours. For ultimate flavour, cook it the day before and let the flavours marry overnight.
+1 for the long cooking times, as it does make a huge difference. Also, I tend to use only veal and pork, I find that ground beef tends to "ruin" the taste.
That's personal taste :D Personally I don't like the taste of veal.
I don't mind the taste of veal, but I don't like the idea of it. My new favorite recipe is this one: http://www.seriouseats.com/recipes/2014/12/the-best-slow-cooked-bolognese-sauce-recipe.html
As long as it's rose veal there's no problem with it.
In the British tv series "In Search of Perfection" with Heston Blumenthal, Heston visits a chef in Italy that makes ragu bolognese with whole pieces of meat that are braised and then shredded. He comes up with a combination of pork and beef cut into larger chunks and cooked for a very long time instead of using ground meat. You might want to try a similar approach.
Stop using ground meat. It's too lean, lean meat cooks fast and then dries out..period. The only way to pull it off is to cook the sauce separately without the meat...brown the meat until it's just cooked and stir in the sauce.... STOP right there.
Alternatively use "sausage grind", this is meat ground for sausage that hasn't been made into sausage yet.
But if you want good bolognese, use slow cooked parts like beef short ribs, pork shoulder (picnic roast will work) and / or veal breast or veal osso bucco. Slow cook the meats separately until almost done, de-fat the juices and reduce the juices until slightly thickened. Make your sauce and finish cooking the meats in the sauce slowly...add the reduced juices for more flavor.
forget about ground meat bolognese
From the recipe for ragù (what the Bolognese call their meat sauce) in Essentials of Classic Italian Cooking by Marcella Hazan:
The meat should not be from too lean a cut; the more marbled it is,
the sweeter the ragù will be. The most desirable cut of beef is the
neck portion of the chuck.
The recipe calls for no less than 3 hours of simmering as well! Maybe you will be more pleased with the result by following the same classic recipe.
I think the beauty of Italian cooking is in it's simplicity. Most classic recipes have fewer ingredients than you think and for good reason. The quality and freshness of those ingredients are key, but more is not better. If you want the meat to shine use a marbled cut (eg neck portion of Chuck) and add milk to the meat / vegetable mixture while cooking for sweetness. As for all the the herb and spice recommendations, i'm not a fan. Again the classic Bolognese Ragu is seasoned only with Nutmeg, salt and pepper - not even any garlic. Also, with regard to other meats, i say "yes", but to meat mixtures, I say "no". Tuscan versions often use wild boar which is great. I'd say any richly-marbled cut of your favorite meat will make a nice ragu, but don't trouble yourself with meat mixtures or exotic, labor-intensive cooking processes. Simple & less always yields the best result for this dish.
First I must agree with @ElendilTheTall, He is completely correct that it is worth adding pork, I would also suggest some ground lamb. Then on one of those 'other' evenings, when you might be 'into' doing some cooking use the ground beef, pork and lamb to make meatballs.Season them with some oregano, paprika (and other seasoning, to taste), add dried bread crumbs, along with two eggs. You can then freeze the meatballs and add them to your bolognese for a rich juicy meat to go with your sauce when you need a quick/simple meal.
And garlic! Gotta put garlic in there. And fennel seeds work beautifully too. Oooo, meatballs.
I didn't want to turn into a recipe, but you are spot on ;)
If your meat sauce is dry it suggests you have other issues - Are you adding enough liquid? For a pound of meat I would be using a can of chopped tomatoes, some water/beef stock (as required), some milk (a dash) and some red wine (1/2 to 1 glass)
What kind of meat are you using? What % fat is it? If you are using e.g. ground rump then there may not be enough fat. One solution is using a more fatty cut or as you suggest add something like pork/veal. My butcher usually has 2 types, either ground beef (usually 15-20% fat) or the more expensive steak mince (5-10% fat). I use ground beef for most things except a few pies which I dont like too fatty.
The liquid part of the sauce is fine, but I'm not happy with the texture or flavour of the meat in the sauce which is dry and bland.
I’ve found that dried bacon chunks work nicely.
When I cook pasta, the typical recipe I use is a packet of pasta (four serves), a jar of bolognese sauce (four serves), and a generous pouring of shredded dried bacon - typically from Costco because it’s the only supermarket that seems to sell it in Australia.
Once the sauce starts making bubbling noises, I take it off the stove serve up the portions for the night and stick whatever is left over in the fridge for subsequent nights - a minute in the microwave is often enough to get it back to an edible temperature.
I’ve found that the bacon bits add a very nice smoky flavour to the pasta sauce, and they have a nice texture that contrasts well with the pasta and the sauce. Plus, it’s fast and easy to make - there’s no need to spend lots of time preparing the ingredients, since everything comes right out of jars or plastic bags.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.724749 | 2012-06-27T14:13:26 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24709",
"authors": [
"Chris Steinbach",
"Cindy Sweitzer",
"Cos Callis",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Jolenealaska",
"Stefano",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138536",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7552",
"nico"
],
"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
} |
24849 | Are oven bags anything more than disposable dutch ovens?
A few months back, on a whim, I bought plastic oven bags. I'd never seen them before so I was curious. According to notes on the packaging I can cook chicken, beef and pretty much anything else in them, but the notes don't hint at why I would chose to do so.
A little post-purchase reflection has lead me to believe that these bags are essentially disposable dutch ovens. Since I already have a dutch oven I wonder if I've wasted my money. Can anyone tell me?
There are differences between baking in a plastic bag and in a Dutch oven. If you have access to both, I prefer the Dutch oven.
What both do is to
Trap steam
This makes your food a bit moister, and keeps pan juices and additions to the roast, like a dry rub or mirepoix, from drying out into an unappetizing, carbonized spot. It is not as important for meat as for bread. I haven't tried baking bread in a bag, but maybe it will work.
Change the mix of heating processes
Baking in an oven involves heating by conduction, convection and radiation at the same time. The heating elements emit a lot of infrared radiation, which cooks the surface of the food, giving it a nice crust, but does not penetrate it to cook the inside. When you put the food in a small closed space, the material shields it from that radiation. Althought there is some secondary radiation from the shielding material itself, the amount of conduction heating goes up a lot. This gives you more even heating and the inside will be well cooked before the crust burns.
Be aware that if your bags are transparent or translucent in the visible spectrum, chances are that they let at least some infrared waves through and a Dutch oven will perform better.
Where bags and Dutch ovens differ is that only a Dutch oven gives you a buffer for temperature changes. Its large thermal mass and relatively low heat conductivity make sure that there are no rapid temperature changes when you open the oven. Using a Dutch oven will also help if your oven heats unevenly. As the oven heats the Dutch oven, the heat travels throughout the Dutch oven, and only then it heats the food on the inside.
This gives you a more even roasting process. In a logistically problematic situation, you can hold the food longer in the Dutch oven without it cooling on the counter or drying out in the oven. Remember to allow for residual heat transfer and turn off the heat 4-5°C earlier than usual.
+1, and I'm giving @Sobachatina and extra +1 to one of the other posts for a great edit
@BobMcGee- thanks! but you don't need to do that. We wouldn't want other answers that don't deserve it to be voted up too much.
@Sobachatina: Ah, but it's easy to find a good answer that I missed seeing, which deserves an upvote...
Oven bags achieve a similar thing to Dutch ovens, namely keeping moisture mostly inside the bag during cook. However, they are also cheaper, easier to store, more spacious and more versatile. You can use an oven bag for brining (its flexibility helps it fit in the fridge), or for proving bread, for example.
The only reason I'd ever cook in plastic is if I did not want the mess to clean up. That's the reason for those bags to begin with, to make clean up easier. Aluminum foil will accomplish the same thing, so I use parchment paper to line my pans if I am using real messy ingredients.
I removed the claims that food-grade plastic and aluminum foil are toxic; as far as I know, there's no strong scientific evidence for either claim, and this site is not a place for health debates or unsupported claims.
Oven bags are useful for cooking in microwaves, as the usual technique for ovens involves foil, which you can't put in a microwave.
But beware as often the clips that come with the bags are metal :)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.725267 | 2012-07-04T11:35:36 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24849",
"authors": [
"BWFC",
"BobMcGee",
"Cascabel",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"jwenting",
"ณพ ปิ่นณรงค์"
],
"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
} |
28272 | Do cooks in the US measure volume using 'traditional' or 'legal' units?
The wikipedia article for the cup unit identifies two different measures used in the US: a legal cup of 240ml and a customary cup of ~236.588ml.
Similarly, the tablespoon and teaspoon articles describe traditional measures (~14.8ml and ~4.93ml respectively) and measures used in "nutritional labeling" (15ml and 5ml).
Are measuring spoons in the US calibrated to the traditional, or to the legal definitions of these units?
both. (within acceptable tolerances, as I doubt they're that well calibrated, or that usage is that precise)
In case it seems odd that I would need to known this; I'm doing calculations based on a large number of recipes and I want to introduce as little systematic bias as possible.
Then you likely need to look at when and where the recipes were created & tested, and how/if the 'legal' definitions made it into general (non-commercial) usage.
To put things into comparison -- during my undergrad (civil engineering), there were lots of different ways to calculate the strength of a steel-reinforced concrete beam, with results that varied somewhere on the order of 5% of each other ... my professor showed that if you consider that the accuracy of steel placement is within 1" in many cases, that threw the strength by ~20%. So, my point is -- how someone fills the cup is likely of more signficance than which of the two sizes of cups they use. (especially for flour ... but then you also have regional differences in production).
@Joe You're right of course. I was rather hoping that I could simply rule out the legal units since I nevertheless have to settle on a default measure when the exact unit isn't indicated (which is the case for most recipes). How someone fills the cup is, as you say, of greater significance. I'm just going for the low hanging fruit to begin with, and this question seemed like it may have an answer.
Unless it's coming from a recipe to be used in bulk commercial processing, I doubt they would use the 'legal' measures. My only other suggestion might be to try contacting the various 'test kitchens', and ask them what they use. Among other things, the commercial test kitchens verify that cookbooks recipes work as listed, and so they might have to deal with this issue.
If the market for measuring instruments is quasi-monopolic, you can just measure which the market leader uses, because this will be the one most cooks use, no matter who created the recipe.
Many of us use a 20 year old set of chrome plated measuring cups, with all their dents, and distortions from the round. Plastic measures are also popular, but stuff sticks to the cheap ones.
Great question Chris! I'm a US baker who has been baking for a LONG time and never gave it any thought whether my measuring utensils are "legal" or "traditional" - they say "1 cup", "1 Tsp", "1 TBSP", etc.
In practice, all this has meant to me is that when my US recipes call for 1 cup of flour, I measure 1 level measuring cup of flour. Same for teaspoons and tablespoons. My European cookbooks refer to ingredients in weight (250 grams, for example). In those cases, I would either convert those measurements into my more familiar cups, tsp's, TBSP's, etc., or use another set of utensils with measurements marked on the side.
While I've used the written measurements for a guideline, I've always also depended on the preparation instructions to determine the correct consistency of the dough or batter. This is particularly true for flour and liquids.
Regarding uniformity in the measurement tools, unfortunately for the home cook, there is no one monopoly. Every grocery store, dollar store and cooking store has an assortment of measuring cups and spoons. Some of the better measuring cups, like those from Pyrex, have volumes written on the side of the cup to use as guides.
I took a look at some measuring cups and spoons available via amazon. For the vast majority, there is no information available regarding either the exact measure or the intended market (cup measures differ as much as 44ml between english speaking countries). Nevertheless, there are a few products where the milliliter conversion is provided.
To begin with some good news; every one of 20 measuring spoon sets used a 15ml measure for the tablespoon and 5ml for the teaspoon. This was the case even for brands that sold a traditional US cup measure.
The situation is a bit more messy for cups. Out of 20 cup measure sets, 6 products used the legal cup, 8 used the traditional cup and 6 were metric cup measures (250ml). It's doubtful that US consumers would knowingly purchase the 250ml cups. Remember though that most cups available online don't specify their exact volume, so it is possible that a meaningful percentage of online US consumers are unwittingly measuring in metric cups. Some angry comments in the amazon product reviews appear to confirm this.
It was clearly nonsensical to mention calibration in the question. Apart from the anecdotal evidence indicating the inaccuracy of measuring cups, I also note that the specified milliliter conversion for traditional measures ranged from 235ml to 237ml. The one measuring cup I saw claiming to be "precision engineered for accurate measurement" didn't even indicate whether it was for measuring a US cup.
My conclusion is that traditional, legal and metric cup measures are used in the US although I would expect the proportion of metric cups available in the shops to be much reduced to what I saw online.
I wouldn't be confident the teaspoons and tablespoons were all actually 5 and 15 mL; they may just be rounding. The same might even happen for cups.
What a great discussion. I don't think there is really an answer regarding whether most US cooks use "legal" or "customary" cups as I don't think that most cooks know that there is a difference. A legal cup is only 1.44% larger than a customary cup. This is a very small difference. I'm willing to bet that if a cook measured a cup of flour 10 different times with the same measuring cup that his results of each measurement would vary far more than 1.44%.
My other thought is that if a cook always uses the same set of cups, be they customary, legal, or metric, then their recipes would always turn out because all ingredients would be proportioned the same.
My answer to this problem is to throw away your measuring cups and start using a scale!
I’m a cook but also a trained engineer, a former math and science teacher and a practicing optician. Who cares, right? But let me explain why it’s relevant here.
First, as an educator, your question makes me proud because we emphasize precision and accuracy in the classroom. The comments about using a scale are very sound math and science. So is the comment about ratios—a foundation of good cooking. As an engineer, I’m deeply familiar with the realities of the rubber meeting the road. Even the most precise instruments don’t account for user biases. Thus, we allow tolerances or allowable errors and make allowances for this by design.
If industrial precision and consistency are your goal, having well know, and accurate measuring tools is required and an analytical balance (scale) is the standard. As an optician I refer to an ANSI standard to pass or fail eyeglasses based on fairly loose tolerances.
My cooking experience falls in line with these. Human beings mostly tolerate 10% sensory variations with ease. Those who don’t are unusual and difficult or even impossible to please. The bottom line is that it probably doesn’t matter UNLESS you are packaging something professionally/commercially/medically in which case...USE A SCALE! Bon appetit
Good point on the optical issues -- I doubt most people know which liquids are supposed to measured via the top or bottom of the meniscus. (I've also questioned the accuracy of the printing on some liquid measuring cups). But if you make something more than once, you can make notes about how to vary the recipe for your measuring tools, so it'll come out better the next time
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.725858 | 2012-11-07T11:36:27 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28272",
"authors": [
"Betty Grant ",
"Cascabel",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Elaine",
"Hoosier Momma",
"Joe",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65111",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65113",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65145",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65162",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66876",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"noumenal",
"rumtscho",
"sid",
"vickie"
],
"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
} |
42026 | How much should yeast rise?
At some point in the past, I had purhased a large amount (maybe a pound) of instant yeast at a restaurant supply store. I transfered it to a glass container, and have been keeping it in the fridge. I don't remember when I bought it -- I suspect it was 2 years ago. (I know it was more than a year old).
When I make bread, it's still rising, and if I try proofing it, it works ... but the time to get bread to double in volume is taking longer (sometimes up to twice as long) as many recipes give as estimates.
Is there some good test that I can use to estimate what the decreased activity is, so I can adjust the amount of yeast that I'm using? Or is there some other technique that I can use to compensate (eg, start proofing the yeast with sugar before using?)
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/2532/67 ; http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/8253/67 ; http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/1513/67
Given that we've been hit with a lot of snow over the past few days, I'm going to treat 'replace your yeast' as a non-answer. It's a fair comment, but it does not answer my question.
Many recipes are simply poorly written. It's not at all uncommon for the estimated time to double to be significantly off. That is actually why the "till double" is so common, it's the doubling that is important and the time is incidental.
(and the snow comment was because I don't want to spend the hours digging out just to go and buy more yeast; I want to stay home and use the yeast that I have)
Sadly, there isn't really a better answer than "enough". You can of course proof the yeast in warm water with a bit of flour to make sure that it's still active (by looking for foam after a few minutes). As far as home testing goes, it doesn't get much more specific.
Even yeast manufacturers doing far more advanced testing of their yeast admit that testing gas produced in a laboratory is a poor predictor of proof times. There are so many other factors going on in yeast doughs that yeast activity alone is a drop in the bucket of protein levels, enzyme activity, amylase levels, falling numbers, farinograph and a host of other test scores that can effect dough.
As far as a technique for compensating, the best method is just to rely on proofing to the size required and allow more time as needed. If you know that your batch of yeast tends to perform slowly you can either work with it warmer or add a bit more yeast to start. If you start proofing with sugar, you're just allowing the yeast some time to reproduce so the effect is pretty much the same as just adding a bit more yeast than called for to your dough.
And, of course, it's also important to make sure that you're handling the yeast appropriately for it's type. Instant yeast doesn't require hydration prior to use, but active dry yeast needs to be added to the liquids in your recipe before the dry ingredients are combined.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.726627 | 2014-02-15T16:44:18 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42026",
"authors": [
"FluidCode",
"Joe",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98108",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98118",
"spammer",
"user98108"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
47060 | Saving old chocolate
I found a bag of chocolate chips in the back of a cabinet that's well past the 'best use by' date and showing signs of bloom.
From experience, I know that it won't melt right, and has a tendancy to be a bit grainy if used as-is. Is there something that I can do to revive it?
If there isn't, are there recipes where it the bloom isn't a problem?
(and before you say 'crush it up and put it over ice cream' ... I thought of that, but I can't eat dairy)
I don't know of a way to revive old chocolate, however you can use them in applications where baking isn't necessary, like refrigerator cookies, rice crispy treats, or cereal bars.
Keep in mind that these things will only be as good as the ingredients, so if your chocolate doesn't taste good it's best to chuck it.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.726883 | 2014-09-11T15:52:36 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47060",
"authors": [
"Colin Gilman",
"John Colbert",
"Killian Gerrard",
"LuAnne Carlson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113541",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113542"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
20121 | Does having spoiling food in your fridge cause other food to spoil faster?
We all have forgotten remnants that get pushed to the back of the fridge and eventually become science experiments. Does the presence of such items (assuming they're left in a non-air tight container) hasten the spoilage of other food in the fridge?
I'm sure that most of us have, at one point, left some smelly food in the fridge (fish, onions, etc.) and later found that other foods have picked up the odour. Given that, it's a pretty safe bet to say that if some contaminant becomes airborne, it's definitely possible for it to come into contact with other food. So the question then becomes whether or not these spoilage agents can become airborne.
Let's break the problem down into the four major types of spoilage we are presumably concerned with:
1. Ripening ("Rotting")
This is induced by ethylene gas, as discussed in the question: Why does a brown paper bag speed ripening?
If sufficient ethylene gas gets trapped in the fridge - or more likely, in a small compartment of the fridge - then you'll get that same "brown paper bag" effect. If you leave, say, avocados, in the same compartment as a bunch of bananas, and the airflow in and out of the compartment is minimal, then you'll see the avocados ripen and eventually spoil faster than usual.
Note that this would only affect produce which actually ripens in storage, and only when one item produces a lot more ethylene than the other item(s). So while a banana might cause avocados to spoil faster, a bunch of avocados probably wouldn't affect nearby apples very much, and wouldn't affect citrus fruits at all (they don't ripen).
2. Mold
Mold colonies continue to grow spores which eventually become airborne when there's no "room" left for the new spores.
Check out this fun-filled diagram of mold growth stages taken from Envirochex: Mold Growth Requirements. I'd post the image right here, but an animated GIF would be a little distracting.
Anyway, the best way to visualize this is to think of the dandelions you've probably seen outside. Not so much the bright yellow flowers in the summer, but the seedheads (fuzzy gray ones) more common in the fall. Mold colonies look a lot like that on a small scale, and any kind of air current (say from the regular opening and closing of the fridge door) can disperse the loose spores. Even if the fridge is left unattended, its circulation fan is still going to run and that could be enough.
Now, this effect is more likely to be observed if you have everything completely uncovered. Simply being non-airtight certainly makes this transmission possible, but the amount of spores that manage to escape the container and settle on another piece of wet food where they can grow again, is going to be very small if there's anything at all in the way, even just a layer of plastic wrap.
But it could happen. Many canned/bottled foods which clearly could not have started with mold, such as maple syrup, can still end up with mold, and that's because they take in mold from the environment. The more mold is in the environment, the more likely this is to occur.
Even if the mold doesn't manage to inoculate any other foods in your fridge, it's still going to be present in the air, so unless you really like breathing in mold spores, please get rid of anything with more than a 1-inch-thick layer of blue fuzz.
3. Rancidity
Rancidification affects fats, and when not caused by bacteria (see below), is usually caused by oxidation.
Oxidation is (simplifying here) a function of heat, light, and oxygen (or some other oxidizing agent). This is a chemical reaction and not a biological process; since the process of oxidation consumes these things, and does not produce more, food spoilage due to rancidity is not going to affect other nearby foods.
...that is, unless you have other spoiling food that is somehow producing large amounts of light, heat, or oxygen, and if so, forget about cleaning your fridge, you'll want to send it to NASA for further study.
4. Bacteria
Right off the bat we can rule out transmission of any obligate anaerobes like C.botulinum, since those can only grow when there is no oxygen present. That still leaves quite a few pathogens, though, the most notable of which are probably salmonella, E.coli, and C.perfringens, and possibly Campylobacter.
The answer for these is... more complicated. It is technically possible for these bacteria to get airborne, but not by themselves; they need to be carried by something, like dust or aerosols. The exception is Clostridium, which can produce spores, which can become airborne just like mold spores - which is a significant risk with the aerotolerant ones like C.perfringens - but most of the time, the spores won't germinate at cold refrigerator temperatures.
All in all I'd have to say that this is an extremely unlikely occurrence, but any of the following would make bacterial cross-contamination more likely to occur:
Warmer-than-optimal temperature (should be about 4° C)
High humidity (water vapor)
Dust or other particulates
And, as with the mold spores, cross-contamination is much more likely with uncovered food. Since the bacteria themselves are not airborne, it's the particulates - dust, water vapor, etc. - which must land on other "clean" food in order to contaminate it. This is very unlikely to occur if the other food is covered.
The larger concern with bacteria, from my perspective, is contamination of the refrigerator or container surfaces, which can then be easily spread to other foods or directly to your mouth by ordinary human contact. Just one of many reasons why you should probably clean your fridge on a regular basis; however, I'll confess that I don't, and have never gotten sick from my own fridge, so even this possibility seems pretty remote.
Conclusion:
I haven't attempted to quantify any of the possibilities here, as that would probably require a microbiology lab and a lot more education than I've personally had. But those science experiments at the back of your fridge definitely do have the possibility to accelerate spoilage elsewhere, and even items that aren't yet science experiments (like ripening bananas) can still have unintended side-effects.
If you want to be absolutely safe, try to make sure that all or most of what you store in the fridge has an airtight seal, and get rid of any visible (or smellable) spoilage as soon as possible. It's just common sense anyway.
Some fruit and veggies are known to release ethylene, which acts as a hormone and makes other fruits and veggies ripen and go bad faster.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.726998 | 2012-01-02T03:53:53 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20121",
"authors": [
"Ezeewei",
"Francisco Jones",
"Mark Votaw",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43988",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43989",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43990",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44018",
"vianna77"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
20181 | What's the difference between Guatemalen, Honduran and Salvedorean Cream?
All three are available at my local mexican market. How are they different?
I've wondered this too!
Where they're made, I'd guess ;) I had similar issues with sausages in the UK. Apparently every region on the island has its own style of sausage that are vastly different.
I haven't actually had these creams (I might have to try next time I'm at a Latin grocery), but a little research indicates that Guatemalen cream is something like a hybrid of American style sour cream, and creme fraiche; Honduran cream is saltier, and Salvadoran one is sweeter.
Here's a review.
The primarily difference is where they are made.
But there's also a play on its acidity. Kind of like milk vs. buttermilk or different types of plain yogurt. I always thought of El Salvadorian crema was more acidic for my tastes. I think of Honduran as a less acidic, more creamy taste and I really enjoy it.
I find Salvadoran cream thinner and tastes like a very mild cheese (cheddar?) And Mexican cream is like sour cream only 100 times better. It's thick, made using live cultures like how yogurt is made and had a more profound dour cream flavor. I love both. Salvadoran cream is the best imho. If they are making them in the Mexican market, you should try them!
What about Honduran or Guatemalen?
I just recently tried crema hondureña in the home of a friend who grew up in Honduras. To me, it has a taste and texture similar to a kind of mild, creamy cheese sauce like the queso dip you might find in some Mexican restaurants. It's delicious! I haven't tried the other countries you mentioned, but I'm familiar with Mexican table cream (almost sweet, pure cream taste), and Mexican sour cream (like American only a smooth, thick liquid and much tastier).
The Salvadoran is to my palate the most flavorful. .but really buy what you like! American sour cream is thicker....I wish I had never purchased the Salvadoran sour cream...as it is all I want now and not as readily available
"Buy what you like" - sure, but the point of the question is to find out how they differ without having to buy them all.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.727508 | 2012-01-05T05:32:40 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20181",
"authors": [
"AJN",
"Cascabel",
"Erica",
"FuzzyChef",
"ME.",
"Ray",
"Yamikuronue",
"acarrasq",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70417",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70425",
"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
} |
5302 | How to create a muffin recipe
I would like to experiment more with muffin recipes, but I don't want to stray too far and end up with inedible product. Are there basic parameters I should follow in creating my own muffin recipe?
What makes a muffin a muffin, as opposed to a cupcake?
What proportion of wet to dry ingredients should I use?
What is a good method for converting one fruit/veggie ingredient to another? So if I have a great apple muffin recipe, how do I know how many berries to use instead? Or grated carrot or squash?
Michael Ruhlman's Ratio defines a muffin as a form of a quick bread. The basic quick bread ratio is:
2 parts flour
2 parts liquid
1 part egg
1 part fat
So you can make a muffin with those basic ingredients in about that ratio. Remove any of those ingredients, and you no longer have a muffin. Substantially change those ingredients, and you've moved somewhere else in the dough continuum or even towards a batter.
Personally I'd classify a cupcake as a type of cake. The ratio for pound and sponge cake are both:
1 part butter
1 part sugar
1 part egg
1 part flour
The differences between cakes are often the mixing method - creaming versus foaming, for example. You can see, though, that in a muffin your flour-to-fat ratio is higher than in a cake. Muffins also don't require sugars. Cakes and cupcakes do.
From the basic quick bread ratio, you should be able to add any fruit or other ingredients (try bacon or turkey bacon), substitute in dry ingredients for flour such as bran or oatmeal (or another grain), and make a lot of other interesting changes. Just make sure you stick to the basic proportion of a quick bread. If you add a very wet ingredient, remove some liquid. Change tastes by adjusting oil versus butter (or browning your butter). Add sugar, baking powder or soda for leavening, spices, extracts, etc.
If you hadn't recommended Ratio, I would have. ;~)
The perfect place to start as far as I'm concerned.
That book is now on my birthday wish list! So, how are the parts measured? Weight or volume? And is one part egg = 1 egg? Would you use 1 cup flour, 2 cups liquid, 1 cup egg, 1 cup fat, or would that be just 1 egg instead of 1 cup egg?
@JustRightMenus - He usually measures parts by weight, because a cup of flour usually ranges anywhere between 4.5 and 6 ounces, which can get to be a big change. For eggs, you can follow the guideline that a large egg is 2 oz. For muffins specifically, try the Google books preview (which has the basic recipe on p. 71): http://books.google.com/books?id=zGaRpi4YdIQC&pg=PA69&lpg=PA69&dq=ratio+quick+breads&source=bl&ots=HNMPwDGEP2&sig=7k6OV8my3-gulY2Uiqr8MKeZtS4&hl=en&ei=NHdqTMr9EIOBlAfrwIzsAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CEYQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=ratio%20quick%20breads&f=false
+1 for an excellent explanation of the difference between muffins and cupcakes.
Hmm... but most people consider banana bread a quick bread, yes? The classic banana bread recipe calls for 1c flour, 1c sugar, 1 stick butter, and 2 eggs. According to Wolfram Alpha, that's 4.2 oz flour, 3.7 oz egg, 3.3 oz butter. That's much closer to the 1:1:1 of cakes than the 2:1:1 of quick bread. And then 7 oz sugar, which makes it even sweeter than cake! (I don't know how much liquid goes into it - it mostly comes from the bananas, which also add even more sugar.) Most banana bread recipes even call for creaming the butter and sugar, like you would in a cake.
I'm basing this off of observing these recipes all from Smitten Kitchen. I'm using all the same site with the thought that I want the same person making (or at least adapting) all the recipes.
http://smittenkitchen.com/2007/05/always-the-corniest/
http://smittenkitchen.com/2008/11/olive-oil-muffins/
http://smittenkitchen.com/2006/10/promise-keeper-pumpkin-eater/
http://smittenkitchen.com/2007/05/a-new-muffin-in-town/
http://smittenkitchen.com/2010/01/ricotta-muffins/
http://smittenkitchen.com/2007/02/a-meatover-and-a-muffin/
http://smittenkitchen.com/2008/04/whole-wheat-apple-muffins/
Here's a quick approximation of wet to dry for each (not including small amounts of leavening or spices or things like apples that are both wet/dry ingredients):
corn: 2.25 C. dry to 1.5 C. wet
olive oil: 2.75 C. dry to 1.5 C. wet
pumpkin: 2.75 C. dry to 1.5 C. wet
raspberry: 3.15 C. dry to 1.7 C. wet
ricotta: 3.75 C. dry to 2.5 C. wet
sour cream: 2.25 C. dry to 1.75 C. wet
wheat: 3 C. dry to 1.75 C. wet
As you can see, most recipes have about 3 cups of dry ingredients to 1.5 or 2 cups of wet ingredients. To be more detailed:
Most of the recipes have about 1 C. flour and 1 C. sugar.
Around 1/2 C. of fat (butter or oil).
Between 0-2 large eggs...so I would try 1 egg to start with.
Between 1/2 tsp. and 1 Tbsp. baking soda...so I would try 2 tsp.
1/2 tsp. of salt.
As to your other questions, I think the other respondents nailed them:
Cupcakes have frosting, muffins might have a light icing at most.
Adjusting for berries, other fruits and so on depends a lot on the season.
Ratio's what matter, and those range from 2.25/1.75~=1.29 to 3.15/1.7~=1.85.
To second Jefromi, it's not just the ratio of dry to wet, but you also need to include fat (butter or oil), and any other ingredients without which a muffin is not a muffin.
I've updated to add a little more info. Thanks for doing the ratio math.
Whew. This isn't as easy as you'd think. The short of the "cupcake" question is simple though: often there is no difference. Many big breakfast chains will serve you cake batter "muffins" in a heartbeat. A true muffin will be a bit coarser, a bit more bread-y. It's like the difference between a biscuit and a scone.
The basic muffin (oil,egg,milk,powder,flour) is easy. The problem is when you start mixing in flavor. For heavy stuff (pumpkin leaps to mind) you need to add more baking powder and baking soda as well. I also tend to separate my eggs, and fold in some beaten egg whites for a little extra lightness.
For berries and wet things, shake 'em in some flour first, so all the fruit doesn't settle to the bottom of the muffin. I'd shake them in the flour you plan on using for the muffins, so you don't get too much flour in your batter. If you're using frozen fruit, don't bother to thaw.
Sour cream, yoghurt, and buttermilk can all be subbed in for some of the milk. Thicker batter needs to have proportionately more leavening agent, while looser, wetter batter should have less (so as to avoid weird bubbles). There is no "right" consistency for muffin batter: some will be thicker and some will be thinner.
With subbing in different fruits and vegetables, the most important thing to consider is their water content. Berries are pretty much interchangeable. Apples and peaches, on the other hand, aren't. I'd rate a peach as being more like a berry in that sense (I used to go to a place that made peach and cream cheese muffins that were literally worth killing for. Literally.)
my favorite blueberry muffins require thawing the berries - otherwise the frozen fruit lowers the cooking temperature too much. They also suggest rinsing the berries to reduce color from the skins turning the surrounding muffin great.
@justkt: Shrug. there are about a billion blueberry muffin recipes in the world. I certainly wouldn't rinse the berries, especially if they're frozen though...You're going to lose flavor. Just dredge 'em in some flour, or don't overstir.
The biggest differences between muffin and cupcake:
(1) muffins are usually not frosted, at most lightly glazed
(2) muffins usually just have you mix wet and dry ingredients separately, while cupcakes have you cream the butter and sugar
When substituting fruits and veggies, you don't need to worry much. Start by doing it simply by volume (1 cup of berrries instead of 1 cup of apple pieces) and you won't be too far off. If the new ingredient is significantly wetter or drier you might want to adjust the liquid a bit.
+1 for bringing up technique differences and subbing suggestions.
The mixing difference you mention is part of what gives rise to the difference in crumb (fine for cupcakes, coarse for muffins). I think you've also missed part of the mixing difference. As part of mixing wet and dry separately, you generally mix until just combined with muffins; overmixing is bad. Cake batters, on the other hand, can usually be mixed quite thoroughly. Of course, some traditional cakes (e.g. carrot cake) have a crumb much more like a muffin...
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.727723 | 2010-08-16T17:20:09 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5302",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Chad",
"Fisher",
"James",
"Jonathan W",
"Josh",
"JustRightMenus",
"RhymeGuy",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Tiffany",
"Viruzzo",
"dynamo",
"heathenJesus",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10417",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10419",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10422",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10423",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10425",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9344",
"justkt",
"wdypdx22"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
1577 | Why are Italian eggs so yellow?
I've noticed when I've bought Italian eggs from delis here in Europe that the yolks are very yellow - almost orange. Why is this? Assume it's the hen's diet. What are they feeding chickens there?
Whenever I travel to Germany I've been stunned at how yellow/orange the egg yolks are.
Compared to British eggs? American eggs? Canadian eggs?
Alternatively, the chickens may have been fed maize (corn); they market a specific maize-fed brand over here and the yokes of those eggs are a very deep yellow as well.
Sounds plausible. I'm going to mark it the official answer.
Yes. we give corn to chicken, although I never knew it was just Italians doing it.
The yellow colour comes mostly from Carotenoids which are in common chicken foods such as grass, Corn, and Alfalfa (pea family). It can also come from worms and insects etc
The yellow color comes (primarily) from vitamin A in the eggs. The eggs are high in vitamin A when the chickens are fed a natural diet of seeds, vegitation and insects.
Most of the eggs that you buy in the states are factory farmed and pale because the chickens are fed a special protein mix that has a lot of corn. This makes them lay faster and more economicly, but the mix is somewhat nutrient poor, so the eggs are less colorful. This also used to happen in cows: the milk was yellow in the summer when they ate grass, but white in the winter when they ate hay and grains.
If you find good yellow eggs, that is a good sign that the chickens led a good life on a natural diet. Of course, the feed could just be doped with vitamin A to make the eggs look more yellow.
Interesting and I think this is the factor. But if you buy UK organic eggs they're not quite as yellow as this. See evidence below (fourth pic down)...
http://londoneater.com/2009/07/22/raouls-cafe-the-way-you-look-this-morning-review/
So leading on from the answer, what is so high in vitamin A in the Italian chicken's diet?
Organic doesn't necessarily mean free range. I suspect something is added to the feed, but I haven't seen how Italian chickens are raised, so I'm forced to speculate.
I think you are meaning Carotenoids (which can be converted into Retinal aka vit A)? Carotenoids are sourced from all sorts of foods. The colour of the carotenoids gives the colour of the yolk. You can have red or blue yolks if you want!
You can't feed direct vit. A to any animal without major risk of killing it
The yellow color doesn't come from the vitamin A (and not from the beta carotene, which is actually contained in the yolk). It comes from different compounds called xanthophylls (source: Harold McGee on food and cooking).
Farmers can control the colour of the yolk by controlling the chickens' diet. Some farms add colour to the chicken feed to produce different coloured yolks.
See the yolk section of the Wikipedia article on eggs.
+1 for linking to what I think is the likely answer -- marigolds. (US chickens get plenty of corn, although, it's possible that it's not all yellow corn)
This is simple and effectively correct. How farmers do it is not so simple. It can takes weeks for the colour changes to happen, and to have long lasting colour can take specific food mixes. It is mostly marketing though as the colour often has very little to do with the nutritional profile of the egg
Don't know about Italian chickens in particular, but I know that when my mom's neighbors in Hungary feed their chickens the leftovers from making paprika, the resulting eggs have very dark yolks indeed.
One of the most unique uses for oleoresin paprika is that it is added to poultry feed in order to give the yolks in chicken eggs a darker yellow appearance than is natural for them. Due to the fact that is is derived from natural food sources as a food colorant, in the United States, it is exempt from Food and Drug Administration (FDA) certification. It receives equally lenient treatment under European law, where it is grouped with similar colorants of capsanthin and capsorubin.
Quoting from the KCRW Good-food podcast, episode Italy comes to LA, cauliflower, and Kachka of 6 Jan 2018: the hens are feed marigold petals.
This was also true in Spain. I do know that our own backyard hens have this deep orangish color yoke because they have access to the outdoors, greens, and bugs, I think only factory farmed eggs are pale yellow and I wonder if the EU has regulations about factory farming chickens.
Hello and welcome! As this doesn't attempt to definitively answer the question, it would be better left as a comment, which you will be able to do once you gain some more reputation
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.728342 | 2010-07-17T23:55:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1577",
"authors": [
"Adam Shiemke",
"Adam Wright",
"Codebeef",
"Haim Evgi",
"Jay",
"Joe",
"Stefano Borini",
"Steve Morgan",
"T k",
"TFD",
"Treblekicker",
"calmh",
"canardgras",
"hippietrail",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2849",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2850",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2851",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2908",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
25822 | How many eggs in a Mille Crêpes Cake?
I've looked through a few recipes for Mille Crêpes and see that many use double as many eggs in the batter compared with most plain crêpe recipes (6 eggs per cup of flour compared to 3).
I'm not a fan of eggy crêpes so I'm tempted to go with my usual proportions. Does anyone know from experience whether the cake version really requires the extra eggs?
The extra eggs help to make a more cake like consistency. Other wise it's just a stack of crepes!
To remove the eggy taste, remove half of the egg yolks. They will still cook more or less the same, and will be the same eggyness of a three egg batch
I tried the above suggestion (i.e. I used 3 whole eggs plus 3 whites). Certainly the taste was not too eggy but neither was the consistency more cakey. I expect a small amount of baking powder would have made a difference to the texture. With layers of ganache, sliced fruit and vanilla cream it tasted pretty damn good anyhow :)
@Chris Steinbach How did it compare to a 6 egg batch? A crepe is a VERY soft texture, and tend to colapse over a short time. The extra egg white binding makes it firmer (more cakey), I am not sure how more raising agent (BP) would improve this?
I see now, yes the crêpes were firm which worked well in the cake. The word cake, for me, brings to mind sponge cake and that coloured my expectations regarding texture. With that misunderstanding resolved I accept this as the answer.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.728834 | 2012-08-23T23:17:02 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25822",
"authors": [
"Chris Steinbach",
"L. Cau",
"LYNN ROWLEY",
"Rich",
"TFD",
"ashwoods",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59228",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59236"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
37748 | Yeast 101: Active Dry Yeast, Instant Yeast, Baking Soda, Baking Powder. Differences and Info
I'm a little confused as to what are the difference between them, when should I use which?
Also, how long is the lifespan and proper care after opening of these products? If I don't bake that often can I just keep a small can in the pantry for a long while? Can they be substituted for each other?
Thanks!
possible duplicate of Baking soda vs baking powder? or active dry vs rapid ride yeast or yeast vs baking powder
Most of these questions are individually answered, or at least worth exploring. I have to vote to close your question as to broad, but I invite you explore the many questions in the [tag:yeast] and [tag:baking-powder], as well as some of the more pertinent ones linked below. If you still have a question that is more specific, please do ask it.
I agree with SAJ14SAJ, these questions together make a sizeable book chapter, if not a small book on food technology. So, sorry, we have to close it as too broad.
Note: I am only putting this as an answer because it is too much for a comment and because the titles show.
Many of these topics are already covered:
Why use yeast instead of baking powder?
Why are there no recipes combining both yeast and baking powder?
Does active dry yeast really expire?
How to convert a recipe calling for active dry yeast into rapid rise yeast?
Is there any difference between bakers yeast and regular yeast?
Does active dry yeast really need proofing?
Can active dry yeast be substituted for a compressed yeast cake in baking?
Is 'Pizza yeast' any different than normal baking yeast?
Can/should I use rapid rise yeast for longer proofing?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.728993 | 2013-10-19T18:48:42 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37748",
"authors": [
"Mien",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"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
} |
20263 | How do I tone down the intensity of raw onion?
How can I tone down the intensity of raw onion?
Some onions have a more acute taste and smell than others of the same type, and I would like to avoid them in salad dish, or making dips with raw onion. If effectively none, an alternative solution that can also be helpful is to find out what condiments can I add/mix with raw onion to cancel out the intensity of the the acute taste.
[EDIT]
There is a uniquely (IMHO) sweet taste to onion that I like. But accompany with that is the acute scene and flavor to it that I wanted to get ride of. I do not want to waste away the taste of onion, but remove the acuteness and remain the sweetness.
Just use less? And if you like the texture, add another crunchy/juicy vegetable? (That is, do you actually need to do this?)
The most effective way to bring out the sweetness and reduce the pungency is to cook them. Is there a reason they need to be raw?
once cooked, they become soft and not crunchy. And I don't want a warm dip.
@KMC: cold caramelised onions are very good in salads.
Two things control the "sharpness" of onions: variety and age. While certain varieties of onions are sharper than others (i.e. Reds, walla-walls and vidalias are sweeter), any onion which has been in storage too long is going to be sulphurous and sharp-tasting. Since it's January now, that's going to be pretty much all onions.
Since onion sharpness comes from sulphur compounds (as I understand it), the best way to sweeten onions is to release some of them ahead of using the onion. The best way to do that is:
Slice the onion thinly, crossways (parallel to its equator rather than pole-to-pole).
Place the sliced onion in a wide bowl, uncovered or very loosely covered, in the fridge or other cold place for at least an hour and up to a day.
Additionally, either vinegar or salt -- or both -- will help accelerate removing sharpness from onion. For example, for a New Year's Eve appetizer this year I sliced a red onion in to rings, tossed it with 1/2 tsp salt and 2 tsp red wine vinegar, and left it in an open bowl on the 45F porch for 5 hours. The result was intensely sweet red onion which could then be used as a canape topping.
If you're in a hurry, though, the only way to make the onion less sharp is to cook it.
+1 great and useful answer. I always cut it pole-to-pole and didn't realize crossways could helps - does cutting crossways against the pole-to-pole fiber help open up the onion to the air?
It's also possible to use lemon juice instead of vinegar, depending on the flavour you want.
KMC: really late response, but yes. You cut onions across the rings/equator to break open as many cells of the onion as possible, and you cut it root-to-stem to break own as few as possible.
Take the appropriate onion for the job. There are sweeter varieties of onions, typically the larger kind (mostly as large as apples), which have widely varying names. This kind of onion has a mellow flavor, and it is what is usually added to raw foods and salads, such as on gyros or so.
Yes. Salad onions are marked as such in the shop.
@slim: That's definitely not universally true. Most places I've seen in the US simply have white, yellow, and red onions. Sometimes there will be sweet onions (which would be good for the OP) but I've never seen anything marked salad here.
The names are certainly not internationally consistent. In this region of Germany for instance, the mellow onions are called Gemüsezwiebel, which translates to vetegable onion. Elsewhere I heard the normal, pungent kind is also called Gemüsezwiebel.
+1 In my shops nearby onions are just loaded on basket with a simple label "Onions". I will try difference size to see how they can be different.
If they are in the same basket, they probably are the same type, meaning they will be similarly pungent. The mellow onions are of a different type and should be in their own basket.
i've read that if you soak the chopped onion in cold water for a bit (5-10 mins) and then drain it well, it will lose much of its intensity.
After chopping the onion, rinse it with cold water and then soak overnight in non-skim milk.
Chop the onion into tiny cubes and plate in a container with a lid. Add a small amount of vinegar and shake the onion until it begs for mercy. When it comes out it will be sweet and retain its flavour. It always works for me.
Welcome to the site Mel. What is an onion begging for mercy? LOL
I am a Ph.D. synthetic chemist. I want to share some tricks I have used you might not know about. If you want raw onions that are not sharp soak in either vinegar or lime or lemon juice or salt water prior to use. After burn is removed- can test vs. time- drain off solution before use. The result are onions raw you can use in cooking. OR simple microwave a minute before use does same thing.
Professor Marc
I drop them in boiling water for 60 seconds. Reduces some of the bite but keeps some of the crispness. I use for potato salad and add finely chopped celery for a bit of crunch
One method I've used repeatedly with successful results for red onion, is to chop the onion and let it soak in (white) balsamic vinegar for 10 to 15 minutes. I've never done it with yellow onion, but I imagine that you would achieve similar results.
Have you tried this with white vinegar instead? That's a lot cheaper.
I haven't tried it, but my guess is that it would tone down the intensity of the onion, but since white vinegar is more intense, the onion would probably pick up more taste from the vinegar.
If white vinegar is too intense, just dilute it, rather than using something more expensive.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.729165 | 2012-01-09T01:47:26 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20263",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Alma Dolce",
"BaffledCook",
"Blaasd",
"Cascabel",
"Dumbledore",
"E Jacobs",
"Erin Sutcliffe",
"FuzzyChef",
"Helen Ramos",
"Jeff Fry",
"Joan",
"KMC",
"Neil Rogers",
"Paul Barbara",
"Posipiet",
"Reena Parekh",
"Richard Angstmann",
"Sander Schaeffer",
"heyman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116639",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44382",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44384",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44390",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44396",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44397",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44705",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70382",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8434",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8613",
"kymel",
"nico",
"shasi kanth",
"slim"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
23672 | Spare Ribs: spacing out the soak and the grill
A specific recipe I like for preparing ribs involves a slow four hour soak at 250 degrees in the oven and then a grilling period. I was wondering, how badly is it going to affect the end result if I do the four hour soak the day before, and then placing them in the refrigerator to be grilled the next day?
This will have almost no impact (if any) provided you wrap them well using a cellophane wrap. This is also a good opportunity to apply a rub to the meat.
was planning to apply the rub before the soak, is that what you mean? and thanks!
@Dave, I'm pretty sure he is referring to applying the rub during the period it is waiting in the refrigerator(after the soak).
Applying the rub before the soak would cause the rub to wash off. If you apply the rub during the hold period, in the fridge, it will have the max impact.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.729663 | 2012-05-09T15:20:59 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23672",
"authors": [
"Anita",
"Cos Callis",
"David",
"Jay",
"Kolton",
"donnac",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53639",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"polish my shoes"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
19855 | Cooking smoked cured ham on a rotisserie
I have two smoked and cured hams averaging about four to five pounds a piece that I purchased from a local farmer. I also have a rotisserie attachment for my gas grill, which also has a back burner, that I have yet to use. I'm having family over for a holiday dinner on Friday evening and I'm seeking out the best method for preparing these hams. I only have two forks for my spit rod, will it be OK to jam the two hams together or should I just roast them in the oven? From the looks of things, it appears my two hams were at one time one ham.
This article suggests a "reverse brine", where I should place the hams in water and change it out every 12 hours for the next three days. Is this worth doing? This also suggest basting with Dr. Pepper, I'd prefer to do something that's not soda based.
Also, I've seen some articles where they are scoring the ham and applying a variety of different rubs.
Well, first, do you have a country ham or not? A country ham is fairly dry—not moist like the "normal" refrigerated ham you'd buy at the supermarket.
I'm not sure, I think it is. It's just in two pieces.
The 'reverse brine' is only for country hams, so you need to find out... Also, they're cooked differently (well, or rather the non-country variety is just reheated).
Yeah, this is a country ham.
If it is a country ham, meaning salt-cured then you need to boil the salt out of it. I may get flamed for this, but that article is not how I process my ham. So here is what I do.
I get a lard tin, I usually have to cut off the hock to make the ham fit but since yours is split you may not have to. If it is not a salt cured ham, and is a city ham it may not be fit to eat if you do this, you could make ham soup maybe.
Anyway put the ham in the tin fill it full of water bring it up to a boil let it boil for about fifteen minutes then bring the heat down to medium-low for about 1/2 an hour then let it cool down enough so you can take it off the stove, but just barely cool enough. While it is cooling down get blankets and spread them out on the floor, one or two thin ones should do, then get some newspaper and spread that in the middle of the blankets put the tin in the middle of the newspaper and wrap the tin with the newspaper then wrap the blankets around it and then push it over into a corner overnight.
The next morning pull the ham out of the water give it a rinse and pat it dry, it will still be warm-to-hot. (I rotisserie ham hocks and small hams I get from my butcher but I have never done a full size ham I would imagine the amount of drippings would make a mess though.) Next I get my big roasting pan put the ham in it and pat it down with brown sugar, medium or dark is up to you. Then I cover it with aluminum foil, making sure I tent the foil so it doesn't touch the ham, and let it cook usually between four and five hours for a good size ham at about 325. The last half hour I take off the aluminum foil and if I feel it is necessary I add more brown sugar and let it caramelize.
I have been cooking ham this way for as long as I have been cooking and the process is passed down from my mother and her father before her. Farther back than that I cannot confirm or deny. :)
Here is a great article on country hams and other hams, just to make sure you do have a country ham, and gives other great suggestions on how to cook a ham, although they do it differently than I do.
http://www.amazingribs.com/recipes/porknography/zen_of_ham.html
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.729786 | 2011-12-21T13:28:57 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19855",
"authors": [
"David",
"JeffO",
"Radim Cernej",
"Syzygies",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43289",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53142"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
21068 | How long can I store a food in the pantry, refrigerator, or freezer?
How do I know if a given food or ingredient I have is still good, or if I should discard it?
How can I best preserve a food or ingredient?
This broad question is intended as a "general reference" question to quickly answer many how long will food keep for? questions. Please feel free to edit this question to expand and clarify as needed.
General comments on the shelf-, fridge-, and freezer-life of foods
The shelf-life is the amount of time a food can be stored before it is considered unsuitable for use. It may be unsuitable due to quality degradation (no longer tasty) or food safety (risk of food poisoning). [1]
As far as food safety goes, food stored frozen at 0°F (-18°C) or below is remains safe forever; only quality degrades over time. [2]. Thus the freezer-storage times below are entirely about quality. This temperature should be maintained fairly closely (within 3°C[6] or 5°F) and a defrost / no-frost freezer should not heat air surrounding the products by enough to heat the products more than that.
If your freezer is set at a temperature higher than -18°C (three-star setting), these times may not apply. Especially the safe storage time in one-star freezers (-6°C) is much reduced.
The times all assume proper storage. Freezers 0°F or below, refrigerators 40°F (4°C) or below. [3] Cans should be stored in a cool, dry place, below 85°F (30°C) [4]. The freezer itself should also be placed correctly: if the environmental temperature drops below 10°C (50°F), oil might be too viscous and work less well or damage the compressor[7], so please refer to the operating manual before deciding on an unheated garage.
The tables given here assume proper storage. Food which requires refrigeration is considered unsafe if left for over two hours at temperatures between 41–135°F (5–57°C) [5].
The Tables
Regardless of the table below, if a food shows signs of spoilage (including mold, with some exceptions described below), its past its shelf-life. Note that the lack of spoilage does not imply safety.
Uncooked Proteins
Item
Fridge
Freezer
Sources
Ground (meat, poultry)
1–2 days
3–4 months
[KC]
Non-ground meat
3–5 days
steaks: 6–12 monthschops: 4–6 monthsroasts: 4–12 months
[KC]
Poultry
1–2 days
whole: 12 monthspieces: 9 months
[KC]
Eggs
in shell: 3–5 weeksseparated: 2–4 days
in shell: not recommendedwhites: 12 monthsyolks: not recommended
[KC]
Bacon
1 week
1 month
[CFG]
tofu
1 week
5 months
[CFG]
fish
1–2 days
lean: 4–8 monthsfatty: 2–3 months
[CFG]
Cooked proteins
Item
Fridge
Freezer
Sources
luncheon meat
opened: 1 weekunopened: 2 weeks
1–2 months
[KC]
cooked meat and poultry
3–4 days
2–6 months
[KC]
cooked fish
3–4 days
1–2 months
[CFG]
hard boiled eggs
1 week
not recommended
[KC]
hard sausage
2–3 weeks
1–2 months
[CFG]
Dairy
Item
Fridge
Freezer
Sources
butter
1–3 months
6–9 months
[CFG]
hard cheeses
opened: 3–4 weeksunopened: 6 months
6 months
[CFG]
soft cheeses
1 week
6 months
[CFG]
cream cheese
2 weeks
not recommended
[CFG]
Sauces
Item
Fridge
Freezer
Sources
mayo
commercial: 2 monthshome-made: see below
not recommended
[CFG]
gravy, broth
3–4 days
2–3 months
[CFG]
For home-made mayo, there don't seem to be official shelf-life estimates.
Seasoned Advice has a question on this,
Making "long(er)-life" homemade mayonnaise.
Vegetables
Freezer times are given for cooked or blanched, then frozen. Generally, this is
required, otherwise enzymatic degradation will occur. See "Where can I go for
details on a specific food?" for where to find specific steps for each vegetable.
Refrigerator and shelf times are for storage raw.
If a column is -, it means that storage type is not recommended. "Ripe" means
"until ripe".
Item
Shelf
Fridge
Freezer
Sources
Asparagus
-
3–4 days
8 months
[FK]
Green beans
-
3–4 days
8 months
[FK]
Beets
1 day
7–10 days
6–8 months
[FK]
Cabbage
-
1–2 weeks
10–12 months
[FK]
Carrots
-
3 weeks
10–12 months
[FK]
Celery
-
1–2 weeks
10–12 months
[FK]
Garlic
1 month
1–2 weeks
1 month
[FK]
Herbs (fresh)
-
7–10 days
1–2 months
[FK]
Lettuce (iceberg)
-
1–2 weeks
-
[FK]
Lettuce (leaf)
-
3–7 days
-
[FK]
Mushrooms
-
2–3 days
10–12 months
[FK]
Onions, non-sweet
2–3 months
2–3 months
10–12 months
[ST]
Onions, sweet
1–2 months
1–2 months
10–12 months
[ST]
Peppers
-
4–5 days
6–8 months
[FK]
Potatoes
1–2 months
1–2 weeks
mashed: 10–12 months
[FK]
Squash, summer
-
4–5 days
10–12 months
[FK]
Squash, winter
1 week
2 weeks
10–12 months
[FK]
Tomatoes
ripe
2–3 days
2 months
[FK]
Fruits
Many fruits must be at least partially cooked (blanched) before freezing in
order to deactivate enzymes that would otherwise degrade quality while in
storage. Some are best frozen packed in acid (lemon juice or citric acid)
and/or syrup. See "Where can I go for details on a specific food?" for where to
find specific steps for each fruit.
If a column is -, it means that storage type is not recommended. "Ripe" means
"until ripe".
Item
Shelf
Fridge
Freezer
Sources
apples
1–2 days
1–3 weeks
cooked: 8 months
[FSG], [FK]
apricots
ripe
2–3 days
-
[FK]
bananas
ripe
1–2 days*
peeled: 1 month
[FK]
berries
-
1–2 days
4 months
[FSG], [FK]
citrus fruit
10 days
3 weeks
-
[FSG]
grapes
1 day
1 week
1 month
[FK]
juice
-
6 days
8 months
[FSG]
melons
1–2 days
1 week
balls: 1 month
[FSG], [FK]
generally:
3-5 days
*: bananas stored in the fridge will blacken. This is not a sign of spoilage, and they can be eaten safely.
Cooked dishes
2 hours on the counter, for all of them, unless you prepared a known shelf-stable item which generally does not go in the fridge (like cookies, or a canned jam, or others). It does not matter how long the individual components would have lasted on their own.
Refrigerated: generally 3–4 days in the fridge. This includes pizza, soups, stews,
casseroles, pies, and quiche [KC]. Some salads get a fifth day [CFG].
Freezer time is generally under three months. Rice is an exception due to the risk of bacillus cereus, the spores of which can survive cooking. After cooling and refrigerating it should be consumed within 24 hours, either chilled or thoroughly reheated.
Infused oils
Putting any plant matter in oil (such as garlic, chillies or herbs) creates the danger for botulism, a rare but fatal disease. Thus infused oils are not shelf-stable. They can be kept in the refrigerator for 3-5 days, discard them earlier if you see cloudiness or gas bubbles. Or buy commercially produced infused oils, they have been treated with industrial methods to kill the botulinum spores.
Shelf-stable until opened
Item
Unopened
Opened, in fridge
Source
Commercially canned, low-acid (meat, poultry, fish, soups, stews, vegetables)
2–5 years
3–4 days
[CFG]
Commercially canned, high-acid
12–18 months
5–7 days
[CFG]
Olives
12–18 months
2 weeks
[FK]
jam, jelly, preserves
1 year
6 months
[FK]
shortening (Crisco)
8 months
3 months
[FK]
Pantry (not refrigerated even after opening)
Item
Shelf life
opened (if different)
Source
Baking powder
18 months
[FSG]
Baking soda
2 years
[FSG]
beans (dry)
1 year
[FK]
Bouillon
1 year
[FSG]
cornstarch
18 months
[FK]
extracts
3 years
[FK]
flour
white: 6–12 monthswheat: 1 month
[FK]
herbs (dry)
1–2 years
1 year
[FK]
honey
1 year
[FK]
pasta (dry)
2 years
[FSG]
egg noodles (dry)
6 months
[FSG]
rice (dry)
white: 2 yearsbrown: 6–12 monthsflavored: 6 months
[FSG]
vegetable oil
6 months
1–3 months
[FSG]
vinegar
2 years
12 months
[FSG]
General tips for storing foods
How do I freeze fruits and vegetables?
Fruit. Ripe (but not overripe) fruit should be used. Wash them, and sort according to size. Working in small batches, remove pits, seeds, and blemishes. For fruits that turn brown, apply ascorbic acid or sugar and citric acid. Most fruits benefit from packing in dry sugar or a sugar syrup. Small, whole fruits (e.g., berries) can be spread on a tray and individually frozen, then packed in a freezer bag or other airtight container.
Vegetables. Most vegetables need blanching. To blanch, immerse in boiling water over high heat or steam over rapidly boiling water (steam). After blanching, transfer to ice bath for the same amount of time as blanched. Drain and dry. Freeze either by packing in a freezer bag with as much air as possible removed, or by allowing to freeze on a tray, then putting in a bag or other container.
General guideline is 8–12 months for best quality.
The above is a very quick summary of Iowa State University's Preserve the
Taste of Summer: Freezing: Fruits and
Vegetables. The
five-page document includes full details on over forty fruits and vegetables.
Feel free to ask here on Seasoned Advice if that guide doesn't answer your
question.
What about mold?
Some foods are expected to have mold in them (e.g., P. roqueforti in
Roquefort cheese). Unexpected mold, however, is something to be concerned
about. Mold can grow even on refrigerated foods, and even those high enough in
salt or sugar to deter bacteria. Some molds produce mycotoxins. Mold growth can
be minimized by cleaning the refrigerator every few months (use a mixture of 1
tablespoon of baking soda per quart of water, then rinse with plain water, then
dry), by keeping dishcloths, sponges, mops, etc. clean and fresh-smelling; and
keeping indoor humidity levels under 40%.
In general, the visible surface mold on a food is only a small part of the
actual mold growth. For most foods, any visible unexpected mold growth means
you should discard the entire item. There are several exceptions:
Food
How to handle mold
Hard salami, dry-cured country hams
Scrub mold off surface.
Hard cheese
Cut at least 1 inch around and below mold spot, do not cut through mold.
Cabbage, bell peppers, carrots
Cut at least 1 inch around and below mold spot, do not cut through mold.
Everything else, including soft or shredded cheese, soft fruits and vegetables,
bread, peanut butter, jams and jellies, sour cream, yogurt, luncheon meats,
casseroles, and cooked pasta should be discarded.
All this information comes from the USDA FS&IS's Molds on Food: Are They
Dangerous? fact
sheet.
Where can I go for details on a specific food?
The web site StillTasty maintains a comprehensive list
of food storage times, notes, and procedures for a wide variety of food items.
They draw information from a variety of reputable
sources and should probably
be the first place you check.
Another good source of information is the Food Marketing Institute's Food
Keeper. This is also a searchable database of foods.
Finally, if neither of those two references answer your question, you're at the
right web site. Please ask here on Seasoned
Advice.
Bibliography
[CFG]: USDA FS&IS Cooking for Groups: A Volunteer's Guide to Food Safety
[KC]: USDA FS&IS Kitchen Companion: Your Safe Food Handbook. February 2008.
[FK]: Food Marketing Institute, Food Keeper
[FSG]: Julie Garden-Robinson, North Dakota State University, FN-579 Food Storage Guide
[ST]: StillTasty.com, Keep It or Toss It?
Note
This is a work-in-progress. I still need to finish adding information to it. Also, this answer is a community wiki, please feel free to improve it.
For printing, I've copypasted this text and edited the tables. How and where can I upload the file so it's available to the community?
@BaffledCook: Not sure where to upload it. If your versions of the tables are just better, then I guess just edit the question. Otherwise, there are always things like pastebin (though I have no idea how to keep the two versions in sync, then). Maybe ask on meta?
I'll ask on Meta. I made a LibreOffice doc. Syncing (?) will be hell.
You might add that mold on real maple syrup (not maple flavord corn syrup) can be removed, and the syrup still used.
@Flimzy I don't have an good source that says that's OK (the closest I can find is for corn syrup, but it includes a heating step). If you can provide a source (government food safety agency, university extension, etc.), I'd be happy to add it.
Holy cow, there's a ton of info here. Great post. Just wanted to add that the USDA offers plenty of tips as well here: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/home
The USDA's guideline on eggs in the fridge is extremely conservative, more so than most of the items on this list.
@MHH StillTasty gives the same 3–5 weeks. They are definitely conservative (on purpose); most of the time you'll get away with longer, but sometimes you'll get food poisoning. USDA doesn't consider food poisoning acceptable—and considering how cheap eggs are… Anyway, if you have some reputable sources that give longer times for eggs, feel free to add them in. Keep in mind that eggs are done differently in the US vs. Europe and many other places.
USDA goes overboard sometimes. "Hard cheeses, unopened, 6 months". Then how could they cure cheeses for 18 months?
Some items (e.g., homemade jogurt, sourdough, milk kefir etc.) are grown in warm conditions for many hours, sometimes up to 24h, while microorganisms that are more or less functionally equivalent to pathogens do their work. Does anyone know arguments/research in why (or actually, whether) this is safe or not?
All links in the bibliography are out of date. [CFG], [KC] and [ST] links are 404 for me. [FSG] requires some kind of login while not supporting HTTPS and getting in a redirect loop without cookie permission. [FK] either offers to sell you an app, or points at another site where you can supposedly search a database... but that site just tries to sell you the same app.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.730093 | 2012-02-05T06:05:08 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21068",
"authors": [
"AnoE",
"BaffledCook",
"Becca Hammer",
"Brian Cowley",
"Cris Luengo",
"David Morgan",
"Dewey Cascio",
"Flimzy",
"Karl Knechtel",
"Matthew",
"Miguel Godinez",
"Richard Gomm",
"Spammer",
"WetlabStudent",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157977",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62102",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95349",
"jejelim12 spam"
],
"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
} |
22694 | Safety of room-temperature soaker from Reinhart's *Whole Grain Breads*
One of the “tricks” used in Peter Reinhart's Whole Grain Breads is to soak various whole grains in water, at room temperature, for 12–24 hours. For example, in his “Multigrain Stuan” formula, he calls for leaving 2 oz whole wheat flour, 6 oz mixed grains, .14 oz salt, and 6 oz milk, buttermilk, yogurt, soy milk, or rice milk out, covered lightly in plastic wrap, at room temperature, for 12–24 hours.
As to which grains to use, there is a note to see the comment. The comment talks about which grains to cook vs. use uncooked. It mentions using brown rice, cooked.
But rice can contain B. cereus spores, which are heat-stable and will survive cooking; and it seems like this room-temperature soaker would be a nice environment for them to grow. The pH isn't low enough (less than 4.3) to stop them, for example. And B. cereus produces heat-stable toxins, which would assumably survive baking.
Is there something I'm unaware of that makes this recipe safe?
Baking at 180ºC should be a killer, or not.
If you use yogurt (or cultured buttermilk) it sounds like the creator of the recipe is trying to get the Lactobacillus in the yogurt to start metabolizing some of the components of the mixture. Otherwise, it sounds like they want some random yeast to start the fermentation for the bread. There is definitely a risk of other potentially pathogenic organisms growing also as there is a source of moisture and food with those ingredients and a suitable temperature.
For buttermilk or yogurt specifically:
From a safety standpoint, you would need to consider what the load of pathogenic bacteria is compared to the intentionally inoculated Lactobacillus as the Lactobacillus may interfere with the germination of B. cereus due to creation of an acidic pH.
In general:
As per http://smas.chemeng.ntua.gr/miram/files/publ_77_13_1_2004.pdf it takes approximately 20 hours for a 2-log increase in concentration of B. cereus (1 bacteria dividing into 100 offspring), and as per http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/wk/mm4310.pdf it takes 10^5 B. cereus per gram of food for symptomatic illness, so your initial concentration in the ingredients (assuming the growth conditions in the first paper) would need to be 10^3 per gram overall of viable organisms to get to the toxic level in this time frame (potentially meaning that your ingredients carrying B. cereus in and of themselves would need to be relatively close to the toxic range to start since not everything would be presumed to be contaminated). Since it takes time for spores to germinate, if we are talking about no viable organisms and spores only it would take an awful lot.
Regardless, I trust cultured organisms (yogurt, yeast, etc.) more than the naturally-occurring ones I might find at home (particularly since I work at a hospital and might track some nasty stuff home with me). I would inoculate it with some trusted microorganisms if I was making the recipe.
With that said, the standard caveat of if it smells bad after letting it sit out it probably should be thrown out would apply. Also, although I have a degree in biochemistry I am not a microbiologist, toxicologist, or pathologist.
The stated aim is actually for some enzymes present in the flour to start work, if I remember correctly. But those papers you give explain clearly how it can be relatively safe, thank you.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.731079 | 2012-04-01T07:33:36 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22694",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Cooking pasta",
"Sandy",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59139",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
1813 | Adjusting cookie recipes for high altitude
When baking cakes, I often find that there are instructions for high altitude, which usually is just a matter of adding some extra flour.
I understand the concept of high altitudes having less atmospheric pressure, which then allows baked goods to rise more easily (too much), and thus the addition of flour.
However such alterations are not often provided with cookie recipes. What is a good way to know how to adjust cookies for high altitude, or if such an adjustment is even necessary?
There is a fairly detailed answer to this available here1.
It appears that the answer depends a little on the type of cookie. If you have a cookie that has a great deal of air in it you'll have the same problem as cakes do. If you are working with a very dense cookie that can't really fall (since there isn't anywhere to go). At that point you're just down to watching baking times and temperatures, which are easier to monitor.
—
1 original source no longer active, link to web archive
I've also have used http://www.mountainhighyoghurt.com/High_Altitude.pdf and printed it out for use in the kitchen.
I would look at recipes which do give a high-altitude version, such as the Toll House recipe on the chocolate chips bag, and make proportional reductions / changes to the recipe you have that doesn't give a high-altitude version.
e.g. if Toll House increases flour from 2 1/4 c to 2 1/2 cups, I would multiply the flour in your recipe by 1.111 (10/9)
I cook at a summer camp at 9200 ft. above sea level. I add 1/4 cup flour to a batch of 36 chocolate chip or peanut butter cookies. They rise and look beautiful, but are hard after one day, so need to be served the day I bake them. I usually make my cookies from scratch. I have figured this out through trial and error; the higher the altitude, the more the adjustment. If I do use a box mix, and follow the directions on a box, the cookies are flat. I think this is because they are basing high altitude at above 5000 feet, but we are a lot higher! Good Luck!
How much extra flour is this as a percentage of the original flour amount?
Thank you! My altitude is 4,925 feet. My cake box is saying high altitude is above 3,500 feet. I sometimes forget to add extra flour because the high altitude instructions are in a much smaller font. The first time I made this mistake I ended up cooking the cake for much longer and was confused as to why.
I'm currently cooking and baking a mile high (by location, not state of mind). I follow Chef Jacob Burton's (Stella Culinary Institute) rules for high altitude baking.
Basically... reduce sugar, increase liquid, raise temperature, add flour, reduce leavening. That's the simple list. But watching his video online a few times is pretty helpful.
For one, water boils at a slightly lower temperature at a higher altitude, which means that you need to cook things longer, because once water reaches boiling, the temperature doesn't increase, so the effective cooking temperature of water is lower. Similar changes need to be made if you are trying to fry foods.
Not question-related; could do with less general wisdom.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.731587 | 2010-07-18T19:33:54 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1813",
"authors": [
"Andrew Nesbitt",
"Boetsj",
"Jason Prince",
"Rookie Programmer Aravind",
"avgbody",
"bgporter",
"eyelidlessness",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3277",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/744",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8274",
"mrog",
"user3386"
],
"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
} |
670 | When is a cooking oil not appropriate to substitute for another?
Frequently recipes call for a particular kind of oil for making use of certain characteristics (taste, heat tolerance, health, etc.). It's well known you can substitute cooking oils in most cases (vegetable oil for canola oil).
Are there circumstances in which it is not appropriate to substitute cooking oils?
You mean other than when things like taste, heat tolerance, health, etc are factors? Or is that what you are asking?
No, I mean any reason. That's why "etc." is on the list. I was just giving examples as to why one chooses an oil over another.
Actually, there are really only a few oils you can substitute for each other, at least without any significant side effects.
The oils which generally are used interchangeably are peanut oil, canola/rapeseed oil, and sunflower oil. These oils have similar smoke points, don't impart any really noticeable flavour, and tend to be used primarily for high-heat cooking (pan-frying, deep-frying), so if you're paranoid about saturated fat for instance, you can substitute sunflower oil for peanut oil. Corn oil is in the same group, but I rarely see that used anymore. You can also use the "light" olive oil, but that will change the flavour of the dish. I believe walnut oil has similar properties, but it's considerably harder to find.
But keep in mind that oils are used for far more than frying. Many have highly-specialized uses:
Extra virgin olive oil is most commonly used in sauces and salad dressings ("oil and vinegar" almost always means olive oil, there really is no substitute);
Chili oil is really more of a condiment than a cooking oil. Even if you could cook with it, the result would be inedible due to the heat.
Toasted sesame oil is used as a flavourings in Asian dishes. It's useless as a cooking oil (and cooking with it would be a terrible waste). Regular sesame oil, on the other hand, is often bought in a refined form and is generally used as a cooking oil.
There are a lot of other more esoteric types of oil such as palm oil and coconut oil, which you really don't want to use unless you know what you're doing (you can ruin the flavour).
I could go on, but for now I'll refer you to the Types of oils and their characteristics as a starting point. Cooking oils really aren't freely interchangeable in all situations; even if you've accounted for smoke point and flavour, sometimes a significantly different fat content (i.e. grapeseed oil which is mostly polyunsaturated vs. canola oil which is mostly monounsaturated) can seriously mess up a delicate recipe.
It's better to be asking which oils you can substitute in a specific situation than to assume everything goes and list the "exceptional" circumstances.
A great all-around answer about oils in cooking. I was hoping for a little more info on frying oils, perhaps a little less on condiment/flavor oils, but still you provide a good resource.
It's very important to consider smoke point. If you're using it in a high heat application, make sure that the oil you choose won't burn. Besides that, make sure the people eating your food won't be allergic to the oil you choose, for example peanut.
+1 for smoke point -- even within olive oils, there's 'extra light' olive oil, which you can fry with (to about 450F, vs. 'extra virgin' which you wouldn't want to. (and you don't want to go the other way, either, as extra virgin has a fruity quality that would be lacking if you substituted with extra light)
+1 also for smoke point, this is one of the points I was 'fishing' for with this question.
I'd also like to point out that you can often but not always substitute clarified butter or rendered animal fats (bacon! duck!) as an alternative to boring neutral oils! They can't take quite as high a temperature as canola oil or peanut oil, they tend to go rancid more quickly, and they don't work in some applications, like mayonnaise. But damn they taste good...
Apparently the trick to making animal fat mayonnaise is to mix it with vegetable oil.
There are definitely cases where substituting oils is NOT appropriate. For example, I wouldn't use olive oil for making pancakes, as olive oil impart a specific flavor. There are many other examples of flavorful oils, such as peanut.
For a savory pancake that might actually be nice! Haven't had one of those in a long time though. Hm...
Along these lines would also be trying to substitute toasted sesame oil (the dark stuff) for plain old sesame oil (the light stuff). The two are light-years apart in terms of flavor.
This is the kind of info I wanted to "fish out" as a resource for beginning cooks! (I've made some mistakes before, that these answers might have prevented!)
You call to mind my mother's fateful 1 for 1 substitution of toasted sesame oil for canola oil in our morning pancakes. Even the dogs refused the leftovers.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.731873 | 2010-07-11T21:32:02 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/670",
"authors": [
"Brendan Long",
"JYelton",
"Joe",
"Martin Dow",
"Owen S.",
"Peter V",
"Ryan Elkins",
"coneslayer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1246",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1255",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1277",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1282",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/189",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/982",
"laura",
"poolie",
"reva"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
17278 | Cooking on the stove: what is "too hot" for a pan?
I'm a novice cook and often hear about "learning one's stove". Obviously manufacturers, cooking methods, and appliance types vary and so "high" on one stove isn't comparable to another.
That said, many of the posts here suggest to heat a pan before adding oil, and the commentary that follows always has the sage advice, "...but not too hot!"
My question is thus:
How do you know you've gotten a pan too hot?
If the pan starts to liquify...it's too hot. Did you know that eggs will explode if you forget you're boiling them and the water runs out?
If it's nonstick, you'll KNOW when you overheat it, because anything with lungs will be running outside for fresh air. Pet birds may also die. If it's cast iron or good stainless-clad, there's no such thing as "too hot," or at least when it comes to searing meat. Very hot cast iron will smoke a bit and stainless with turn slightly yellow with oxidation, but neither does permanent harm. You can add a little seasoning or scrub vigorously with Barkeep's Friend to solve the respective problems. Oh yeah, and don't touch the handles of pans when they're that hot. My gal learned the hard way.
Flick water on the pan. If it just sits there, it's not hot enough. If it combines into balls and skates around on the pan, it's either too hot or just right for a wok or blackening something. If it sizzles and evaporates within a couple of seconds, it should be good for a normal sautee or sweat.
Excellent answer: concise, informative, and factually correct. This is more or less the test I use. It's worth noting that if preheating with oil, the oil should be shimmering but not smoking. A single drop of water added to oil should boil vigorously for saute or sweat, but not explode and spatter (too hot, close to smoke point often).
* edit *
Oh, I see now that you're asking how hot should the pan be before even adding oil.
Two things to keep in mind...
You want the pan just hot enough to be certain that all moisture is gone from the
surface of the pan. Otherwise, the oil could splatter suddenly as it
gets hotter and the moisture on the pan vaporizes.
If the pan is already hot, the added oil will almost instantly heat up to the same
temperature, and you can start the rest of the cooking immediately. If you had added the oil when the pan was cold you would have to wait for
the pan to reach temperature-- and might get distracted and then forget about the pan with the oil in it! :-O
Whether or not the pan is "too hot" depends largely on the type of oil (shortening) that you're using and to a lesser extent on what you are cooking. If you just wait long enough that a small sprinkle of water boils away on contact, you'll be OK. If you wait longer, you risk exceeding the smoke point of your shortening.
Every type of oil has a different smoke point. This is the temperature at which the oil smokes (not surprising!). What that means is that the oil is starting to chemically break down and if you attempt to cook with the oil in that state, your food will have an unpleasant bitter burnt taste. The oil will also become sticky and make it hard to manipulate the food while it cooks in the pan. Wikipedia on smoke point.
Extra virgin olive oil (EVOO), for instance, has a lower smoke point than, say, seasame oil. You would never use EVOO to deep-fry fish or stir-fry in super hot wok.
The usual advice is to heat the oil in the pan until you just see the first faint wisp of smoke. You then add the stuff you are cooking in the pan (and this drops the temperature to below the smoke point).
The other thing to consider is what temperatures are too hot for what foods. That varies wildly. The only thing I can generalize is that thick items should not be cooked at a very high temperature unless you are caramelizing or searing the exterior and then finishing the cooking in the oven or crock-pot
In a short answer, if the pan smokes, it's too hot... What'd I'd play with is getting a batch of throw-away (something), for instance biscuits or something with the intent to test your stovetop. Heat the pan to different temps and see what happens to your throw-away food when you put it on the pan.
In short though, smoking is bad. And if it's teflon, it's doubly bad as teflon is only rated for stovetop temps. If a teflon pan gets too hot, the teflon becomes dangerous.
Also, in the context of your answer, "Too hot" is relative to the specific food you're trying to cook... Usually you can drop a few drops of water in an empty pan and watch how fast the drops "skid" away. You'll want it to skid away at different speeds based on what you're cooking.
Editing to put some reference to the teflon comment
From: http://www.truefalse.co.nz/articles/truefalse39-teflonpoisonous.html
These things also make it good to coat a frying pan with. It’s very inert, so it won’t do anything to the food or, more importantly, our insides. It is durable at high temperatures where other plastics would melt or burn. And of course it is extremely slippery.
If you swallow bits of Teflon they won’t hurt you. It’s just plastic. If you burn Teflon, though, things are different. When Teflon is heated too strongly the resulting fumes, for reasons not yet fully understood, are very bad for you. Fortunately it’s hard to get Teflon too hot, but it could possibly happen if a coated pan is left dry on a hot element or in a very hot oven. So don’t do that.
Nothing sticks to Teflon, except the unfounded rumour of its toxicity. But, like the burnt cheese in a frying pan commercial, even that just wipes right off.
If there's nothing in the pan yet, I suppose there's no way to know? With a nonstick pan, it should always be heated with oil, and if the oil smokes it's too hot. But with a regular pan, no way to know until you introduce something?
I just edited for the water comment... Sorry, I think it partially answers your question... Ask again if it doesn't help!
And to further answer your question, if an empty pan gets too hot, it will smoke, empty or not... it's not good if it gets to that point, pick it up off the heat! :)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.732273 | 2011-08-29T18:10:04 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17278",
"authors": [
"Annie",
"BobMcGee",
"Edward Strange",
"JYelton",
"John",
"Kavi Siegel",
"Rikon",
"StuckUsingExchange SUE",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37085",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37090",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37132",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3750",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
853 | Is there a way to grate a block of cheese entirely without hurting one's fingers or knuckles?
You know the scenario: You grate the cheddar until you're left with a quarter-inch. What do you do? Try to grate it and risk cutting your knuckles, or pop it in your mouth and enjoy?
Usually I do the latter, but I wondered if anyone has any tips for grating cheese down to the last bit?
Is there some kind of small tool that you can use to safely grate the last of a block?
I just eat the last bit...
I love cheese, but if I have to grate several blocks, I'd just as soon use it all and not necessarily be eating all of the last bits. :)
By the wording of the question, I'm pretty sure you're using one of those pyramidal graters or a "sheet" grater.
That's great for getting the "bulk", but if you want to grate a small amount of cheese (or the last bit of a large amount, if you don't want to just eat it) then you really need to get yourself a rotary grater. They're more commonly used for fine/hard cheeses such as Parmesan, but most half-decent ones will come with a "coarse" blade that can be used for cheddar, mozzarella and so on.
Rotary graters all have a plate at the top that lets you push the cheese down onto the blade. Higher-quality graters will give you slightly better results; the $10 cheap ones tend to leave a mush at the bottom that's hard to grate, even if you squeeze really hard, but that's easily remedied with a small wooden block or really any object at all to put between the top plate and the cheese you're trying to grate.
That's correct, it's a pyramid type. I do have a rotary parmesan cheese grater; the thought to get a coarse blade for it didn't occur to me. An excellent suggestion without a lot of expense.
You can turn that last quarter-inch sideways and grate until you have only a thin stick of cheese left.
If it's only going to be melted anyway, you could just crumble the last stick in.
I don't know of a tool, but what I tend to do is grate one way until there is only a bit left, say 2cm deep (by however long the block was), then I rotate the piece so it is against the grater lengthways, then grate until I have 2cm again, then rotate again so the longest side is sticking out away from the grater, and grate again. Whilst this doesn't mitigate the issue, it does mean that you end up with a much smaller block which is ungrated, as you have grated it in each dimension until you can't get any closer.
I bought a pair of kevlar gardening gloves for this exact sort of thing (and for using my mandoline without hacking off any (more) of my thumb).
With those, you can run it all the way down to the bottom and not worry about your fingers. And when they get grotty, you can throw 'em in the washer.
Some mandolins have an additional attachment that acts like a "pusher block" - a piece of material used to push wood through a shaper or saw without getting one's fingers too close to the blades. Using one of these, you grate it down to the point that you've only got a bit left, then put the pusher on top of it and grate all the way down to nothing. (The block rides on the edges of the mandolin so that it doesn't come in contact with the blades.)
I just hold the cheese closer to the edge away from the grater. When it gets really small I just have a single finger on it to grate. Though sometimes I just pop it in my mouth too :D
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.732766 | 2010-07-13T16:04:34 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/853",
"authors": [
"Eclipse",
"GalacticCowboy",
"JYelton",
"Kobi Tate",
"WalterJ89",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1570",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91",
"user1570"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
12605 | How to gauge orzo's change in volume from dry to cooked for a soup?
I am working on a scratch chicken, vegetable orzo soup. I'm not following any particular recipe, just shooting from the hip. I usually come up with a good meal but the problem I always run into though is with gauging how much pasta (or barley or rice) to add to a soup and keep it at all balanced.
Protein and veggies are easy since those ingredients usually do not change in size during cooking but whenever I use a starch that changes in volume while cooking I end up with a soup that is either starch heavy (too much grain or pasta) or starch light (too much veggie and protein in relation to the starch.)
So my basic question is: I have a half cup of dry orzo sitting at the ready. How many cups will that half cup turn into after cooking in soup stock? I am using orzo right now but would also be interested in seeing similar information for other types of pasta and any soup-suitable grains. Any rules of thumb or ideas for different approaches would be appreciated as well.
Thanks!
It will double in size when it is cooked, however the longer it is kept in the liquid the bigger it will grow until ultimately all liquid has been absorbed.
A trick is to cook it separately, drain it, and toss with olive oil so it doesn't clump. Then, add it to the rest of the soup, stirring well just before serving.
I actually did more Googling around and did find a number of correlated basic suggestions that say that the amount (volume) of pasta doubles during cooking, be it orzo or any other types.
A link: (not sure why this eluded me earlier)
GroupRecipes.com - Quote: 2 cups raw orzo - (Orzo doubles in volume)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.733159 | 2011-02-26T17:33:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12605",
"authors": [
"Ben",
"Vincent Malgrat",
"Zibbobz",
"dohashi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25981",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25989"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
76141 | I have a water-logged meat thermometer (non-digital) How do I dry it out?
I recently and very stupidly ran an analog (non-digital) meat thermometer through the dish washer. It came out full of water, like a fish tank or a pimp's aquarium heels, and it has not dried a milliliter since then (over a week).
The brand name is Thermo Geneve, if it matters, and the dial reads from 140 to 190 Farenheit, with each 10-step temperature segment (except the 190) featuring one, two or three cuts of meat optimal at that temp. For example, 140 F has ham, rare-cooked beef to 180 F that just lists fresh turkey.
Here's the image: Photo of Thermo Geneve Meat Thermometer
Imagine it foggy and water logged to the physical 160 or 170 F level, and maybe a tiny goldfish swimming around.
Any ideas on getting it dry?
Many thanks for reading fellow home cooks!
I was sooooo looking forward to the tiny goldfish, but your photo link is messed up....
...maybe toss in a warm but cooling oven, to dry in the residual heat? I wouldn't want it in an actually hot oven unless I knew it could stand the temperature, but there should be a point as it cools where it's safe to leave it in to dry out a bit at a time.
Due to thermal expansion of materials, it is well possible that the casing behaves as if sealed at room temperature but not at 60-70c as would be found in a fishwasher. Heating it (eg in your oven) to that temperature should be one of the things to try. If you have any way to create an under-pressurized environment (Eg with a vacuum sealer - check whether it can deal with swallowing water in the worst case!), that would also be worth trying.
@rackandboneman typo or Freudian slip? fishwasher... ^_^
freudian slip, noticed before posting but left in since it fits in well with the goldfish theme.
If water got in you can get it out. Your thermometer is the circular analog type and it has more than one piece. There's one piece with the probe and dial, and then there's a circular cover with the glass on it. The water got into the thermometer through the seam where the 2 pieces meet, and this is where you'll get the water out, you just have to figure out how.
What I would do first is to get a safety pin and see if I can pry the gap between the 2 pieces apart a bit to let the water run out. Be careful not to poke yourself if you try that though, it's easy to do. If you do get it dripping out then you'll need to find a way to hold it in place at about a 45 degree angle from vertical in the direction of the pin to allow the water to run out. Sticking it in a piece of styrofoam or a potato should do the trick.
Another option would be to put it in a warm (call it 150-160F, 70C) oven at about a 45 degree angle from vertical. Sticking it through a medium size potato will keep it stable, don't use styrofoam as the fumes will be toxic.
You could also combine these 2 methods.
Another option I would consider is to put the thermometer on its side in a sealed container full of uncooked rice. The rice absorbs water and makes the air very dry, it's a method which works to dry out watches and even mobile phones.
I would strongly suggest disposing of it and replacing it.
It is a device that you depend on for food safety which has (perhaps due to poor workmanship, as the majority of analog meat thermometers I've ever met are claimed to be dishwasher-safe) gotten water into its delicate working parts - they may no longer delicately work correctly, even if they are dried out.
If it does not claim to be dishwasher-safe, I'd put that down as a poor design choice and something to look for when buying a replacement.
...And as a matter of personal shopping habit, if the brand is "Thermo Geneve" and it wasn't made in Geneva, Switzerland, I'd avoid it due to misleading marketing spin...
Do The rice. I just did the same thing and I am putting it in rice as it worked on my coffee drenched cell phone very nicely. Another thing I did first was to use a hair dryer on it and it did a pretty good job but there is still condensation so I think the rice is the way to go.
use a shop vac. on the face and tilt from side to side.
Wait for continental subduction to take care of it along with your rusty grill and any sins that you may have committed in the sacred presence of BBQ.
Your answer could be improved with additional supporting information. Please [edit] to add further details, such as citations or documentation, so that others can confirm that your answer is correct. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.733330 | 2016-12-05T06:49:33 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76141",
"authors": [
"Community",
"Ecnerwal",
"Megha",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/-1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
216 | Should I purchase and use a grease or oil splash screen?
I use a sauce pan often for grilling chicken or frying bacon, and a lot of grease tends to splash out. There are fine mesh screens available with a handle designed to cover the pan without creating a seal.
Are these a worthwhile investment, or do they just wind up being one more item to clean?
I recently bought one and use it, but its use is limited by the fact that you will have to take it off to flip or move the food in the pan. Often this is when the splattering is most likely to occur. Still, it's better than not having one.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.733708 | 2010-07-09T20:51:47 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/216",
"authors": [
"Robert Massa",
"cynicalman",
"horatio",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1616",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/408"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
294 | What is the functional difference between imitation vanilla and true vanilla extract?
When baking or using vanilla, most recipes call for vanilla extract. In the supermarket you can find imitation vanilla flavoring for less money. Obviously the imitation is meant to be as close to the real thing as possible, but:
Is there a detectable difference between imitation vanilla and vanilla extract?
Do any issues arise in baking/cooking resulting from using one or the other?
You can buy extract at Sams / Costco for preety cheap.
Yes, you can detect the difference. How much of a difference will depend on the quality of both the imitation and of the real thing.
That said, it's difficult if not impossible for me to pick out the differences in baked goods. So I keep both around, and use the (much cheaper) imitation stuff for baking, and the real stuff for sauces, icing, custards, milkshakes, etc.
Incidentally... In a pinch, bourbon makes a half-decent substitute for vanilla.
+1 Excellent reasoning for the uses of both, perhaps I will add them both to the pantry.
America's Test Kitchen said in their taste testing, most people couldn't tell the difference. Some actually preferred the fake stuff, as it wasn't as boozy.
Bourbon? I thought it was rum. I use that in french toast.
@aaronaught: I personally find bourbon to have a sweeter, stronger flavor... But then, I don't buy a lot of rum. As with most substitutions, YMMV
There's one more reason to sometimes use fake extract -- you can get it in clear. The real stuff is always a shade of brown.
Not being brown is important for when you're trying to get really vibrant colors on a cake. (you also have to switch to shortening as butter tints things yellow).
ps. For some reason, people don't like it when I respond to 'this icing is really good' with 'that's because it's whipped Crisco'.
I have taken a few cake decorating classes, and this answer brings back memories! You're right, color is an important factor in baking when appearance is critical. In regard to your postscript, somehow I feel less "guilty" being told I'm eating butter rather than shortening -- I'm not sure why!
@JYelton : I did Wilton 1, 2 & 3 about 8 years ago, as I had agreed to make a wedding cake for a friend ... which somehow went from 'plain white cake' to 150 cupcake with a rose on each one. Luckily, I figured out where I could buy pre-made sugar roses.
As mentioned in a previous response, Cooks Illustrated did a test some years ago (2003, I think), where they concluded that the preferred vanilla in a taste test was some cheap artificial vanilla from a local drugstore's generic section or something. They have since done further tests (such as this one in 2009), and real vanilla sometimes edges out the cheap artificial competition (which here came in a close second), particularly for situations where the vanilla is uncooked and generally added in at the end (e.g., custards). Somebody over at Chowhound tried a similar experiment and agreed that artificial vanilla clearly won in baked goods. I don't have access to the full Cooks Illustrated article, but over here is another interesting claim -- that is, if you want to beat out all of the commercial extracts (both real and "fake"), just make you own at home.
Anyhow, there have been other similar tests over the years, but I find Kenji Lopez-Alt's test over at Serious Eats to be the most interesting. He tried blind tasting of vanilla sugar cookies, cooked vanilla ice cream, and simply stirred vanilla into a eggnog recipe. Like Cooks Illustrated, he found that in the cooked/baked applications, tasters couldn't tell the difference.
It was only in the (uncooked) eggnog application that the "real stuff" edged out the competition, but here Kenji went one step further and asked about the reason -- and it was just the "booziness" of the real stuff that people liked. By spiking the eggnog with a small amount of vodka to make up for the missing alcohol in the artificial vanilla, the "fake" stuff actually performed about as well as the real stuff. (Incidentally, the use of real vanilla beans actually suffered a similar problem and was declared as inferior to extract in some taste applications, since it didn't have the "booziness" element of extract.)
In a recent Cook's Illustrated blind taste test (not sure if it was double blind), testers unanimously preferred the flavor of imitation vanilla to some rather fancy 'real' vanilla extracts.
You might try a blind or double blind test yourself and see what you think.
True, although Cooks Illustrated tasters aren't really "average Janes."
Also, I'm not sure exactly what was tasted for comparison, presumably not teaspoonfuls of vanilla extract.
It was covered on their cooking show (America's Test Kitchen). They were sampling the extract mixed into milk. The complaint about the real stuf was it was "boozy" (and they said that it's true -- the real stuff had more alcohol in it). I think they also tried it cooked into stuff, but what it was, I can't recall, and it's already aged off my tivo.
Also, consider using real beans for things like custards and ice cream.
You end up with little black flecks (vanilla seeds) but I find these add character and authenticity to the dish.
My rules:
Cold and/ or Creamy: Vanilla Bean
Baking: Pure vanilla Extract.
However, I don't do all that much dessert cooking, so I can afford the real extract. I suppose if I was baking daily, I would reconsider the use of artificial extracts.
Smell both, you'll note the difference.
If you want less "boozy" extract use alcohol free vanilla but due to not being extracted by alcohol it cannot be classed as an extract but a flavor.
Alcohol free vanilla is mainly use for icing n cake decorating.
I keep imitation on hand just in case I run out of extract or powder but for baking its not bad...I use Vanillin sugar too
Both can be used in baking but some people may have allergies to vanillin
if ya like it use it xD
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.733822 | 2010-07-09T22:44:54 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/294",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Debbie",
"JYelton",
"Joe",
"Kim Morrison",
"Peter V",
"Pointy",
"Shog9",
"Thomas Lötzer",
"dsr",
"hlg",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1189",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123387",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4154",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/550",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/982",
"michael joyce",
"miku",
"mohlsen"
],
"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
} |
8747 | What are frying pan ridges for?
I expect frying pans with raised ridges are for a few purposes such as adding "grill lines" to meats and keeping food out of grease somewhat as it collects.
Why or when should I use a frying pan with raised ridges?
I think you answered your own question :)
Frying pan with raised ridges? Like a griddle with an inlay around the perimeter for collecting grease? Or a saute pan? I'm trying to figure out what this kind of pan is... My apologies, any clarification?
@Michael: I couldn't help but wonder if there were some additional reasons. @nicorellius: In my case I have a square pan, about 2 inches deep, with raised lines about an inch apart.
Sadly, most of the inexpensive ones sold are PTFE coated... I never considered that a trustworthy design, they look like they are very easy to overheat with most of the coated surface never being in contact with the food... and looking at one through a FLIR after using it confirmed my suspicion so badly I threw that pan out instantly (temperature in the ridges overranged the camera that goes to 518°F!)
If you roast e.g. slices of eggplant in your grill pan, you need substantially less fat than if you roast it in a flat-bottomed pan: you only need to lightly brush the eggplant with a tiny bit. (So far this is experience, from now on educated guessing and basic physics :) ) I would think this is because you can keep the grill pan at a bit higher heat: there is less contact area with the food, and contact with food cools the pan down, because the food is a lot colder than the pan itself. This means that the smaller contact area itself is heated more intensely and crisps to the beautiful and flavourful black lines (which are also somewhat non-stick!) while retaining just enough structural integrity to be able to turn the slice over and remove it from the pan. If you would superheat a flat-bottomed pan to the temperature you would need to achieve the same effect on the whole face of the eggplant slice, it would have to be quite a bit hotter, your eggplant would be completely blackened, and it wouldn't have as much structural integrity left.
The same is true for most vegetables that have the same sort of consistency and water content: bell peppers, mushrooms, zucchini, ... With meat, I think the same is true, but to a somewhat lesser extent, due to the higher density of meat. With thinner strips though, you can get the same effect.
The ridges also increase the surface area of the pan, and thus the area available to transmit heat. It doesn't help as much as it could though, since food rarely gets down into the ridges to contact that extra surface.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.734321 | 2010-11-01T23:25:19 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8747",
"authors": [
"Anuj Kaithwas",
"Brian Rushton",
"JYelton",
"Michael Natkin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17932",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91",
"nicorellius",
"rackandboneman",
"sanches",
"user2294815"
],
"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
} |
872 | Do I really need pastry flour in my molasses cookie recipe?
I have a recipe for molasses cookies that calls for 3 parts regular flour to 1 part pastry flour for the flour component. It mentions that you can use whole wheat flour instead of pastry flour if necessary.
Would pastry flour be better? What purpose does it serve?
you can add some cornstarch to AP flour to lower its protein content as a substitute
No, you don't.
Pastry flour is usually low in protein/gluten compared to A/P or bread flour. It may also be more finely ground. Both help in achieving a light, delicate texture when baking cakes, cookies, biscuits, etc.
But it's not necessary. Especially if they're asking for a 3/1 mix, you probably won't even notice the difference. Just be careful not to over-mix the dough: this encourages gluten formation and forces out air, thus resulting in tougher, denser cookies. Letting the dough rest in the fridge or freezer for 20 minutes prior to baking can help avoid this as well.
Alternately, substitute oat flour (grind some oatmeal in a blender / spice mill if you don't have any) - it has no gluten, and will add a pleasant, nutty flavor to the cookies.
Pastry flour is a lower protein flour than the regular flour. From here
the protein content of any given type
of flour determines how tender,
strong, elastic, stretchy, pliable,
etc., the dough is that you make with
it, and also the texture of the
finished bread, waffle, cookie,
croissant, etc.
So basically using regular flour rather than using the pastry flour might mean that your cookies will be denser.
If you don't have pastry flour you can always google substitutes. That what I do if I don't have something. I saved money by not buying another flour by just adding cornstarch to the regular flour I already had.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.734569 | 2010-07-13T17:27:03 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/872",
"authors": [
"Darryl Hein",
"Janusz",
"Recep",
"dotjoe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1593",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1594",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1605",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/207"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
15049 | Proper way to add marshmallows to brownies?
I've had brownies with gooey marshmallow swirled in and find them delicious. However, when I try to duplicate this by adding miniature marshmallows to my brownie mix, I find that they just turn into overcooked sugar clumps which don't have a very good flavor or texture.
What's the proper way to add marshmallow to brownies?
I suspect that you need to use marshmallow creme rather than puffed, solid marshmallows. However, I haven't tried this, so I'll leave the answering to someone who has.
The vast majority of recipes I find call for marshmallows to be added at the last second, and cooked only long enough for them to melt. Usually then a heavy frosting is added to top the whole thing, giving the illusion of marshmallow inside the brownie. Find an example here.
I've also seen really "wet" brownies with lots of included chocolate chips and butterscotch, which contain non-disgusting looking marshmallows. I've never personally tried these because they seem overly sweet, but they're the only ones I've seen that contain marshmallows that seem to retain elasticity after a normal baking period. See examples here and here.
For my money, I'd probably just sprinkle some marshmallows over the top of regular brownies during the last 3-4 minutes of baking. Quick, simple, not overcooked.
I've both put marshmallows in my brownies (results in big puffy pieces of popped carmelized sugar) and attempted to sprinkle them on top and broil. With the latter attempt you have to be really careful not to overcook them and turn them into a nasty burnt mess.
@justkt: I believe it.
Store-bought marshmallows (and most homemade marshmallows) are gelatin-based, which means they'll melt above 40° C. No chance of surviving a bake.
I have, on occasion, seen "rocky road" type brownies with actual marshmallows and I suspect that they are either not conventional brownies or not conventional marshmallows.
You could probably create a bake-stable marshmallow by adding methyl cellulose along with the gelatin. MC is the typical additive in a vegan marshmallow; it gels when hot and "melts" when cool. Using both of the above additives (and perhaps several more) could theoretically render a marshmallow with a continuous gel temperature range. I'm not even going to try to speculate what the ratios or other additives would be - this is generally the domain of commercial food packaging, food scientists, etc. - it's pretty complicated even if you're familiar with the main molecular gastronomy concepts.
Another alternative would be to bake the brownies plain, possibly overbake them a little, then grind them up to the consistency of large crumbs, mix them in with the marshmallows (and nuts and any other additions you want), and put them back together with water and/or corn syrup. I've made rum balls from ground-up brownies this way and they hold together surprisingly well, although they obviously won't pass for fresh-from-the-oven brownies.
As a last resort I'd go with JSBangs' suggestion and go with a marshmallow creme product (e.g. Marshmallow Fluff). It's basically just syrup, vanilla, and egg whites as a thickener. It won't have the texture of a real marshmallow, but because it's based on egg, the texture that it does have will withstand the heat.
I have tried adding marshmallows into my brownies, but I've learned that putting the bigger ones on top then drizzling with more brownie mix is the way to go. The marshmallows become gooey and melt on top and into the batter. They don't burn up and get nasty.
Use the tiny dried marshmallows used for hot chocolate drinks you can find them next to the cocoa on the baking isle.
Here's a package on Amazon.
Have you actually done it? I find the idea intriguing.
I heard someting about people freezing them before baking them so they dont melt so fast but tbh idk if itd work bc browines take a long time to bake
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.734748 | 2011-05-25T20:59:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15049",
"authors": [
"JSBձոգչ",
"Jessica Blair",
"Jolenealaska",
"Sarah Clowes",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Slava Blazer Photography",
"Vince O'Sullivan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142004",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81084",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85799",
"justkt"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
9049 | transfer pizza onto stone without sticking
After I have made my pizza and put the toppings onto it, I find that I am unable to transfer the pizza on to the pizza stone in the oven.
When I try to do it the pizza goes out of shape, gets folded, the toppings get messed up and sometimes it sticks or rips. I have tried putting lots of flour under the pizza before I add the toppings but it didn't really help.
I am having to make the pizza on a metal tray and then put the tray onto the stone. Put I think that doing this prevents my pizza base from crisping properly.
What am I doing wrong? Is there some technique I should use, or am making the dough to wet, or to thin or something?
do you have and are you using a pizza peel, or are you using another method? I've noticed that some answers assume you have and are using one, while mine doesn't.
@justkt - no, I have just been using a metal tray with a lip only on side (3 sides without a lip). I didn't know what to call a pizza peel until now, I might look into getting one.
personally I use a try like yours and with the trick I described in my answer don't need a peel (I've used them before), but the peel is how all the restaurants do it.
I've worked as a pizza cook, so I can give you a hard-earned answer. Cornmeal, and plenty of it. If you aren't putting cornmeal (or flour, but cornmeal works better) on the peel before you put the pizza on it, start. If you are putting it on, use more. Then put the pizza on it and give it a shake and make sure the pizza is loose before you try to shove it in the oven. If it isn't, lift up the edge that is stuck and sprinkle more cornmeal under it, then try again. The pizza should be completely free-moving on the peel before you try to transfer it to the oven.
The peel is a lot of fun. It's very satisfying to get the perfect wrist flick to slide the pizza into the best spot in the oven without hitting the embers. We use semolina meal, probably a local thing as corn meal is more expensive here?
Semolina is a nice choice as well; better than plain flour because of the coarser grain. It acts more like ball bearings. Local availability is a factor, as is the different taste. Cornmeal adds a certain flavor which can be a plus or minus depending on the rest of the pizza.
one of my favorite places uses sesame seeds - a little up higher on the crust as well. try it out for variety sometime, you may get hooked :)
Thanks for this very helpful answer. I didn't really like the flavour/texture that the cornmeal added, but for me the slightly toasted Semolina actually improves the flavour and texture of the bottom of the pizza. Shaking the pizza to make sure it is not stuck, and adding more Semolina if it is seems to be the key step. And then transferring it quite quickly before it can get stuck again. After a bit of practise I am able to reliably transfer very thin based pizzas off the back of my tray now using this technique.
A neat trick I learned from The America's Test Kitchen Family Cookbook is to make your pizza on parchment paper. Do this on the metal tray as you are doing now, which works as a pizza peel. Your metal tray should not be a jelly roll pan, but should be one without a lip. Slide the parchment paper and pizza off the metal tray onto your stone for cooking. Once cooked, use the tray to get the parchment paper and pizza off the stone and onto your rack.
You can also use cornmeal or flour under your pizza. The trick is to use that metal tray like a pizza peel. The parchment paper will make this process a lot easier, and also eases removal.
If (like me) you don't have anything without a lip, you can use the bottom surface of a baking sheet. Not quite as good as something completely flat, but at least the pizza can still slide off it smoothly!
I use a wooden cutting board in the same manner, and cornmeal is a life saver.
@Manako - that must be one large wooden cutting board!
IF you bake pizza at high temps (I always back at 550F, which is as high as my unmodified oven can get), please check with the manufacturer of your parchment first -- Reynolds parchment is only rated by them to 420F. I used their parchment above 420F before I knew that with no apparent ill effects other than some nasty browning at the paper's edge, but don't any more. I don't know if their rating is for safety or CYA.
@justkt hadn't thought of it, its height is about the same size as the diameter of my pizza stone, and its a bit longer. I started using it because its the largest thing i have, although I might try upside-down cookie sheet next time.
I use this technique all the time at home and it works perfectly. It is also worth nothing that you can cook the pizza directly on the stone WITH the parchment paper without affecting the flavor or texture (I've tried it both ways). This also makes it easier to remove the pizza once it's done - just grab the parchment paper.
I have had this problem in the past myself. There are 4 main factors involved:
Technique - You have to use a very fast and smooth movement. Sliding the edge of the pizza off the peel onto the stone, allowing the pizza to catch the hot surface as you slide the peel out from underneath.
Dough - The dough needs to have enough gluten developed to keep from ripping easily. You can make a really thin dough, as long as it has enough gluten, it shouldn't rip. There are 2 ways to develop gluten, working the dough or time. So take a tip from the pros and let the dough rest overnight, most pizza places do. Also make sure to use a good high gluten flour to begin with.
Time - The amount of time the pizza is on the peel with give the moisture extra time to soak into whatever you have underneath the pizza. If it's flour, it will soak up pretty quickly and cause it to stick, also depending on the moisture content of the dough. Work quickly and shake the peel often to make sure there is no sticking.
Peel - There are many different times of peels out there, but wooden is the way to go. With a porous structure there is less contact with the pizza dough as the surface isn't completely smooth. Metal tends to stick more. You can use just about anything to dust the peel, traditionally flour, but if that doesn't seem to work, you may want to try cornmeal or even rice flour.
I used to have a tough time with the dough myself, and though I still haven't found the right recipe or ingredients to make that pizzeria style pizza, I'm enjoying all the practice!
have you tried this book to teach you how to make the perfect pizza? http://www.amazon.com/American-Pie-Search-Perfect-Pizza/dp/1580084222
I'll have to check it out. I'm probably also going to use my website to see if I can get some tips from local pizza places that I really enjoy. I just want to find out what kind of flour they use, yeast, oils, other special ingredients. I know I can't get my oven hot enough, but I think if can get the right recipe, I can get close.
One can also add gluten which may be more economical than finding and using a high gluten flour.
One element not emphasized enough in previous answers is frequent shaking of the peel while making the pizza, especially with wet dough. Using more cornmeal or semolina (or flour) is important, but if it's not spread evenly, wet dough will eventually start to stick in places.
With a relatively dry dough, this may not be necessary. But if you're using a high hydration (wet) dough, such as for a Neapolitan style pizza, it's often useful to shake periodically. Personally, I shake at least after every addition to the crust. So, it's something like: stretch crust, place on peel, shake immediately to be sure no initial sticking, put on sauce, shake, put on cheese, shake, put on other toppings, shake, then final shake check right before opening oven just to be sure you don't have anything sticking before you begin the final slide.
Besides allowing you to use high hydration doughs, the periodic shaking has two other benefits: (1) you can detect sticking in a small area early, and potentially get it to release just by shaking before it becomes really stuck (or detach with a spatula and add extra semolina/cornmeal under that spot while allowing the crust to be more mobile without ripping under the weight of more toppings), and (2) you'll require less semolina/cornmeal/flour, which means less effect on the flavor of the pizza (most people don't like the flavor of a lot of raw flour or cornmeal stuck to the bottom of their pizza).
All good suggestions. One thing I would add is that you can use semolina flour instead of cornmeal--then at least you're not adding another flavor, as it's wheat, but it behaves more like cornmeal than regular flour.
I personally like the parchment trick. My sister, who built a brick oven in her backyard and makes a lot of pizza, just says it's a knack and you learn to handle the dough properly, work quickly, and eventually hardly need any flour.
Thanks for this suggestion. I have had great success with using semolina flour, I actually quite like the change in texture it adds to the base of the pizza. Although it does tend to burn on the the stone a bit. I have started to mix a small amount into the flour when making my dough too.
@flamingpenguin you could also try farina (look in the breakfast aisle near cream of wheat). It’s what Thomas’s uses under their English muffins. It’s coarse ground wheat so you’re not potentially adding a new allergen (corn) when people aren’t expecting it
I believe that the tool you want is one of these. It's kind of like a conveyor belt attached to the peel, so you can just roll it off onto the stone, without ever having to slide the pizza across the peel.
This video shows a pizza being moved.
I've never tried one but the videos make them look like they are pretty good.
You can get perfectly crisp pizza bases in an domestic oven without using a stone. Use a thin steel tray. A flat cookie sheet works fine
Clear all non required trays and racks out of your oven. Turn you oven onto bake and MAX heat and make sure it has reached max temperature before you put the pizza in. This can take more than 20 minutes on a domestic electric oven
Make the base thin and use olive oil where the base hits the tray. Build the pizza on the tray
Place the tray in the middle of the oven, not top or bottom
If the pizza takes more than ten minutes to cook, your oven is not hot enough
Ideally it's done in five to seven minutes
A peel and a stone is better, but there is usually not enough room to maneuver in a domestic kitchen, and it make a lot of mess for not much gain
The secret is the really hot oven, and olive oil
I agree on the hot oven, but I think the olive oil would fall into a personal taste thing rather than a tip. I think most people would think it atypical to have a pizza that's sort of fried on the bottom, as it would be with oil under it. Not that it wouldn't be excellent, but it would not be traditional.
All the Pizza's I have ever had in Italy had Olive oil in them. Must be a new thing? It doesn't taste fried at all when I do them. (when you butter the sides of a cake tin, does the cake taste fried?). From what I have seen the Olive oil seems to be on the surface of the stored individual balls of dough before they are pulled
When I can't use a stone I use olive oil. I wouldn't describe the taste as fried, I'd say delicious, but there is some taste for sure. Olive oil has a stronger taste than butter and the oven is hotter.
Must try one without and check out the difference! I must admit to liking pizzas where strong flavoured olive oil is on the toppings too
All the pizza I had in Italy had olive oil ON them, but without exception they were dry on the bottom--often with toasted flour stuck on that indicates flour was used to ease the dough off the peel. I love olive oil, and I bet a pizza with olive oil under it would be pretty awesome (in fact that's the only positive thing about Pizza Hut's pan pizzas), but I really don't think traditional pizzas have it underneath.
What I've been doing lately is putting a long piece of parchment paper on the peel, assembling the pizza on it, then transferring it to the stone using the parchment paper as sort of a conveyor belt.
Basically, the piece of parchment paper is long enough to hang several inches off of the front of the peel. I hold the handle with my right hand and use my left hand to grab the paper underneath the front end of the peel. I then hold the front of the peel close to the back of the stone and pull slowly on the parchment paper. This moves the pizza forwards onto the stone. Once an inch or so of the pizza is touching the stone, I pull a little more quickly on the parchment paper and pull the peel back at the same time.
If done correctly, the pizza will transfer perfectly onto the stone. I do flour up the parchment paper, but not as much as I would flour up the pizza peel since there is less friction.
As for serving, I serve directly off the stone (good pot holders are essential here, obviously).
This probably won't be terribly popular, but I've had good success using a two-stage process. First, I roll out and bake the crust on a metal sheet, then I pull out the mostly-baked crust and separate it from the metal sheet so it slides freely. Add toppings and sauce, then slide onto pizza stone for an additional ten minutes. Take the pizza off by quickly sliding a baking tray under it. The crust is nice and crisp, and the sauce doesn't dog out the top off the crust. The great part is that you can prepare your crusts ahead of time, so when you have lots of people over, you can crank out a pizza with a homemade, crispy crust every ten minutes!
I use a technique similar to this when I don't have access to a hot-enough oven. I put an oiled tray on the hob, and place the pizza on to that. This cooks off the base quickly. I add the toppings while it is in the hob then transfer it to a stone in the oven to finish cooking. I have found that this results in a pleasant crispy/chewy if a bit non-traditional crust and base, reliably avoiding the mushy base that you can end up with if the oven is not hot enough.
~~
Using three pizza stones of the same size works. But they really do need to be of the same size. One goes into the oven. The other two are used to set up the transfer.
The general methodology is as follows. It is assumed that the fresh dough is prepared but has not been removed from its work surface. It is also assumed that the first pizza stone is already in the oven.
STEP 1: On a separate work surface place the second pizza stone. Apply a thin film of grapeseed oil to the stone and then dust it very well (and very uniformly) with cornmeal or grits. Carefully lay the fresh dough across it, being sure not to slide it around. (Folding good, sliding bad.) Now, assuming there's an overlap, here's a great opportunity to easily complete two common tasks. First, go round and gently push in a bit of the dough so that the border becomes just a bit puffier than the rest of the pizza. The height and firmness of the stone makes it easy to get this just right. (You can even fill a fold with thin strips of fontina or fresh basil.) Second, use your pizza wheel to trim off all the excess dough. The stone makes the perfect border for that task, especially if placed on a turntable.
STEP 2: Add your fresh toppings (as soon as possible). Sprinkle a trail of cornmeal all round the very top edge of the crust. Then place the third pizza stone on top. Either side is fine. Just line it up. Now grab the whole thing with both hands and flip it over. Set it on a round cutting board, like the ones used for cheese, the diameter of which is less than that of the pizza stone. Room enough for your hands is the idea. Now remove the first pizza stone, thus exposing the pizza's underbelly.
STEP 3: Open the oven, pull out the rack, and leave it that way. This won't take long. Using two pot holders, remove the heated pizza stone from the rack and flip it over so that the cooking surface is facing downward. Place it squarely onto the bottom side of the pizza which, of course, is the side now facing up. Now immediately grab the whole thing with both hands, flip it all back over again, and place it onto the center of the oven rack. All that's left is to remove the cool pizza stone from the top of the pizza and close things back up.
Of course it may seem excessive to own three pizza stones. But there are other considerations. Take this same process for example and apply it to making a pair of calzones. For STEP 1 you would have to avoid puffing or trimming the crust, at least at first. And in STEP 2 you would be placing another layer of dough on top and then stuffing/folding/primping/trimming to your own personal specs. However, in the part of STEP 2 where normally you would utilize a cool second pizza stone, instead you will be using a second heated one. Just be sure first to lightly dust the top of the dough with cornmeal too.
This time there's no need to flip the thing before placing it onto the oven rack. You just put it there and leave it that way. In other words, the second heated stone stays right there on top of the calzones, at least for awhile. Then, not long before midway through the baking process, you open the oven door, pull out the rack, flip over the whole thing, and remove the topmost pizza stone before closing things back up. (So you're removing the stone that was on the bottom.) In this way you have ensured of evenly cooked calzones with a nice crust on both sides.
You will possess therefore only one extra pizza stone, not two. And even here, there's something to be said for having a cool one out and ready when the calzones are done. Transferring them to a cool stone stops the cooking process (prevents overcooking) and, obviously, promptly promotes the cooling process while at the same time providing a good cutting surface. Plus, honestly, you don't want to gunk up a pizza stone. It's good for that spare to be used just for slicing and serving, as it still possesses that touch of authenticity. The other two should never see aught but dough, and should be stored facing each other.
~~
I guess this would work, but along with there being simpler ways, it seems like it's prone to making a mess of the toppings, and it involves unnecessarily handling a really hot stone.
If you make the pizza on a stainless pizza circle with a lip, just use butter, unfold the wrapper and coat the pan- then lay and form the dough to the pan. Once the za is ready to rock toss it in the oven. Wait about 7- 10 min then grab the pizza circle with a glove or cloth shake left and right to make sure it has baked enough and loose then slide it off the pan onto the stone. Using corneal is good when making on a pizza board. Just make sure to roll the dough out then cut it to fit the board lay flour and cornmeal down on the board then the dough. Enjoy that Za with a crispy crust!!
My answer for my home use is probably not the "professional" way but It works great. and for my home microwave oven gives me actually an even better crust.
First I put my pizza stone(mine's just thick steel, no flour) on top of my stove. set it on high heat. then after I make my dough circular and make a crust I transfer it to it. then you can put the toppings or let it bubble a bit and then do that. and transfer the hot plate to oven at 220c-200c (convection oven, the microwave has one). for 8m or something until the topping are golden, since we're using a very hot bottom and giving the crust an advantage I use a lower oven temp then the transfer method (250c for transfering)
Hey, welcome to SA! I'd like to point out that your method only works with pizza stones that are burner-safe. Many pizza stones are made from corderite, and if you put those on your stovetop they will crack. Good use of a pizza steel though.
I struggled with this too and had all but given up on making pizza at home. I have a pizza peel and a pizza stone, but somehow flour and cornmeal were never enough to guarantee the pizza would slide onto the stone easily. Especially if I'd loaded the pizza with toppings.
Finally I found a video of a guy using parchment paper; I wish I still had a link or remembered his name so I could give him credit. Anyway, this method requires no flour or cornmeal on the peel:
After the dough is shaped and just before you put sauce on it, place a piece of parchment paper on the peel.
Place the dough on the parchment and adjust the shape if you need to.
Add toppings.
Slide the pizza onto the pizza stone, which has been preheating.
After 5 or 10 minutes of cooking, lift the front edge of the pizza with tongs or whatever (cuz it will be hot) and gently pull the parchment out.
I've used this method several times so far, and it's worked perfectly every time. If it's cheating, I don't care.
I don’t think this answer adds anything beyond the other answers which recommend using parchment paper.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.735130 | 2010-11-12T14:32:06 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9049",
"authors": [
"AJ Snyders",
"Andy Rice",
"Baumr",
"BobLoblaw",
"Cascabel",
"Casper Broeren",
"Chef Mike",
"Eric Tressler",
"FoodTasted",
"FuzzyChef",
"Jane",
"Joe",
"John Flinn",
"Julio",
"Kathryn Taylor",
"Manako",
"Michael Natkin",
"Michael Summers",
"Nikki",
"Sneftel",
"Spammer",
"TFD",
"Tony Adams",
"bgporter",
"bikeboy389",
"flamingpenguin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107819",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132936",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18516",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18518",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18519",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18520",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18559",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18567",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18575",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18586",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18589",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28711",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7873",
"igorsantos07",
"justkt",
"msb",
"sunny",
"user18522",
"wulfgarpro",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
20093 | Advice on meat cuts for German rouladen
I've been trying to figure out the best cut of beef to use for a German rouladen recipe. From the butcher and Google searches I've seen advice ranging from slicing flank steak (how would that work?) to pounding out a top round steak. (The final slice needs to be about 1/4 of an inch thick and 3+ by 6+ inches long and wide.)
Could someone suggest a cut of meat and a process for arriving at right kind of slice? (I would like to avoid pounding/tenderizing if possible.)
I have seen the suggestion (aimed at an English audience) that if one wishes to make rouladen one should ask the butcher to cut the meat as for beef olives. I cannot say how many butchers in which English-speaking countries would understand the request.
The meat for rouladen is cut from the upper part of the hind legs of the cow, or Oberschale.
You definitely don't pound rouladen; pounded meat tends to re-contract somewhat under heat, and this unacceptable in this case. I don't know how to cut it that way at home. In Germany, the butcher sells the meat pre-cut to the correct size. I guess that he "peels" it from the cut with a sharp knife. As far as I remember, it isn't cut across the grain like steaks. And it has to be very thin, from memory I would say that 1/7 inch thickness is normal. On this site, you can see some close-ups of the raw meat, maybe the butcher can recognize how to cut it from that. (Don't worry about the text, the recipe is far from traditional. I only gave it as a good illustration of the raw cuts).
Also, rouladen are supposed to be tender. If possible, get veal. If not, young bull's meat is better than the normal beef used for steaks.
I think that region is called "round" in English, as in "round steak". I don't recall seeing large pieces of round in the store much (in the US), mostly round steaks, so if you want it cut perpendicular to that, you might indeed have to ask to get it cut.
Wegmans sells it as top round, already sliced and in vacuum sealed packages. Wegmans is a high end, regional grocery store in the eastern US. They carry products you can't find in regular stores. I buy 8-10 packs at a time and freeze, I'm ready to make rouladen at any time. price just went up to $7.99 a lb, but if you've ever had boogered up rouladen meat, you know what I'm talking about, you will pay the extra and know what you're getting. There are 4 slices per package and they are big enough to cut in half. No pounding of meat required.
Milanesa cut works great! That's what I used tonight.
In SC or where there is a Publix they sell the meat already cut from top round. I have made German beef rolls all thru out my 30 years of marriage and never had a problem with this cut. I make around 21 pieces. It is pricey but well worth it. My family loves this dish so I make it for special occasions.
What is a Publix?
@DearHomeCook - It's a chain of supermarkets in the Southeast US: http://store.publix.com/publix/
You may see this labeled "beef milanesia." It will also serve well for schnitzel.
In Canada, I purchase the sliced beef labelled as inside round (rouladen cut) in traditional supermarkets, or inside round (sandwich steak) in Walmart. It is usually sold on the small meat foam plates folded over onto itself before being saran covered. It is sliced just under a 1/4 inch thick....any thinner and it falls apart as it's rolled up. It should be 12-16 inches long, 5-6 inches wide when unfolded and slightly triangular in shape. Once you've spread your german mustard, crumbled bacon, and caramelized (fried till browned) onions over it. Starting at the wider end, place your pickle or pickles as 2 are often needed end to end for the width of the meat (gherkins are perfect) Roast it and enjoy!
I have not had a problem with tenderizing at all. It makes the meat nice and thin and when finished, you can eat it with a fork. Do get it sliced as thin as possible though to save the labor as you tenderize. Don't pour off the oil(I use butter to braise), as it makes the most delicious gravy ever. Though I wish to drippings yielded more as everyone wants to take some gravy home, even if your out of meat!
Use top round and slice it against the grain. If you can partially freeze a piece and then use a deli slicer; it makes the job much more precise and a lot easier. Fill with sweet caramelized onions mixed with minced bacon and brown mustard and close with a tooth pick. Season with salt and pepper and sear in a hot pan in light oil on both sides. discard excess oil in pan when finished. Deglaze pan with white or red wine. Cover 2/3 rds with thickened beef broth or demi glace and bring to a low simmer. Cover with foil and bake at 350 degrees until fork tender. About 45 minute to an hour. Serve over mashed potatoes and garnish with chopped parsley and enjoy!
you can use any cut of meat. Just cut it on an angle to adjust for your size. top sirloin works well. so would round or rump roast sliced on an angle.
I think you can use chuck or any other meat that can be 'stewed'.
Can you explain your answer at all?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.736943 | 2011-12-31T01:12:24 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20093",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Alexi Smikle",
"Cascabel",
"Dear Home Cook",
"Elizabeth",
"Jon of All Trades",
"Kim Alden",
"KutuluMike",
"MT_Head",
"Maria Sansalone",
"Michelle Floyd",
"Mike Mike",
"Myra Umaguing",
"Peter Taylor",
"Rui F Ribeiro",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118298",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119821",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16847",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43915",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68884",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72038",
"mahimah",
"µBadger"
],
"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
} |
5259 | How do I make sprouted bread myself?
There are a few companies out there that offer sprouted bread (e.g. Food for Life).
I am interesting in making bread myself. I have purchased some sprouting containers. Once sprouted the grain obviously is soft and holds a lot of moisture.
Do I have to dry the sprouts and mill them after the drying process or are the grains usually mashed?
You can do either, but personally I have experience with drying and milling. To dry the sprouts, make sure that you keep them at a low temperature. You could do this using a dehydrator or in the oven at the lowest possible temperature. The claim from sprouted grain companies and proponents is that this keeps beneficial enzymes alive. After this you can mill your grain. I made the mistake of attempting to mill before fully drying one time - this may clog your machine. Make sure your sprouts are fully dry before grinding.
I was thinking about getting a dehydrator. Which grain mill are you using?
@Andre - I use a grain mill attachment for the KitchenAid, grew up with a Bosch that had a grinder that did an excellent job. I appreciate multi-taskers.
Susan over on the Wild Yeast blog had a recent posting on sprouting the wheat and then baking the bread. Take a look:
http://www.wildyeastblog.com/2010/07/16/bbb-sprouted-grain-bread/
Also you can find a lot of really good information about sprouted wheat bread on the Fresh Loaf:
http://www.thefreshloaf.com/
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.737411 | 2010-08-15T22:31:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5259",
"authors": [
"Amirh",
"Andre",
"Daniela",
"Laura",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10289",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1981",
"julie",
"justkt"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
66524 | Can I dissolve sugar first before steeping tea?
I am usually making big batches of sweet tea (20 gallon+). My problem is that after steeping the tea the temperature in the boil kettle will have dropped to the point where it becomes difficult to dissolve the sugar. Last time I had a big sugar crust left at the bottom of the kettle that had hardened.
So my idea is now to dissolve the sugar first and then steeping the tea bags in it.
Will this have a negative impact on the tea (reduced extraction rate from the tea bags etc.)?
How long do you normally steep the tea for(is the tea at room temperature by the time you add sugar)? Or how much sugar are you adding to the batch of 20 gallon tea? Unless you like your tea way way sweeter than the norm, there should be no reason why you can't dissolve an appreciable amount of sugar in above room temperature tea.
The tea is still at 180 F by the time I add the sugar, the problem is that I have heating coils inside the brew kettle which makes stirring almost impossible.
Running the heating coils, even briefly, will give you some convection. This may be enough stirring.
Necro, but if I found this question somebody else might: you should be able to address this problem easily by using syrup to sweeten it. When your tea is done brewing, for each cup of sugar you’re using, take half a cup of the tea, and combine it with the sugar in another pot. Heat up until sugar dissolves completely, stir this back into the rest of the tea. Assuming you’re using 1 part sugar for 10 parts tea, this means only 1/20th of the tea will go through a hard boil, which shouldn’t affect the flavour noticeably.
Counting my experience, i will advice you not to add sugar before you steep your tea. Tea leaves its flavor best without any other ingredient added to it. Alternatively you could use little batch of water and then add the required amount of sugar to it. Subsequently you could add the sugar(now syrup) to the tea.
No matter when you add your sugar it will still form a nasty crust in your kettle as it will not fully dissolve without stirring. In fact brewing tea in your kettle directly is not a good idea either as it will discolor it over time and may even impart flavors depending on the material. You need to pour the water into something else to brew it in.
As to when to add the sugar it will definitely have an impact on the tea brewing, whether that is negative or positive will depend on your personal taste, the amount of sugar added, and the kind of tea you are using. Tea brews better when water still has dissolved oxygen, and adding sugar may reduce the available oxygen. It may also interfere with the water extracting flavors from the tea, which could change the resulting flavor. You'd need to try it both ways and see.
Try not to overbrew, 5 minutes should be enough, after that you'll start to extract more tannins.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.737589 | 2016-02-15T15:20:33 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66524",
"authors": [
"Andre",
"Chris H",
"Janika Nõmmela",
"Jay",
"Mathew Walker",
"Michelle Schrenk",
"Shelly Olive Walker",
"Tamara Miller",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159343",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159344",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159353",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1981",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"millimoose"
],
"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
} |
6309 | What part to use from fresh Basil leaves?
I was wondering what am I supposed to cut from basil leaves, do I only use the “blade” until the petiole or I should cut that too?
I know some things must be chopped in the right places because it may add sourness.
Also, can they be boiled or they should be eaten “raw”?
I always just give fresh basil a chop and toss it in. You can use fresh herbs raw or cooked in any fashion you wish and find delicious. They are fairly forgiving as long as you don't let them spoil or burn them.
You can roll the leaves and thinly slice them (chiffonade), that's my preferred method. I've never had an instance where I cut basil and made it sour though.
I've never heard of boiling them, but I assume you could get the essential oils out with that method and could make an infused water. You can fry the basil leaves in oil as well to make a crunchy topping!
+1 for the chiffonade. It makes a very impressive presentation. Especially among those who don't know how to do it.
You can use the entire leaf, and stem - here's the only warning: the stems are very strong and potent!! If you are going to dry them in an effort to use the entire plant, make sure that you chop up the stems very fine and mix with the leaves (as mentioned in other post - chiffonade), spread out the entire mixture and let dry completely. In a couple of days the mixture will have dried out to the point where you can crush them and store in a small container. The mixture will last months!!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.737970 | 2010-08-29T20:51:14 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6309",
"authors": [
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"johnny1bucket"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
16341 | what to make with a very high hydration dough?
I have accidently (due to tiredness and unit-conversion) made what I think is roughly a 100% hydration dough. I have used strong white bread flour. I was intending to make some "no-kneed" bread, so after mixing the ingredients I have left it to rise for 18 hours, and it has been in the fridge for another 24 hours. It is very sticky and runny.
Are there any types of bread that call for a dough of this level of hydration? Is there anything I can use it for? Other than trying to incorporate more flour (which I'm not sure is a good idea this far into the process)? What will happen if I just put in a bread tin and cook it?
I'd try frying it like a pancake in small batches. You might get a nice soft naan-like flatbread.
OR: Deep fry it like a donut.
Flatbread? If it was intended for no-knead, it probably included yeast.
@rumtscho naan has yeast...
Speaking from experience...
You can still bake your dough. My boyfriend and I also encountered the same problem once when making no-knead bread - it was unusually runny and sticky. We baked it in our dutch oven anyway, and it was a perfectly good bread. Not as crusty and not as many air bubbles as the no-knead normally has, but tasty nonetheless. A little denser and chewier.
You should also figure out what to do with your dough quickly; our runny batch rose for maybe an extra three or four hours (in our hot, muggy kitchen) and the bread had a slightly sourdough flavor to it. I think the dough started to turn. Yours should be okay since it was in the fridge, but I'd use it today.
Wait, a sourdough flavor is a bad thing? :-P
Bake it in a dutch oven:
http://www.grouprecipes.com/27935/no-knead-dutch-oven-bread.html
Loaf or muffin pans might also work to give it some shape as it cooks; I have a high hydration ham & cheese no-knead dough recipe that just needs something for support so it doesn't run all over the place.
You could turn it into pizza bianca, focaccia, or a puffy pizza crust. Spread the dough out on an oiled sheet pan (carefully to avoid losing any trapped CO2), let it rest for ten minutes or so, oil the top and bake. For pizza bianca or focaccia, you might add salt and rosemary to the top. For pizza crust, you'd par-bake it until the crust starts to brown, then add toppings and finish baking.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.738451 | 2011-07-22T13:52:27 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16341",
"authors": [
"Ghanshyam",
"J. Steen",
"Joe",
"Kevin R",
"Vic Abreu",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34785",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34788",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34795",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"pschueller",
"rfusca",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
16129 | I'm looking for an extender/filler for my spice mix
I mix up a red pepper and salt blend (along with a few other ingredients) and put it in a coffee grinder to powder it.
The blend that I have come up with has just the right flavor for my family's taste, but it is too intense. We use this spice mix to coat deep-fried tater-tots in a pretty fair imitation of the potato ole's from Taco John's. When coating the tater tots, it takes a certain minimum amount of the spice to get decent coverage. But, that makes the flavor too strong.
What can I use as a filler or extender to dilute the strength of my spice mix, so I can use enough to get a good distribution of the spices and not have the flavor so strong. Any suggestions for something flavorless that can be added and blended with the mixture?
Another option might be to look at different delivery mechanisms -- ie, a shaker for powdered sugar might give a finer coating (depending on the grind), eliminating the need to change the spice mixture.
The professional (read: industrial) solution would be maltodextrin powder. It is rather tasteless, has good solubility in liquids, and doesn't change much texturewise.
In homemade spice mixes, the popular filler solution are dried breadcrumbs of a very small size (like breadcrumbs for schnitzel breading). They are noticeable, because the mix gets gritty, but the consensus among those who do it is that this is a feature, not a bug. They could also slightly thicken a wet dish (soup, stew), but present no problem when strewn over dry food.
You can also use a nut flour made of nuts without much of an own taste, like apricot kernels or low quality overdried almonds. Again, this will be somewhat gritty, but not as hard as the breadcrumn solution.
If the spice mix is going to be stored for some time, I would worry about the nut oils going rancid.
Some nuts are susceptible (walnuts), but others aren't. I have had almond flour sitting around for months without changing much in taste (it didn't have any to start with, as I said, these were bad/cheap almonds). But when making one's own mix, you can always make small enough portions to only store them for a few weeks. Else the flavor of the spices deteriorates too.
That's the way to do it. Old spices just aren't the same. My in-laws have spices that must be from the '80s. The labels are all yellowed... it's really no surprise that they don't use them very often when they have no flavor.
Thanks, I'll give the breadcrumbs a try until I can get hold of some maltodextrin.
Maltodextrin is used in some beer styles. If you have a local homebrew supply store, you could probably buy it there.
Flour, cornstarch, or cornmeal should work well. They'll also help your spice mix stick to the food. Very fine breadcrumbs could work as well, as long as they are not too large to pass through the holes of a shaker.
I left out flour and cornstarch deliberately. They tend to become unpleasantly clingy when moistened with saliva, and thicken relatively much when used in a soup. Cornmeal (or semolina at 300-500 µm) sound good. A similar gritty problem as with the breadcrumbs, but definitely a viable option.
Why not dilute it in several liquids that will match the dishes you prepare.
Spiced oils and vinegars are very conventional. Spiced neutral alcohols can be nice - especially when cooking in a sauce or over a fry pan at higher heats.
For the tots, it looks like oil is the way to go.
The best filler is maltodextrin. You could also use milk powder.
Could you explain why you think maltodextrin is the best filler? And if milk powder poses any significant differences?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.738696 | 2011-07-13T12:10:35 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16129",
"authors": [
"Alex Frenkel",
"Joe",
"Kenster",
"Laura",
"Mary",
"Ray",
"Sam Figueroa",
"Simon East",
"Stewbob",
"darthcharmander",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3375",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34331",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34332",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34333",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34336",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34353",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34495",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6808",
"itsproject",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
32539 | Reusing oil containers
I generally buy large containers of oil (olive, canola, peanut, etc.) and just refill a handful of smaller oil bottles. That way it's cheaper in the long run, and the smaller bottles are easier to deal with.
I generally just add more oil when a bottle starts getting low. I imagine this could have some bad effects:
Oil remaining in bottle could go rancid (though it's getting diluted each time, so I imagine very little remains over time)
If any bacteria/contaminants get it, they'll just remain in there forever.
Are these realistic concerns? Are there things that could start growing in pure oil? Would it be worth the hassle to periodically let the bottles run empty and wash them out / replace them?
Yes these are realistic concerns.
the tiniest amount of rancid oil can make your dish taste bad.
mold can grow on fat (e.g. penicillium in cheese).
oil only has residual amount of water, so it will not accelerate most bacterial growth.
shelf life for oil is about 6 months to a year in a dark cool cupboard
shelf life is about a year and more in fridge (but the oil clouds and solidifies).
my suggestion would be that when your container is empty, just wash it with a natural degreaser (e.g. vinegar) instead of topping it off. Or top it off, but wash the smaller bottles every 6 months.
UPDATE
Be very careful about what kind of oil you use, in particular if it is not commercial-grade. In this other question you will see that oil or other canned products that provide anaerobic environment (=without oxygen) can be good conditions for some bacteria. Some of them are specifically bad. See also the wiki page for the C. Botulinum for an example.
Shelf life heavily depends on type of oil and the far end of the range is more like three years. Otherwise great answer!
Also, if you use all of it before you refill, the rancidity really won't be a problem; as the OP says, it'll be very diluted, so you'll only get a tiny fraction of a tiny bit of rancid oil even if it's had time to go rancid. So if it's a long-lasting oil (as sarge_smith mentions), you'll be able to go few cycles, a really long time, with no problem.
Yes, they're realistic concerns, but you can also take precautions against rancidity and such.
Keep the oil out of the light. Either use an opaque oil dispensor (mine's stainless steel), or keep it in a cabinet (which my mom does).
Keep the oil away from heat. Don't keep it near the stove or on the window sill.
Don't put anything other than pure oil in the container. (no herbs, garlic, or other infused oils)
My mom would go through a 3L can pouring it into a smaller olive oil bottle she was reusing. I don't recall her ever cleaning it. I do occassionally clean my container, mostly because I keep it out, and after a bit of frying, you get that film on the can, so when it's low I'll drain the remaining oil into my oil sprayer and wash it ... but maybe only 2 or 3 times a year.
The containers I generally mostly empty before refilling ... except for the sprayer. There's a minimim amount required in it so that it'll work, so I just refill it. And I can't remember ever cleaning out the ones I have, other than the sprayer portion when it starts acting up. (I'm on my third one in maybe 14 years?)
I've never had any problems with mold, but I use my containers regularly, and I've only lived for long periods in a moderate climate (Kentucky, Maryland, Netherlands)
update : I should also add ... if you wash the container, it is critically important that it be fully dried before you use it again. Botulism needs moisture to thrive, so you want to make sure that no water is in there. (I suspect that the mold on cheese actually requires the moisture from the milk, not just the fat.) Remember that the French packed meats in fat to preserve them (duck confit & pâté)
Isn't there also a concern about water in the oil causing spattering of hot oil?
@phyzome : yes, that would suck, too. All the more reason to make sure it's dry.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.739059 | 2013-03-09T03:53:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32539",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"I answer wrong - have fun",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"sarge_smith"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
40176 | How to preserve cotton candy
For this Christmas, we wanted to do a particular packaging for biscuits using cotton candy.
We have a machine to make it, and flavours to do different colors and flavourings.
Now, the problem is that it will shrink over time, in few hours, probably because of air humidity or other reasons.
We tried to make some cotton candy and place it in a closed box (one in paper and one in plastic), but it shrunk in few hours (less than 12).
Now, we need to find a way to preserve it from shrinking for at least 24 hours, but more would be better... And we should find a do-it-yourself solution which does not involve particular equipment or materials.
A way to preserve cotton candy is to freeze it, but obviously you have to eat it frozen, or it will melt.
We thought of two other ways:
Use hot hair to reduce the amount of water in the box, and then seal the box. I am not a supporter of this idea, because I believe that hot air will just melt the cotton candy (and I do not think that humidity will be reduced that much).
Use CO2, which can be easily and cheaply fabricated at home (vinegar + sodium bicarbonate). Since it should be heavier than air, one could produce it in a large container, then pour the CO2 in the box containing the cotton candy, and then seal it. I think that CO2 will replace air in the box and this will reduce the amount of humidity, allowing conservation of the food.
What do you think? Have you ever tried something similar? Have you any other idea?
The CO2 is a very creative idea, but I doubt very much that you can produce reasonable amounts, or achieve good purity, by mixing soda and vinegar.
Cotton candy by its nature is going to be pretty ephemeral. If you are looking for edible packing materials, if allergies are not an issue, peanuts in the shell do very well. Popcorn is also an excellent option.
@rumtscho, actually with a coffee spoon of soda and some cl of vinegar you can make enough to inflate a 1litre bottle. About the purity: naturally it will contain some amounts of water, but according to http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemicalreactions/f/What-Is-The-Equation-For-The-Reaction-Between-Baking-Soda-And-Vinegar.htm, the water resulting from the transformation is liquid, thus I hope the outcome can be pure enough. Anyway, I'm going to try this later... Wait for the results! ;)
CO2 you make w vinegar + bicarb will be water saturated. Vinegar is after all 5% acetic acid, 95% water. If you want DRY CO2, you're better off staring with a chunk of dry ice. It only takes about 2 grams of dry ice to produce 1 liter of dry gas (room temp, 1 atm pressure).
It seems the best thing to do is to have a sealed container with little air in it.
CO2 has proven to be useful, but its presence is not as important as sealing.
So, if you want to preserve cotton candy, my experimental results show that a sealed container is preferred. I obtained a conservation of 24 hours, but probably it will least 48h or even more.
EDIT: Well, sealing seems to work pretty well, but I have to report a pair of failure...
2 out 5 packages did not preserve the cotton candy for more than 24 hours, while the remaining did. On the plus side, the first experimental sealed package preserved cotton candy for more than a week.
Why dont you try to add some alcaline salts to the syrup formulation? That way the sacarose inversion would be impeded.
Besides changing the taste, do you think that 1) cotton candy texture can be achieved with alkaline syrup, 2) no inversion happens in alkaline syrup (just because acid inverts, it doesn't mean that a base prevents it), and 3) inversion is what causes cotton candy to fall together? I have no idea what the answer is to any of these three question, but all three would have to be true for your solution to be feasible.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.739403 | 2013-12-12T00:20:32 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40176",
"authors": [
"AkiRoss",
"ChoiceD",
"Paula Asperkull",
"RiceBurgerStudios",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119276",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3441",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93353",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94157",
"peggy mowery",
"rumtscho",
"wlchastain"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
9439 | For reheating stuffing in the oven, how long would you bake it and at what temperature?
I've made Bread Stuffing with Fresh Herbs from Cooks Illustrated this year for Thanksgiving, and I'm going to need to reheat it to serve. It cooked for seventy minutes at 375 the first time around, but I'm not sure how hot to set the oven or for how long to give it to get it hot without drying it out terribly the second time. Also, is there a standard amount of chicken broth people add to stuffing on reheating?
I'm also going to assume that it's been in the fridge before being reheated, and it's going into the oven with or just after the turkey (ie, the oven's preheated) ... I'd take the stuffing out 20-30min before you plan to bake it, so the dish doesn't go straight from fridge to hot oven.
I'd reheat it at 375 again, covered, and add maybe 1/2 cup liquid to start. It will probably take about 30-40 minutes to come back to temperature. If you have an instant-read thermometer, it is at a servable temperature at 160, though you may want to go a fair amount higher if it will sit long before being eaten.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.739723 | 2010-11-25T04:43:46 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9439",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Joel Weisblat",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"some ideas"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
23857 | what's the smoke point of a hybrid oil?
I saw at the store there's a new cooking oil composed of 80% canola oil and 20% olive oil.
They offer it for frying and seasoning.
What would be the smoke point for such an oil?
It would be the smoking point of the lower of the two oils.
There is a persistent myth among cooks that mixing two fats somehow makes for a better smoke point (usually oil+butter). But the molecules which will burn at 150°C will always burn at 150°C, no matter what other molecules they are mixed with. So, if you mix two oils, and oil X has the lower smoke point wlog, it will smoke at the smoke point of oil X. It will smoke less than pure oil X, but only because you have diluted it and you have less low-temperature-burning molecules in the pan.
This doesn't mean that the smoke point of your mixed oil is too low for frying. The smoke point of cold extracted oils is always low. But it is possible to refine olive oil, even though nobody sells it pure (the advantages of olive oil are removed by refining). If both oils in your hybrid oil are refined, it will have a high smoke point, suitable for frying. But marketing doesn't always care about such details, so, if they don't say anything more specific on the label, you can't know what kind of olive oil (or canola, for that matter) they used. From a cynical point of view, this is a perfect way to get low-quality olive oil, refine it, and sell it for frying hoping that the customer will choose the frying oil advertising "olive oil" among its ingredients, but there is no proof that this is what the producer is doing.
How would such use be a problem unless the oil was spoiled or contaminated rather than just "low quality"?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.739851 | 2012-05-20T13:49:40 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23857",
"authors": [
"Al Evans",
"Sanzos Love",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54136",
"lightspectra",
"rackandboneman",
"user54136"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
32987 | poaching an egg in frying canola oil
Last night I was doing some fried schnitzels with canola oil at 130-140C (they were very good).
After serving them, I felt adventurous and wondered what would happen if I tried to poach an egg in that oil. The result: a hell-spawn mutation of an egg.
The question(s):
did I do something wrong?
is there a right way of poaching an egg in oil?
are there other fluids where the poaching yields something more pleasant?
"poaching in hot oil" is commonly known as frying :) or rather deep-frying. I agree that the term "fried egg" is normally used for a shallow-fried egg, but calling it 'poaching in oil' feels weird.
I want pictures of your hell-spawn egg mutant.
@Sobachatina sorry, it was the egg or me, so I had to eat it :D
This will be your super mutant back story. Someday, when you're famous, we'll look back and laugh.
Man, I would be reluctant to drop an egg into a deep pan of hot oil unless I was wearing a hot-flying-oil-proof suit! I am glad you came out of that OK.
@Dan how did it taste? I imagine it would be like a [shallow-]fried egg, only greasier.
@KennyPeanuts there were fireworks alright...
@Random832 like a regular fried egg, super greasy, crispy all over with thin threads going in all directions. the yolk was solid and chalky even though it was in the oil for ~45 seconds
The only thing you did wrong was to try to poach an egg in oil, at least hot oil. Dropping an egg into really hot oil is going to cause all the water in the egg to turn to steam very quickly, hence the nuclear mutant effect you no doubt got.
If you want to poach in oil then you need to keep the temperature way down. I don't see any reason you couldn't poach eggs in oil as long as it's below the boiling point of water. I could see both benefits and drawbacks to that method, if you try it please post the result. The viscosity of oil may help keep the egg together, then again the result is likely to be greasy, which defeats the purpose of poaching.
As for other fluids where poaching yields something more pleasant, why not water? It's what eggs are typically poached in, it works well, and it's cheap. As for other things I've poached with, the best result was salmon poached in Champagne. I made that for my girlfriend and she ended up marrying me. It can't be me, so it must be my cooking.
The heat capacity of oil is actually lower than that of water; the reason fat is a good cooking medium is that its temperature can go higher than water. This doesn't really apply to poaching. Typical poaching liquids depending on application would be water, acidulated water, court bullion, or stock.
You can poach in any medium you'd like. You are only concerned with heating the egg enough to coagulate the whites and/or yolks if you want. Eggs poached in tomato sauce are amazing. The only caveats to poaching in other liquids other than water is the pH and temperature. Obviously you can't get water above the boil point without pressure so your not super concerned about the puffy effect you experienced but with other mediums like oil, you will boil of the water so quickly it will puff up the white and set hard.
Slow poaching in oil is a possibility but to evaluate the benefits you have to keep in mind that in order for the egg to take on the flavors of the cooking medium the flavors have to be fat soluble.
well that qualifies as a ripple in your chef hat. (in the old days the number of ripples in the hat meant the number of different ways the chef could make eggs).
Here are some tricks for poaching eggs [in water]:
Use an 8-10" [non-stick] skillet filled to the brim and bring to boil and turn the heat to lowest. The idea is to prevent the egg from sinking and crashing into the bottom and easy access for fishing them out.
Add 2 table-spoons of vinegar, and two tea-spoons of salt. The vinegar will help set the egg white fast so the egg keep its shape and not disintegrate.
Use as freshest eggs as possible (they sprawl less) and break them into small cups.
Lower the edge of the cups to the water and drop the eggs in. You want the least disturbance to the egg.
Turn off the heat and cover for 4 minutes, 4 1/2 or more for harder yolk or bigger eggs (ducks go very well here).
Pull them out with a slotted spoon. If you don't have one, you can use two nearly overlapping spoon so to drain the excess water while keeping the egg.
your mention of duck eggs makes me wonder how ostrich eggs would fare...
@Dan lol, you'd probably need a stockpot for that. I've been trying to get my hands on ostrich eggs. A GIANT eggs benny on a bed of focaccia and lox to serve a party of at least 4. Let's call it "Eggs Benedict XVI".
wouldn't you need a water circulator to have the temperature even all over ? I mean, does poaching scale all the way up in size or is there a volume limit where the outside cooks before the inside gets warm enough?
@Dan No it doesn't scale, and you might have problems as you guessed. It's very much subject to Laws of Thermodynamics.
I put the question out there: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33012/how-does-the-poaching-eggs-recipe-scale-for-different-sizes-of-egg
I know this is an old post but I tried this morning to "deep fry" an egg with similar results I bet. Then I let the oil cool to about 200 degrees and cracked it into a metal ladle submerged in the oil. Results were very good. I filled and drained hot oil in the ladle several times during cooking. I took it out a little soon, the whites were not as set as I liked, returned to oil for another minute. Yellow was still runny and quite yummy. I had deep fried potatoes first at 350 and thought why not but soon learned as the original post-er there was a reason this is not a popular suggested way to cook an egg. Temperature is everything! :)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.740115 | 2013-03-25T11:26:01 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32987",
"authors": [
"Alex Lynch",
"Coni Hartman",
"DQdlM",
"Dan",
"DarkKnightHunter",
"MandoMando",
"Random832",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sobachatina",
"audiFanatic",
"ccITguy",
"gerasalus",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6326",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7495",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76314",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76315",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76337",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76344",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
33699 | chef knives and cutting surfaces
I recently acquired a chef knife.
Alton Brown says I should never use a glass surface to cut, but when I need to cut chicken I don't want to use the wood block because it will be contaminated.
how do I go around this conundrum?
What should I use to cut chicken with my new knife?
You really have an implicit question here: "are wood cutting boards unsafe for cutting meat?"
Also see: How do you properly clean a cutting board and knife to prevent cross contamination? It's entirely possible to use the same cutting board and avoid cross-contamination.
if it's not a duplicate, it's very close : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/618/67
I believe that there are two major options:
Wood cutting boards
Plastic cutting boards
Either of these will provide a perfectly appropriate surface for you to use your knives against.
From a food safety point of view, both can be excellent, although they have different pros and cons.
There is some evidence that wood cutting boards actually inhibit pathogen growth. They can be sanded down for maintenance, and sanitized with a light bleach solution, but should not be placed into the dishwasher, which may be an inconvenience for your lifestyle. Some larger wood cutting blocks are also a very nice aesthetic statement.
Plastic cutting boards can be very effective, and can be placed in the dishwasher, and are easy to sanitize. Some people are concerned that once they get deep cuts within them, this can harbor pathogens even through cleaning cycles, so they have a limited lifetime. They also are not as pretty as wood, although often far lower in cost.
Most sanitation guides will recommend that you reserve one cutting board for meat (or in a large kitchen, one for meat, one for poultry, and one for fish), and another for vegetables. This is often easiest with color coded cutting boards, which plastic makes easy.
My personal preference is for the very thin, flexible plastic cutting boards. They are inexpensive, easy to move around, dishwasher safe, and can be rolled up to easily dump the product into a pot or container. They may not have an infinite lifespan, but they are very inexpensive.
Since you do not wish to use your good cutting block for chicken, I recommend the thin, flexible style of cutting board--you can use your block for vegetables, bread, and so on.
I typically use white nylon cutting boards for all my food prep. They're cheap, you can buy 'em big or small, they won't roll a knife edge, and they work for everything from fruits and vegetables to salad greens to sushi to chicken. When you're done with all that, throw it in the dishwasher with a hot water rinse and it's good to go for the next meal.
I generally save my wood boards for bread, precooked food and presentation. However, there is a reason that a joined, pressed wooden surface is called butcher block. It's perfectly safe to prep meat on wood, provided you ensure three things happen:
You keep the board seasoned with mineral oil (oil repels water, so it'll keep bacteria-laden juices out of the wood)
You sanitize the board with hot water and bleach or quat sanitizer to prevent cross-contamination
You never put the board in the dishwasher or wash it with a detergent (that strips the oils allowing juices to soak in)
For wooden cutting boards, the best way to sterilize it is by using hot water to wash it, which will kill the pathogens. Cleaning the board and the knife does not change the taste of the meat.
It seems strange that facts known about plastic and their friendly ability to leach harmful chemicals into our foods, and thus into our bodies, hasn't truly made an appearance in the world of cooking. I find it very difficult sometimes to find what types of plastics (resin identification codes) are used with a product or if it's even BPA-free. I won't go into the effects of these chemicals in our bodies, but with that being said, I strongly recommend bamboo board. Even if you could care less about the environment, using a bamboo board is safer for you. Maintenance is little to none. If you care about how the board looks, you can apply a wood/bamboo oil to it every now and then. If you're afraid of bacteria, just make sure you wash with soapy warm water and dry it in a place that isn't dark and humid (which shouldn't be difficult) -- better yet, if your sink is near a window, crack open the window and let the UV rays take care of the rest.
Alternatively, you could get a cork cutting board (not at all expensive) designated just for chicken or meats, then, assuming you rinse and dry your knife, you should be good to go.
The reason such claims haven't really made an appearance in the world of cooking is that they're unsubstantiated - they aren't facts. A lot of plastic is food-safe, at least as long as it's not heated. Sure, don't put your plastic cutting board in the oven, but it's perfectly safe to use for cutting.
@Jefromi I'm not chef (I'm definitely new at cooking), but I am very familiar with this stuff. If you think about all the utensils, knives, cutting boards that have plastic parts that come into contact with hot soups, cutting raw meats (it's wet, sometimes even warm or hot), and not to mention storage containers. If BPA wasn't an issue, I highly doubt there would be such a strong push for BPA free products.
@MarkE If you have any evidence (peer-reviewed articles please) of chemicals from plastic contaiminating food which has been in contact for a few minutes (as opposed to BPA leeching into bottled water after months in the bottle), I would be interested to read them.
@rumtscho Sure, the FDA banned BPA baby bottles. Certainly you wouldn't store food in there for months prior to use. But even plastics can still leach carcinogens and endocrine disrupting chemicals: http://science.time.com/2011/03/08/study-even-bpa-free-plastics-leach-endrocrine-disrupting-chemicals/. There are peer-reviewed papers that I can dig up, , but I think the baby bottle example is quite clear.
The problem is "plastics that use the aforementioned chemicals in their manufacture", and that some of these used to be/are sold as food safe, not "plastics" in general. In the same vein, metal cookware with lead can become a similar issue :)
Get cheapest plastic boards for cutting meat. Treat them as a disposable item. As soon as they display signs of wear, replace.
You can also go with two boards: one for cutting vegetables and the like, and the other for meats. Meat has enough germs in it that the little from the board won't change much - it's all about the thermal processing that sanitizes it. Vegetables you eat raw don't provide nearly as good growth environment for the really harmful germs, so you won't risk as much. Only chopping veggies on meat-contaminated board you run at a risk. That way the only problem is steak tartare.
Alternatively, look for some swift and efficient knife honing solution, use the glass board and spend some extra time maintaining the knife.
Why do you need to throw out plastic chopping boards as soon as they have signs of wear?
@vincebowdren: Because then the notches will start accumulating scraps of meat, which are about impossible to remove completely, and can spoil and contaminate whatever else you put on the board. If you are patient enough to scrub them with a hard brush or sterilize somehow, you can keep them clean, but the cheapest boards cost around $1 and would last around a month of standard use, so IMHO it's just not worth the effort - treat them not as equipment but as a consumable.
Is there any research to show that contaminated plastic boards do spoil whatever else you place on the board, and that it's not possible to simply wash them like anything else?
@vincebowdren: I don't know - but can you give me any hint what gives the dark color to notches of old, worn plastic boards? (and they are very resilient against getting them back to original coloration too...)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.740808 | 2013-04-23T21:06:04 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33699",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Cascabel",
"Gloria A Guiduli",
"Jeff",
"Joe",
"MarkE",
"SF.",
"Steven Garcia",
"Vince Bowdren",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79609",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81530",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81542",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho",
"user81542"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
9546 | Does it harm juice if I store it in sub-zero temperatures?
I have several packs of juice (or multivitamin nectar, to be precise), and I can either keep them in our flat or put them outside, where it's freezing during the night. Is it going to do any harm to the juice if I do the latter?
Freezing juice will definitely not harm the juice itself, but it might harm your container if you're not careful. The juice can expand quite a bit during the freezing process, so make sure that your container isn't completely full before you freeze it.
If the juice is already in a container (i.e. you bought it) then keep in mind that the container might not be designed for freezing and could explode at freezing temperatures due to the expanding volume. If you're not sure, you might be better off transferring them to some large freezer bags.
I should also mention that freezing will only slow down the enzymatic activity that degrades fruit (and fruit juice) over time, not stop it completely. Most fruit juice has been boiled to inactivate the enzymes, but if yours hasn't, then you might notice (bad) changes in the colour and taste over time. If you plan to consume it within a few weeks, or if the juice already has various preservatives, then don't worry about it, but if it's very fresh juice and this is for long-term storage, then you might want to briefly boil it before storing if you're not sure about its history.
Keep in mind that the above will itself alter the taste, so if you plan to do it, test it on a small amount first to be sure that you can live with the "blanched" taste.
For the record, when taste is a big concern, some juices definitely suffer a big hit from freezing. Citrus fruit juices are probably among those that suffer most. So, if your multivitamin nectar is like some I've seen, then it contains partly orange juice and pineapple juice that would put it in this category.
Orange juice is concentrated before freezing. That's to preserve taste, although there's the auxiliary benefit that it's more compact. The history of developing this process goes back nearly 100 years and wasn't perfected until 1948. Before that, OJ was canned and probably tasted not great at all. (Though canning actually preserves vitamin C better.)
Additionally, for most foods, a slower freezing process is worse than a quick one. I doubt this effects nutritional value, but it could to some degree? The slower the freeze, the bigger the ice crystals get and the more they interfere with cellular structure. So, if you have to choose how to freeze something, choose the coldest place. Where I live, that's definitely in the freezer. I do this for steaks I'm storing for a month or so and want preserved as well as possible. But, hey, maybe in an Alaskan or Siberian winter, it's colder outside the front door :)
I once read advice to let frozen juice thaw completely and shake it some before drinking.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.741444 | 2010-11-28T15:48:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9546",
"authors": [
"BadgerPriest",
"John McLusky",
"Majid",
"benst",
"deppfx",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19538",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19541",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24302",
"sathya"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
78998 | Which foods are most likely contaminated by dairy due to processing methods used?
I am Vegan but also highly allergic to milk and wondered if anyone is familiar, or has come across any knowledge about which foods and food groups are typically processed in a factory which also handles dairy, other than the obvious like milk, cheese and products labelled with dairy.
So for example, a lot of different chips/crisps have been exposed to dairy as have dark chocolates even though these products don't always have dairy in their recipes.
I am essentially, trying to eliminate dairy from my diet but sometimes products inadvertently are contaminated with diary by the lines they are produced on etc.
I'm not sure if larger or smaller companies would be more likely to be contaminated -- larger factories would multiple processing lines going at once (possibly leading to cross-contamination), but smaller factories would be more likely to run a batch, then convert the line to run another batch. (and as someone who has milk issues, I definitely sympathize)
Many companies now label their packages with information listing other products that are processed in their facilities so that persons with allergies or dietary restrictions will be aware.
You may be interested in http://vegetarianism.stackexchange.com/q/560/70 -- it's more about veganism than allergies, but still useful related reading.
I'm vegan and also can't consume cow's milk. When gathering for games or the like, a friend of mine uses the Kosher labels to be sure that at least one of the snacks he gets is 100% dairy free. Kosher Parve or Universal items have never had contact with dairy (or meat).
Practices will differ with country (or community in some cases) of origin. A country where few dairy products are commonly consumed or produced, or where a significant amount of the population is not dairy tolerant (parts of asia) or where religious codex exists about dairy use (eg jewish communities) is likely to have different practices from scandinavian countries that lead the world in per-capita dairy consumption.
Equally, the country where the product is marketed/consumed is important, especially when it comes to what has to be declared on the label, with which tolerance levels, by whom. Also try to take advantage of multi-language, multi-market label text - sometimes important hints are found only in foreign language versions of ingredient lists or allergy advice (ever noticed that they sometimes differ - where it is unlikely that two different products are described)....
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.741719 | 2017-03-09T12:43:10 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78998",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"Erica",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"user61524"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
9771 | roast duck leg with plum sauce
I'm thinking of roasting some duck legs on a bed of plums, much like the recipe here does with breast. However, it suggests simply blending the bed of plums once the roasting is over - will legs produce too much additional fat to do this?
I was also thinking of adding in additional spices similar to this to the roasting dish, and reducing the resultant sauce down afterwards to make it nice thick and sticky. Will that work? What's the best way to keep the legs warm while I reduce the sauce down? I imagine it'll take a little while.
Duck generally has a considerable amount of fat, so there will probably be a good deal of fat in the pan drippings.
That's not going to be a problem if you just blend the plums themselves; they're already full of water (i.e. juice), so they're not going to actually absorb a significant amount of the fat, they just might have a little fat film on the part that was touching the pan, which you can brush or wipe off. I personally wouldn't bother, just toss 'em right in.
Just don't throw the pan drippings in the blender with the plums, because those will be chock-full of fat and you'll end up with a very cloudy and greasy sauce. Instead, very carefully pour off the fat (but not the juices!) from the pan, or better yet, while you're blending the plums, pass the drippings through a fat separator (AKA gravy separator). Also be sure to deglaze the pan if you see any burned-on bits, because those will add a ton of flavour.
Then combine the blended plums and the fond (meat juices and deglazed bits) and reduce it. You can and should reduce it to thicken it - that's how most pan sauces are made.
As for keeping the meat hot - you should be able to reduce the sauce fairly quickly since there isn't much in it that will burn at higher temperatures, but if that's still not quick enough, then I would just cover the meat and pan with foil and keep it in a warm (150° F / 65° C) oven. Leave the lid to your oven open while you start preparing the sauce so that the temperature can come down to "warm" quicker.
A turkey baster is a great tool to use when trying to remove fat from drippings.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.741943 | 2010-12-04T12:52:19 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9771",
"authors": [
"Anon",
"Mrs. Garden",
"annie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19984",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3577"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
6137 | Fruit peeling techniques
I came across this page (How to peel a mango) while surfing and I found it very interesting. What kind of methods and knives/kitchen gadgets do you use to peel fruits? Are there different tools to peel delicate and heavy skinned ones? According to the answers, I'm planning to buy suggested tools/knives to peel fruits.
Are there certain fruits you peel often or certain ones you're worried about having the right tool for?
Questions calling for a "list of X" should always be created as community wiki. I converted this for you.
@Chad: I'm curious to know what tools and technics are used for different fruits (delicate skinned, heavy skinned). The mango example was a great one for me.
I am not one to fall for the "as seen on tv" sales pitches... however, I came across the Titan Peeler's on sale at a Bed Bath and Beyond.
Let's say I have never looked back! They are absolutely amazing, dishwasher safe and great for peeling anything.
Potatoes, apples, carrots, kiwi, you know it the peeler is great.
Although, good ole pair of fingers work great for bananas and oranges (if orange is ripe).
Between a good chef's knife, a good paring knife, a standard vegetable peeler and your fingers you can basically peel any fruit you need to.
Some fruits require extra work to peel like having to first score and blanch a tomato to more easily peel the skin off.
I've seen some special hardware for various fruits, but it's so focused on one fruit that it's hard to give any recommendations unless you're going to be peeling a specific fruit very often. Things like apple peelers that spin and cut at the same time come to mind.
I use 2 different veggie peelers. One has a smooth blade, and one has a serrated blade. The serrated one is great for some of the "tougher" or thick skinned items. The teeth really get a good bite into the flesh.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.742136 | 2010-08-27T08:37:25 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6137",
"authors": [
"Chad",
"Chris",
"Mehper C. Palavuzlar",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12621",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1799",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"parilogic"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
5845 | Why does my pizza dough rise so inconsistently?
I've been trying to make pizza dough from scratch for a while now, but I have real problems getting it to rise...
Sometimes it works fine and the dough is good, but sometimes it never rises and is edible in only the loosest sense of the word. I can't seem to find a rhyme or reason to it.
If the yeast isn't out of date then the most likely sounding culprit is the temperature of your water. It should be between 105-110. If it's too cool then you won't activate the yeast and if you get it too warm you'll start to kill it.
Another possible case can be when you're adding the salt. If it's going in before or at the same time as the sugar you will arrest the gas production and activity of the yeast.
Get the yeast, sugar, water mixture going first and create a shaggy dough with your flour. Add the salt as you're starting to bring the dough together so that it doesn't act too quickly to arrest the yeast development.
If you keep your flour in the freezer or refrigerator, make sure it has come to room temperature before adding it to the water or the chill of the flour will de-activate the yeast.
Thanks, thats good information.
I think it may be the flour in the fridge that's getting me: We sometimes keep it in the fridge and sometimes don't.
you should also check and see if you are using instant yeast, active dry yeast takes blooming/proofing before it is useable and is less effective generally even if still in date.
that is 41-43 Celsius
If you're unsure about how fresh your yeast is, test it:
Mix 1 Tbsp sugar, 1 tsp yeast in 1 cup of lukewarm water. It should foam after 10 minutes if it's still good.
If you're using Active Dry Yeast (ADY), it will need to be proofed first in warm water (100-110F). Sugar is not necessary to activate the yeast.
Instant Dry Yeast (IDY) or Bread machine yeast doesn't need to be proofed.
It's best to be as consistent as possible, so I recommend using an instant read thermometer to make sure you're water is in the right temperature range. If you live in a place where temperature varies quite a bit from day to day or season to season, this could also affect how long your dough needs to rise.
Let your flour come to room temp before using it.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.742321 | 2010-08-23T19:31:44 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5845",
"authors": [
"Adam Eberlin",
"Alyssa",
"Joe",
"Tim",
"flamingpenguin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11548",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"sarge_smith",
"schulz"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
6851 | Grilling burgers: flip once, or keep flipping?
When grilling burgers I usually flip several times, but have recently been advised to cook forever on once side, flip once, cook and be done.
Is that the best way to do it?
How do you know when a burger is ready to flip?
I'm solidly in the flip as often as you want camp. As long as it's not over (or under) cooked I find that you get better results flipping often. Plus you can rearrange things to make more room as you flip.
To tell how cooked a burger is poke it with a finger or something else that's not too sharp; just like a steak the more cooked it is the more firm it will be. You just need to learn how "squishy" you like them.
Also, as fun as it is, don't press the whole burger into the grill! All that happens is that the delicious juices are forced out.
I believe the flip once advice is mainly for getting better grill marks on the burger (or steak), although there's also "less handling = less temptation to squish the burger".
Harald McGee says flipping more often will help the meat inside the burger (or steak) to warm without burning the outside.
i feel flipping any thing on the grill once for best results juices stay in side place the burger or steak on the grill few minutes or so depending on temp turn it weight 3-5 minutes then flip it once better diamonds juicier steak or burger is
I'm in the flip-turn-flip camp to sear in the juices and for some sweet looking grill marks. FWIW, I used to be a high volume grill cook. After a while you can tell when it needs the flip or turn just by looking at it. It's also really weak to cut into the meat to check the temp since you'll lose all the juices.
I prefer "flip once". Assuming you've got the heat right...
put them on the grill or pan
as soon as they're all on the heat, give each one a little nudge to make sure it's not stuck
finish messing with condiments or have a beer or something else for 3-5 minutes
flip the burgers, and give them the same "unsticking" nudge as before and wait another 3-5 minutes
get the buns toasted
serve and eat
I think the meat done-ness method I heard was to compare it to each of your "earlobe" (rare), "cheek", "side of nose", and "tip of nose" (well or medium well), going from least to most done. The more firm the meat is, the more done it is.
or you can do what my mother does, and get out a knife and cut into one of the burgers and see how pink it is on the inside.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.742537 | 2010-09-06T20:54:20 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6851",
"authors": [
"Marti",
"everg77n",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64279",
"Ярослав Рахматуллин"
],
"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
} |
7418 | How can I reheat chicken without it getting rubbery or dry?
Reheating chicken in the microwave is usually a disaster, rubbery and awful or underheated. In the toaster oven, the meat will frequently dry out. How can I reheat it and keep the texture reasonable?
Try wrapping it in foil and cooking on a very low temperature in the oven or toaster oven. (Our oven has a "warm" setting that's ~170 F.) You can also include some water or broth in your foil packet but it won't penetrate much beyond the surface if the meat has been cooked before. It'll make that 1st bite taste more moist but in the long run it won't do much.
I disagree with not adding broth but otherwise I think reheating in foil packets in the oven is the best method. A little spoonful of broth in each packet with 2 or three slices of chicken is perfect (this also works well with turkey and roast gammon).
Usually, when I want to reuse chicken from yesterday, I cut it and put it in a quiche.
There's a lot of things you can do to re-use chicken, where it's heating up in a moist environment (and if you cut it up, you don't have the issues as significantly) ... ala king, pot pie, etc.
You can just pull out a pan and heat the stove really quickly then fry it without oil, it'll get crispy and not chewy. It's really good and it works within three minutes.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.742764 | 2010-09-18T05:16:38 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7418",
"authors": [
"Aki",
"Ashes Ashes",
"Devdatta Tengshe",
"Joe",
"Nkululeko",
"cioddi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112396",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15235",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"user15241",
"vwiggins"
],
"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
} |
10235 | How can I get brine flavour into turkey?
Since I started doing holiday dinners, I've always brined my birds. I love the result, but I find that while the turkey comes out nice and moist, it doesn't pick up much flavour from the brine. For Thanksgiving, I had a delicious smelling brine with some star anise, cinnamon, and a few other things. The turkey didn't seem to pick up any of this flavour.
Any tips on solving this problem? Would injecting the meat help?
You can inject the solution into your turkey rather than brining it. It will make a difference.
@justkt: or do both. You'll still get the added juiciness of the brine.
@Erik - as I understand it, if you inject a saline solution into your turkey brining it will make it excessively salty.
You shouldn't inject the brining solution, just a mix of the flavors that you are trying to bring out. If you want to feature star anise, for example, you should make a marinade or a butter and inject that. Adding more brine will not have the desired effect.
Thanks @justkt and and @sarge_smith. Perhaps I'll try that for Christmas dinner this year :)
Many aromatic compounds are oil soluble, or need to be heated to really come out and 'open up.' Since brines I use are all water based, I've had some luck with heating, even briefly boiling dried spice components first, then cooling, adding the other ingredients, then using. Especially, don't boil vinegar or alcohol components, as they will lose potency.
Anyway, I find brines to have a tough job imparting too much of a distinct flavor, so consider straining some of this out of your brine and using it to make a gravy or pan sauce to accompany the roast bird, the flavors will then be further accentuated.
+1 for the solubility being the problem. What I've done before is make a "tea" of the spices by steeping them in boiling water (or water just off the boil) for a while, then dissolve the salt (easier in hot water), let cool and put the bird in. But you're still getting a mild hint of the flavour, not a strong, bold flavour.
That's exactly what I did, but it didn't make a difference. I couldn't taste any of the flavour in the meat.
@MM, wow, this is a tough bird to crack.lol. If you are not getting the flavor, there just could be too much bird and not enough other stuff. Many marinades and brines do impart a very subtle flavor. You could double or triple the quantities of the herbs/ other flavor components. Since it is in a brine, it won't overwhelm the preparation, especially if you are not getting it now.
Thanks @Eric. For this Christmas, I decided to try throwing some of the flavours in the gravy instead. It worked splendidly :)
Try using the same spices that you are using in the brine in the stuffing of the turkey. This might create a 'double-whammy' and impart more of the 'exotic' flavor that you are looking for.
nice idea, add the component to the stuffing, a sauce, etc...
I guess you should increment the amount of flavor (more star anise, etc). You could also brine longer. What percentage of salt are you using 2-3% should do it (that's 20-30 grams per liter)?
Not brining long enough may have been part of the problem. I had less time to brine than usual for this bird.
Spices and herbs are fat soluble. This means that they need to have fat to release the flavours. You will not get large flavour profiles from a brine. The best you will get are hints or what is in the brine. Smaller peices of protein will pick up more flavour then large ones.
Brine is meant to protect the muscle fibres from becoming to dry or tough.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.742929 | 2010-12-17T04:55:19 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10235",
"authors": [
"Cris Littrell",
"Erik P.",
"Gene",
"Lazy",
"MarsJarsGuitars-n-Chars",
"Michael Mior",
"Victor Nițu",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20911",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"justkt",
"sarge_smith",
"user20913",
"Дмитрий Пузаков"
],
"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
} |
107769 | Why is my freshly ground coffee watery?
In order to get a more gourmet coffee drinking experience I have recently been getting whole beans and freshly grinding them before brewing coffee using an automatic drip coffee maker. Coffee connoisseurs say that freshly ground beans are the only way to go, or so I've herad. However, the results are disappointing and the coffee is always weaker and more watery than the coffee I have been drinking for years.
For reference, I am used to Folgers coffee, or Chock full o'Nuts coffee. These two are both store-bought, pre-ground coffee and produce the results I know. It seems like I need at least 2 extra Tbsp of freshly ground beans to match the strength of pre-ground Folgers, which is counterintuitive.
I have tried three different bags of fresh beans from two sources, so I don't think the problem is the beans. I have heard that if the coffee is too old then it can be much weaker, but the most recent bag was marked that it was roasted a week prior to my getting it.
I am grinding the coffee with a Krups blade grinder and I know that a Burr grinder is more consistent and preferable, but I don't have one (and don't want to invest in one right now, especially if I'm not sure that the blade grinder is the problem)
I have tried a variety of different granularities but try to match the pre-ground as closely as possible. More fine is slightly stronger but also much, much more bitter. The last time, my ground beans looked like this:
I normally measure by both volume and by weight and there was no significant change. When measured by volume, I use the same ratio as I use for pre-ground coffee: 5/8 of a cup (10 Tbsp) to ~2.5 cups water.
I am brewing using a rather high-end Bonavita Connoisseur one-touch brewer. I have tried both "pre-infusion" mode and normal mode and the results are the same.
Is there anything I am clearly doing wrong? From what I've described, is there a reason why my freshly ground coffee is more watery than pre-ground?
That looks like a really coarse [& very varied] grind to me. I'd expect it to be weak, especially on a simple drip-filter.
It's probably just the way I'm grinding it then. It is very varried, because it's a blade grinder :( I'll try finer, or maybe hold out until we can get a burr grinder!
Ii'm surprised a fresh grind is more bitter than a store-ground, but idk your coffee types at all, never heard of the maker.
This happens to me sometimes when I use my French press, interested to hear what people think!
Going to try smaller batches, and will see if that improves the consistency of the grind!
Your grind is way too coarse. Finely ground coffee not only has more surface area exposed to let out flavor, it also forms a barrier, making the water go slower through the coffee, so you get even more flavor. A burr grinder isn't needed for a drip feed, you can get perfectly good results with a blade grinder, you just need to use it longer, and perhaps in smaller batches depending on the size of the grinder and how many cups you are trying to make.
Thanks! I was thinking smaller batches, because as @Tetsujin said in the comments, the grind is really inconsistent, and to get the coarse pieces shown to become fine with this quantity, what I end up with is more the coarseness of espresso, that is, very fine (too fine)
I have a blade grinder for the rare occasions when I end up with beans. I either need to use tiny batches or sift the big bits out and put them through again. This would need an unusually coarse sieve but some tea strainers do the job.
Your grind size is too coarse. The best course of action is to buy a decent burr coffee grinder. I say decent, because I have seen burr grinders that were worse than the blade ones, though these are very cheap.
Your blade grinder is hard to work with, because you don't have any consistency. You can only have some sort of consistency when you grind very fine, but that is too fine for drip coffee. If you don't have the budget, you can grind a little finer than for drip, and go with smaller batches.
One way to improve consistency with a blade coffee grinder is to grind to the level you showed in the picture, take out the larger bits, dump the even grounds in the filter and put back the larger bits for another round of grinding. A lot of work, if you ask me, and you will still not get the consistency of a burr grinder, but it work.
A a fine grind will slow down the pour, so make sure you don't make a full batch, because it will overflow.
This should work, but you need to adjust you recipe, because 2 spoons of fine ground coffee make a stronger coffee than 2 spoons of medium grind. You probably need to add about 20% more water per batch, when you grind finer
Another option is to grind your coffee in the store. They have great grinders, usually.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.743387 | 2020-04-21T17:03:30 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107769",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Josh",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80315",
"pimentoandprose"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
7165 | Cast iron pan flaking
My cast iron pan has started to give off tiny black flakes after 3 months of use. Are these dangerous in any way? Are we ingesting iron? There are patches on the skillet that are now a little lighter than their surrounding areas.
That is just the seasoning - the nonstick carbon that is formed after years of use - coming off. If big pieces are dropping in your food or you are freaked out by it, simply give your pan a good scrubbing with some steel wool and soap then re-season it.
To season the pan:
Take a paper towel and soak a bit of oil into it
Coat the inside of the pan with oil
Put in a 250F over for about an hour
Repeat each day until it has a nice shiny non-stick coating once again
Remember not to wash the pan with soapy water if you want the pan to stay non-stick. If there are bits of food in it from frying or such. Scrub it out with hot water and some coarse kosher salt, just nothing like steel wool, non-stick safe scrubbers are OK.
Adam
Wow I was wondering why my iron skillet is not non stick. I've never seasoned it, what a mistake!
I like to get the cast iron up to 400 - 450 F to season. Get the oil above its smoke point. This is also good to do on an outside grill.
one thing I've wondered about this is if you need to do a heavy scrub to reduce it back down to a baseline or if you can "restore" the layers without need to do a full scrub
Wash it as much as you want. The non stick isn't going to come out unless you let it rust. Wash it, heat it on high, put some oil in it, and put it away. Nuff said.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.743734 | 2010-09-12T06:02:25 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7165",
"authors": [
"Jason Rueckert",
"Justin Morgan",
"Mark",
"Mary Brown",
"Skyler",
"avidenic",
"fishtron",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126258",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14606",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14607",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14619",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25327",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28964"
],
"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
} |
9990 | Why does Swiss Cheese have holes?
I've always enjoyed eating cheese. Just getting that out of the way. I've never quite figured out why Swiss Cheese has holes! I mean, I can understand different shapes like round, square, triangular - though I can't quite fathom why swiss has holes, how they get there, etc
Those are called "Eyes" by cheese makers. The appear when bacteria convert lactic acid into propionic acid and carbon dioxide, or metabolise citrate.
These bacteria occur in dairy products, though they can also be added to the curd to get the characteristic eyes. See for example Propionibacterium freudenreichii on Wikipedia.
I don't know where this myth come from but there are no holes (or really tiny ones) in the majority of Swiss cheese:
Most famous ones :
Gruyère
Vacherin
Emmental (the only one with holes)
Tilsit
Appenzeller
Okay, so I wasn't aware that there were multiple "Swiss Cheese" for the sake of my question we'll go with Emmental which appears to be "Common grocery store swiss cheese"
Emmental is Swiss Cheese in North America. Just like American Cheese is that horrible bright orange processed nasty stuff even though there are hundreds of different cheeses (such as the wonderful Oka) in North America.
I visited a Gruyère factory in Switzerland once, the smell is intense.
Real Gruyere hasn't holes, actually...
and it's not only Swiss cheeses that have holes. Quality Gouda (hard to find these days even in the Netherlands) and many other Dutch cheeses have holes as well.
I'm surprised Emmental = Swiss cheese in the US. If I would sell "Swiss cheese" under that name, I would go for a cheaper one which still happens to be Swiss...
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.743923 | 2010-12-11T01:52:02 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9990",
"authors": [
"Alexis Dufrenoy",
"Keith Madsen",
"Lameez Hendricks",
"Laurent S.",
"Marco Ceppi",
"Opal",
"Orbling",
"Simon Wong",
"SnookerFan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20462",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20472",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20527",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2460",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3737",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87867",
"jwenting",
"kathryn",
"mu is too short"
],
"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
} |
7236 | Will botulism growing in my home-canned vegetables pop the lid?
I remember that in my biology class in high school the teacher told showed us a puffed up can of pineapples which he claimed had botulism in it.
Is that remotely true? and if so, can I tell if my canned ketchup has botulism in it through the same "method"? and if so how long might that take?
One reason botulism is so scary is that you can's see, smell, or taste the bacteria growing in there. The only way to know for sure if botulism is growing in food is to have it tested by a laboratory.
Fortunately, though, you can see its evidence.
Yes, a puffed-up can or a jar w/ the lid popped up means something's growing in there. Discard the material; do not consume it.
Discard a metal can if there's any visible opening, no matter how small, if the ends are bulging, if the seam doesn't look intact, or if there's a leak.
Discard a jar if the jar appears cracked at all, if the pop-top doesn't pop when opened (meaning there's no longer a vacuum inside), or if the seal appears damaged.
As for how long it takes for a problem to arise, I'm not sure; I've had the same question.
It can. C. botulinum (botulism is the disease you get from this bacteria) and other bacteria produce gas that will cause a can to bulge, given enough time. The pineapples he showed you either had a severe C. boulinum colony growing inside or some other nasty bacteria.
Regarding your ketchup, if your can is distended in any way, throw it out. However, the fact that it is not showing outward signs of infection does not mean that it's safe. You could still have unwanted visitors that just haven't produced enough gas to distend the can. How long is variable, it depends on the conditions inside the can. Under "ideal" conditions C. botulinum can double in population every few minutes.
yes, botulism can occur if a jar has a popped up lid. To be safe, everytime you eat canned goods, make sure that you've heated it at 121 °C. It's one way to kill the botulism bacteria. But if a can is already puffed, it's better to just throw it away. Remember that botulism is really dangerous - it can cause permanent paralysis. To make sure that you're not promoting botulism when you're canning, read this do's and don'ts in home canning.
Heating to 121ºC?
@BaffledCook German wikipedia gives that temperature, but I didn't find it in the english one. The article link given above says 240F, which is about 116°C I think.
How can one heat foods with mainly water content over 100C / 212F ?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.744109 | 2010-09-13T14:41:54 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7236",
"authors": [
"Alex Lauerman",
"BaffledCook",
"Daniel",
"Fladabosco",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Joe Martinez",
"Leelee",
"Paula",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14780",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"takrl"
],
"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
} |
7282 | Where can I get local grains in bulk?
Farmers markets and CSA's are great, but there doesn't seem to be a local market for grains.
Where could a person go to purchase grains (for human consumption) besides the supermarket and online?
Where do you live? Someone from your locale will have to answer. Here in Portland, Oregon there are at least 10 natural food stores that carry a wide assortment of bulk grains.
Yeah, I forgot about the bulk grains - I can get them at the local co-op or Whole Foods, but what I can't get is a 20lb bag of buckwheat. Maybe I just need to ask.
This really depends on the locale. For example in Seattle we have a couple of Washington State grain farms and mills that do sell their product at farmer's markets. If you have trouble tracking down a miller directly, you might do well to ask at your local natural foods co-op if they can source this or direct you to people who can help. Another place to ask would be at your best local artisanal bakeries, as they may well be using local flours.
+1 for locale dependent. Not a lot of wheat farming down here in Texas.
Are you looking for grain or flours? If the latter, just track down your local mills (most farms don't mill their own flour). If the former, ask the millers or other farmers who nearby is growing grains. It might be an inconvenience to farmers to sell very small quantities, but then again, you'll be paying a premium on what they normally charge, so it's worth asking.
Most farmers who deal with grains grow in very large lots, as the equipment for processing it in a cost-effective manner is so large. (100 acres is considered a small farm for grain production).
You may be interested in checking out shops that sell homebrewing (beer) supplies. A lot of the grains they have will be malted/kilned, but not all. This will mostly be useful if you are planning to mill the grains yourself.
You may not be able to find much strictly locally-sourced at a homebrew shop, but it might be a good starting point.
Interestingly enough, all those expensive breads made from "sprouted wheat" are just malted grains which were dried at a temperature considered low enough to not kill the enzymes.
Around my parts, the only place I know to get bulk local grains is the feed auctions (for animal feed... not sure how it'd be for human consumption).
You might also see if there's a local health food co-op, as many of them sell bulk foods, and you might be able to get them to sell you whatever the unit is that they purchase in. (this won't necessarily be local, though).
Also, all supermarkets are different -- I remember being in one near the California Ave station near Stanford University, and they had a sort of grind-as-you-need-it dispensor for flour. (sort of like some of the ones that have a coffee grinder)
+1 for co-ops. Places like Montana Wheat ship to local groups around the USA. It's not local, but it does support local business.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.744350 | 2010-09-14T14:47:35 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7282",
"authors": [
"Ben Neill",
"Björn Pollex",
"Joe",
"Peter Turner",
"Rob",
"Sobachatina",
"anterys",
"drnewman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14928",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14932",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14934",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14965",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"justkt",
"noexit",
"wdypdx22"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
25591 | Canning in a Pressure Cooker
Well, unfortunately the present my mom got me last Christmas turned out to be a pressure cooker and not a pressure canner. I've read that it is unsafe to can low acid foods using a pressure cooker.
But is it safe to can high acid foods in a pressure cooker? I'd like to do this because it uses a lot less water and a lot less energy than boiling water canning.
Does a pressure cooker actually cook to a lower temperature than a pressure canner? (My pressure cooker just has two settings (high and low) and I don't know what the PSI is on them.
Pressure cookers and pressure canners are the same thing; with the canners being larger, and often having a pressure dial. Both can reach the same pressures and therefore temperatures if designed and manufactured correctly
The pressure canners dial gauge is more accurate for adjusting for food types and altitude, as you can get exact numbers not just 10 psi and 15 psi as with typical weight regulated pressure cookers. But for low acid foods you need 15 psi anyway
Pressure preserving is done because of the higher temperatures reached. This saves time and energy, and some food react better to a short 250°F (120°C) cook that an long 210°F (100°C) cook
Pressure preserving high acid food is worth doing as long as the food does not deteriorate quicker due to the high temperature (some soft fruits will)
For preserving low acid foods you need a known good pressure cooker that can reach 15 psi (103 Pa) and therefore 250°F (120°C)
With a commercially published recipe that has been acid level tested, you will have a published time that will be safe. For a home-made recipe you have to take the worst case scenario for the acid level of the main content, and cook for that. Your local government health department will most likely publish tables for this that you should be using. Remember to use altitude adjustments for timings too
Just relying on adding a teaspoon of vinegar or lemon juice per jar is not a safe and scientific method for raising the acid level, though many people do it, and have not come to any trouble with it?
You pressure cooker should come with a manual that confirms what it can or cannot do. Download a new copy if this has been lost
Also see What kinds of pressure cookers are there, and what are they good for?
Good answer but that is 10 psi and 15 psi. Unless you use a different definition of "pound" down there. :)
For low acid foods the high and low settings are a problem. You really need to know what pressures those are.
You have to get to 15 PSI which will give you a boiling temperature of about 250F. Anything less and it won't get hot enough to kill botulism spores.
For most high acid foods the pressure cooker will be overkill. Most high acid foods such as fruit and jams process for only 10 minutes. At those small times there is not much water last and a pressure cooker will not save much time. Additionally the unnecessarily high temperature would damage the fruit.
Tomato sauce is an exception as it boils for much longer. In this case a pressure canner is actually preferred as cooking the sauce for 10 minutes will do less damage than the 30-45 that is required for a water bath.
Keep in mind that pure tomato sauce is not acidic enough to be processed with a boiling water bath. Extra acidification is required to be safe.
The above link has a table with cooking times for various pressures and altitudes. Your canner should be perfectly safe- if you are able to determine what the actual pressure it uses is.
The pressure cooker cooks just fine at medium low on the stove and requires only 2-3 inches of water, none of which boils off or gets nasty. Boiling water canners have tons of water evaporate. (Also, I didn't say I'm cooking fruit, I'm doing tomato sauce, which requires a lengthy stay in the water).
From a quick search, I think you might mean 250F, not 150F.
@Jefromi- you are quite right. Oops.
@PeterTurner- Indeed tomato sauce is an exception. In that case the pressure canner is actually preferred because even though it is at the higher temp it only cooks for 10 minutes instead of 30-45 so there is less damage. I'll amend my answer for your exceptional circumstances.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.744621 | 2012-08-10T19:50:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25591",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"J Poupard",
"Jennyntn",
"Kevin Burke",
"Lynn Kramer",
"Martill",
"Peter Turner",
"Sobachatina",
"Sonu",
"Tzelema",
"alvion",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58631",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58634",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58637",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58639",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58676",
"jessica"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
7260 | What is the easiest way to shred chicken?
Usually I will just cook it and then tear it to pieces using two forks, but this is still pretty time consuming. Are there any secret ways to easily do this?
Once it's cooled down some, I switch to using my hands ... expecially as it helps to find any bones, globs of fat, etc. I find it goes much faster, particularly if you're dealing with anything other than boneless breast meat.
... but it shreds easiest while it's still warm, so if I'm doing a fair bit, I'll break a bit apart using forks, let that cool, break some more apart with a fork, then shread the first bit before it cools too much, repeat. (so basically, I have one set broken down somewhat to cool faster while I'm shreding an already-cooled off bit).
update as justkt mentioned, the cooking method matters -- roasting and other high heat methods are going to cook the outside faster than the inside. I typically poach my chicken if I'm going to be shreding it -- bring water to a boil, add chicken, bring back to a boil, turn to low, then leave for an hour or two ... the low temp gets it all nice and tender, while the boiling kills surface bacteria.
Sometimes getting your hands dirty is the best way!
Boiling the chicken is the easiest cooking method to prep for shredding. Searing and baking make it a lot more difficult.
I too go with a combination of the two forks and hands (depending on what seems easier at the moment) method.
Good point on the cooking method -- I poach mine.
@Joe - noticed a related question says to simmer in a crock pot on low, which sounds similar to your method.
Similar, but I like to start it boiling, to kill surface bacteria. The low heat, however, gives you a wider range to keep from overcooking the chicken, so it comes out soft & easy to shred.
I recently picked up a pair of Bear Paw Meat Handlers and they actually work quite well for this if you can't wait for the meat to cool down. Hope this helps someone!
Update:
I ended up purchasing some insulated latex cooking gloves which allows me to use my hands even when it's right out of the oven. This is the best method I have found by far!
One method is to use a stand mixer. Put the meat in with the paddle attachment and pulse for a few seconds at a time until shredded.
I just use my hand mixer while it's still hot takes me about 30 seconds!
That sounds like a novel approach. Would you mind sharing specifics Kristi?
Presumably fairly similar to Bri's suggestion of using a stand mixer.
If I'm shredding it for soup (mmm, tortilla soup), I just use a stick blender.
Boil the chicken and then shred it with two forks.
There are already two answers which say this.
The original question even says this....
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.745216 | 2010-09-14T01:03:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7260",
"authors": [
"Angie",
"Brh",
"Caryl Johnson",
"Cascabel",
"Chris",
"Chris L",
"Dante",
"Joe",
"Joel Huebner",
"Kayla Holbay",
"Nate Glenn",
"Norm Stansfield",
"Subhtrance",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14847",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14848",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14849",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43497",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62775",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81786",
"justkt",
"sports zilla"
],
"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
} |
13096 | Why is there a difference between softened and melted butter when baking?
I once tried to make some cookies and assumed that melted butter would be the same as softened butter. It didn't work out...
Why does it make a difference if you use softened or melted butter? Seems like it all ends up the same if you beat it into a recipe...
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3168/is-it-possible-to-make-cookies-without-creaming-the-butter
Chemistry and science. Its annoying but its complex.
Basically, when recipies call for softened butter, they use the creaming method; the sugar and butter are mixed together in such a way that the sugar cuts little air bubbles into the butter. These little bubbles can add some extra puff to the cookies.
If you melt the butter first, not only do you not have those air bubbles, but there's water in butter, so you'll end up getting some gluten development when you mix in the flour and make a chewy cookie ... but more importatly, without the fat being (near) solid, the cookie will slump a lot more, and spread out before it cooks (assuming you haven't otherwise adjusted the recipe to compensate).
There are cookie recipes that call for melted butter; compare the three recipies from the "Three Chips for Sister Martha" episode of Good Eats; the "chewy" cookie uses melted butter.
To make it even more complicated, the Cooks Illustrated Best New Recipe cookbook, after much testing, decided that their best chewy chocolate chip cookies came out after melting and then bringing the temperature of the butter back to cool/room temp (not refrigerated). This is probably so the texture is chewy, but they're brought back to "softened" to reduce spread. I tried it this weekend, and they were right - those cookies were the perfect texture, size, and shape.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.745598 | 2011-03-14T01:39:41 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13096",
"authors": [
"Akash",
"Barfieldmv",
"Cary Bondoc",
"Joe",
"Nate Eldredge",
"TheBluegrassMathematician",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27132",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27141",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"stephennmcdonald"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
19183 | Will liquid keep longer if I boil it and then leave the lid on?
Basically I boiled a turkey carcass on Thanksgiving night for about an hour. I then turned off the heat and left the lid on (never took it off). Since then it has been sitting on my stove for the last three days. I popped off the lid just now and everything smelled fine. I believe I've heard that food prepared and stored in this manner will keep for quite a while without spoiling. Is this true?
If both foodstuff and cooking vessel are heated fully and tightly sealed, you may sterilize them well enough to delay spoilage. It is not safe to rely on this, because it is easy to compromise the seal. You can't be sure the lid of the pot got hot enough to sterilize it too, and escaping steam will open the lid slightly, allowing outside air in. Once contaminated, warm broth and meat are a perfect growth medium for bacteria.
The safer approach is opt for fast cooling in an ice water bath with the lid off to allow steam to escape, followed by prompt refrigeration. This gets the food out of the temperature danger zone (40-140F) where bacteria multiply rapidly, and doesn't rely on maintaining a sterile environment in your pot.
Sous vide cooking is an exception: with a sealed bag, you're recreating Louis Pasteur's famous proof of the germ theory. In his experiments, he sealed boiled broth in containers that prevented dust particles (carrying microorganisms) from contaminating them. The sealed containers did not spoil. Of course, this ignores the problem of botulism: the spores aren't killed, even at a full boil, and can then germinate and start to multiply. This (and similar pathogens) are why sous vide foods do not have infinite shelf life in their bags.
I agree, I never trust meat, or things made with meat, that sits out at room temperature for too long.
Just to clarify BobMcGee's point about toxic spores: Even if you re-boil the liquid at this point you are not guaranteed that it will be safe because toxins could have been produced by bacteria that will not be destroyed at boiling temperature. Therefore, I would suggest that you throw out the entire batch.
No. It is more likely to be a petri dish than safe to eat. Leaving the lid on does not keep microbes from re-entering the environment once it has cooled.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.745794 | 2011-11-28T00:45:33 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19183",
"authors": [
"ESultanik",
"Michael R. Bailey",
"Mike Marseglia",
"TeamHal",
"gloomy.penguin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41706",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41709",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41719",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8054",
"octaviolet",
"pharris"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
19020 | Is it reasonable to expect "spiciness" to fry off?
I got in a "heated" discussion with my wife this evening about a fried turkey recipe that I want to try for Thanksgiving. It calls for:
1 cup of Creole seasoning
1/2 cup of black pepper
1/2 cup of Cayenne pepper
all mixed with a bottle of a bottle of italian dressing, which I will admit sounds pretty damn spicy. But after readying the reviews it seems like everyone says the heat cooks off and the bird comes out delicious.
It it reasonable to expect that the spiciness will fry off during the cooking process or am I going to ruin (another) Thanksgiving?
If you are worried: a fast and cheap way to test the mixture is to to try it on a piece of chicken breast.
Capsaicin, the molecules that make chilis hot, is soluble in oil. So when you're cooking something spicy in oil - you're most definitely taking away a lot of the heat into the oil. This is assuming you're going to fry the turkey. If you're not...good luck ;)
So yes, the recipe isn't that insane, it should be reduced in heat. Like soegaard says though, test on a piece of chicken first and then fry that piece.
For that matter when roasting with basting the baste liquid contains a fair amount of fat---but not as much as in deep frying, of course.
Ok so i got a whole chicken to try the recipe out on. It is 1/3 of the weight mentioned in the recipe, so should I just do 1/3 the ingredients and cooking time? Will 1/3 the cooking time give the spiciness less time to cook off?
Eek, you didn't have to get a whole chicken to test, a piece would have been fine. 1/3 of the ingredients is probably in the right neighborhood. As far as cooking goes, at 350 F degree oil, I believe its 4-5 minutes a pound.
Nothing wrong with having a whole fried chicken for dinner @rfusca ;)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.746033 | 2011-11-20T05:46:54 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19020",
"authors": [
"Bob Brown",
"Brh",
"Raincloudt",
"dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41277",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41289",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41297",
"rfusca",
"user3111",
"user41277",
"user55111"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
25663 | Smoked a chicken and the skin came out like boot leather
I recently decided to smoke and entire chicken so I dropped it in and kept the smoker around 225-250 for about 4 hours. I went in and sprayed it down with a little apple juice and vegatable oil every hour or so. The meat came out delicious and tender, but the skin was so tough it was not edible.
What can I do differently to keep the skin from getting so tough?
Take cheesecloth and soak it in melted butter and drape it over the bird before you put it in the smoker. This will protect the skin during the long slow smoking process. You may want to pull the cheesecloth off about 30 minutes before you are done. This will give you a nice golden brown skin that is not leathery.
I first read of doing this with a smoked turkey, but tried it with a chicken and it comes out great.
That's often how the normal Thanksgiving-roasted turkey's skin is kept edible, as well, so I'd call it tried and true.
First thing I would recommend is not spraying down the skin with the oil/apple juice mixture. There is plenty of fat in chicken skin. No need to add more. And spraying the skin will just keep it from rendering out the unwanted fat and other tissue, thus preventing it from crisping.
The other thing I would suggest is to turn the heat up on the chicken. Low heat + smoke = rubbery and tough skin. I do a lot of barbecue, and I never find any compelling reasons to do chicken low and slow, unless I want to make pulled chicken, at which point the skin is useless to me anyway. I prefer to make chicken in the 325f range, as it turns out much better skin at that temperature. You can even get away with cooking at a lower temperature, then cranking the heat up to finish the skin.
Finally, I would suggest ensuring that the surface of the skin is very dry, and has been salted (not heavily, just a bit), before putting it on the cooker. This, too, improves skin texture.
The TL;DR version:
Quit messing with it while it's cooking.
Turn the heat up.
Dry and salt the skin before cooking.
225-250 is too low a temperature for chicken. Chicken doesn't benefit from "low and slow" cooking, because it doesn't contain connective tissue that needs to be broken down, and the skin needs a higher temperature to crisp.
Here is a page from Virtual Weber Bullet which talks about how to get a crisp skin while smoking. They recommend cooking at 300 degrees F.
I can confirm that hot & fast is the way to go. I just smoked my first chicken using advice from this thread, and it came out perfect. Our guest said it was the best chicken she had ever eaten. Specifically: Pellet grill set for 350. Chicken spatchcocked, coated with olive oil, and rubbed with Lawry's Poultry rub. Roasted with remote thermometer in breast to internal temp of 165. Didn't open the grill till it was done.
I know this answer says it uses advice from others, but it also seems self-contained - it suggests hot and fast as opposed to what the OP did, and adds specifics. So, doesn't seem clearly like a reply to anything, and does answer the question in my book.
Chicken breasts don't benefit from low and slow. Try using a brown sugar rub on skinless thighs and smoke for 3 hours at 225F/107C. You won't care about skin after you taste that.
Actually, that isn't really answering the question, is it? But an alternative, admittedly. Welcome to the site!
I actually did the low and slow to allow the meat to absorb the smoke while slowly cooking to correct temperature. I changed the temperature up and down 220-300 to allow for 3 hours in the smoker without over cooking. I stopped the smoking in the 155 degree area to allow me to put on direct flame. It even flamed up to the chicken giving me the slight char and crispy skin we all want.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.746223 | 2012-08-14T22:27:01 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25663",
"authors": [
"Andrea Evans",
"Cascabel",
"Cormac Moore",
"Iron Fry Fan",
"Karan Gupta",
"Nancico",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Stephie",
"Tish Cesena Mstishc",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146150",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58837",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58849",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58859",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61339",
"omotolani",
"xDaizu"
],
"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
} |
25850 | What is the lowest and slowest way I can bake pork ribs?
I am leaving for about 7-8 hours and I was wondering if it's possible to pop the ribs in the oven before I leave and have them come out super tender. Ive seen some recipes that suggest 250 for three hours. Can I go even lower and leave them in for longer?
Also: is it bad to have the oven going (even at a low temp) if I'm not at the house?
Not really an answer, but the traditional way people do long cooking while they're away is braising in a slow cooker.
To achieve "done" pork ribs should reach an internal temp of 160°F (71ºC). The longer it takes to get there be more tender they will be. I would not recommend going any lower than 200°F (93ºC) for your cooking temp, even if that means turning the heat up a little at the end to reach your internal temp of 160°F. Put a good rub on, wrap the racks of ribs (individually) in aluminum foil, with some beer or cola in there (or other braising liquid) and let them go. For a video of how to do this watch this episode of "Good Eats" All of that said, I have never tried to let the ribs go 7 hours unattended, so I would try it when you have the time to hang around and monitor the internal temp, again looking for 160°F internal temp and that will give you a means to determine what is "done".
Note to readers without an account who think that the temperatures cited here are incorrect: You should post your own answer (we mods can also convert it to a comment if it is very closely related to this post). Our editing function should not be used to change the meaning of a post. If you disagree with the author, putting your opinion into his post is misleading. Just explain it in your own post.
I use this guy's technique for grilling ribs, which calls for 5-6 hours at 225°F (105°C) on a grill or smoker (3-4 hours for baby backs). I've done them many times this way and they're absolutely delicious. I don't see any problem at all upping that to 7 hours and lowering the temp to 200°F (95°C). I wouldn't wrap them in foil or add liquid, but I probably would tent them with foil.
And assuming you have a modern gas or electric stove, there should be no problem leaving it on while you're away. People do that the world over every day.
Well, by far the "lowest and slowest" technique out there is sous vide. (Basically, cooking in a precisely controlled temperature water bath.) The typical way to do this involves three steps:
Marinate, rub, and/or smoke your meat (optional). Smoking is often preferred since the meat won't go on a grill for a long time, and it helps get that rich flavor you'll want.
Vacuum seal the meat and drop it in your circulating water bath for a long time. Typical temperatures for the water are 135-160 F, with times ranging from 8 to 48 hours. [See: low and slooooow]
Finish the ribs over very high heat very briefly—just enough to sear the outside.
The advantages of the technique include ultra-tender, medium-cooked meat that's relatively easy to get "right". Highly recommended.
There are many recipes out there (Google "sous vide ribs"). This one, for example, seems good without too much fuss. Of course, you should use your own recipe for the rub and sauce if you've got a favorite!
It really depends on the amount of ribs you are cooking, the more meat, the more time - 1hour to 1 hour 20 min per pound works well, when cooking at 200 degrees. I have many times put 4-6 racks in the oven and baked them through the night(deep hotel pan, tightly wrapped foil), no salt, just plenty of seasonings (without salt) they held the texture nicely but were moist and the meat could fall off the bone with little effort. Then salt at the last minute before you serve while on the grill. (salt draws moisture out) My longest cook time thus far has been 13+ hours at 200 degrees. Usually 5-6 hours works for only 2-3 small racks you just want them to be nice and tender but not falling apart so much that they cannot hold their shape while on the grill.
If you drop the cooking temperature low enough, you should be able to let the ribs cook for 7-8 hours. At 225f or 250f, I would be worried about coming home to a mushy mess, but at 200f it should be about right. You definitely do not want to foil your ribs. That will speed the cooking process, which you do not want. I would be pretty hesitant to cook a roast or a whole animal at such a low temperature, as the volume of meat that is away from the surface could keep the interior at unsafe temperatures for too long, but with ribs there should be no safety issue.
A couple things- 1- Cooking at a higher temp won't turn the meat to mush- it will make it cook too quickly, won't melt collagen, and might overcook. 2- Foil slows the cooking process considerably because only conducted and not radiant heat reaches the food. It also keeps the meat from drying.
"and might overcook." Which will turn the meat to much. Foil does not slow the cooking process. It can keep the very exterior of the meat from drying, but it also will speed the cooking of the meat. It negates the evaporative cooling effect, which is a condition that impedes the rise of the meat's internal temperature.
I have empirically tested this often with turkey. Turkey meat covered with foil will be somewhere around 20 deg F cooler than meat right next to it with no foil.
I love slow cooked baby-back-ribs. Yesterday, about eight hours before my company arrived, I preheated my oven to 350 degrees. I then took the baby-back-ribs out of the package and removed the membrane. I then put on a store bought dry rub and sealed the ribs in aluminum foil. I also did the same thing with a package of fajitas, except I used fajita seasoning.
I put the meat on a rack in the hot oven and turned down the oven to 170 degrees. I left it alone for seven-and-a-half hours. I then took the meat out of the oven and poured off the liquid in the foil. I took the meat out of the foil and put BBQ sauce on the ribs and then put the meat on a rack in the oven and set the oven to broil. When I got the degree of char I wanted, I took the meat out of the oven and let it rest for ten minutes.
Both cuts of meat were very tender. The ribs did not fall off the bone, but were firmly attached. You had pick up the bone and eat the meat off the bone. If you want the meat to fall off the bone, soak the meat in a marinade overnight.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.746581 | 2012-08-25T15:39:34 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25850",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Corey Franklin",
"Dana A.",
"Jonas Feeley",
"Lillie",
"Lisa Franklin",
"Mary Lou Walsh",
"Sean Hart",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104452",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137311",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59309",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59311",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59317",
"millan",
"rumtscho",
"user59310"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
7608 | What does it mean to 'salt' a steak prior to frying?
I see some references on this site to 'salting' a steak before frying it. What does this mean? Should I coat the steak in salt? I can imagine that would result in a very salty steak!
I just want to add that you can definitely oversalt a steak with coarse salt. Coarseness itself does help you salt less, but if you're using sea salt, it's going to be too salty. For steaks, kosher salt (that are pyramidal or crstalline in shape) is the way to go. It's less salty than coarse sea salt per pinch. I found this out the hard way (I was using coarse sea salt for my steaks, and indeed they turned out too salty.)
Yes that's exactly what it means, apply salt to the steak. You shouldn't coat it, but you should apply salt very liberally. It's actually hard to over-salt a steak; many inexperienced cooks actually underseason the steak.
I suggest about 1 tsp per side for a good ribeye. Salt it about 10-15 minutes prior.
Does this not result in extremely salty steak though? I like a shake of salt on my steak, but too much salt on anything ruins it. If I remember correctly from physics, salt doesn't cook (i.e. burn) away.. But if I understand you correctly, I'll give it a try! I noticed you wrote in an answer to another question, you suggested "dip it in a mixture of melted clarified butter and oil". What does 'clarified' mean in terms of the butter - melted? What kind of oil?
@DaveDev See this question for how to make clarified butter: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/1827
@DaveDev: Use kosher or coarse salt. It's almost impossible to make something too salty if you apply kosher salt to the surface. And you're right that salt doesn't cook, but it does dissolve into the liquids of the steak, and more significantly if you're pan-cooking, the excess will stick to the pan, not the steak!
@Harlan, I second that. You can only apply salt liberally if you're using kosher salt, not sea salt. I know they're both NaCl, and per unit mass, they amount to the same thing, but kosher salt is generally less salty per pinch than sea salt.
I'm confused. I don't put any seasoning on my steak. This is wrong? I also grill them. This is wrong as well? I read you can't get a proper "crust" unless you pan fry them? I still think all that salt would ruin them, not to mention it's just not healthy. I find my unseasoned, grilled steaks to be flippin' delicious. When I recently told a friend I don't season my steaks, he said, "What are you? A savage?" Perhaps I am.
@raven, who says that salt is unhealthy?
It may not be after all.
When my father makes a prime rib, he's started to use the "encrust it in rock salt" method of cooking it. I will tell you that it does not make the prime rib overly salty. I was personally shocked that it didn't when I saw how much salt went onto it. You can get an idea from this video
Kenji recommends a minimum of 40 minutes, and has the evidence to back it up: http://www.seriouseats.com/2012/05/how-to-grill-a-steak-guide-food-lab.html and http://www.seriouseats.com/2011/03/the-food-lab-more-tips-for-perfect-steaks.html
The steak won't absorb the salt, so even if you over do it the result won't be nearly as bad as you think, you'll only have a salty residue on the exterior of the steak. Benefits of salting before you cook:
Some of the moisture in the meat will be pulled out by the salt, and help to concentrate the flavors of the steak
Having salt on the exterior helps the transfer of heat and creating a crust that forms on the outside of the steak.
Salting the steak isn't just about making it taste salty - although a bit of saltiness is great for the flavour. If you salt your steak in advance of cooking, the salt starts to change some of the proteins in it and this can lead to improved tenderness and juiciness.
However, this article at Serious Eats: The Food Lab: More Tips For Perfect Steaks talks about salting time, and explains how you have to either salt your meat immediately before cooking, or leave it for a significant period of time to allow the salt to have its effect. I'm not going to repeat that content here, but I've done both and there definitely is a difference if you salt your steak and leave it for 40 minutes before you cook it, noticeable all the way through the meat.
But be careful, it is possible to over-salt the meat especially if you're using table salt. I haven't figured out exactly why that's the case, but it does seem to be. The most obvious reason is that by volume, table salt weighs a lot heavier than kosher or flaked salt because it packs more densely, and most people salt by volume...
I thickly coat the steak in salt for an hour, then rinse it off. Works great.
Read this, it will clear up all the mystery:
How to Make Steak Tender (http://www.ehow.com/how_4539892_make-steak-tender.html)
The first step to make steak tender is to pile on the kosher or sea salt. You want the steaks to be completely saturated in the kosher salt. Salt pulls moisture out of the meat and then dissolves some of the salt, absorbing it back into the meat. The salt relaxes the proteins in the meat, resulting in a tender, juicy steak. So don't worry about how much kosher salt you put on. You want around 1/2 teaspoon per steak, possibly more if your steaks are really thick. If your steaks are thinner, use less.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.747104 | 2010-09-25T22:51:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7608",
"authors": [
"Beverly Esco",
"DaveDev",
"Fauxcuss",
"Gilead",
"Harlan",
"Jan",
"Joe Miller",
"Josephine Rodarte",
"JustRightMenus",
"Murshid Ahmed",
"Orkun Koçyiğit",
"Ray",
"Yep",
"Zaxy13",
"clyde",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113881",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113883",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1366",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15639",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2592",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40762",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6170",
"mbenezet13",
"raven"
],
"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
} |
27763 | How to thicken a white wine sauce to drizzle over prawns?
I'm thinking of making a white wine sauce which will consist of
White wine
chopped garlic
squeeze of lemon
(maybe) mixed herbs.
What I have in mind is something that will pour with the consistency of a thick oil, but if I just add these components together it'll pour like water. What is the best way to thicken this so that it remains relatively clear and the taste of each component above isn't masked with the thickener?
I'd just simmer and thus reduce it. No added thickener required.
If you want it to stay clear your best bet is xanthan gum but you really need a proper scales to use that stuff because you only add around 0.4% to 0.7% of the weight of the liquid you're trying to thicken. Best thing is that at such low concentrations there is little to no masking of the flavours of your sauce.
I'd use arrowroot powder. It works well with acidity, doesn't add much in the way of flavor, and gels at a low temperature.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.747565 | 2012-10-12T10:51:16 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27763",
"authors": [
"Bernie",
"Josh Lindenger",
"N0FaC3",
"Zhyll Perdon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62749",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62750",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62751",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62752",
"kursat sonmez"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
47253 | How to cook a 2-inch thick steak to medium?
I have a striploin steak that's about 2 inches thick. I'm going to sear it in a hot pan on all sides. And then put it in the oven to cook it.
I want it to come out medium to medium-well.
How long do I need to bake it for and at what temperature?
I think this question is hard to answer exactly. The easiest way to estimate the duration of the steak in the oven is to cook the steak at ~260°C and after >3 minutes each side (altogether >6 minutes) and then measure the inner temperature of the steak. 57-60°C should be medium rare. Of course this his method requires a thermometer. (source: here and here).
@ChingChong It's fine to post things like that as answers - though it sure seems like there must be something we can close this as a duplicate of. "You need a thermometer" is pretty common advice.
Okay. I'm always unsure whether my advice "I don't know, the common way to do is is this workaround: ..." should be an answer (which doesn't really answers the question) or a comment.
Some restaurants slow cook with a timer, put the steak on ice and then brown it on the grill before serving it. I don't know how they stop it from drying. Basting with honey might work. Or pre-cook in a bag as per the question I just noticed.
I think this question is hard to answer exactly. The easiest way to estimate the duration of the steak in the oven is to cook the steak at ~260°C and after >3 minutes each side (altogether >6 minutes) to measure the inner temperature of the steak. 57-60°C should be medium rare. Of course this his method requires a thermometer. (source: here and here)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.747692 | 2014-09-19T16:05:20 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47253",
"authors": [
"Caroline Knorr",
"Cascabel",
"Ching Chong",
"Cynthia Barnes",
"Hiram Patrenos",
"Peter Wone",
"angela austin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31479"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
76459 | when to add the curry powder
I heard that if I put the curry powder early, the cooking heat will destroy the flavour, and that it should be put at the end, before turning off the heat
but I can't find anywhere on the internet confirmation for this statement.
is that true ? when is the best time to put the curry powder ?
None of these is categorically true. Adding it early or late will give different flavor, adding it at the very end of cooking will usually leave you with an unpleasant raw spice taste unless it is a roasted variety of curry powder.
It does make a big difference whether the powder is added into oil, water, or an emulsion.
For the most "complete" flavor, add it twice - part goes in the oil when your aromatics are mostly done, before adding bulk liquids; part goes in a few minutes before taking the dish off the heat (optionally bloomed in oil).
Most spices in curry powder are oil soluable, not just in oil, but oil that you are actively heating, ie: frying. the trick is not to burn your spices. You will need to place your curry powder in with your browned onions, on a slightly lowered heat, ensuring that you have sufficient oil for the job in hand. If your spices start to clump or are cooking too uickly, use small amounts of water and continue to cook, the water will soon evaporate. If you add your powder at the end of your cooking process it will result in a bitter, grainy and unpalatable product.
I'd say "it depends". It depends on the time and temperature.
Usually you use high heat to brown your food and then you use a lower heat to finish cooking. Add the curry when you lower the heat to avoid burning the curry.
It's probably similar to how you would treat saffron
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.747952 | 2016-12-14T08:27:25 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76459",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
33300 | How to fry carnitas?
I am looking for a good way to prepare carnitas. So far I have tried putting the pork in a slow cooker all day, shredding the meat and then pan frying it in one side in .5 inch of oil for about 2 minutes. This was ok, but the meat seemed a little chewy.
Can anyone recommend a good frying technique that will leave the meat crispy on the outside and tender everywhere else?
Note: I fried in vegetable oil on high heat in a cast iron skillet
If the meat is chewy on the inside after a day in the slow cooker, this sounds like not enough collagen in your cut to start with.
Oh interesting. I used a pork butt, is that the right cut?
Pork butt should be ideal for this application.
My preference both in terms of less total fat and working with it is a shoulder cut.
Just FYI, pork butt IS shoulder.
Kenji Alt has devoted one of his Food Lab columns to carnitas.
The key to his method is he cooks the pork in a manner akin to confit, under fat in the oven. This low and slow method makes it tender and flavorful.
Then, he broils it before service to crisp up.
I absolutely agree about cooking under fat for a long time. I've found you can also do this on the stovetop with low heat, if you prefer that for some reason. (A saucepan full of pork fat and meat, slowly softening on the stove is really tempting though... you may find yourself snacking on it as it cooks.) Definitely broil to crisp, though.
Yes on broil. Noticed it on America's Test Kitchen to achieve crispy edges. (Show site requires registration, link is to blog which reproduced it.) Note they try orange instead, which is occasionally fun, too.
When I make carnitas, I generally use my oven. I take a pork butt and slice it to the bone in about 3/4 to 1/2 inch widths, then I coat the whole thing in lard, making sure to work the lard down into those slices that you just cut. Season as per whichever recipe you're using (mine is just some salt and lime, served wtih pico and beans later), and pop into the oven low and slow (250-275ish for a couple hours or so does it for me). You want to do this in a small vessel that barely fits your pork butt like a dutch oven or something, unless you're filling your deep fryer with lard to do this, but I use my oven
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.748118 | 2013-04-07T17:15:41 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33300",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Brh",
"Desmondo",
"Jolenealaska",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sharona",
"SoulPleumz",
"dkaeae",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77182",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77265",
"joebudwiser3",
"rumtscho",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
69133 | Possible to thicken gravy without flour or cornstarch?
I'm on a diet where I can't eat a number of things that I would typically use to make gravy, specifically corn and flour. I'm planning on roasting a chicken tonight and I was thinking it would be great to have some gravy to go along with it.
Is there anything I can use to thicken the drippings besides cornstarch/flour?
Note:
I am also not eating potatoes, soy or dairy so I can't substitute with those either.
Besides the things already mentioned, consider the serving the temperature -- many thickeners lose their power at higher temps, so cooling off the gravy will make it thicker. (starches, gelatin, etc.)
Just noting that a thickening agent isn't always needed. The first time I cooked kidneys (using the recipe from Joy of Cooking), I was suitably impressed that the liquid thickened as the wine hit it. I can't vouch for why, but I've been assuming it was the result of the wine hitting juices that contained an unusually large amount of blood.
you can serve the chicken drippings as is, as well.
Another thickener that is readily available is gelatin. This has the added advantage that its free of carbohydrate (if you are avoiding that).
Consider the use of gums, which are essentially thickening agents.
Xanthan gum, a bacterial byproduct, can be used to thicken sauces. Here is an example of using xanthan + [pectin] (a plant sugar gelling agent) to thicken a vegan demi-glace.
A traditional demi-glace has gelatin from the breakdown of collagen (from animal bones), which is how it achieves a thicker consistency even when hot.
Tapioca Starch
- Add at the very end of cooking, it works quickly and has a pretty neutral flavour. You don't it to spend much/any time over heat. If you can't find it in your typical grocery store, you should be able to find in a typical Asian grocery store/aisle. I use this often when I have Celiac friends over.
Arrrowroot powder
- More stable than other thickenners. Apparently doesn't cooperate with milk (which isn't a problem for you). Use the same as Tapioca, add at the end of cooking. Also a pretty neutral flavour.
Others (I don't know much about these, just that they exist).
- Glutinous Rice Flour
- Lotus Root
More info:
- http://www.foodsubs.com/ThickenStarch.html
You can use cooked dry beans. I use baby Lima's, canned or freshly cooked. Do not rinse away the starch after you cook them. Cream them in a blender or food processor, place them in a skillet and add some of the drippings until it reaches the consistency you like then season, simmer and strain.
I'm diabetic so I cannot eat those things either. Often, I will use almond flour for a thickening agent (it's just crushed almonds into flour form). You may want to visit diabetic sites (even if you do not have it), because they have figured out substitutes for a slew of foods. Not all will be perfect substitutes, though.
..and low carb websites
Paulb makes an excellent point that I should expound on. When I said to visit diabetic sites, I meant diabetic forums. I would steer clear of the American Diabetic Association and HealthGrades if you are doing a low carb diet. Neither organization promotes a low carb lifestyle. I'd stick to the groups that have a proven track record of maintaining a low carb diet.
Chickpea flour is delicious. Make a slurry with water and whisk it into the juices. It is perfect for savory dishes. Find it at Indian. Grocers, it's called besan or gram flour. Also makes delicious savory crackers.
Onion based sauces can be self thickening to a reasonable extent, here you need to first fry off a good quantity of chopped onions at a fairly high temperature, enough to get a good golden brown colour without burning them and then add a little liquid (a dash of vinegar also helps the process) and then slowly stew them for a good long time adding more liquid as necessary so that they break down almost completely with a bit of seasoning this is a decent sauce in itself, you can strain out any remaining solid onion bits if you wish but this is not essential or if you are not using any other thickener you can also liquidise at this point to add more body. You can then add the meat juices for more flavor, and as mentioned the gelatin in these will also thicken the sauce as it cools.
Also if you cook chicken often you can make a stick by boiling the leftover carcass for a few hours with carrots, celery, onion and herbs, strain the broth and it can be stored for several days in the fridge or it can be frozen and can be used as a base for your next chicken sauce/gravy.
Other vegetables can be cooked & blended with the liquid to add body. Besides the obvious (potato), carrots & califlower might work for this use.
One thing not mentioned yet is egg yolk but maybe it would add too much of its own flavour (and also, be careful not to overheat as it will scramble).
Some powdered spices like mustard and ginger will also act as mild thickeners. Whether the added flavor is a side benefit or an issue depends on the recipe and personal taste.
You could also look at lecithin, which is an emulsifier, which means it will cause the oils and water-based liquids in the gravy to bond together and it can lead to more of a mayonaise consistency if you add too much. It looks like most lecithin is soy-based.
By roasting a chicken you already have all the ingredients for a rich and delicious gravy.
The need to create an amazing reduction, which is often my first choice when it comes to a massive impact of flavor, and a heady delight for the pallate.
Once the bird is finished, remove it from the pan and deglaze the pan with a little white wine, in your case vegetable stock will work very nicely.
Over low heat, use a wooden spoon or other implement that will not damage your cookware and gently scrape all the brown bits and caramelised goodies from the pan and work them into the liquid.
The broth can be poured into a saute pan at this point to improve the efficiency and speed of the final process.
Raise the heat to a rapid boil and while frequently stirring, reduce the mixture by two thirds.
Taste along the way for intensiy as the reduction will become quite potent, and do your seasoning at the end.
If you find the flavor too intense, just add (mount with) tiny ammounts of vegetable stock until the taste is to your liking.
If you really must have a Bechamel like texture to your sauce, you might want to look into using a product like Agar Agar however, be careful to use very small amounts lest you end up with pan dripping Jello to serve along side your beautiful bird.
Who knows, it might be a terrific side dish!
Note: I am afraid to lose this post again, so for intel, google... diabetic concerns with agar agar
You will find everything you need to know to put your mind and tummy at ease.
Good eats!
John
You could easily use glucomanan (konjac root) powder. It thickens quickly when either blended, heated, or both. When added to a smoothie or cold liquid, you blend it in a blender with 1/2 tsp of powder to a blender of liquid until it thickens, and for a hot liquid you whisk it with a balloon whisk whilst gently heating until it thickens.
My mother routinely substitutes flour with breadcrumbs (easier on the stomach, handy if you have leftover bread, you can also choose type of bread to match your dietary restrictions). It's not as smooth (more gritty), but it does thicken. Another similar option is roughly blended and simmered squash (zucchini/whatever similar plant). It adds to the taste, and it prevents the gravy from being too runny. However, it's a bit sloshy (consistency of snow/water mixture), which may not be ideal for your taste.
Colagen is also a natural thickener (which is why meat-based gravies such as goulash are somewhat thick without additional thickeners). If you don't plan to use colagen-rich parts of meat, you can just buy gelatin.
Regarding using breadcrumbs: bread is made with flour, so if flour is a health issue, that may be something to avoid.
@josephuser Which is presumably why the answer says "you can also choose type of bread to match your dietary restrictions". But it may indeed be hard if soy and corn are also excluded.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.748373 | 2016-05-20T20:42:44 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/69133",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Joe",
"Paulb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45897",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"jesephuser",
"keshlam",
"njzk2"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
49508 | Possible to cook chestnuts on a wood burning stove?
I know that if you have the right kind of device you are supposed to roast them over the open flame in the fire. Unfortunately I don't have one of those, so I'm curious if I can throw them in a pan, set them on top of my wood burning stove and just stir them every once and a while. If so, can anyone suggest how hot I should get my stove and how long I should cook them?
Chestnuts can be rosted in the oven, no special equipment necessary. You should prepare them properly, though. First, soak them in lukewarm water for at least 30 minutes. This will soften the skin and help to loosen the fuzzy inner skin later. Then, use a small knife to cut either a slit or a cross on the round side. Place them, cut side up, on a baking tray and roast at 180-200 °C / 350-400 °F for about half an hour. The cuts should open when the chestnuts are done.
If you want to try this on your stove, prepare them the same way, then roast in the pan. Aim for a rather hot stove, mimicking the coal fire, stir them often. If possible, use a cast iron pan rather than non-stick, as the coating might suffer. Some street vendors here add a dash of water to the roasting pan (over the coal fire) to create steam once in a while. As to time: see above, cuts should open and chestnuts can be easily pierced with a knife.
Did you know than you can also boil chestnuts? Prepare as described above, then boil for about 10 minutes.
Where I live, chestnut sellers in the streets roast them in pans over hot coals. I just do them in the oven at about 180C. Give them about 20 minutes and then stick a sharp knife in one of them.
Note that you might also want to prick them with a sharp knife before cooking, to avoid (or at least control) explosions. If you hear popping sounds, they're getting hot enough to produce some steam, although that doesn't necessarily mean they're cooked through.
exploding chestnut are dangerous ... it's like popcorn, but with the shell doesn't stay attached ... and it's much, much harder. I'm thankful I was wearing my glasses when I made the mistake of not cutting into all of the shells and put 'em in the oven. (then went to remove them, and one exploded while removing the tray, and pinged off my glasses)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.749020 | 2014-11-04T05:05:53 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49508",
"authors": [
"HEIDI DAVIS",
"Joe",
"Nirvana Pendulum",
"Terry Littell",
"badsanta",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118250",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118453",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
66511 | Pudding isn't setting?
I made some coconut pudding using a recipe I had found, but I'm having some trouble getting it to set. I used this recipe once before and ended up boiling it for probably closer to 2 minutes instead of the suggested 1 minute and it thickened up fine. This time I did exactly 1 minute and it's still pretty liquidly after a few hours in the fridge.
I'm wondering if I should return the pudding to a pot and boil it a little more - or if I have missed my chance at this point?
Puddings, of the type in your recipe, are thickened mostly by starch gelling. The egg yolks and milk provide some thickening as well as the smooth, custardy texture.
Both the starch and egg proteins gel before the boiling temperature. Recipes call for a few minutes of boiling for an entirely different and fascinating reason.
There is an enzyme in raw egg yolks that digests starches. A few minutes of boiling is required to deactivate those enzymes. If your pudding didn't gel, and some time has passed, your eggs may have eaten your cornstarch. In this case, boiling it more wouldn't help.
You might try whisking in some more starch and then boiling it again. This would take some experimentation. I wouldn't replace the entire quantity of starch from the recipe at first.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.749246 | 2016-02-15T04:52:57 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66511",
"authors": [
"Cheryl Grisenthwaite",
"Jon R",
"Julie Rose",
"Susanne Goodwin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159306",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159313"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
37241 | Wine sediment clinging to top of bottle?
I recently bought a fairly old bottle of wine (bottled in 2008) and I noticed that there was a bunch of schmutz clinging to the top third of the inside of the bottle after I poured a glass.
What is this and what does it mean about my wine? Is it a bad thing?
I think it is much worse if you call it 'shmutz' :-)
Schmutz is never good...
you should send it to me for further analysis. This schmuck is an expert on schmutz.
Sediment is normal in "older" wines, it can simply be small particles of yeast that was not caught by the filtration.
As time goes by, the particles will stick together and fall to the bottom of the bottles.
Most of the time it will not affect the (taste and flavor) quality of the wine, but will show up more when not being cautious when pouring the wine.
Just be more careful when pouring wine; you can also use a decanter.
Slowly pour the wine into the decanter from the bottle to let the sediment get caught in the shoulder of the bottle.
If there are sediments, you will loose maybe 1 teaspoon of wine; but you will be assured that the wine in the decanter will be free of sediment and when pouring for friends at the table there will not be any sediment in the glasses.
Sediment in wine, is not only a good thing, but can be seen as a sign of quality...or at least that the wine was made without filtration (which is often seen as a short cut). As you can see here sediment is made up of colloids and tartrates. If you remove the entire foil cap before uncorking and older wine, you can often see the sediment clinging to the neck of the bottle, if it has been stored on its side. It's a good idea to stand older bottles upright for a while before opening so that any additional/loose sediment will sink to the bottom. Then, once opened, you can decant or simply pour slowly from the bottle so as to avoid stirring up the sediment and pouring it into the glass (or decanter). The sediment is perfectly safe. It is an unpleasant experience, but not harmful if you happen to ingest some.
The particles and cloudiness might be one of two things:
If the particles don't settle to the bottom (form a sediment), it could be bacterial fermentation which is undesirable and it "spoils" the wine, producing off-flavors. If you sipped it thought it was "off", then best to avoid it.
If the particles settle, these are probably just excess acid molecules and that's okay.
Source: On food and cooking by Harold McGee
it is normal that older red wines hold some sediment. Usually, the sediment remains in the bottom of the bottle and becomes an issue when pouring the last couple glasses. In your case, I'd think that the bottle has been moved (a lot?) before you opened it?
With old red wines, it is best to store them "standing". At least for the 24h before intending on drinking it. Because then the sediment has time to falls to the bottom and accumulate there. And then it is best to decant the red wine. Use a decanter or any vessel fitting. It is best if the vessel has a flat base. Because then you can use for two things: 1. separating the wine from the sediment and 2. to continue with the actual decanting process.
"Sediment and crumbled cork that can often be found in, for example, older red wines and Vintage Ports. So pouring into a decanter can help by filtering and removing any sediment. As well as bitter tastes and flavours that are associated with aged wines." -quoted from a page I'll refer to later.
There are different ways of decanting. One of them is the candle method. Here is explained how to do it:
How to use a wine decanter and The Candle Method
The same page I quoted from. Well, that's how I do it. You can also read there about the decanting process if you're interested.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.749384 | 2013-09-30T16:06:04 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37241",
"authors": [
"Alaska Man",
"Brh",
"Eleanor Rosen",
"Erika",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Steve",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87526",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87527",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87627",
"robertjb"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
22415 | Easiest way to bread chicken for frying?
I usually toss the flour and chicken in a bag and shake it up. The problem is that pieces of chicken will often stick together and not get evenly coated. Is there an effective way to bread my chicken evenly without getting clumps of chicken?
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/30113/67
One piece at a time? Into the bag, shake to coat, out of the bag, shake to remove excess flour, put aside for subsequent egg-washing and breading once all pieces are done.
Also helps to have one hand only touching dry ingredients, the other only wet.
I dump the chicken in a large plastic container and (as ferronrsmith) sieve the flour on top of the chicken. Then, I put the lid on and give it a good shake.
It helps if the chicken is dry. (Dried with paper towels after washing.)
Another meat-washer! Why?!
@ElendilTheTall, excellent question! I do it to get rid of excess blood, basically.
I don't use the bag method to bread chicken, or other foods. I prefer the slightly more manual, but very effective traditional method:
Put the breading mix (for example, seasoned flour) into a shallow dish, such as a pie plate or a shallow casserole
Place one or several (as many as comfortably fit) pieces of chicken into the breading mix, then turn them over and place back down. You might need to do the sides too, for large pieces. You can pick up some mix with your fingers and put it onto any uncovered spots, too.
When you remove the chicken, shake it slightly above the mix to let extra come off and be reusable.
This method is also extensible to more complicate breading techniques such as flour, then egg wash, then breadcrumbs. You simply have three pie plates, one for each layer in the breading, and move the foods through the layers.
If you are doing this sort of dry/wet/dry breading, it helps to use one hand only for the dry stages, and the other hand (or tongs) for the wet stage.
In comparison to the bag method, this technique has the following advantages:
You can directly control and monitor the breading on each piece of food
No reasonable way for the pieces to stick together during the breading process
It scales up to any amount of food easily in an assembly line
You can do multiple layers, including wet layers, conveniently
There is no danger of a bag splitting and and getting flour all over the kitchen
... and the following disadvantages:
For the small quantities of food, it may be a little more work
The pie plates have to be washed, whereas the bag can probably be discarded
Your hand(s) get mucky unless you use tongs at every stage
Note: this answer assumes small quantities, as in home cooking. Restaurant production also uses this method, but scaled up in a couple of ways. I have never heard of nor seen a commercial kitchen use the bag method. Now, at industrial scales, they have some cool devices.... :-)
You can use a sieve :). That's what I always do and it is always evenly coated with flour. The bag create lumps, try to avoid that if you can. try sifting the flour also :)
It might be helpful to the OP if you were a little more specific about what using a sieve means - I can think of variations people might try.
I am puzzled by your last sentence... do you also sift the chicken? :D
Sifting is the process of using a sieve to remove lumps and to filter large particles. An example of the sifting process is here : http://mayblerose.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/sponge-cake-sift-flour.jpg
"sift the flour" was already reasonably clear, though not to everyone - but "use a sieve" definitely still isn't.
So basically you'd place the flour in the sieve and as u sift the flour with the chicken under the coat of flour will be added. Keep repeating this process until you have covered the entire chicken. If you want to apply other bases (like oats, makes some egg batter the dip it, then dip it in bowl of oats... i like that)
If you're going to use the bag method, you may want to use a clear plastic bag, and only drop in between 1 and 3 items at a time (exact number depends on the size of the items relative to the size of the bag).
If you do end up getting two items stuck together, just grab one of the items through the bag, and shake until the other item falls away.
If you're still having problems, set up a regular breading station
It helps to sift the flour. I use a colander for breading. I just did this with pickles and then again with chunks of chicken and it works great, just make sure there is a pan under the colander when you are breading. Put whatever you are breading in plastic bag first, shake it up, don't use a lot of flour, dump into the colander, shake it up and bam, no mess no fuss.
The OP specifically said the problem is in coating the chicken in the bag, not afterward.
I've edited your answer to remove the things that were meant to be comments on ferronrsmith's answer (rude ones, too). Also, at least in the US, colanders are usually a bowl with decent-sized holes in it while sieves are metal mesh, and generally finer.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.749729 | 2012-03-20T03:52:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22415",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Cascabel",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Joe",
"Juniper83",
"M_K",
"Maureen",
"PJinPA",
"Patricia Hoff",
"Soon KK",
"Spammer",
"ferronrsmith",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115436",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50408",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71647",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71676",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9579",
"lemontwist",
"nico",
"samuelsov"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.