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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
128048 | Making shortcrust pastry ahead of time
I'll be making a quantity of savoury shortcrust pastry, using the classic 2:1 flour to butter ratio which will be used to make Cornish pasties. This will be for a total of 900g of pastry. The recipe calls for making the pastry, rolling it into a ball and refrigerating for at least 30 minutes prior to use.
Is there an upper-bound for how far ahead I can prepare the pastry and would that impact how I use it, i.e. If I'm keeping the pastry refrigerated for longer than the at least 30 minutes, would I need to add the take out of the refrigerator 45 minutes ahead of use step that's often seen with shop-bought block pastry?
Not enough for an answer: if kept frozen it may begin to oxidise (ie, go rancid) after several months.
In my experience, the most important determiner of when to remove the pastry from the fridge is how well it handles when rolling out. if it's too cold it will crack, if it's to warm it will be sticky. Warming for 15-20 min seems all right for me after a night in the fridge. (for pies)
For baking, the dough temperature is less important since it will warm up during rolling and filling anyway, unless you chill the prepared pasties again before baking.
+1. When I make short pastry, it's almost always for a pie, so I usually lay it out in the dish before chilling it. If somebody has to shape the dough after chilling, the cracking you point out becomes quite important, so I think your answer is closer than mine in this situation.
Another thing to try is to chill the dough not in a ball, but in a disc. Not as thin as you intend to bake it, but by flattening it into a 10-20mm disc, I have found that it's easier to shape the pastry without it cracking. This has the advantage of the dough chilling and warming up more uniformly. It will have a much larger surface area, so make sure to wrap it carefully in clingfilm, or it will dry out.
I know people who systematically freeze pastry dough and keep it in the freezer for months. Their pastries were never spectacular, but I don't blame that on the freezing of the dough. (Admittedly that was typically with a dough with much less butter.)
The upper limit is given by food safety restrictions, which is, in absence of more specific rules, 3-5 days of fridge storage. For longer storaage, you have to freeze it.
There isn't an all-encompasing "take out X minutes ahead" rule. Rather, your pastry will behave differently during baking depending on how thoroughly it was cooled. The time needed for baking will change a lot depending on the initial temperature when you start baking. This is even more complex for something like Cornish pastry where you don't have a blind baking phase which you can extend or shorten as needed.
So, you will have to experiment how your specific combination of recipe, oven, and raw-pastry-temperature, to see how the pastries bake. You can then adjust for problems - e.g. if you notice that the pastry filling soaks through when baked from very cold, you can try the "take out ahead" step to see if the shorter baking time will prevent the problem.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.785028 | 2024-04-08T08:54:25 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/128048",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68224",
"j4nd3r53n",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
110559 | Will this recipe for vegetable fritters freeze well?
I have a recipe for vegetable fritters that I've been given which consists of:
200g flour
200g raw beetroot, peeled and grated
200g carrot, peeled and grated
spring onions
The ingredients are combined with 'enough water to bind the mixture together', split into four fritters, shallow fried for 2-3 minutes until crisp on each side and then oven cooked for 10 minutes at 180°C.
I'll likely only want one, or two, of these and would like to keep the remaining fritters for a later date by freezing them. Will the ingredients lend themselves to freezing and if so would it be best done before or after cooking?
You can freeze fritters like this after frying, but I'd recommend freezing the vegetables by themselves or freezing the cooked fritters, or simply shrinking the recipe.
Whether you refrigerate or freeze the cooked fritters, you'll want to re-fry the floppy fritters to get the crispy texture back, unless you're okay with floppy fritters (they're kind of good honestly, like cold pizza). This is convenient like any other freezer meal.
But your recipe is very simple. If you only want 1 fritter, just measure out 25g of each ingredient instead of 200g. If you want 2 fritters, measure out 100g.
Realistically, you will almost certainly have extra veg that you won't need for this recipe, so regardless of how many fritters you make, if this is a recipe you like, I'd recommend freezing the excess carrots and beets for use in the next batch.
I will point out that doing do will cause a lot of moisture to be released when the veg is thawed. So for that reason I specifically DO NOT recommend freezing the batter before frying it. The consistency will be very different once thawed and all that water's released.
One way to circumvent this (and probably reduce your cooking time) would be to salt all your shredded veg. The salt would draw moisture out as well, even is you just use a pinch. Let it sit in the salt for a bit, then wring it out in a kitchen towel and continue with your recipe. You could even save the salted juice to use as your binding liquid instead of water.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.785278 | 2020-09-05T21:18:43 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110559",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
105800 | Is there an optimum (or minimum!) thickness for a steak when cooking on a BBQ?
I've just purchased approximately 3kg of Ribeye steak (which has come in at about 30cm in length as a visual estimate) with the intention of cutting it into multiple steaks to be cooked on a BBQ. The primary reason I've done this is that I find that steaks which are available locally are too thin to allow for sufficient browning/searing whilst also being cooked to medium-rare.
What thickness should I look to cut steaks when the objectives are:
Medium-rare done-ness
A good level of browning/crust/caramelisation on the surface
Pockets of fat in the steak (the best bit!) have sufficient opportunity to cook to a soft, "melt in the mouth" texture
I can say definitively that 2cm, which is roughly the thickness of steaks purchased locally, is not thick enough, but whilst trial and error would be a mostly enjoyable experience, it would also be an expensive one!
I don;t think this question is answerable as it is - the temperature of your grill plays an equal role here - the hotter the grill, the faster the outside will cook and the less the inside will cook over that time.
"How thick do I like my steak" is completely opinion based.
@GgD, I don't mean to be rude, but perhaps you should re-read my question. I'm not asking "how thick do I like my steak" at all. The fact that my question is seeking clarity on the thickness of the steak in order to meet other criteria should make it abundantly clear to you that I don't care how thick the steak is. As for completely opinion based, given enough steak and time, this question could be answered experimentally (as noted in the final para), so again, no.
@bob1 I was reluctant to be any more specific (Weber gas BBQ, medium heat, so happy to add more detail!) as I'd then potentially start getting into the realms of adding how long the steak is at room temperature first, how long the BBQ is generally pre-heated for, etc, and if the question is answerable without said specifics, or they become part of the answer, then that makes them moot or unhelpful in the question =)
I'm not sure where you are in the world, but there are lots of standard grocery stores with butchers on the premises who will happily cut your steaks the thickness you want. (Though maybe not at the moment, since they're pretty swamped!)
@Kat, cutting them isn't the problem as I'm entirely comfortable with doing that (I buy whole chickens and joint them rather than paying over the odds for individual bits!), it's getting them to a sensible size that I need quantifying. I've since asking opted for around 4cm but I'm now waiting for some half-way decent weather so I can cook one of them and see how it goes before accepting an answer =)
@Rob I understand, you just said you were going this route primarily because the precut ones near you are too thin. So once you find the thickness you like, that's another option to get steaks in that thickness.
It really depends on what temperature you'll be grilling these steaks and for how long. You could do it with 2cm if the grill is hot enough. Honestly, the thicker the steak the better control you have over temperature changes (it takes longer to overcook a thick steak than a thin one, since more meat means more heat insulation).
Back when I followed the excellent Science & Cooking Harvard course they provided us with a tool created by MIT students for demonstrating heat diffusion through meat over time. You can use that tool to figure out steak thickness based on grill temperature, meat starting time, total time, desired doneness, flipping technique...
http://up.csail.mit.edu/science-of-cooking/home-screen.html
(According to the tool, for a 2cm steak starting at 23°C, grilling at 150°C, flipping every 30s for a total time of 3:30 you should get your steak brown on the outside and medium rare on the inside after you take it out of the grill and let it rest for a few minutes)
Having grilled steaks hundreds of times, and keeping your goals in mind, this is what I would do:
Slice into 4cm thick steaks, or about 1.5-2 inches
Season as desired, but adding more salt than you would a thin steak
Place steaks on a metal pan at least 1 hour before cooking
Leave the pan out or in a cold oven to come to room temp throughout (!)
Turn steaks in pan every half-hour to ensure even warming
Grill steaks hot for 10 mins: 5 mins per side
Move steaks away from flames, "baking" for 10 more mins (5/side)
Pull onto tray or transfer pan, rest 5 mins
Enjoy, maybe with a salt patch to dip rare (aka salt-less) pieces
getting them to room or even body temp before grilling is the biggest key to having safe and delicious steaks in the manner you describe.
After 10min grilling plus 10 "baking" it will be medium, not medium-rare.
@Luciano: Anythings' possible, let me show my cards: following above, a 2" bone-in ribeye on my big weber with 1 coffee can of coal will come out on the rare side of med-rare; an "experiment" I've confirmed countless times. Still no problem if your meat/grill gets hotter, just cut down the "off to the side" time from 10 to 5 mins or the high heat to 4 mins as needed.
This is a long comment answer, but the cooking conditions and thickness combined with the outcome the user wants go hand in hand and make this unanswerable. A standing rib roast is the same cut as a rib steak, normally just cooked differently. But near me, it is not even uncommon for them to be cooked the same. I know of restaurants that pride themselves in serving grass fed Montana beef for premium prices that will put "prime rib" and "ribeye steaks" on special. If you order either, you get exactly the same piece of meat. The roast to a very rare in a slow oven, then when you order the slice a piece off, finish it on the grill to order and serve it. If you ordered prime rib, they include a side of dipping au jus, if as a ribeye, they pour it over the top slightly thickened as a sauce. To them, what thickness to cut would be answered as why are you cutting it to begin with?
In my experience, the thicker the cut, the slower you want to cook it which makes sense unless maybe you like your steak black and blue (or as it seems to me, burned on the outside, icy on the inside). But thickness, temperature, cut of meat, and what technique is being used all combine with personal taste and result is no real answer. 1 and 1/4 inch was often a standard for good NY cuts for instance where I grew up, but unless they were roasting them, no one there would cut a sirloin that thick as it would come out like leather. Where I live now, 1 inch seems standard for a NY, while I often see sirloins cut much thicker that still turn out juicy and tender. This tells me that the way the animal is raised also factors in and changes how the meat should be treated.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.785466 | 2020-03-12T22:55:30 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105800",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Kat",
"Luciano",
"Rob",
"bob1",
"dandavis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
18804 | When to use a roux or a beurre manié
What difference does it make to use a roux or a beurre manié ?
Are there any rules about their usage, or are they both interchangeable?
There's a great overview of the differences here, including a taste-test experiment at the end.
Broadly: beurre manié started off as a "lazy" roux; some people claim that the cooking of the roux reduces any "floury" taste; the experiment did not find any discernible difference between the two options for either a bechamel sauce or a velouté.
I like Vicky's answer, but... there's nothing lazy about Buerre manié. It takes hard work to make. It's just faster, like a last minute resort. To make buerre manié, you have to mix the flour into the cold butter.
To make a roux, you have to melt the butter, incorporate the flour, and cook the proteins out of it.
If you're short on roux, you can add buerre manié rapidly, but making a roux is the preferred method.
Another thickener is brown flour. You cook the flour, without butter, until it's light brown. Then you can use it without adding butter.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.786042 | 2011-11-07T10:37:08 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18804",
"authors": [
"costrom",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40750",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40751",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40753",
"traggatmot",
"user74091"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
2049 | BBQ Beef Brisket on a Propane Grill?
Is it possible to make really good beef brisket, with a smoke ring and everything, on a Propane Grill?
A good charcoal grill/smoker is on our list of things to get, but it's probably not going to happen this summer. Am I doomed to have mediocre brisket, or are there tricks that will work with a propane grill to approximate the results I'd get with a "real" grill/smoker?
I usually put some chips in an aluminum foil bag with water in it, on the bottom of the grill. I usually have to change the bag and contents every couple of hours
You can get extremely edible results, which is good enough for me. The smoke-ring may be lacking from a competition grade result, but the flavour will be fine.
Presume you have a big-enough BBQ to have at least two burners. Only use the burner the meat is not on. If you have any prevailing wind and are not completely sheltered, make the hot side the upwind side.
Either get a smoke-box, or do what I used to and use foil. Soak 1/3 to 1/2 your wood chips in water to slow them down. Foil worked just fine for me, made a pouch, put in the chips and poked the up-flat-side with a knife to make smoke holes.
If you have a larger BBQ, consider adding in bricks or stones (no river stone!) to help maintain even heat. By having less air and more thermal mass, you will do better.
Let me meat come to room temperature before you put it on. Also no need to smoke right away, as the meat will not take it until it heats up further in the BBQ.
Happy Eating
So, on the one hand, you've got good heat control with a propane grill. I use mine to smoke sometimes. On the other hand, you're going to have a hard time getting that super smoky flavor on the brisket.
Here's what I did to mine to make it more amenable to smoking:
1) I dumped a couple of bags of lava rocks in the grill to smooth out the flames
2) I used a hole saw to drill a hole on the right side of the grill lid to encourage smoke to flow out that way
When I smoke with it, I use one burner, on the left, and keep a thermometer in there to assess temperature. Above it, I put the wood.
When things go well, Smoke rises out of the hole made with the hole saw, temperature is even, and I'm happy. Unlike a weber smoker, you're going to want to rotate the meat using this method. Maybe it would have been better to put the hole in the middle, and use the two outside burners, but this would be too hot for my usage in my grill.
I don't personally use a foil box, I just put wood right on the left side of the grill, or on top of the lava rocks, and occasionally blow out the ash.
p.s. If you take your meat out a while beforehand, get it up to room temp, and then put in the path of a fan for a while, it will become slightly 'sticky' on the outside. This significantly enhances how much smoke will attach to the meat. Try it!
My experience with a gas grill is that it dries out meat quicker. When you are going low and slow it's worse. To compensate I would add a pan of water to make it more humid. I would also experiment with a "crutch". Try wrapping the brisket up in foil after it develops a crust. The down side to this is that your crust can get a bit soggy.
I have also heard of people injecting beef broth into
brisket to make it more moist.
Good luck!
I wash my brisket in cold water then add rub to both sides. With grill pre heated to 200 degrees. I then splash top of brisket with liquid smoke and let sit on counter top for an hour. Then place on grill fat side down for 30 min. Then flip to fat side up and spirits with liquid smoke. ( only use outside burners. No direct heat) let cook for about 4 hours or until done the way you like it. Spirits every so often to keep moist. I get great flavor ( smoked flavor) and tender brisket but no smoke ring. But Aslong as it tastes great I don't care bout a perty smoke ring.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.786183 | 2010-07-19T16:48:19 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2049",
"authors": [
"Adam",
"Matti Virkkunen",
"PhillFox",
"Teresa Davis",
"dassouki",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3689",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4510",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87",
"immutabl"
],
"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
} |
10544 | How to Reheat Beef Tenderloin?
I have a Tenderloin that was roasted to medium and seared. How can I best reheat it without it getting dry and tough?
Don't reheat it, slice it thin, and serve on good bread with mayo & horseradish = an awesome roast beef sandwich.
+1 agreed, taking a good peice of beef past medium is almost a sin so don't re-heat, look for options, sandwich is a good start. Slicing into a salad could be done, or even slice it super thin and wrap it around some cooked and dressed asperagus.
@boxed-dinners: Taking it TO medium is a sin. Tenderloin should moo when you cut into it.
Bring it back to the old school, which is place a covered plate in a 125-200 degree oven until just warmed through. It was the option of choice pre microwave, and still the best way for roasts and pastas IMO. It should come out steaming after about 20 minutes, depending on temp. You lose less moisture the lower you go, but it takes longer so you get to choose the median point between those that's good for you.
This is almost exactly my method. Our beef is definitely more on the rare side, though.
why covered? keep moisture in?
I don't have any oven proof plates, so going to use a pan and monitor carefully with a instant-read thermometer.. will probably re-sear after
It's probably too late for this particular instance, but something to keep in mind for the future. If you make/eat a lot of roasted meats, such as tenderloin, prime rib, pulled pork, etc., you would be wise to invest in a Foodsaver. Divide your leftovers into single-size portions, seal them in vacuum bags, and freeze them. When it's time to reheat, just drop a bag into boiling water and reheat. You will reheat your food without losing any moisture.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.786616 | 2010-12-27T23:13:04 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10544",
"authors": [
"Frames Catherine White",
"Kevin Davis",
"Marti",
"Mrs. Garden",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Woodrow Douglass",
"boxed-dinners",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21621",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21622",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21628",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3577",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78",
"jlucktay"
],
"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
} |
35103 | Are modifications to a recipe needed to use frozen scallops instead of fresh?
I'm looking to try this recipe: http://www.seriouseats.com/recipes/2012/11/french-in-a-flash-broiled-scallops-provencale-recipe.html. I have frozen scallops, and though it doesn't specify, I suspect the recipe is for fresh scallops. Should I thaw the scallops ahead of time? Should I cook them at low temperature for awhile before broiling? If it makes a difference, these are the scallops I'm using: http://www.schwans.com/products/productDetail.aspx?id=52122&c1=10429
Since the original recipe does not say explicitly that the scallops should be cooked from a frozen state, you should thaw them in the refrigerator before making the dish. Do not precook them—just thaw them, and cook them as per the recipe.
You will also want to pat them dry with a paper towel or lint free towel, so that they are as dry as reasonably possible.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.786794 | 2013-07-05T15:52:13 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35103",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
15215 | Why would fresh tuna be salted?
I bought a big piece of tuna about a week ago. I carved it up and put most in the freezer. However, as I am the proud owner of a vacuum sealer (as of a week ago), the worst part of the tuna got vacuum sealed and put into the fridge.
Six days later, I took it out of the fridge to cook, and found that the vacuum was gone (it had been the first item I had sealed). I made a fish-pie out of the tuna. As this was the worst part, I didn't expect anything great of it, but it was salted, apart from having a strong flavor. I attribute the strong flavor to the cut (the dark part, mostly) and from having been in the fridge for a week).
One piece of prime cut that I had sealed in with the other meat, I reserved and grilled the next day. It was also salted.
Would this be because I salted it too heavily, or can it be because it had been sitting during one week? Is tuna meat salty on it's own? Any other suggestion?
Just checked: without added salt, another prime cut was salty. Could it be that 'they' add some conservative to the fish that would add salinity?
Oops. This second prime cut was frozen on the buy date. -18ºC
As far as I know, raw tuna is not usually salted and/or pre-treated.
What may be happening is a case of perceived salinity. For example, there are numerous studies that suggest foods with certain odors can be perceived as much saltier than they actually are. If you have access to that second article (it is copyrighted and behind a paywall, so I can't post it here), it has a great figure on page 3 depicting the perceived sourness, bitterness, sweetness, and saltiness of a number of common foods, including tuna. The aroma of plain tuna alone ranked higher than soy sauce on the saltiness scale, for example. Tuna is relatively high in fat, and other studies suggest that high fat foods can also increase perceived saltiness. Perhaps you were using a fattier part of the fish?
Finally, there is evidence that dehydration increases the saltiness of tuna (which actually seems somewhat intuitive), especially if extra salt is added before cooking. Was your tuna previously frozen? Freezing—especially if done improperly and/or if there are multiple freeze/thaw cycles—can act like dehydration.
That must be it. As said, the first batch was not frozen as far as I know. The second batch (today) was frozen in cling-film on a tray. So I hope that was the correct procedure.
Ultimately, the quicker the tuna freezes the less cell damage will occur, and thereby the less dehydration. Your method should be fine, as long as the freezer was cold enough and you didn't over-crowd the tray. Also, if the tuna was previously frozen (which is quite likely, especially if it is from one of the large varieties) that could also be a contributing factor.
Tuna captured by purse seiners or baitboats or jigboats in many cases are preserved and frozen in salt brine. it would have absorbed salt, just a fact. Other fresh tuna could have been stored in chilled seawater and would have picked up salt a well. In these cases the salt would have been higher on the skin edge.
Well described in:
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/noaa_documents/NMFS/SWFSC/TM_NMFS_SWFSC/NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWR-011.pdf
You may have gotten a portion of some large YF out of Ecuador that was chilld or frozen in dense brine.
I am in the business.
I haven't heard of it with fish filets, but I know that scallops are often brined before sale to keep them looking moist and increase (marginally) their display life (I choose to think fishmongers are honest and aren't just increasing the weight of the scallops with water). It does nothing good for the scallops, of course, and I try to get unbrined ones whenever I can.
And of course whole chickens and turkeys are often brined before packaging.
Maybe this is the same kind of deal.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.786898 | 2011-06-03T06:41:42 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15215",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"ESultanik",
"data magz spam",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96355"
],
"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
} |
9533 | If tomatoes are fruit
isn't ketchup (catsup) technically a smoothie?
You don't typically cook smoothies, where as ketchup is cooked down quite a bit.
Okay, the question is a little silly, and wrong, but does it really deserve four down votes? I mean, really?
@Daniel: I would hazard a guess that some people view at as a joke question or at least borderline, hence the downvotes. I've always believed that the best way to handle them is to just answer them honestly and not take the (flame)bait - but at the same time that doesn't mean we should encourage it. Maybe the question is actually not a joke, but that is one reason why it helps to be specific and detailed, to avoid negative interpretations.
It was borderline joke/actual question. I honestly did not know what constituted as a smoothie, and ketchup is smooth... I guess... Mostly it was intended to be a little humorous, and as such I expected this type of response. I am grateful for the serious answers.
I'm upvoting, not because I think it is the greatest question we've ever had, but I think @Aaaronut's answer shows that it is well posed and valid, so I don't think it deserves the down votes.
Downvote for just copying an (old) meme into a question: http://memegenerator.net/Philosoraptor/ImageMacro/3260626/If-tomatoes-are-a-fruit-isnt-ketchup-technically-a-smoothie
Upvote for humor, and a good answer from @Aaronut
If the word fruit is used in a way to include tomatoes then it should also include peppers, squashes, aubergines, cucumbers etc. Why do tomatoes get all the attention?
Definition 1:
A smoothie (also known as a "smoothy") is a blended, chilled, sometimes sweetened beverage made from fresh fruit (fruit smoothie) or vegetables and in special cases can contain chocolate.
Definition 2:
[...] a thick beverage of fruit pureed in a blender with ice and milk, yogurt, or juice.
Ketchup is not considered a beverage by anybody I know.
Ketchup is not made only from fresh fruit and ice/milk/yogurt/juice. It has many other ingredients.
Ketchup is probably not made in a blender.
There are plenty of food items made from fruit that aren't smoothies (is applesauce a "smoothie?").
So, no, it's not a smoothie simply because it contains a fruit.
I know a two year old that would dispute point (1), but overall, good answer!
@Michael: I'm not quite as far gone as that two year old, but I do consider french fries to be utensils!
During the Reagan years, it (ketchup) was allowed to be a vegetable option for school lunches, e.g. if you had french fries and ketchup, that counted as two vegetables.
Wasn't Reagan, it was one of the Bushes.
@Marti: No, it was during the Reagan administration.
@Dennis Williamson: thanks, didn't know that. Could've sworn it was in the news in the 90s - in the 80s I was too young to pay attention to such things.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.787224 | 2010-11-28T02:11:26 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9533",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"BaffledCook",
"Bob",
"Bosak",
"Brendan Long",
"Corey",
"Daniel Bingham",
"Dennis Williamson",
"FoodTasted",
"Marti",
"Michael Natkin",
"Rich_F",
"Ron",
"bdsl",
"gware",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19515",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19519",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641"
],
"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
} |
7491 | Is gelatin vegetarian?
I understand that vegetarians are against meat, and gelatin is derived from meat and bones. So the obvious answer is "no."
But I'm not entirely sure. What constitutes an ingredient as "vegetarian" or "vegan?"
This question would be on-topic here: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/94068/veganism-vegetarianism
Without further qualification, if someone refers to themselves as vegetarian (in America), the general assumption is that they are lacto-ovo vegetarian. That means they don't eat animal products that require killing the animal, but eggs and dairy are fine. Gelatin comes from a dead animal (unless they start harvesting it with arthroscopic probes :), so it is not a vegetarian ingredient. There are many other hydrocolloids, such as agar, that can be used to produce similar textures if needed.
One could theoretically harvest limbs from a regenerative species (e.g., salamanders) and use them to create gelatin from collagen without permanently physically harming the source animal ;-)
Not all dairy is vegetarian, eg cheese that uses rennet in production. Unless you are a pescetarian even some kinds of wine or beer, which are cleared with isinglass, are taboo. Depending on how serious you take your vegetarism, of course.
@ESultanik That sounds even worse, since you're torturing the poor thing!
Gelatin is not vegetarian as it is made from dead animals... any vegetarian, from ovo-lacto in the liberal end to the fruitarian on the extreme end should have an aversion. A person who eats fish and/or poultry is by no means a vegetarian, just a selective omnivore.
If you need a similar product fruit pectin is a good alternative.
Vegetarianism is not clearly defined, but a catch-all for various dietary choices.
Some vegetarians, will just simply not eat red meat, but would eat fish and poultry. Gelatin and Rennet (found in cheese) may or may not be included. I have friends who don't eat mammals, and others who won't eat anything warm-blooded.
Lacto-Ovo vegetarians will eat eggs and dairy, but not any muscular tissue. Again, Rennet and Gelatin are options they may or may not include.
Vegans, in the strictest sense, will not eat any animal flesh, nor will they eat animal derived products. In the purest sense, a vegan will exclude dairy and honey, but many vegans will include honey, and some will include dairy.
Those that choose vegetarianism for health reasons may break their diet occasionally for special occasions, such as a Thanksgiving turkey. Ethical (Animal Rights) Vegans, generally will not, and will question every ingredient.
Again, there are even ethical (environmental) vegetarians, who may be week-day vegans, and weekend Carnivores, finding that discipline easier to follow than simply reducing meat portion sizes. My boss, for example, is a Daytime Vegan, but once the sun goes down, he'll fire up the grill.
A good test for vegetarianism is to check the products for a KOSHER - Dairy symbol. If it can be served with dairy according to Kosher Rules, then it should be meat free.
EDIT: Other answer states the Kosher products may contain fish, so Kosher-Dairy only guarantees free from meat/poultry.
You forgot the Level 5 vegans. They don't eat anything that casts a shadow.
Whereas I dine exclusively on Carnivores. I like to live high on the food chain.
The dairy/no dairy thing is one of the main distinctions between vegetarians and vegans, so I don't think the statement "some [vegans] will include dairy" is correct.
'Vegetarianism' is a well-defined, but widely abused term.
-1 for suggesting that some vegetarians eat non-red meat. Someone who eats meat is by definition not a vegetarian.
@Richard According to whom? I grew up in the American Midwest, where chicken was considered a vegetarian ingredient. As noted in the first sentence of this answer "Vegetarianism is not clearly defined, but a catch-all for various dietary choices."
There does exist plant based rennet. Rennet that is cultivated from actuall animal stomachs is rare and only really used on the most exotic traditional recipes.
In my experience the only food stuff that there is some debate on in the vegan community is honey. Eggs and Diary is widely rejected and the whole reason people become vegans is because they don't like it.
A product labeled kosher dairy will not automatically be okay for vegetarians. Kosher gelatin simply has been processed enough that the source is no longer identifiable -- it doesn't mean that it's not from a meat source to start with. Be careful to find out the rules for the particular kosher certification agency before relying on that.
Incidentally, unless the kosher certification specifically says that it's meat or dairy, the product is most likely pareve (the other category -- contains neither meat nor dairy, so can be eaten with either).
In addition, according to Ashkenazi (Eastern European Jewish) tradition, fish is not considered to be meat, but pareve. So if you avoid meat, kosher gelatin may still contain fish.
This is a big NO. Gelatin is purely a non-vegetarian substance that is usually obtained from pigs and cattle.
Though this might be harsh to hear, the process of making gelatin begins by boiling collagen-containing animal body parts like connective tissues, ligaments, bones etc. There are various gelatin processing plants that are located near slaughterhouses where the animals are killed for their bones and skin. A big reason to go Vegetarian.
If you are a vegetarian and looking for a substitute for Gelatin, you can consider using the product known as “agar agar”. Though this is marketed as gelatin at times, it is purely vegan.
Some confusion may have arisen from the misuse of the term gelatin ie gums jelly = gelatin.
Some recipes actually call for 'vegetarian gelatin' which I reckon must be agar...
I don't think gelatin is vegetarian unless specified. Gelatin is made from animal bones.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.787512 | 2010-09-21T15:04:10 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7491",
"authors": [
"AmericanUmlaut",
"Asaf",
"Attilio",
"Baarn",
"Brendan Long",
"Chris Cudmore",
"Chris Morris",
"ESultanik",
"Jamie Stevenson",
"Jess",
"John Nolan",
"Neil Meyer",
"Richard",
"Sebastian Krysmanski",
"Sushi chef",
"TomaszRykala",
"Wipob Panuvisitsang",
"Xander Henderson",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150988",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150990",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15390",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15400",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15406",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15410",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15411",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15421",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53927",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8717",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89259",
"nick012000",
"pankaj28843",
"pfctdayelise"
],
"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
} |
23624 | How long can I store mole?
I'd like to have a go at making some kind of mole, but all the recipes I have seem to make big batches. How long can I keep mole for, either in the fridge or freezer?
Making mole is not a small endeavor, so I'm glad you're planning on storing a big batch rather than scaling down!
Go big or go home, I always say.
I'm sorry, every time I see this title, all I can think is that you've been hunting moles
In the freezer, more-or-less indefinitely, depending on how good your freezer is. Certainly months to years.
In the fridge, it depends on the kind of mole. Quick moles (like various green moles) don't keep very long, maybe a week at most. A long-cooked mole should keep a bit longer -- up to 2 weeks -- since all of the ingredients are completely cooked.
If you're not planning to use it within a week, though, why not freeze it? The texture won't take any harm from freezing and thawing.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.787987 | 2012-05-07T09:09:13 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23624",
"authors": [
"Berenac",
"Cascabel",
"D Hagen",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Ray",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53529",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53530",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53563",
"miltonaut",
"user53531"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
17544 | Minced meat malaise
I've been cooking a Dutch pie lately, and the results are not very regular. Using the exact same ingredients (I'm trying to get the best minced meat, but that's hard), sometimes the minced meat becomes nice and juicy and sometimes it gets dry and chewy.
I've tried putting everything raw into the oven, but the result is a bit too compact for my taste.
I try to sauté the meat for a short period of time and add some brandy to flambé. The meat should get a little crust, but not be done entirely as it'll go into the oven.
With this description, do you think there's anything wrong with the technique? Should I use higher heat but leave the meat less time? Should I skip the flambé? Should I leave the meat on longer (like a bolognese)?
What is a"Dutch pie" to you? A classic meat pie should be made from a very coarse mince or better still, roughly cubed meat. You need a decent gravy to hold it all together, with enough starch in it to not run even when hot
@TFD, how is your Dutch?
so my understanding is that it's basically a shepard's pie with sauerkraut? And is the texture you are trying to achieve a loose pack hamburger or what? and i would definitely cut out the flambe.
@sarge_smith, I guess that's it, I've never tasted a shepherd's pie though. I'll skip the flambé.
I think if you're going try to brown mince as mince, it's going to get dry and tough, especially if lean. You could try making it into a patty, browning the outside to get the flavour reactions started, then breaking up with wooden spoon (see Nicholas Klee, 'Don't Sweat the Aubergine' 2005). If you're also cooking onions and other veg like you would for a shepherd's pie, you could cook these separately until browned. Shepherd's pie is often made with left over (and browned) meat from a joint.The key to a good shepherd's pie is slow cooking for at least an hour.
I'll give that a try next time.
Well if its something like shepherds pie with saurkraut...I would brown the meat in a pan with some diced onions and garlic, salt/pepper. Drain most of the fat but keep a little for flavor. then in a baking dish layer the saurkraut (mixed with sour cream according to that recipe) on the bottom, then the beef, then top with mashed potatoes. You can dust some paprika on top of that for some color.
Thanks for the answer. I'm asking 'how' I should brown the meat and still have it remain moist when the baking is done. So, if you could expand a little on your answer, that would be great.
Spray a nonstick pan with cooking spray, add finely chopped onions and garlic and saute til the onions are translucent. throw in the chop meat. Try stirring frequently so that one part doesn't get too dried out. Now the next part depends on how much of the excess fat you want to keep in the dish. If you keep most of it, then I would suggest cooking until you see no more pink. If you're gonna spill out all the fat, cook it until most of the pink is gone. Since you're gonna bake it you need to either not cook it all the way or keep more of the fat in the meat. How long does it have to bake?
I'm putting it in a hot oven for about 10'. Just to brown the top, but the meat gets done as well.
Oh 10 minutes really shouldn't dry it out all too much. Just try keeping some more of that fat/keeping a lil pink
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.788112 | 2011-09-07T10:14:52 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17544",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Dave",
"Josef",
"MichOtten",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37743",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37744",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37835",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7278",
"riotburn",
"sarge_smith"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
17101 | How can tuna/bonito be tested for histamine?
I think I suffered scombroid food poisoning, together with some other people. I actually got the worst of it. The others experienced pain in the mouth. I had facial flushing and tachycardia as well.
This is not the first time this happens as we've experienced pain from both tuna and bonito. Both cooked and raw (tartar).
According to the Wikipedia, this can be due to inappropriate handling of the fish. I bought this last bonito from a fish shop five minutes walking away. I guess it's hardly likely that the error was on me, but I won't rule it out neither. My handling of the bonito was to cut it up, put it into a vacuum bag and freeze. The batch that made us ill was vacuum and unfrozen. I've got more tuna from the same batch in the freezer, so I'll have to throw that out. That's one shop where I'm not buying anymore.
Is there a way of testing for histamine to prevent future problems?
I threw the whole batch out.
I don't know if it would work in this case, but if it's a histamine reaction, it's possible that the survival technique used for testing for safe food would work -- you crush up a plant a bit, then rub it on the inside of your arm, opposite the elbow. If you develop a rash over the next few days, it's obviously not safe to eat (at least in the prepared form you tested; you have to try raw vs. each cooked preparation) ... and this is only one of the initial tests ... and I'd still rather not risk it, myself, and just pitch it.
If you say that your handling of the fish was a 5 minute walk and to cut it up and freeze it, it is more than likely that the contamination occurred during the supply chain. Once the enzyme histidine decarboxylase has been formed, it can continue to produce histamine in the fish even if the bacteria are not active.
There are test kits available for checking histamine levels but they are intended for commercial use. http://www.noackgroup.com/Live/ProductCatalog_en.YoCms?GROUP=%24D_FAA_07_01#_1NEO9505 is one of the places that has them.
The answer above re testing the raw tuna on the skin is very, very interesting. Precooked tuna in a factory that is elevated in histamine will cause reactions with the fish cleaners. In the very old days, the itching reaction on the sensitive individuals sometimes was the first indication of histamine problems. Generally the inside area of the fingers were the first to feel it. The histamine is heat stable and will only increase. i will test the idea the next time we have access to high histamine fish. Just a great idea.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.788401 | 2011-08-24T17:05:41 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17101",
"authors": [
"A Old Tuna Guy",
"BaffledCook",
"Joe",
"Leo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36702",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36966",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"user3711671"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
15321 | How to treat brik dough?
I have no experience at all with brik dough. This is a very thin and fragile dough that's mostly used for frying and baking.
Once the package is opened it should be used as the dough dries out really fast.
My question is how long after cooking does it stay crisp? Or can you re-crisp it if it becomes soggy?
Is brik dough the same as filo or pastry dough?
I guess it's thinner than filo. I'm not sure. I have wheat brik dough in the fridge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filo_dough is apparently the same as brik dough http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brik...
To answer my own question, after experiencing, once cooked, the brik stays crisp for over a week.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.788737 | 2011-06-08T15:11:37 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15321",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"BobMcGee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33379",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"jwodder"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
17974 | Why did my omelette turn gray?
I made an omelette today, and it turned out gray. I'm supposing this is because I did some things wrong, the question is what?
Beating the eggs too long
Mixing the eggs with cream cheese before beating the eggs
Too much oil in the pan
My guess is the first two reasons. Do you think that's likely or could it be something else?
The pan is a non-stick (probably teflon). I didn't stir, but did flip. The gray was throughout.The pan is new, but has seen some use already and is not defective as far as I can tel
The cheese is Kraft Philadelphia. I mixed the cheese, the other day, with walnut, hazelnut and chive. Straight from the fridge into the, fresh, unstirred, eggs.
Given that you had both eggs and aliums in there, I guess you created some metallic sulfate compounds, which are usually green/blue, but in combination with the yolk look grey. (The same mechanism as getting a green surface on the yolk of a hardboiled egg). I don't however know what your possible source of iron or copper ions is, especially with a coated pan.
@rumtscho, thanks for using alliums on me :-) The source for iron could be the hazelnut 4,7mg. The walnut provides 0,4mg copper and 0,73mg iron.
I have a theory about your omelette (and sadly, no means to test it). But I think it is plausible, please feel free to point out logical errors.
I think that the unappetizing coloring is due to the creation of sulfur salts in your pan. Egg whites are rich in sulfur, as are all alliums (including chives). If you heat them enough (you don't mention whether you overcooked the omelette, but it happens often enough), the heat changes the molecules in which the sulfur is bound, and the sulfur atoms (or sulfur containing ions) are free to react with whatever they find around. If they happen to find iron or copper, they form sulfides and sulfates with them. These sulfides and sulfates have colors ranging from blue to green, and pure iron sulfide is black. A mixture of them with the yellow yolk can easily look gray, especially when the color is desaturated through the addition of white cream cheese.
You say you used a coated pan, but there are still possible sources for the iron and copper. First, nuts contain trace elements, including iron and copper. Second, yolks too contain iron (in fact, the bluish coloring on the surface of a hard boiled yolk is an iron sulfide created when the proteins in the egg white denaturated from the heat). Third, you can't exclude contamination of the ingredients (plants sometimes store metal ions from the environment).
I have no way to prove any of the above, but at least it sounds like a good working theory. But I will understand if you aren't eager to reproduce in order to investigate the effect closer.
I think it's a nice enough theory. I did use more heat than other times because normally the omelette doesn't develop a crust. However, the omelette was by no means overcooked. I was going to reproduce the effect beating the eggs less and adding the cheese later, but haven't gotten around to do it yet.
BC,
While I love Rumtscho's highly chemical theory above and will probably use it to explain why my own cooking doesn't look right in the future, I have a more mundane explanation, based you the information you omitted from your original question (bad submitter!):
Kraft Philadelphia. I mixed the cheese, the other day, with walnut,
hazelnut and chive. Straight from the fridge into the, fresh,
unstirred, eggs.
The walnuts are critical here. Cooked walnuts exude a powerful blue-purple dye. Walnut sourdough bread, for example, is frequently purple inside. I think your eggs were grey because of the walnuts, and not because of beating too long, the cream cheese, or the pan.
I'm afraid I'll come with my chemistry again. This powerful blue dye is iodine from the walnuts reacting with the starch in the dough. The omelette as listed doesn't have enough starch for the reaction to happen. (It has to be starch and not other carbohydrates). But yes, good observation.
Bad submitter... I did say cream cheese. I never thought the walnut, hazelnut or chives could have that impact.
rumtscho, I will have to cede any chemistry argument to you, since I'm a software geek who stopped at high school chemistry.
I'm not sure if this is traditional omelette technique or not, but I always thought that you start with the beaten eggs (maybe some salt and pepper), alone, in the pan. Once it's semi-set, then additions go on one half of the omlet - cheese, cooked or raw veggies, whatever - and then as you slide it onto the plate, you fold the half without the additions over the side that does.
In any case, with less substances mixed into the actual uncooked eggs, there's less likelihood of interaction between eggs and items that might alter the flavor or appearance of the base ingredient.
I made scrambled eggs and forgot about them on the stove, when I came back the bottom was overcooked and the top was fluffy. I added nothing to the scrambled eggs and the eggs had a gray greenish color. Since it was only eggs that I was cooking and nothing was added I believe the pan is what makes the eggs the greenish gray color
I think this is a process where the iron the pan and egg combines with oxygen in the atmosphere. And the greyish color is iron oxide. Hard boiled eggs also tend to form a greyish color. I believe its the same reaction
I cooked 2 scrambled eggs in the microwve at work for 1 minute and 35 seconds and they turned out that bluish greenish gray color. In this case I think they were over cooked as the microwave at work seem to be higher power
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.788840 | 2011-09-24T13:58:28 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17974",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"FuzzyChef",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
15382 | How to clean grease efficiently?
I've started frying recently, but already the grip of the basket has become sticky with oil, grease or whatever you call it... I've put the basket in the dishwasher, but with no effect. I guess it could be cleaned without effort with ammoniac, but that's a substance I'm not to fond of.
Any suggestions, apart from elbow-grease?
related questions: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15353/what-makes-oil-stick-to-the-pan-so-bad-that-it-is-so-difficult-to-wash-out and http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8927/gummy-residue-from-baking-spray-oil
I didn't find these questions... hot water in a pan, maybe, but not on the handle of my frying basket. Baking powder, however... I'll give that a try!
I propose merging these questions and answers.
If you can find it, the best stuff is industrial Viking degreaser or oven cleaner, undiluted. It's what we use in restaurants, because a tiny amount will dissolve even the toughest grease with minimal scrubbing. It's toxic and corrosive (it'll do to skin what it does to grease), so use it carefully and rinse very well, but the stuff is magic.
Positively magic -- spray a little on and then use a pot sprayer and the grease and grime just rinses off. I swear they suck the souls from babies to power the black magic contained in those bottles.
Failing that, a prolonged soak in boiling hot water with a ton of concentrated dish soap will loosen grease. "Magic eraser" scrubbing blocks work wonders for scrubbing off grease too, and take less elbow grease than the other scouring things.
Note: degreaser is not for normal use on pots and pans, just for hard to clean greasy buildup, such as you see on ovens, stovetops, and friers.
If I can find it... I guess not, but something similar hopefully.
+1 for the long soak. This isn't as viable in a commercial kitchen (time, space, scale), but at home you can leave a grease-laden implement in a sink overnight. Much nicer on the hands and the environment.
I bought a professional degreaser and it works! Thumbs up!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.789277 | 2011-06-11T14:02:53 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15382",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Bruce Alderson",
"Cascabel",
"Simas",
"The Binge Thinker",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32631",
"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
} |
16997 | How can you prevent lettuce from becoming bitter?
I've been buying good lettuce recently and have been storing them in the fridge in a water bath. This way the lettuce stays in good shape and I prepare some salads. After about a week, however, the lettuce becomes inedible because of the bitter taste.
Do you know why this happens or any way to prevent the bitterness?
I expect that the ultimate answer to your question is to eat your lettuce faster and restock sooner. I fear getting more than a week of "freshness" out of your lettuce may be expecting too much. Since you are storing it in a water bath, you can get an extra couple of days out of raising the acidity of your bath a bit. Try adding a little bit of lemon juice to water (1 tsp).
I'll give that a try (the lemon juice). Eating faster is a bigger problem as these are BIG lettuce.
Remember to never cut lettuce with a metal knife. It will oxidize the lettuce and possibly create that bitterness. They sell plastic lettuce knives, but I used to work in the produce dept of a grocery store and our favorite lettuce knife was to get a plastic cake cutter (cheap/free) from the bakery dept.
This is a partial answer dealing with only one type of lettuce: There is no way I know of or have heard of to remove the bitterness in iceberg lettuce. There is a way however to avoid buying a bitter head of lettuce, which I practice:
When shopping for lettuce, I take use my thumbnail to make a wide scratch at the cut stem and smell it (use anything to make the scratch - the idea is to expose fresh unexposed cells). Bitter lettuce is detectable by smell and can be rejected.
Notes:
I have rejected whole bins of iceberg lettuce in the USA as bitter and used alternative types.
In the USA, the lettuce is now mostly wrapped in plastic at the grocery, requiring the peeling back of the plastic to scratch the stem.
Could you explain what you smell?
Is a bit difficult to describe, to my nose, the bitter lettuce has a strongish, slightly bitter smell, while the sweet lettuce has very little smell. The best thing is to start smelling, and tasting. These tried and true methods work for many things. I've gotten weird looks a few times for biting off the end of a carrot to check flavor before purchasing large bunches. Decades ago the green grocer would have the various viands out for sampling. Some grocers would even cut a small wedge out of a watermelon they selected, to allow tasting. A thing mostly of the past now, unfortunately.
At any rate, the question is how to prevent bitterness from building up. The lettuce started out perfectly.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.789467 | 2011-08-19T23:17:10 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16997",
"authors": [
"BWinSF",
"BaffledCook",
"DJphy",
"Frankie",
"Tiffany",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36423",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36475",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7092"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
18367 | Dark stock proportions
When making croquettes, I always end up with more meat than I can use. That is to say that I'm aiming at about 20% meat in a flavor-full concentrated velouté.
The problem I'm having is that I use about 400gr meat for 1 liter of water, and that's 40% meat to begin with... (OK, after cooking the meat loses 50% weight, but I have no idea how much water evaporates).
I'm afraid to use less meat, but maybe I could add more bones?
What proportions are appropriate for a nice dark stock (or an ordinary one)?
According to the Culinary Institute of America their basic formula for all Meat or Poutlry based stock would be:
8 lb/3.63 kg bones and trimmings
5 -6 qt/4.80 - 5.76 L water
1 lb/ 454 g Standard or White Mirepoix
You would not need any actual cut of meat for a stock according to them. Those would be reserved for making a broth. Their basic formula for broth doesn't specify a ratio between meat and bones just 10 lb. of meat or poultry including bones to 5 qt water. If you are converting a stock into a broth they give the formula of 3 lbs meat to 5 qt stock. Based on that a good starting point might be 7 lb bones and 3 lb meat to 5 qt water.
Just an FYI they make all their mother sauces using stocks, broth seem to be reserved for soups and other applications.
I think you can use the meat to generate a good Fond for your gravy
This is some good info. I'll give that a try next time around. 4kg bones and trimmings, 5l water, 500g mirepoix.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.789702 | 2011-10-14T23:09:46 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18367",
"authors": [
"AlessanRS",
"BaffledCook",
"Denise",
"Sandra",
"dassouki",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39726",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39727",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40052",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87",
"mr.duongns",
"walter"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
18875 | What to look for in an induction stovetop?
This is a sad story, because I've already bought one and am not completely happy.
The good:
Power - 9kW.
Fires - 3 fires from small to large (14cm - 28cm).
Timer - From one to ninety nine minutes for each fire.
The bad: The controls.
They are incorporated in the surface and are very sensitive. When cleaning the surface it will power down the stovetop.
If you put anything on the controls, they will flash an error message.
There is only one up and down button. when more than one fire is 'burning' you have to activate the fire you want to change. You have to cycle clockwise through all the fires to do that.
What advise would you give to anyone looking for an induction stovetop?
I have a (very cheap portable) induction stovetop, and there are 2 things I don't like. First, the controls: exactly as you say. Second: It doesn't heat all the time, but in cycles (maybe 2 seconds on, 2 seconds off). However, I don't know how to recognize the second problem without trying cooking on the stove.
@rumtscho, when making a pan sauce, I'm seeing the bubbles going up, then down, so this is probably a common thing.
If you like to cook using 3 or more elements at once, ensure you buy a sufficiently powered model. There's nothing more frustrating than upping the power on one element and watching another one reduce at the same time.
Touch controls look nice but they're horrible from a usability standpoint. I always had problems with responsiveness with wet or greasy fingers.
Cockroaches love induction. I don't know if the frequency attracts them or it's just the heat but they will come and eat out the wiring, even if you've never spotted one in the house before. It's a common problem as it's hard to seal the electronics for thermal reasons. Board replacements are expensive. It's one item I would consider an extended warranty on.
As for any 2" cooktop, larger pot/pan sizes can't be accommodated if you're using 3 or more elements. Go 2'8" minimum.
WT-Heck cockroaches ????
It is always best to try the product before buying it. As for the touch controls I prefer a control panel that is angled, not flat. This way I can accommodate larger cookware without it touching the controls. If you are using a multi burner cooktop ask if all the burners can be operated at full power together. Most induction cooktops use power varience technology and they share the total power between the burners.
Definitely go through reviews before buying.
Hello Linda, links to other sites are only welcome under certain conditions. Yours seems to be inserted for self-promotion purposes, so people downvoted the answer and flagged it for moderator attention. I'm deleting the link, because the answer is good enough without it.
Ask if it can be mounted flush with your counter top so you have 1 completely smooth surface. Mine is located on an island counter. When my cooktop is not in use I can throw a tablecloth over to of it and use it as a dining table.
To answer your question, the advice I would give someone on buying a stovetop is the same as the advice I'd give someone for buying anything else: do as much research as possible before buying. Don't let a salesman tell you what you need; find out what's available and what you want/need, and then decide based on how much you're willing to spend. If you're not an expert on stovetops (which I should point out that I am not) there are lots of buying guides out there that outline the features of various technologies (try not to get all your information from one place, especially not if it's a company trying to advertise their products). Various authors writing these "consumer buying guides" will often point out their own suggestions that you might find helpful. Here are a couple links for your reading:
US Appliance
Consumer Reports
Try to look around and always have as much information as you can get before making a decision. It's a bit of work but it always pays off.
When choosing an induction stovetop, consider the following key factors:
Power and Efficiency: Look for a model with a high wattage for faster cooking and precise temperature control.
Safety Features: Ensure the stovetop has features like auto shut-off, child lock, and overheating protection for added safety.
Cookware Compatibility: Verify that your existing cookware is compatible with induction technology or consider investing in
induction-compatible pots and pans for optimal performance.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.789858 | 2011-11-10T08:44:13 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18875",
"authors": [
"Akhilani",
"Anne Tierney",
"BaffledCook",
"Max",
"Mindy Anderson",
"Moshe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146703",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40903",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43523",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
43167 | When baking meatballs for a soup, do I have to bake until the meat is fully cooked?
I'm making Italian Wedding Soup, and my recipe calls for oven-baking the meatballs for 7-9 minutes before adding them to the soup and boil/simmer for 5 minutes.
Maybe I made the meatballs a bit too big, but it's taking 2-3x the suggested oven time for them to reach 160 degrees (they were only about 110 after the first 8 minutes).
Could I rely on the boil-in-soup step to fully cook the meatballs instead? Would I have to simmer the soup for more than 5 minutes? Is this a bad idea?
It doesn't matter in which modality (banking, simmering) you bring the meatballs up to temperature, only that you do.
Normally, if you are cooking them in the oven first, it is for browning generate additional flavor. Otherwise, you could simply simmer them from the beginning, which is perfectly viable.
Oven-baking, it's easy to know when it's done with a thermometer. How would I know when they're done in-soup? Could I just count on that happening before the water boils?
They won't take very long to poach, and the consistency should be a pretty good indicator--when they are not...erm... squishy. On the other hand, if you want to be absolutely sure, take out a couple of sample meatballs, and test them with the thermometer.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.790235 | 2014-03-30T21:05:30 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43167",
"authors": [
"Alishba Masood",
"Avanti Hardware spam",
"Buzzie",
"Ed Brannin",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101004",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101005",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101006",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101007",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/226"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
7356 | Why does rice flour or cornstarch produce crispier crusts than wheat flour?
If you add a percentage of rice flour or cornstarch to any sort of breading or pancake, you get a much crispier crust than one made with 100% wheat flour. The Vietnamese banh xeo, which is like a crepe made with just rice flour and coconut milk, no egg, comes out extremely crispy, for example. What is the physical reason that these pure starches cook up crispy?
My guess would be a lack of gluten in those flours. Gluten makes dough sticky and dense, so adding flours with little to no gluten might make it less sticky and thus crispier.
I think that is right, but I'm hoping for a deeper structural answer about why pure starch is crispy and gluten is not as crispy, when fully cooked.
After a quick Google search it is a result of a lack of gluten. From what I gather it is not directly due to the lack of gluten - but rather the lack of direct interaction between starches and gluten.
When starch granules are attacked by enzymes present in flour, they release the sugars that yeast feeds on. Starch also reinforces gluten and absorbs water during baking, helping the gluten to contain the pockets of gas produced by the yeast. Source
For me this is a case of correlation is not necessarily causation, as a couple of other sites mentioned that this can observation also varies from cooking method to cooking method (baking v. steaming etc).
the same reason cake flour makes a better roux than AP flour, higher starch to protein ratio
the pure starch, zero protein end of the spectrum appears in velveting How does velveting work?
but you asked why
proteins, when they cook, curdle at lower temperatures, holding onto more water, not crispy, and at higher temperatures, they begin to decompose a Maillard reaction way, getting messy, oily, and burnty, which is not the crispy we're looking for
heat going into starch, beyond the boiling point of water , drives off the water, leaving the starch matrix to cook crispy. that matrix shrinks a bit, but is still full of holes for water to escape through
heat going into protein, beyond the boiling point of water, drives off the water and begins to create a complex, dense mess of aromatic molecules and eventually soot. the outside is much less permeable to escaping water, so we tend to dump in more heat, worsening the dense uncrispy crust problem
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.790389 | 2010-09-16T06:15:40 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7356",
"authors": [
"LadyMadness",
"Michael Natkin",
"amphibient",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15081",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15114",
"user3391"
],
"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
} |
87116 | What kind of frosting has similar texture to the major grocery brands?
I have a frosting conundrum. I like the texture of the major brands of frosting one might buy in a grocery store, like Duncan Hines or Betty Crocker or similar.
Specifically, I like that the frosting is dense and becomes a bit stiff as it sets, while retaining moistness underneath the outer layer that is exposed to the air.
Although I haven't often made frosting myself, I have tried several different types made by others, including buttercream frosting, cream cheese frosting, whipped cream frosting, and meringue, but they never seem to come close to the texture I like (as described above). So what kind of frosting should I be looking for to get that texture?
It would be a nice bonus to know what ingredients or preparation methods account for that texture, so I can look at a frosting recipe and make a good guess about whether it'll give me the kind of thing I want.
Another difference is commercial equipment.
It sounds like you might be happy with Wilton Buttercream ... which is mostly whipped shortening and powdered sugar. I don't have the recipe on me right now, but I did post a variation of the recipe to a related question a few years ago: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/4869/67
Depending on how soft you make it (how much water you add) and how humid it is, after a bit of drying, it'll form a crust that you can use to your advantage (lay on some waxed paper, then press out any ridges). You can then cover it so it won't dry out too much.
The important part of the process is a stand mixer, so you can leave it mixing for a really long time.
Sounds like I'll have to get a stand mixer and try this out sometime. Thanks! I'll see how it works. If you find the original version of that recipe, it would make a nice addition to the answer.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.790617 | 2018-01-16T00:10:04 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87116",
"authors": [
"David Z",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1400",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
7039 | Refrigerating olive oil
I made some mojo de ajo using Rick Bayless’s recipe. He says that it will keep for up to 3 months in the refrigerator, so I stored it in the refrigerator. The oil seems to have solidified in the refrigerator. If I leave it out for a bit, it melts again, but I am worried that refrigerating olive oil will harm its flavor. Is it bad to refrigerate olive oil to the point that it solidifies? Is it normal for olive oil to do this?
In my experience, that is completely normal and will not harm its flavor at all. You just need to warm it up before serving so that you can re-mix / emulsify your sauce / dressing. It congeals in the fridge much like any other fat will (think butter or bacon grease). Apparently, extra virgin olive oil may suffer from condensation in the bottle affecting the flavor. It may also turn cloudy.
But in general, you should be fine. Even if it does go bad, it should just affect the flavor and not be harmful, just gross. So if it tastes bad, toss it. Otherwise you're fine. Note: I'm just talking about the oil going rancid, not anything else you might mix with it.
Rice bran oil also goes solid in a refrigerator.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.791187 | 2010-09-09T23:29:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7039",
"authors": [
"Jacek Konieczny",
"Peet",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14340",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/535",
"spkane"
],
"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
} |
16266 | Flank postmortem (how I was outflanked)
Picture yourself a flank veal-cut. The grease and silver tissue are off. I open the flank with a knife to extend it. It's filled with ground meat, apple and raisins. It's rolled and bound and goes into the oven at 50ºC to get the enzymes working full speed. It stays at 50ºC with high humidity for an hour.
Then, the dial goes to 180ºC until the center of the flank reaches 65ºC.
Result: the outside is overdone and tough to eat.
I'm guessing I could get better results taking the meat to 65ªC slowly, then let it cool before giving it a blast of heat to get a crust on the outside.
Normally, this kind of meat is seared first, and then stays in liquid on a slow fire for some time (braising). I wanted to obtain the same or better result the other way around.
Does anybody have any additional idea? Should I stick with braising, if so, for how long?
"The other way round" certainly works. Only not with a blast of hot air.
You can happily get the meat cooked to your 65°C first, then take care of the crust. But convection heat isn't enough to give you a crust. You need either conduction, or radiation.
For conduction, you need contact with a hot material which gives off lots of heat at once, commonly known as "searing". I know that searing after the roasting is unusual in the kitchen, but this is only one of those things which is done because it has always been done this way, or maybe because great men like Leibnitz posed the untested hypothesis that searing "seals the juices in", and the world hasn't caught on that it has been disproved. Disregard, and plop the cooked meat on a hot griddle brushed with a thin layer of oil. BTW, the food lab swears on exactly that technique.
A more common approach is to use radiation heat, and lots of it. This is why most ovens have a thing called grill/broiler. Put the roasted meat close to it, use it until there is a crust, turn it to another side, continue. Here, you have to pay a bit more attention. The heat is enough to warm the inside too, so stop the first cooking stage at less than 60°C. I can't tell you how much less, but would probably try it with 60°C the first time. If you brush the meat with some fat first (really thin, use a pastry brush), you will get a crispier crust. You can also look into "advanced" techniques like putting something on the meat, usually dusting it with flour, but sometimes batter is also used.
I'll give that a try real soon and report back here.
There is also method three to searing meat: propane torch.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.791324 | 2011-07-18T22:49:43 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16266",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Hameeda",
"Kevin Holt",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34629",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34648",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34653",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"tramdptn bat32"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
15110 | Quality of frozen salmon (fish in general)
I've bought two different sets of frozen salmon with the same result. On thawing the salmon is bland and off color (more gray than pink).
After cooking, the taste is OK, but the presentation and texture is totally off.
I've tried to defrost this fish in the fridge and submerged in milk with the same result. My guess is these two brands are no good.
So, my question is: does quality salmon exist frozen, with the 'same' texture and color as fresh salmon?
Some species of salmon are better or worse at freezing. Pacific Sockeye freezes very well and is your best bet if you're buying frozen. It's also the most expensive. Pink salmon doesn't freeze well at all (but is delicious if you can get it fresh!). Others like Chum are somewhere in the middle.
Most "cheap" salmon that you get in North American supermarkets is farmed Atlantic salmon. It holds up well to freezing, but is generally pretty gray and bland to begin with. Avoid it.
I'll start looking at the species from now on.
Most salmon (and tuna) used in sushi has been previously frozen. So YES, frozen salmon of high quality exists. The problem is that the freezing process (if you want to maintain quality) is complicated. If done incorrectly you wind up with spongy watery tasteless salmon.
So:
Buy it frozen from people who really know how to freeze correctly, those who intend the fish to be good enough for sushi.
eg: http://www.stormseafood.com/
or
http://www.catalinaop.com/Salmon_Sake_s/114.htm
If you find it in a store it should be in it's own deep-freeze cooler, and you should bring a cooler to the store with you. Any changes in temperature and you wind up with spongy fish.
Thaw it yourself using correct thawing methods.
this will ensure freshness, texture (if frozen correctly), and safety.
Thawing should be done
in ice water for a quick thaw or 24 hours in fridge for a slow thaw.
My local grocer carries little bricks of salmon from storm seafood, and following the advice above, I can bring it home and eat it raw. Great texture and flavor.
With frozen salmon (or any frozen fish), a lower price indicates lower quality. You might be able to find a suitable vendor with enough experimentation.
But frozen fish will never be as good as fresh, and the texture is the first thing to go.
You might have better luck using the frozen salmon as an ingredient in the dish (such as in an alfredo sauce), rather than the start ingredient.
That sounds fair enough. I just hoped some trademark would provide decent fish.
"A lower price indicates lower quality" I'd say it's correlated. Going into a grocery store with the attitude that spending more money gets you better food can sometimes just lead to wasting money.
"a lower price indicates lower quality" is the wrong approach. Supermarket prices are generally correlated to the strength of the brand and not necessarily the strength of the product.
While certainly not true for everything, I think that price-to-quality correlation is strong for fish. Copper river salmon comes to mind, this time of year particularly.
@lukecyca: Really, it's correlated to several things (brand names, actual cost of the product, consumer demand...), with the strength of each correlation depending on product. For something like fish, the actual cost is then going to be correlated with quality, because it's more expensive to get good fish, and freeze it well while it's still really fresh. In any case, I think the important point here is to just do your best to look at what's available and figure out how good it is, regardless of price.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.791594 | 2011-05-28T23:23:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15110",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Cascabel",
"KatieK",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1434",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"lukecyca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
21146 | How long will roux keep?
I've made roux some time ago. Forgot to put the date on the container. How long will it keep in the fridge? I'll be making a sauce in a day or two...
Surely you figured something out by now, but here is what I would do. First, look closely and carefully for surface mold. Look around the rim of the container. If that is clear, smell the oil for rancidity. If it stinks, throw it out. At this point, it looks good and it smells good. I can't imagine a dish where the roux is not thoroughly heated, so unless you are pioneering some kind of cold ingredient, cold roux dish, I think you are good to go. The sealed roux in the fridge should behave like a confit and retard spoilage for a while. If you did a dark roux (like a cajun style) it should last a really long time. They sell it in jars in New Orleans supermarkets, and if memory serves, the jar said something like 90 days in the fridge after opening.
It should keep for a week or two, at least. Maybe more. This is assuming, of course, it was refrigerated. I would be worried about it picking up funky flavors from the other food in your refrigerator, though.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.791884 | 2012-02-07T22:35:30 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21146",
"authors": [
"Mesbah Uddin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48389"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
29129 | How can I prevent coconut cream from curdling in a soda drink?
I've made Tom Kha soda syrup:
simple syrup + coconut cream + lime leaves + lemongrass + galangal + a bit of lime juice to help preserve
When I add a couple spoons of it to soda water and ice, it curdles. I know this is because the soda water is too acidic (it's just tap water that I carbonated — no basic additives). What can I do to alleviate this without changing the flavour too much?
Does it curdle, or just not mix evenly? Not only shold acid not cause coconut cream to curdle, but carbonated tap water shouldn't be acidic. I would try thinning the syrup in a small amount uncarbonated water and then blend it into the carbonated water (maybe caronated to a higher amount to account for the extra water).
@EmilyAnne: Carbonation makes water more acidic; the CO2 directly contributes to free hydrogen atoms.
I really wish people do leave a comment while down-voting. It helps everyone to know what's wrong with the answer. I am curious to know and learn :)
If the water is to acidic, add baking soda to the tap water, you need to use very little, 0.5 - 2 grams per liter, to do this you need scale that can weight such small entities, or just add very little, much less than a tea spoon and test.
If it's acidity that's causing the separation, a pinch of baking soda should do it. In fact (trivia alert!), the first "soda" was naturally carbonated spring water, which usually contained alkaline sodium compounds, including sodium bicarbonate, a.k.a. baking soda. Many brands of carbonated water today, especially those marketed as "club soda" in the US or "soda water" in the UK, have baking soda added to mimic the flavor of that natural spring water.
Having said that, if coconut cream curdles with acid, and you've already added lime juice to your coconut cream, there's nothing you can do to un-curdle it. However, coconut cream has very little protein, which is what causes dairy milk to curdle in acid. Most of the discussion I can find online about coconut milk and cream curdling refers to heat as the main cause.
Could your problem simply be that the high-fat coconut milk, like many fatty products, doesn't mix easily with water? Try blending it thoroughly with a small amount of water, and then blend that with the larger amount of carbonated water, and see what happens.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.792026 | 2012-12-13T04:12:30 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29129",
"authors": [
"Emily Anne",
"Mark Pace",
"Rt.iss7",
"Stefan",
"Valaroooo",
"bonCodigo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67541",
"jscs"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
10662 | Why is my chuck roast dry?
Our chuck roast came out tender but dry. Why?
We used the Beef in Barolo recipe from Americas Test Kitchen:
- 2 lbs chuck roast seasoned with salt and pepper
- Cooked at 300*F for 3 hours in a full bottle of red wine and veggies
- Pot was covered in foil and lid on top
- Turned the meat every 45 minutes
- Instructions were to cook until the meat fell apart easily with a fork
What did we do wrong?
Thanks!
The temp your meat reached was too high, and it forced the water out of the meat.
Further info here along with a handy chart of temps.
My suggestion would be to turn that oven down to 200-230 degrees if you've gotta cook for three hours, or start temping it earlier and get it out before it over cooks.
+1: 3 hours is way too long for 2 pounds of meat, even at only 300
Chart link is broken.
Turn the heat down to 225 or 250. If you want your chuck roast to fall apart similar to pulled pork, you have to take the internal temperature of the meat up to around 190-195, in order to render all the fat and connective tissue. At 300 degrees, such a small roast will start to overcook before those tissues get a chance to melt away. At 225 to 250, you're giving your meat a fighting chance to be edible. Even still, 3 hours may be too much time. Check it at 1.5 hours, then every half hour or so afterwards, until you reach your desired effect. Like I said, for pulled beef you're probably taking it up to 190-195. If you want to slice it, take it to maybe 175. But don't let time and temperature be your only guides -- use your eyes, fingers, etc. Test for tenderness with your probe, and make sure it doesn't look like it's drying out.
Two pounds is a VERY small roast--I'd recommend at LEAST a 3-pound roast. Brown the meat on top of the stove to sear the outside, which helps keep the juices inside. When braising meat on top of the stove or in the oven, only cover the meat by 1/2 to 1 inch with liquid. After browning the meat, add the liquid and let it come to a boil before putting it in a pre-heated oven. You can do it at 300 degrees but 3 hours would be too long for such a small roast.
Browning meat does not help keep the juices is. Not at all. It gives color and flavor, but only time and temperature control while roasting will keep the meat juicy.
Look up Maillard reaction. https://www.scienceofcooking.com/maillard_reaction.htm
if most of the meat is covered with liquid you are in effect boiling the roast ... this is not what you want to do
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.792256 | 2011-01-01T18:56:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10662",
"authors": [
"AJMansfield",
"Didgeridrew",
"Graham",
"MarsJarsGuitars-n-Chars",
"Peter Funk",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Shahraiz Chishti",
"Sylver",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123375",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155994",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21861",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21862",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21955",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77108",
"nielsbot",
"user1388903",
"user21955"
],
"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
} |
19641 | How can I tell if my chocolate is tempered?
How can you tell if chocolate is already tempered?
I have some bulk Bernard Callebaut milk chocolate chips.
I have never heard of anybody selling non-tempered chocolate, do you have reason to suspect yours isn't? Is the texture strange?
If it has a shiny/reflective surface and doesn't melt or bloom (much) at room temperature or hand temperature, then it's already tempered. Virtually every packaged chocolate is already tempered.
Untempered chocolate generally needs to be refrigerated for longer-term storage, so if a package doesn't specify refrigeration (and I've never seen one that does), you can assume that it is tempered.
Thanks for the operational definition. Wikipedia also mentions the tempered chocolate breaking with a snap rather than crumble. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chocolate#Tempering
Most chocolate you buy are already tempered(the ones with real cocao butter) but when you melt the chocolate so you can work with it, you must temper it again.
I found this great article on allrecipe in regards to this. It gives step by step information about melting and tempering chocolate.
http://allrecipes.com/howto/tempering-chocolate/
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.792528 | 2011-12-14T04:50:46 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19641",
"authors": [
"Brian Low",
"JamesQMurphy",
"Skorpioh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1326",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42805",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42806",
"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
} |
17201 | How to distinguish nutmeg freshness?
Does nutmeg come with a good-before date? How long can nutmeg stay good? Is there a way to 'see' (observe) how old the nutmeg is?
I'm asking because I bought a bag of nutmeg seeds and one was moldy. Maybe just bad luck, but it made me wondering about the freshness of the rest, and how that must affect the flavor in a negative way.
According to the Wikipedia, freshly ground nutmeg has a psychoactive substance, but I guess that must be from fresh nutmeg. So, I'm looking for a way to distinguish between potential poisonous nutmeg and stale nutmeg.
I've bought 'fresh' nutmeg and the package has a two year 'best before' date.
Simple: grate it.
If you grate the nutmeg using a microplane, it should have a strong, distinctive odor you can smell from a couple feet away. If it doesn't, it's lost its flavor, throw it away and buy new.
It's fairly likely you're going to end up replacing it. I've never seen nutmegs get moldy before, and I live somewhere with 80% humidity. It would have to be stored in some very poor conditions to mold.
It was only one out of a dozen, but anyhow, I'd like to know if there is a way to prevent buying stale nutmeg.
BC, just don't shop at that same store. I buy nutmeg from Asian supermarkets -- which are not exactly known for careful stocking -- and I've never had an issue with mold or flavorlessness; a whole nutmeg should keep for up to 2 years if dry. Just shop somewhere else and you should be fine.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.792658 | 2011-08-27T23:32:47 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17201",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"FuzzyChef",
"Shelby. S",
"TigerhawkT3",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36915",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36916",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"user36917"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
18973 | How to keep a chocolate cream from getting hard?
I've been making a chocolate cream/spread lately. Some butter, chocolate, salt, allspice, cocoa and water. I'm not really using any recipe, but it's about twice the chocolate over butter.
These ingredients are mixed at a low temp, the water gets added after the rest is melted and stirred together. After cooling, this mixture stays usable at room temperature for some days. That is, it can be spread on bread. But after some days, the mixture becomes brittle and hard.
I suppose this is because water evaporates out. Does anybody know how this can be prevented or reverted? Should I melt it and mix more water in? Is that possible?
I had to do some reading on this one. There are a lot of answers.
1- You should find a better recipe. Chocolate spread recipes I have used come in one of two styles.
The water in your recipe seems to be a problem. The nutella style that uses fat, sugar, and chocolate. These will not really dry out. Sometimes the oil will separate a little and will need to be mixed back in. I would group frostings in this group although, of course, they contain far more sugar.
See this recipe:
http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/gale-gand/chocolate-hazelnut-spread-with-crepes-recipe/index.html
Thick chocolate candy. AKA fudge. These contain water but the sugar and water are cooked together into a syrup so the water is not able to immediately dry out. They will crystallize if they are badly handled- many recipes contain a little corn syrup to prevent this. This does not seem to be what you are trying to make.
2- Store your concoction in a lidded container that isn't too much larger than your sauce. I use mason jars to store mine. Alternatively you can push plastic wrap down onto the surface of the spread.
3- Refrigeration. Recipes that don't contain dairy don't need to be refrigerated and in fact shouldn't be because it causes them to harden.
4- Adding water to melted chocolate is only a problem when dealing with chocolate that is dry and meant to solidify such as a molded chocolate. In such a case even a drop of water will cause seizing. In this case where there is already quite a bit of water in the recipe seizing is not a risk and you shouldn't have any problem mixing a tiny bit back in. Do not add water to the nutella-like spread recipes. They do not contain water and it will not mix in.
I can't tell from your description what is causing your sauce to harden- it could be drying out, separating, or crystallizing. Any of these will be solved by reheating and thoroughly stirring. Although water could be added to restore dried syrup I think you will get better results by switching to a recipe that uses fat in place of the water.
fat, or a little corn syrup might work
I'll change the recipe and go without water.
The issue is your chocolate. By adding butter and water, you have crerated something like a Ganache which has become harder over time due to the harder fat in the chocolate which would tend to harden.
Nutella does not use hard cocoa butter found in chocolate but create their own recipe with Palm Olein.
You need to create your recipe from scratch.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.792826 | 2011-11-16T00:24:09 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18973",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Jano",
"Shahzad Hashmi",
"garymoore.jr",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41153",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41154",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41175",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"pgl",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
4170 | Uses for thick "country-style" phyllo?
I bought a few boxes of Phyllo (Fillo) that is described as Horiatiko / Country Style - Extra-Thick #10. Extra-thick is definitely relative; it is probably twice as thick as normal phyllo but still paper-thin. The first thing I did with it was to make a spinach/manouri/feta filling seasoned with ras al hanout, brushed the phyllo with butter, rolled them up and baked til golden. It was good, but not nearly as flaky as normal phyllo.
So my questions are (1) is there something I should be doing to have it come out flakier or is that just how the country-style is? (2) are there particular applications where the country-style is considered preferable?
It's meant that way. Good for pies, etc.
See this link on phyllo types if you like.
Great link, thank you! So I basically made hortopita in a different form factor :).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.793106 | 2010-08-04T06:19:51 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4170",
"authors": [
"Michael Natkin",
"davidb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7813"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
4599 | Whats the simplest possible spicy thai curry?
I love massaman, green curry, red curry, yellow curry, etc.
Can any of these be made quickly at home with only 4-5 ingredients?
I think @roux is generally right, curries are like mexican moles, they have lots of spices and are fairly complex. But I do think there are some short-cuts.
The most important components in a curry are sweetness, creaminess, heat, citrus, salt, and depth. I don't know if by simple you also mean you want to use common ingredients, or just 'few' ingredients. This is what I would use if I only had common ingredients:
Coconut milk, cayenne pepper, onion/garlic/ginger, lemon/lime juice, salt/pepper, sugar/honey. I'd also add basil/cilantro/jalapeno for green, tumeric/cumin for yellow, ketchup/tomato paste/chili powder for red.
If you have them, the traditional ingredients you're trying to replicate are lemongrass, lime-leaf, red or green chiles, and fish sauce (or soy sauce).
Yes, you will need to buy a pre-made curry paste if you want to get anywhere near 5 ingredients. Mae Ploy is a reputable brand.
To directly answer your question: no, you can't.
However, you could prepare a curry paste at home and then refrigerate it. In my experience, they can last for a month without issue.
This recipe is good for 2-3 woks worth of curry noodles, you can also add coconut milk on the wok towards the end.
1-2 fresh chillies, deseeded
4-5 cloves of garlic
1 tsp ground ginger
1 tsp ground cumin
0.5 tsp turmeric
0.5 tsp ground cardamom
0.25 tsp ground cloves
0.25 tsp ground cinnamon
1 tablespoon ground coriander
3 tablespoons soy sauce
Put everything in a food processor and blitz. There's your curry paste.
Extra points for adding a handfull of fresh coriander leaves, or the flesh of a mango to the mix.
It sure is possible to make a Thai curry with 5 ingredients. All of the coconut based curries have the same basic ingredients. Jungle curry contains stock instead of coconut cream and has a few more ingredients such as green peppercorns.
The 5 basic ingredients to an authentic Thai curry are:
Curry paste: Most authentic (not westernised) brand is Maesri. Other brands lack the flavour punch that defines Thai curries.
Coconut cream: Buy the one with the highest percentage of coconut solids. Milk is ok if that's the only one available but make sure you get the highest percentage.
Palm sugar: Buy it online if you can't get it locally. Do not substitute normal sugar
Fish sauce: Squid brand is the best in my opinion
Meat and vegetables: Use sweet vegetables for red curry and bitter vegetables for green curry
See my universal curry method (adapted from David Thompson's) for more information.
FYI: Most Thai people don't make the paste from scratch because it is readily available at the markets here in Thailand.
Let's look at a few from-scratch, simple options.
Assuming you have salt, water, sugar anyway, so not counting them.
"some Umami source" = shrimp paste, soy sauce, MSG, whatever you prefer.
A basic but tasty tom kha base can be made with coconut milk, lime leaves, lemongrass, galangal, chile peppers, shallot, lime juice, some umami source - thicker versions can be served like a curry, and you get the base sauce from 8 ingredients. Add a protein and/or mushroom (oyster or shiitake work great), maybe some beansprouts.
The simplest "real" curry base would be gaeng kua - paste of chilies, garlic, galangal, lemongrass, cilantro root, shallots, lime zest. You'll need coconut milk, an umami source, and lime leaves and juice. So, 10 for the base (lime gives you zest and juice. Use an organic lime!). Protein, and optionally bamboo sprouts, pineapple, and veg of choice.
One very simple but tasty coconut milk based curry is south indian Olan and the variations you can make of it - just good coconut milk, chile peppers, fresh or frozen curry leaves (not curry powder, not dried curry leaves or leaf powder!), cooked black eye (or kidney) beans, and some diced squash/gourd/pumpkin (original uses winter melon, but it is also great with eg a mix of hokkaido squash and zucchini.) - and you have a great soup or rice accompaniment depending on how thick you make it.
EDIT: Thinking about it, getting some fresh/frozen curry leaves is definitely worth it if possible. As said, they have nothing to do with the spice called "curry powder" nor do they taste of it - but they tend to feature in a lot of curries built on very simple spice combinations. Olan, some types of Thoran, simple versions of keralan vegetable ishtoo (stew ;) ), some other south indian curries, some basic indonesian ones (they use a herb called Daun Salam, similar or even identical to it), various implementations of the great mangalorean pineapple curry - all using curry leaves and all getting a complex flavour from very few spices.
*birds eye chilies
*onion/shallots
*lemon grass
*coconut milk/cream
*tumeric powder (and the leaves if you can find it)
optional: ginger/ginger powder and tamarind paste.
You can blitz all the ingredients into a blender make it into paste if you want a thick, concentrated and intense flavour or just slice the ingredients for lightly flavoured curry.
Malaysian yellow curry Similar ingredients to Thai cooking. Malaysia is a multi-cultural society, the cuisine depicts Malay, Chinese and Indian. This recipe is an 'everyday' Malay dish. Using a ready-made paste is rare. Called 'masak lemak'. Works with meat, fish and veg. However most Malays cook the meat and veg together. Eg. yellow chicken curry with carrots, potato (oh yes, potato is a veg in South-East Asia!), cabbage, young mango etc.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.793225 | 2010-08-09T01:05:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4599",
"authors": [
"Carl moy",
"Joelle",
"Jonah Bishop",
"Pierre",
"Richard Walls",
"Robert",
"Steve G",
"StevieP",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147311",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8774",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8775",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8827",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8831",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8835",
"keith",
"someguy"
],
"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
} |
5337 | Potato in the microwave
My brother in law was telling me the other day that he just sticks whole potatos into the microwave wrapped in wax paper for a quick snack. Is this ok/safe? If you do this, do you have other suggestions to make it tastier? I haven't tried it yet, but am tempted!
Just put them on the glass turntable. No bag or wrapper required. Potatoes have natural skins, designed for the microwave. If it explodes your are overcooking it
Before microwaving (or baking, for that matter) a potato, I always poke it deeply with a fork several times to let steam escape. I prefer the taste of a baked potato to a microwave potato, but will often speed up baking a potato by microwaving it for a few minutes first. You can definitely microwave until done.
After it is done, butter and salt and pepper are good, simple accompaniments. Shredded cheese melts nicely over the warm potato, but a crispy melted cheese poured over the potato is really amazing. Other good toppings would be sour cream, bacon, chives, green onions, and caramelized onions.
Amen on the poking. In the central US, they sell potatoes cleaned and wrapped in plastic with a "Microwave Ready" sticker on them. I never buy them since they cost 3x as much.
@Adam - I've seen those. In five minutes I can get the same result at home for a lot less (even calculating five minutes of my time).
What is "a crispy melted cheese"?
@Dennis - the way I get crispy melted cheese is by using a raclette oven and cooking raclette cheese, but in the US at least not many people have the Swiss background for that. I imagine any sturdy cheese that you can melt until crisp somehow would be good.
@Wil - totally microwave oven dependent. Cook until a fork goes in smoothly. I'd start with maybe 3-5 minutes and gauge from there.
The advice I heard in college was "Cook until it bursts. Note how long it took. Next time, don't cook as long."
I generally cook for 2 minutes per 100 grams. That's until done.
I have also microwaved first to reduce time while frying potatoes for breakfast.
Seconding poking with a fork. Once you explode a potato in the microwave, you will never, ever do it again.
I actually like to do a hybrid for a quick snack. I'll preheat the toaster oven before microwaving. As soon as the potato is done in the microwave, I'll rub the outside with some olive oil, sprinkle kosher salt on it, then give it another 5-10 minutes in the oven/toaster oven to crisp up the skins. A lot of people will microwave-only cook them, but I don't really like a potato without a crispy skin. These don't get as properly crispy as a fully oven-baked potato would, but they're much closer than just microwaving, which tends to make skins a little soggy.
Another option for quick snacks: bake a bunch of potatoes at once, and turn them into twice-baked. These reheat really quickly and you can microwave or bake them (to reheat), both are quick reheat methods compared to baking an entire potato.
You can find recipes online, but the general idea is that you bake the potatoes, cut them in half, scoop out the insides, mash them with butter/milk/sour cream/bacon/salt/cheese/chives/onion (whatever you want, there's really no wrong way here), and then scoop that mix back into the hollowed out shells. Then, you bake them again for a short amount of time.
They're delicious, and they're quick to reheat - bonus, they also freeze very well, so I make a batch of 10 potatoes (which comes out to 20 twice-baked halves) at a time. Here is a recipe that is a great start as a guide for cooking times, but you'll find there is a ton of room for experimentation with ingredients here.
One thing to keep in mind is that some people believe nutrients will be destroyed in the microwave, so if that's a concern it might be worth baking them fully in the oven (I know, much less convenient, just throwing it out there). Caveat: some articles online not only refute that, but suggest that oven cooking may also destroy nutrients. It seems that it depends on the food item in question, along with cooking time and comparable method (boiling, steaming, baking). See related question about microwaves vs nutrients.
Do you have any evidence to back up the claim that "a lot of nutrients will be destroyed in the microwave". The stuff that I've read says that nutrition loss varies by cooking method and length, so microwave vs. stove can go either way depending on exactly what is done.
Honestly, it's just what I've been told, I don't know the science behind it. Myth 2 here: http://www.pyroenergen.com/articles/microwave-nutrients.htm supports my claim, but I've also read things that refute it. I'll edit my response to say "may" - very good point Keith.
So my original comment was based on "what i was always told", which as we all know isn't always right. Apparently (after some research) I'm finding that this is a very touchy subject even among nutritionists. I updated my answer to link to a few articles with very different claims between them. I'm going to open a question about microwaving and nutrients.
Microwave/nutrients question opened: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5343/does-microwaving-destroy-nutrients-in-food
I've been microwaving potatoes for decades, with and without poking with a fork, and none have ever "exploded", including those I overcooked. Please don't propagate this myth.
I will be one of the first people to say that it is not safe.
I have no idea what happened. It was three small potatoes, on a plate, in the microwave (before that, I had only done a single potato at a time). I put 'em in the microwave while I was taking a shower, as I was going to make a hash for breakfast.
When I came out of the shower, there were two charred remains of a potato, one of which was glowing. I have no idea what happened to the third potato. Maybe it was reduced to ashes.
The burning smell was bad ... it took me months of repeated cleanings trying to get the smell to go away, but it was nasty. And the tray in my microwave broke a few weeks after the incident (just randomly cracked in half) ... I have no idea if they were related, but I blame the potato.
Now, since that incident, I've learned that multiple round things near each other in the microwave is bad (might've been an episode of Mythbusters or Brainiac, I can't remember), so it might've been the fact that I had three potatoes in there at once. It might also have been an imperfect potato (you know how you sometimes get that odd black splotch or a void in the middle of a potato? I have no idea how that might affect microwaving).
Never again will I microwave a potato. Normally, I make a few extras when I'm baking some up, wrap 'em in foil, and stash 'em in the fridge, so I'm all ready for when I want to make a hash, I just didn't have any ready on that particular day.
update : So, in response to today's down-vote ... proof that I'm not crazy (at least not about this one) ... other people who have had flaming potatoes (some with pictures; the third one has an example of the glowing I was talking about):
http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/299010#6823804
http://www.photography-forum.org/showthread.php/59695-anyone-ever-set-fire-to-a-potato-in-the-microwave
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vT6362bAeP0
http://forum.appliancepartspros.com/microwave-repair/36132-sharp-carousel-microwave-dead-after-potato-fire.html
http://www.thriftyfun.com/tf/arc/010/637.html?
http://www.epinions.com/review/Frigidaire_PLMV169DC_Stainless_Steel_Microwave_Oven/content_469300317828?sb=1
http://www.helpowl.com/q/Frigidaire/PLMVZ169HC/Recalls/baked-potato/220927
http://forum.appliancepartspros.com/microwave-repair/214605-ge-profile-dead-after-potato-caught-fire.html
I'm not going to claim it's a regular occurance, but it's not like I'm the only person to have it happen, either ... it happens often enough that if you're planning on microwaving potatoes, you should be prepared that you may end up with this outcome.
Wow. Just...wow. Is it terrible that I'm tempted to try this but stick near the microwave and see if I can make the third disappear as well? Every day I find more and more reasons for my wife to hate me being a regular on this site...
@Joe - I've also heard that if you have any sharp edges they can spark and catch on fire. Personally I try not to leave my microwave unattended. Bad things always happen when I do that.
@stephennmcdonald : If you're going to try, do it like on Braniac -- outside, nothing near it, etc. It was bad. (I'm serious about the glowing ... like when you're blowing on embers, not like a Glowing One in Fallout 3)
@Joe: Thanks for the great advice, I'm on the fence about trying this one out. I love experimenting for the sake of experimenting. Also, we do have an old microwave that we were going to throw out so this is perfectly timed...I think I'll sleep on it then decide :)
Surely this is a case of poor supervision of cooking food more than a safety issue with microwaves themselves? I could leave something on the stove and set it on fire, but that doesn't make cooking on stoves unsafe...
@ceejayoz : I shouldn't tell you how I tend to cook the rest of the hash, then, as it's mostly unattended. I have never had anything spontaneously combust on me after a few minutes on the stove. Hours, yes, but not 'press 3-0-0-start and return to charred husks of potato'
@stephennmcdonald please video it and take pictures! :D
@Joe - apparently you don't have the problem of looking at your fairly full pot of pasta and water boiling over everywhere all of a sudden while you're desperately trying to chop something to get the rest of dinner ready on time.
@justkt : For those situations, I'm still in the kitchen cooking. And besides, I use a large enough pot where it'll take some work for pasta to boil over (16qt). although, I don't know how pasta came into this conversation ... I was talking about hash.
@Joe anything overcooked in the microwave can catch fire. Defrosting bread can go real bad too. It's not a potato problem
@TFD : my incident was at 3 minutes ... admittedly, I walked away, so it might not've shut off at 3, but I had no timing problems with that microwave for years after. Another reported 2 minutes. Except for metal or almost completely dry things, I've never seen things go wrong in that short of time.
@Joe Cooking whole potatoes in the microwave is none of the most common things done with them. I remember more than 30 years ago microwave ovens where promoted as the best device to cook a potato (it does a great job). Could it be that since potato cooking is so popular, it ranks high in as the food in microwaves that timers have failed?
@TFD : perhaps; there were actually a lot of links of problems that I didn't add of people who were making 'potato bags', which was a cloth bag (which seemed to burst into flame). In some of the cases, people specifically mentioned that their microwave has a specific 'potato' button. (mine has a 'popcorn' button ... but I personally don't trust it, but at least everyone knows how risky that one is from the years of burned microwave popcorn)
Last night, my flatmate popped whole scrubbed potatoes (4x) into a plastic shopping bag (like you get from the supermarket), along with perhaps 2cm of water. She tied the bag up and microwaved the whole lot for 3 minutes.
Perfectly cooked potatoes. I was amazed. She has been cooking potatoes like this for a couple of years with no incidents. But I have always been slightly wary about plastic in the microwave. Apparently in her experience, if you use coloured plastic bags, they leach colour onto the microwave plate...yikes.
This is basically steaming them, which makes perfect sense, although I'd have to concur about the plastic concerns. I don't worry about plastic wrap or plastic in general, but that particular plastic is almost certainly not microwave-safe. Better to use a covered, microwave-safe dish with this method.
@Aaronut - or a plastic bag marked microwave safe.
@justkt: I don't think I've ever seen one of those, but I suppose that would work too...
@Aaronut - according to Cooking for Engineers, all Ziploc products are made of microwave safe plastic: http://www.cookingforengineers.com/article/99/Microwave-Safe-Containers. The side of a Ziploc box should say.
For a nicer texture, microwave the potato 3-4 minutes (more or less based on size of potato)(and after poking the potato well), until it is cooked enough that it gives slightly to a gentle squeeze.
Take it out of the microwave and wrap it tightly in aluminum foil and let it sit for 5-10 minutes before unwrapping and eating.
The alfoil holds in the steam from the potato and continues to cook it, producing a result much closer to oven-baking.
@TJ - but how do you get the crispy skins? If you can teach me how to do that, I'll be sold on microwaving potatoes!
I microwave potatoes all the time. The cooking time in an oven is just too long (sometimes up to an hour). 1 potato gets 6-7 minutes and 3 potatoes gets 9 minutes. You might have to flip them over (carefully with a potholder). Obviously wash thoroughly and poke some holes in them first.
Like most things, doing real cooking in an oven tastes better.
I have microwave the potatoes and added Birds Eye frozen veggies with the cheese sauce. it is great snack or side dish!
This kind of disaster should not happen if you:
Make sure the potatoes have some sort of moisture (wrap in plastic, put on a plate with water in it, etc.)
Perforate the potatoes, or cut them in half
Start with less time and lower power, appropriate to the size of the potato. Small potatoes need less time and lower power.
I can make the same thing happen to potatoes in a standard oven. Crank the heat, leave them in way too long...
Unless you are taking a tiny spritz of a shower, that was waaaaaaay too long to leave potatoes in the microwave. Small potatoes -- even ten minutes at top power would likely be too much.
I suspect this was intended to be a comment to my post about burning potatoes.
And admittedly, after thinking about it years later ... it's entirely possible that I didn't poke holes in them first ... and I know I didn't have any extra water in there.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.793772 | 2010-08-17T12:28:58 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5337",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Adam Shiemke",
"Ahmad Yoosofan",
"Dennis Williamson",
"Erik P.",
"JXITC",
"Joe",
"John F. Miller",
"KeithB",
"Manako",
"Marcus",
"Marti",
"Rob",
"SAM A",
"Spammer",
"Suvarna Pattayil",
"TFD",
"Teresa Ritter",
"Tim Danielson",
"Wil",
"Zack",
"antonkronaj",
"ceejayoz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10480",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10492",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10530",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1584",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17556",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17621",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96804",
"justkt",
"levivanzele",
"rogeliodh",
"stephennmcdonald",
"surfmadpig"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
3927 | How much powder does 1 TBSP of Cumin seeds yield when crushed?
How much powder does 1 TBSP of Cumin seeds yield when crushed? I have a recipe that calls for Cumin seeds to be crushed but I could not find whole seeds at the store.
A little bit less than 1tbsp, maybe 4/5ths of a tablespoon.
Sounds roughly right. I was going to say a little under a tsp.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.794762 | 2010-08-01T15:45:16 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3927",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"John Eipe",
"Manny",
"Stuart",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7340",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7347",
"sir_husefugg"
],
"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
} |
7132 | Keeping bugs out of rice
Recently, a sack of whole grain organic rice that we bought became infected with small black bugs. We bought the rice in the bulk bins at the same organic supermarket we always visit, but this time we didn't cook it until a few weeks after buying it. Since, the rice was stored in a sealed plastic bag, it seems like the bugs (or their eggs?) must have been in the rice when we bought it. Is this normal? Should I worry about buying rice there again? Is there a better way I should be storing the rice? It was in a plastic sack with a twist-tie.
Those bugs are probably weevils. I would take it back to the store and ask for a refund. If the rice is the only grain with bugs, chances are the larvae were already in the rice.
The weevils are about 1/4 inch long and they have a little tube sticking out of their head. The larvae take about 35 days to emerge from inside the kernels. A farmer can only control a weevil infestation with chemicals, which would preclude the organic label, and there is just so much frogs and birds can eat.
The question is, what is the lesser of the two weevils?
I have always understood that a certain level of egg incidence is unavoidable (and thus is acceptable under FDA standards). Under the right conditions, they will hatch. I learned to always put a new bag of grain/flour in the freezer for 3 days (I usually forget it for a week or two) after which it keeps for months.
I occasionally to find bugs in organic bags of unopened rice. I believe this is normal for organic grains. I have also found them in organic popcorn. Not often but it happens. It's Part of nature & organic natural lifestyle. If you want to toss it/ return it, understandable, but not necessary. you can freeze or rinse in colander & remove them. Then cook as usual.
I wouldn't be any too pleased. I'd take it back and complain.
My guess is that you could have held this down to 'a bit of extra protein' by freezing the rice, but you shouldn't have to do this. I've bought bulk organic rice from WFM here in Boston for 20 years and never had this problem.
Line your container at the bottom with salt. Seal the container. It will last for years.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.794840 | 2010-09-11T19:04:10 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7132",
"authors": [
"Katie Epps",
"Vigrond",
"alol",
"bPratik",
"bmargulies",
"haudoing",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14538",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14559",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70870",
"sdfx"
],
"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
} |
24384 | How can I make the tops of my macarons smooth?
After a recent trip to France, I have become mildly obsessed with making macarons (using this recipe). I have made a couple of batches so far - the first didn't turn out well, more like cookies than macarons, due to under-whipped egg whites and too-coarse almonds.
The second batch has turned out better, much more like macarons. I whipped the egg whites to stiff, glossy peaks and blitzed the almonds, powdered sugar and cocoa in a food processor to remove lumps and make the almonds finer. Some of the macarons even have the characteristic little 'feet'.
However, while the flavour and texture seem generally good, they don't have the smooth, perfect surface of a proper macaron. Looking at videos online, it would seem my mixture is too stiff, because any little tip of mixture left by the piping bag fails to 'melt' into the main part of the macaron - it simply sits there. Also, any little craters left by air holes in the mixture fail to smooth themselves out, so the result is a bumpy macaron.
Given that the egg whites need to be stiff and glossy, what else could be a factor in achieving a smooth macaron? I assume the amount of powdered sugar is a factor, but how much can I safely reduce the amount by?
Do they need to be stiff and glossy? I've never made them, but most recipes are best with soft-peaks egg whites, and the way you describe it, stiff whites are the problem of both the tip-bump problem and the crater problem (in my experience, soft-peaks whites don't form craters, but the bubbles in stiffly-whipped whites do).
@rumtscho the recipe says they should be very stiff and glossy, and of the two I've tried, that one has been more successful. However, sven's excellent answer suggests you may be correct (as usual).
@ElendilTheTall If you still have problems with it post a new question and I am happy to help (again) ;-)
I haven't tried making them for a while but I have recently got a bag of what looks to be very fine French ground almonds so I will have another stab. I got everything but the baking down pat before, and I have a new, better oven this time too. Fingers crossed
The meringue should be glossy and form soft peaks. When you take your whisk out of the meringue it should look like this:
The French say that when you take the whisk out of the meringue, it has to look a bit like a bird's beak, hence the way the meringue forms a soft peak slightly pointing downwards.
But to be honest, I don't believe that is you problem. I guess you just undermix your batter. People often say it has to fall like a ribbon or like magma, but I always thought that is hard to imagine. You can take a knife and cut through the batter. If it flows back immediately, it's ready. But let me tell you: One or two strokes too much with the spatula and the batter becomes unusable.
And one tip I can give you: The process of transferring the batter into the piping bag also 'mixes' the batter, so maybe don't go too far if you are unsure.
And as already said, it is important to tap the the tray from the bottom after piping as it helps to remove any air bubbles in there. Also, always pipe straight from the top (90° angle). This also helps the batter to smooth out.
I wouldn't recommend you to chance the amount of powdered sugar, as the French use Tant pour Tant (TPT) for their macarons, which means fine almond meal and powdered sugar are mixed proportional to each other.
When mixed perfect, it looks like this:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_WhPHUKwckUw/S4WP1eBE7pI/AAAAAAAAB00/gYqFjGOvEiU/s1600-h/5.jpg
When gone too far, it looks like this:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_WhPHUKwckUw/S4WP-q8RrdI/AAAAAAAAB08/7R6uO1uGfBQ/s1600-h/6.jpg
Maybe try counting your strokes while mixing, some people say that it helped them.
When you say undermix the batter, are you referring to the folding in of the dry ingredients? I have perhaps been erring on the side of caution - it certainly doesn't run or flow. How can I tell when it's gone too far?
Yes - folding the meringue with the other ingredients. You have overmixed the batter when it is completely runny. Then it looks like this after piping: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2665/4106719209_88e7caee50.jpg Please note that I edited my answer above to show how the batter should be.
Ah, excellent. So the trick is folding it enough so that it's liquid enough to be smooth, but not so much that it breaks down to a liquid. I think I have definitely been too cautious in that case.
I tried folding in the mix more earlier, and while the batter did get runnier, it wasn't quite right, and it didn't turn out correctly once cooked. The macarons didn't run all over the place, but they didn't form a proper shell, and they are also quite dark, which suggests too much air was beaten out of them to me. Perhaps the recipe I'm using doesn't use enough egg white?
I don't think it's the recipe. You know, people say macarons are hard to master for a reason ;-) What meringue do you use, French or Italian? Do you let your macarons rest before baking them? Also, it can take some time to get the temperature right as every oven is different. Do you bake them with fan turned on? If you want, here is a macaron recipe that works 100 % if done right: http://www.perthnow.com.au/adriano-zumbo-macaron-recipe/story-fn6cn2ok-1226001652446
The recipe referenced in my question is French I believe. I rest them and bang them on the counter, and use an oven thermometer to ensure the oven (which is not a fan oven) is at 150ºC. I think it is a matter of technique: I need to see someone actually make it so I can see the consistencies involved at each stage, I think, because recipes are never specific enough - in the one you linked to, for example, it simply says "mix until combined".
When I've seen people make macarons in the past, they drop the tray onto the work surface once or twice (from a relatively low height) before they leave them to sit before going in the oven. If you haven't been doing this with yours you might want to try adding this step to your process as I believe it could help with your problems.
I have been doing this. It may help internally, but any 'spikes' on top of the macaron aren't budged.
according to Adriano Zumbo the trick to thinning the mixture comes after you have folded all your sieved ingredients into your stiff peaked egg white: using an electric beater give the mixture a pulse to loosen it. Check it & pulse again if needed. It will only take a few pulses to loosen. The consistency you are trying to achieve is still very thick but will flow slowly off the beaters like lava. Also when you pipe the little peaks should point straight up to help the mixture flow to a smooth domed finish. After piping gently tap under the tray twice to help air bubble out.
To achieve a smooth finish & feet they need to sit & dry out for 10-15 minutes on the bench before baking. There are some very detailed videos on the zumbobaking website. Although they are for his baking mixes the technique is exactly the same for macarons from scratch.
Do you happen to know which videos in particular are helpful for what's necessary to get the smooth tops?
Hi http://zumbobaking.com.au/videos/#caramel-video watch the one called 'Mixing" & one called "Piping"
Thanks, those are some useful videos, especially the one showing the desired consistency.
you probably need to sift your almond flour/confectioners sugar mixture after blitzing it in the food procesor, this ensures that you achieve the smooth domes you desire.
I have done this a few times. The problem is it changes the weight of the almonds which then needs to be compensated for.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.795067 | 2012-06-12T11:53:03 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24384",
"authors": [
"Anniee shinde",
"Bryan",
"Cascabel",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Grace",
"Ian Krasnow",
"Kara Breeden",
"Renbeard",
"Stevoisiak",
"Sven",
"Yash Padhi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55517",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55518",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55519",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83970",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84039",
"jxs",
"rumtscho",
"silvascientist"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
18386 | How to cut an egg without the yolk sticking to the knife?
I cut a number of eggs for a salad and had most yolks stuck to the knife. The problem, to me, is that the egg falls apart. The yolk is loose and the white as well.
Does anybody know a way to cut the egg without that happening?
Personally I like a runny yolk for my eggs, even with salad - solves the sticking problem as well. Boil for 8 mins exactly, 8.5 if you keep your eggs in the fridge. :)
@ElendilTheTall, hahaha, I also like them a bit runny, but for a salad, I'm sticking with the yolk that sticks to the knife.
the wire egg slicers seem to be free of this problem. Perhaps you could use a wire, or better yet the wire cutting tool that potters use for clay.
I did notice that it sticks less to the thin part of the blade (the tip).
I like those dedicated wire egg slicers (something like this: http://www.gifttrap.com/images/lovehate/egg_slicer.jpg) -- they are pretty cheap, they do a good job, and they are also very handy for slicing mushrooms and strawberries into nice, even slices. (I actually bought mine when I was vegan and didn't eat eggs...)
Instead of using a chef's knife, cut it with a knife that has a thinner profile and a lower amount of surface area. This will decrease the amount of friction created as the blade slides through the yolk, and decrease the sticking. The wire cutters are able to do this because they have an extremely small area actually in contact with the yolk.
Try a boning knife, for example.
I read a recent tip (lifehacker?) about coating your knife with a thin coating of butter or oil to help cut a cake neatly -maybe it would work for eggs. I don't eat hardboiled eggs, so I have no actual real-life opportunities to try this, but it seems like it would work the same.
I'll give that a try next time :-)
Interesting idea, someone should try this! I would imagine a little extra oil/fat would only improve the egg itself.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.795768 | 2011-10-15T22:59:42 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18386",
"authors": [
"Alison ",
"BaffledCook",
"Chantal",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Paul Kim",
"Tara",
"Tony",
"cindy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39769",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39771",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39780",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39793",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39897",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/725",
"mahalie",
"user39769"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
23545 | How can I rehydrate dried chillies more efficiently?
When I make chilli, I use dried ancho and chipotle chillies which I rehydrate in beef stock. However, as they are light, they just float on top of the liquid and so they don't rehydrate very efficiently - one side can still be a little dry.
Is there some way I can ensure even, efficient rehydration?
I had the same problem with floating chillis so I now soak mine in a cafetiere.
I should point out that I don't have coffee in at the time!
That's an excellent idea!
I have been following the advice of Homesick Texan on this one for awhile:
Heat the dried chiles (anchos, pasillas, costenos, guajillos and chiles de arbol) in a dry, cast-iron skillet on medium for a couple of minutes on each side. Turn off the heat and then add enough water to the skillet to cover the chiles, and let them soak for half an hour.
the advantage to efficiency here being that you're not using beef broth/stock. That said, aside from imparting some bitterness, you should be able to reuse your soaking liquid.
If your concern is solely with the fact that one side is floating, and not getting wet, place a plate atop the soaking peppers to press them down into the liquid. You might also slice them in advance to allow air to escape and lessen their buoyancy (and would make it easier to remove the pith later without the pepper falling to shreds). However, in my experience, one side floating has never been a problem, though I typically stir the skillet a few times as well.
I use the beef stock in the chilli - the problem is the floating more than anything else.
@ElendilTheTall I have added to address the dryness of one side, however I have not found that inefficiency to be problematic; if you could detail any actual problems that have arisen, perhaps we can identify other leaks in the procedure
When I am using dried chilis they are always pureed into a sauce. I don't like using them whole because I find the reconstituted texture to be unpleasant.
I remove the seeds and membranes and cut them into the pan with kitchen shears to be toasted and then simmered.
As they are cut up there is no problem with floating.
I usually deseed and slice them after I rehydrate, always assumed they'd be too tough to cut beforehand.
@Elendil- They don't cut well with a knife because they pop all over the kitchen. Cutting them in the pot with kitchen shears works very well.
The reason for toasting whole is to control the degree of toasting more evenly; also are you toasting dry or sauteeing?
@mfg- I would think it would be easier to control toasting when cut up because I can regularly agitate the pan and mix everything thoroughly. I toast them dry and then saute.
I keep them submerged in a pot using the lid of the next-smaller pot to weigh them down.
My neighbor always refer to this (placing something heavy to keep things from floating back up) as the 'mafia treatment'.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.795980 | 2012-05-03T07:05:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23545",
"authors": [
"Areeba SAR",
"Billy Bob's Ideas",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Hannah Gagnon",
"Herne Webber",
"Joe",
"Liz B",
"Mary",
"Sobachatina",
"Ste",
"bnieland",
"f p",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53314",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53315",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53344",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53346",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53349",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53354",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"mfg",
"unkledarc"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
6748 | What is the best way to clean mussels?
I've tried scrapping with a knife (scissors), but it's hard work and slow. Any other idea?
If you mean cleaning in terms of getting rid of the 'beard', use clean pliers and a lot of elbow grease. It's hard to pull that out.
If you mean just cleaning the shells, use a stiff bristled brush and scrub.
If you mean cleaning the sand from the inside of the mussels, put the live mussels in a large container full of water and cornmeal and leave overnight in the refrigerator. The mussels should flush the sand out and replace it with cornmeal (never tried this method, but I've heard it works well.)
Cornmeal works great!
Thanks for the answer, I'll try these methods. I meant all ways of cleaning you mention.
doesn't soaking them completely kill them.. I remember reading that somewhere.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.796271 | 2010-09-04T18:07:26 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6748",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Juju",
"Pradeep",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2239",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8277"
],
"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
} |
6312 | What kind of rice is used for Jamaican rice and peas?
I'm about to make Jamaican rice and peas, and I'm not quite sure if I want a long, medium, or short grain rice. What is traditional in the islands?
I'm by no means an official source, but it looks like a long grain rice is used. This article shows an example made with Basmati rice, and links to this recipe, which calls for long grain rice.
I think this is probably correct; the more I think about it, there is a lot of (East) Indian influence in the islands (roti!) so I wouldn't be surprised if basmati varieties were popular there.
I would say to use regular long grain rice. I don't think basmati would be appropriate, however, since it doesn't grow in the caribbean and so would probably be out of the price range of a gastronomic staple like peas 'n' rice.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.796378 | 2010-08-29T21:09:30 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6312",
"authors": [
"Jeff",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Lisa",
"Michael Natkin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12564",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12566",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26550",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26552",
"tinahhnl",
"user5402"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
6400 | How do I stabilize a lecithin-based foam?
I've made quite a few foams using the standard technique of adding powdered lecithin to my flavor base, and then agitating with an immersion blender in a wide, shallow container, with the blender near the surface so it beats in lots of air. This works ok, but I find the foams don't hold as long as I would like, often just a minute or two. Is there anything I can do to make them more stable for service?
I'd look into:
contaminants
the container you use
lecithin ratio
(air) moisture
inert gas use (which implies a different technique.
This link on foams to the food science pages at edinformatics looks good. Perhaps it can help you out further.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.796479 | 2010-08-31T06:55:51 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6400",
"authors": [
"Maria",
"Rajah Qar",
"S.Pants",
"TheSean",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12783",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12784",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12796"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
13052 | Does accidental vinegar have a culture that I can pass along?
Background: A couple of years ago we left a half drunk bottle of Sirah on the counter and it went to vinegar. A really nice vinegar with a pleasant, mild flavor, and we've been using splash here and a bit there ever since. Now I'm down to circa half a cup.
Is this a live culture like a bread starter? Can I buy a bottle of a similar wine, and intentionally propagate the flavor of this stuff? Or is just a crap-shoot?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_of_vinegar ... but I have no idea about the flavor.
'What's so unpleasant about being drunk?' 'You ask a glass of water.'
This video of Alton Brown - Good Eats explains it way better than I ever can.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JEi4OW2Q54
If your bottle of wine turned to vinegar you probably have some "mother" at the bottom of that bottle that you can use in your next batch.
I don't seem to have big wad of mother, but I do have loose floating bits of something. Possibly I'm good to go.
Since you have loose stuff try straining it, you might have more than you think.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.796569 | 2011-03-11T19:57:46 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13052",
"authors": [
"Didi Kohen",
"Jose Ramon",
"LoveGandhi",
"Randy Sugianto",
"Sobachatina",
"derobert",
"dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27024",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27029",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5253",
"sbi"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
25413 | Turkish delight: cornstarch or gelatine?
I've never made Turkish Delight. I've been looking at recipes and I've seen some using cornstarch and others using gelatine. As these two ingredients are completely different binding agents, the question arises which to use?
On the one hand, gelatine is easier for me, on the other hand I think cornstarch is more authentic (not sure about that).
The reason gelatine is easier for me, is that the cornstarch recipes call for cream of tartar and that's a bit difficult to obtain in Spain. I'll try to find it in a drug-store.
I've also seen a recipe with agar agar...
Realize I'm commenting on an ancient question, but cream of tartar is just an acid, and in this case probably is only included to help prevent the sugar from crystallizing, in which case it can be left out completely or replaced by a little lemon juice or vinegar.
If you want to make real Turkish delight, use cornstarch and only cornstarch. Nowhere on the Balkan have I seen a gelatine-thickened Turkish delight. No Turkish person will recognize a gelatine-thickened candy as lokum. I would go as far as to insist that aromatzied sugar syrup+gelatine = gummi bear, while aromatized sugar syrup+cornstarch = Turkish delight, although some people will feel that this is pedantic.
Beside authenticity, gelatine-containing recipes are prone to weeping, I have seen questions about that around here.
Bottom line: I would always make it with cornstarch. This doesn't mean that candy made with gelatine can't be tasty; it is just that if you want what you get in a Turkish shop, you can't do it with gelatine.
Completely agree. It also means that your vegetarian friends can eat it. Gelatine based Turkish Delight doesn't taste or feel the same in the mouth. Its just not the same thing. Mind you I have had trouble with the cornstarch not setting.
Semantics aside, the thermoreversibility of gelatin (at mouth temperature) will make for a very different outcome from corn starch. Agar-agar is actually much closer if you're looking to avoid starches.
I checked out this site before eating some Turkish delight that a friend brought home from Istanbul for us but... I checked with the actual company that produces it and they said they contain gelatine. This is from a very well-known candy producer in the area and they also have non-gelatine, but I was very sad to have already eaten much of it before receiving their response and being sad about it. So for the record: even extremely authentic, traditional and well-appreciated Turkish delight can contain gelatine. Eater beware!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.796702 | 2012-08-01T14:36:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25413",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Alex Spurling",
"BaffledCook",
"Francis Davey",
"Robin Stark",
"Ron Marcille",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58157",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58162",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"kitukwfyer",
"peg"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
6401 | Is it possible to make a marshmallow that isn't sweet?
I've got in mind to make a savory play on s'mores, using morel mushroom paste where you would expect chocolate. The graham cracker replacement should be no problem. But I'm stuck on the marshmallow. If you google savory marshmallow, you basically find a bunch of standard sweet marshmallow recipes that have had some savory things added to them. I want to make one that isn't sweet at all, or only barely so, but with a recognizable marshmallow texture. Any ideas on how to approach this? I'm not asking for the recipe, just a sense of what set of ingredients and techniques have a prayer of reproducing that texture with minimal sweetness. Bonus points if it can be done using some other hydrocolloid instead of gelatin, since ultimately I need to make it vegetarian.
Bizarre idea. I like it
Did you get this to work?
I like the cut of your gibberish
What about using mochi, an Asian pounded rice paste? It's a similar—though not identical—texture, it's available in sweet and savory forms, and it's held together by the starch in rice rather than anything gelatin, so it's vegetarian. You can get plain unflavored mochi at many Asian food stores; it may take some looking, as it's more often sold sweet and filled with bean paste in the US. I've had it in savory Korean dishes and I believe it's used in savory Korean dishes as well.
Ah, I like that suggestion a lot! And I know where I can find unsweetend mochi, it is widely available in health food stores. I think if I heat it so it puffs up and flavor it, that would work well.
One of the key properties of the marshmallow in a smore, to me, is that the gelatin is a thermoreversible hydrocolloid. I wouldn't expect mochi to have this property
I've used agar-agar recently, and I think it might do the trick for you. A recipe plus some technique discussion is behind this link.
In the comments, a reply has been posted that the marshmellow would probably ´taste of the sea´ as agar-agar is seaweed based. This has not been my experience. However, paying homage to its heritage by using some sea-salt seems appropriate.
I'm a bit troubled by too many associations with the sea due to your use of mushroom paste. Selecting a flavor feels a delicate matter. As I'm getting a Japanese vibe from this dish, I would probably investigate shiitake as a mushroom. (If you weren't emulating chocolate, I'd suggest enoki as well).
I am highly tempted to investigate edible seaweed flowers (the existence of which I'm totally unsure about and just dreamed up - at least this link seems to support their existence). If their taste matches your needs, great. And, presuming they look nice as well, they'd be an interesting edible garnish on your plate.
Update: and for additional savory tastes, I'd look into other savory flavour often associated with seaweed or shiitake in oriental dishes - soy, ginger, cilantro, etc.
I love your pairing concepts! That recipe you linked to is great on vegetarian end (and there is a vegan one in the Hyrdrocolloid Recipe Collection on khymos.org), but it still has a lot of sugar, hoping to avoid that level of sweetness. Isomalt might help as it is less sweet, but I'd prefer even less.
Originally marshmallows were made from the root of the Marsh Mallow (Althea officinalis). I have not yet tried making marshmallows this way, so I do not know if using mallow root would give you the exact same texture as our modern marshmallows. You may be able to find marshmallow root at a local health store, or there are plenty of sites that carry it online.
I was able to find one marshmallow recipe using powdered marshmallow root, about halfway down the page at http://www.hungrybrowser.com/phaedrus/m010702.htm. This too is a sweet recipe, but perhaps you could substitute your chosen savory flavorings in place of the sugar and vanilla.
I also found a single Marshmallow recipe claiming to be savory: http://www.popsci.com/diy/article/2008-11/anatomy-marshmallow?page=1
I love the idea of combining marsh mallow with morel. It all has very woodsy feel to it
This is super old so I'm sure you've moved on but I felt compelled to comment. The Mission Street Food cookbook has a recipe for "mozzarella mousse" in which they put fresh mozzarella through a whip cream dispenser. I bet that would be a pretty good savory imitation of marshmallows.
http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0078616441/student_view0/food_science_activities/demystifying_meringue.html
The problem is you need the sugar for the structure of the merringue. You might consider a sweet and sour or sweet and salty flavor profile for the dish so the merringue adds the sweetness. You may also be able to use some flavored vinegars (not sure what this will do to the structure) to cut the sweetness. Oh, I just noticed when this was posted. What did you finally do?
use isomalt to replace some of the sugar since it's much less sweet, but still has the properties of sugar
i think this is the only true answer for a savory twist for traditionally sugar losded recipes
Ok, I know this thread is really old, but why couldn't you use egg whites beaten with lemon juice or cream of tartar for added stability, and then incorporate the dissolved gelatin into the meringue? You'd have to use less water, obviously. Or could you perhaps thicken milk or broth with corn starch to sort of mimic the consistency of sugar syrup? I guess it'd be like mixing in a thin gravy to which gelatin had been added. I'm intrigued. The only other option I've found was to use a balsamic vinegar syrup in place of the sugar syrup, but obviously that would still add sweetness.
Depending on availability, you might find an interesting substitute using puffball mushroom. The mushroom is white, kinda fluffy, and savory, and can easily be large enough to cut nice marshmallow-ish squares.
The fresh mushroom may be difficult to source, though it would be a nice option if season and availability permit. Dried, on the other hand, is easier to aquire, and very light - which might make a good mushroom marshmallow texture. The dried puffball could be re-hydrated or probably even eaten as-is if the texture is preferable (I have found it to have a very light and fluffy texture and I think it could be eaten plain, in the proper context - though the flavor is quite mild).
Supposedly the taste if prepared well is mushroomy and cheesy (which bodes well for pairing with mushroom paste for the 'chocolate'). Puffballs, according to the article I found, need browning to unlock the best flavor... and having a white cube with the outer edges toasted to golden brown would not be a bad thing on something imitating smores-style marshmallows.
On a completely different note, the article also mentions that if the puffballs are boiled (well, heated in water) they turn into something "a bit like mushroom marshmallows" texturally speaking. It may be worth it to poach or steam the puffball cubes (post-browning, for extra flavor) to get the texture a bit more marshmallowy.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.796951 | 2010-08-31T07:17:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6401",
"authors": [
"Ali Fitz Mickelson",
"Ben Sewards",
"Dave Griffith",
"Jim",
"Jon Galloway",
"Michael Natkin",
"Ray",
"Vicki James",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12785",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12787",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12794",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3819",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58633",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68275",
"jordan smith",
"user12785",
"user5266127",
"user58633",
"zetaprime"
],
"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
} |
6761 | How do I make tempura turn out light?
I've probably only made tempura 10 times in my life, with fairly inconsistent results. often it has been heavier than the best restaurant versions I've had. There seem to be many variables involved:
type(s) of flour
added pure starch (cornstarch, arrowroot, ...?)
use of seltzer
use of chemical leavening
overall thickness of batter
type of oil
temperature of oil
Which of these factors (and any others I've forgotten) are most important to getting a thin, light, non-greasy tempura shell?
What kind of dipping sauce do you use with your Tempura?
In addition to what Roux suggests, I find it helps to keep the batter really cold while you're mixing and using it. I tend to keep the bowl of batter in a bowl of ice water while I'm using it.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.797742 | 2010-09-05T02:08:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6761",
"authors": [
"haakon.io",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41891"
],
"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
} |
5689 | How often should I clean my coffeepot, and what is the preferred method?
We use a typical drip coffee maker with a thermos-type pot. Naturally I rinse the pot and filter holder every day, but how often do I need to clean it more thoroughly? I've heard that it is bad to use soap and water, but is that just an old-wives tale, maybe out of fear that it could leave a soapy residue? Once a month or so, I'll run a few cups of white vinegar through it, which seems to improve the flavor a lot, but is a surprisingly expensive proposition. Any suggestions on frequency and method?
I give my coffee maker an internal cleanse with vinegar and water once a month to avoid scale build-up. I use 1/2 cup of white vinegar plus water to make a full pot, run that through my maker two or three times, and then run five or six pots of plain water through the maker until there is no longer any scent of the vinegar. I clean the pot and its basket and insert once a week in the dishwasher, and wipe down the case and heating element daily. I've been using the same drip coffee maker (with its glass, dishwasher-safe pot) for about five years.
On those occasions when I've run out of white vinegar, I use a tablespoon of citric acid dissolved in the first few cleaning pots of water, and then run five or six pots of plain water through the maker. Citric acid is just as effective as white vinegar for descaling but doesn't smell as strong; it's also inexpensive.
A meta rules here (if you don't have the instructions any more, say) is "before it starts to slow down".
Of course, until you have some experience with the pot in question you'll just have to live with
when it starts to take longer to brew
when you can see mineral deposits on parts of the machine. Look, in particular, at places where hot and/or high pressure water or steam emerges into the great wide world. These are prime places for precipitation of solids
Best, of course, to notice how long this takes and clean it a little more often than that.
Your specific coffee maker should have instructions. Mine says every 30-40 pots you brew and it uses the same typical white vinegar method.
I do think it's a little expensive - you basically drain a whole bottle of vinegar. However, compared to the cost of the machine and, more so, the cost of the coffee it's not a bad deal at all.
For cleaning purposes I always use the cheep stuff. You know: store-brand bought in a plastic, gallon jug for less than dollar. You don't care what it tastes like because you should never taste it.
Basically you need to follow the instructions of your coffee maker.
However, having to remember to clean thoroughly is a pain, as it always gets forgotten. A lot of quality coffee makers today have a built in counter for the number of cups you make, and after the recommended number of cups simply stop and ask you to clean them. This greatly enhances the life of the coffeemaker,as you simply can't forget to clean them.
Also the quality ones have an automatic cleaning mechanism where you just pop in a pre-purchased cleaning tablet, and it does all the cleaning for you.
I've found that coffeemakers that don't do this, tend to break down (from scale) after a pretty short period of time (after about a year or two), so it's sometimes worth the extra spending to buy a better one.
It is bad to clean your coffee pot with soap because the soap can bind to the oil deposited from the coffee and can leave a taste behind. It's recommended not to wash any part of your coffee maker in the dishwasher for the same reason.
To clean your coffee pot fill it with 2 cups of ice, 1/4 cups of table salt, and 1/4 cups of lemon juice (fresh or bottled). Swirl it around the pot a couple times and that will do the trick.
Hope this helped!
Why do you add ice?
It's abrasive, so it will scrape the sides in addition to the salt, but (most likely) won't scratch the glass carafe. I wonder if they're using crushed ice here. The ice may also aide in solidifying any oils making them easier to remove.
There are two different things being discussed here. One idea is cleaning the coffee residue from the coffee pot. For this, I use Cafiza. This is a serious cleaning agent, typically used for cleaning espresso machines. I use 1/4 tsp of Cafiza once per week to clean my Technivorm. I put together two short videos of the process - links on this page.
The other idea is the de-scaling of the coffee pot. Using vinegar is the typical technique, but I bought a bag of citric acid powder (cheaper). Depending on the hardness of your water, you may have to de-scale often (every month). Where I live (near Atlanta) we have relatively soft water, so I de-scale every six months.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.797848 | 2010-08-21T02:21:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5689",
"authors": [
"Benjamin Hodgson",
"Caroline Anrold",
"Dale from Farmingdale",
"DavidScherer",
"Jergstar",
"Preston",
"Raheel Khan",
"SarahC49",
"Tinman",
"dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11195",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11196",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11202",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11246",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15743",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75343",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75663",
"proflux",
"tomen"
],
"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
} |
6366 | What causes the green ring between yolk and white when hardboiling an egg?
The yolk of a hardboiled egg often has a green tinge right at the interface to the white. Besides not looking very good, I think it also maybe contributes a sulfurous odor. What causes this green coloration and how can I prevent it?
This is caused by overcooking the egg. The green color is a result of overheating causing the iron and sulfur compounds in the egg to express. You can prevent it by gently boiling the egg, and plunging it into an ice bath when it is done. This stops the carry-over heat from continuing to cook the egg.
That matches what I've seen; it is much less prone to happen when you use the "bring to a boil, cover and turn off" method. Is there a particular temperature at which this reaction occurs, so it could be avoided by sous vide?
The book "Cookwise" by Sherley Corriher has a useful discussion on this subject.
@Michael: I'm sure there is a temperature when the reaction occurs, but I cannot find any literature on it. This sous-vide guide shows that the "perfect" egg is cooked at 148 F (64.4 C) for 45-60m.
I agree over-cooking discolors the yolks. Here's a very detailed analysis of boiling eggs: The Food Lab: Perfect Boiled Eggs. With a recipe for perfect boiled eggs based on this analysis.
Some interesting, relevant excerpts:
The Temperature Timeline of Boiling an Egg
Egg yolks, on the other hand, follow a
different set of temperatures:
At 145 degrees: They begin to thicken and set up.
At 158 degrees: They become totally firm, but are still bright
orange and shiny.
At 170 degrees: They become pale yellow and start to turn crumbly.
170 degrees-plus: They dry out and turn chalky. The sulfur in the
whites rapidly reacts with the iron in
the yolks, creating ferrous sulfide,
and tinging the yolks.
...
So long as your water never come above
180 degrees—at sea level, that's the
quivering stage just below a
simmer—you have no chance of
overcooking
Also the comments are quite interesting. Just search for "green". Not sure if this works, but one commenter suggests a method for avoiding the green coloration:
I watched Chef Pepin's cookshow once
he taught the audience an important
trick: to poke a tiny hole at the
broad end of the egg (using a push pin
or similar) before boiling. With this
you can effectively eliminate the
sulfuric smell and taste of the egg
yolk, and simultaneously remove the
greyish green "rim" around the yolk
(which you can see between the egg
white and the egg yolk from the
pictures above).
This method has work perfectly for me!
And these small details are what make
a perfect egg!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.798312 | 2010-08-30T16:09:52 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6366",
"authors": [
"Gaff",
"Jan Novák",
"Michael Natkin",
"Sobachatina",
"The Idiot Gamer",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12701",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12702",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31065",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"lobner"
],
"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
} |
23547 | What beans can I use to make refried beans?
Refried beans are traditionally made with pinto beans. However, I'm having trouble finding them; what other beans can I use to make refried beans?
Pinto and black beans are the ones I've seen used most commonly in Mexico.
I have made refried beans out of pinto, small red, black, and even navy beans. I almost tried using kidney beans once but it seemed wasteful.
They were all different in texture but they were all good. Black beans, for example, have a much more fibrous skin so the refried beans are not as smooth- I actually prefer it to the homogeneous pinto mash. Obviously their color is also more interesting.
There are a lot of different bean varieties and I don't know what is available to you. In general I would say to just try whatever you have- it will probably taste good even if it isn't exactly like pintos.
I almost tried using kidney beans once but it seemed wasteful. Question: why would it be wasteful -- is there some particular dish you use them for? Just curious about good uses for kidney beans.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.798563 | 2012-05-03T07:19:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23547",
"authors": [
"Alexander Gogl",
"Flimzy",
"Nikki Jenkins",
"YenForYang",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53353",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93612",
"kiltannen",
"user53320"
],
"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
} |
21156 | Why would dipping a cold item in chocolate "help" with tempering?
I took a chocolate dipping class last week. The instructors gave us globs of chocolate to temper on a marble surface, and lots of ingredients to coat in the chocolate. Some ingredients (hard pretzels, graham crackers, marshmallows) were room temperature, and some were refrigerator-cold (strawberries, raspberries). The instructions said that the chocolate would temper better on the strawberries and raspberries, even if it wasn't well-tempered.
Why would the temperature of the item to dip improve the chocolate's tempering? Could I exploit this to make the tempering on other ingredients (pretzels, for example) work better?
To answer your last question: yes.
Regarding the previous question, it's because the temperature at which the cocoa butter in the chocolate crystallizes affects the overall consistency of the chocolate. If you've ever eaten a chocolate bar that was left in a car on a hot day after it has cooled down again, and who hasn't, you'll know about this. Sometimes chocolate tastes fine but has a definite 'grittiness' to it: other things being equal, that's usually because the cocoa butter crystals are too large.
Cocoa butter has a number of different crystal forms, each of which will have a slightly different effect on texture and melting point. When melted chocolate sets, the cocoa butter crystallizes, and it will generally all crystallize with the structure that it starts to crystallize with. (This process where crystals start to grow is called nucleation.)
So you want to have control over the temperature at which crystallization starts. The optimum crystal form for nice chocolate will tend to predominate when crystallization starts somewhere between 18-25 degrees C (around 64-77F).
So if you think about it: when you add room temperature stuff (like a pretzel) to chocolate that is considerably hotter than room temperature, the resultant temperature on the surface of that pretzel will likely be way higher than 18-25 degrees. On the other hand, if you are dipping an item that is significantly below room temp, then your chances of hitting that window are much higher.
The surface structure of the thing being dipped can of course make a difference to crystallization as well, but for normal purposes that is marginal. To put it another way, it doesn't matter what ingredients you're dipping - temperature is key!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.798676 | 2012-02-08T02:07:58 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21156",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
29727 | How can I use a "cook for 3-4 hours" slow cooker recipe when I'm away for 8+ hours?
I've run across several slow cooker recipes that call for a slow-cooker time of 3 - 4 hours on low heat. I'd love to use these, but on work days I'm out of the house for at least 8 hours. What can I do to adjust for the extra 4 hours when I'm just not around to manage the slow-cooker?
Here are two recipes which go for about 4 hours on low: http://www.myrecipes.com/recipe/chicken-carrots-potatoes-50400000124262/ http://www.myrecipes.com/recipe/chinese-pork-tenderloin-noodles-50400000124228/
It depends on the type of recipe. While paging through a slow cooker cookbook, I see relatively few recipes recommending only 3-4 hours on low heat. Of those, I think most fall into some categories:
(1) Drinks (mulled cider, etc.) -- most of these will probably not be harmed by extending the cooking time, though in some cases you might want to tone down spices a bit.
(2) Dishes using mostly fruits or vegetables that will turn to "mush" over 8 hours -- you might try starting with bigger chunks or pieces and perhaps refrigerate them (or even freeze, if it would be appropriate) before beginning. However, you might want to avoid starting with frozen or very cold ingredients when the dish involves stuff that tends to grow a lot of bacteria (e.g., raw meat).
(3) Dishes that begin with a lot of "pre-processed" ingredients (can of soup or dehydrated mix + precooked, presliced meat + canned vegetables) -- try beginning with less processed ingredients, like fresh raw vegetables, raw large hunks of meat, etc. If safe, refrigerated or frozen ingredients could again help.
(4) Desserts -- these will often be the most tricky. Some may be okay simmering for a long time, others probably not. If it's safe with the ingredients, again you may try starting with cold or frozen ingredients to slow cooking for a few hours.
Whether you could convert a specific recipe really depends on the type of dish. For things that you want to end up very tender or mushy or liquid anyway, you can probably cook it for 8 hours instead of 4 with few changes.
But in some cases the conversion may just be impossible, unless you can make use of a timer as mentioned in another response to start the slow cooker 3-4 hours before you'll come home. Even then, be sure it's safe for the food to sit at room temperature for a long time.
Here are two recipes which go for about 4 hours on low: Chicken: http://www.myrecipes.com/recipe/chicken-carrots-potatoes-50400000124262/ and Pork: http://www.myrecipes.com/recipe/chinese-pork-tenderloin-noodles-50400000124228/ .
Personally, I'd try these recipes as-is and see what happens. Following with the advice I gave, I might, for example, keep the potatoes in the chicken recipe in bigger chunks and make sure not to use very tiny carrots. The chicken will get softer over 8 hours, but I've done similar things with success. For the pork dish, you're going to shred it anyway, so no big deal if it gets even more tender over 8 hours. But if you wanted, you could probably use a cheaper lean pork cut and still get good results with the longer cooking time.
If you don't have a slow cooker with a built in timer, you might try getting an AC timer (people usually use them for timed lights and stuff...).
Here's a link to one: http://www.amazon.com/Intermatic-TN311C-Heavy-Grounded-Timer/dp/B00002N5FO/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1357329914&sr=8-5&keywords=ac+timer
You can't leave many foods at room temperature for 4 hours.
Yes, I wouldn't want to leave the chicken out for 4 hours before cooking started. (Even right out of the fridge, slow cooker cooking seems to flirt with the danger zone.) Also I wonder if the standard electric light timers would be OK with cooking wattage.
@KatieK - the standard electric light timers, probably not. I think that may be the reason for the specific link (to a timer than can handle 15 amps).
Also, only the simplest slow cookers will work with this method. If using a programmable slow cooker with a built-in timer, it may not start working if you just suddenly turn on the power.
I came here to say this, but Allan beat me to it. @KatieK, regarding the danger zone, you can use the slow cooker first and then turn it off with the timer. After that, the food is mostly sanitized from the cooking and the cover prevents contamination from the outside air.
@Eric, I'd be careful with this practice, which in many cases could be even more dangerous. Some foods (e.g., rice) have bacteria (e.g., Bacillus cereus) that produce spores which can survive cooking. After the heat is turned off, the bacteria are free to reproduce and produce persistent toxins that sometimes can't even be destroyed by reheating. In fact, it's often safer to heat food slowly - even if it takes more than 4 hours - and then keep it hot (above 140 F) once hot, rather than to let cooked food sit at room temp.
I should clarify my comment: I'm not advocating leaving food out at room temp for a long time before cooking. I was just pointing out that in many cases it's also quite dangerous to leave out cooked food.
@Athanasius Noted, thanks for the information. I looked up foods that have Bacillus cereus and it looks like there's quite a few, basically meats and starches can all have it.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.798865 | 2013-01-04T19:27:19 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29727",
"authors": [
"Adam",
"Athanasius",
"Dmitry Shvedov",
"Dwaine",
"Eric Hu",
"KatieK",
"Nick Wyman",
"Roux A",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69187",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69196"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
23352 | What purpose does coffee serve in a chocolate cake recipe?
I have a recipe for a chocolate buttermilk cake. It's not constructed like most cakes, but it's always turned out OK. I've always wondered what does the coffee in the recipe do?
Is the coffee just there as an additional flavor? (The cake never tastes strongly of coffee.) Can I use a cheap instant coffee, or will a higher quality coffee make a difference? Does the acid in the coffee do something? Does the temperature of the coffee really matter?
Here's the recipe:
3 cups flour, 2 1/2 cups sugar, 1 1/2 tablespoons baking soda, 1/2 tsp salt, 1 cup unsweetened cocoa powder, 1 1/3 cups vegetable oil, 1 1/2 cups buttermilk, 3 eggs, 1 1/2 cups freshly brewed hot coffee, 1 tablespoon pure vanilla extract
Slowly combine the flour, sugar, baking soda, salt and cocoa powder. Blend (on medium speed) in the oil and buttermilk. On low, mix in the eggs, one at a time. Add the hot coffee and vanilla and mix on low speed.
Divide into two 9 inch round cake pans and bake at 350° for 30-35 minutes.
from Caprial's Desserts by Caprial Pence and Melissa Carey
If the coffee were only there for flavor, then I could replace it with 1 1/2 cups of hot water, right?
Katie, that doesn't sound right - you could replace coffee with water if you wanted NO flavor.
@RickG - In the spirit of a "scientific" experiment, I could make one cake with the coffee, and one with hot water, to identify the effects of the coffee. I imagine that both experiments would still have a chocolatey flavor.
it's probably there to add depth to the flavor, since chocolate and coffee complement each other so well. i've used the instant kind in similar recipes and it's just fine.
If you add coffee to a recipe with chocolate, the coffee will enhance the chocolate flavour and normally, you won't taste the coffee. I'm not that sure in your case, since it's a lot of coffee.
You surely can use instant espresso powder or something similar.
I don't think the temperature does anything (make sure it's not too hot, or you'll cook the eggs). I guess it's there to make sure you use fresh coffee (which has a better taste than old coffee).
I tend to think instant espresso powder is fine even when the coffee flavor is quite noticeable, though maybe a coffee purist would disagree. (It's also great for baking, since you can dissolve it a small amount of liquid, and get all the flavor without adding so much water.)
Possibly, but I haven't tried that myself. And yes, it gives you more control than regular coffee does.
I have recipes that call for instant coffee - which I really can NOT stand to use. Instead, I use instant espresso powder which gives me good results.
coffee enhances the chocolate / cocoa for a more chocolatey cake.
I don't think you should be able to taste the coffee though, the fact that you can taste the coffee suggests that either there's too much coffee or its too strong, to correct this you can try reducing the amount of coffee or try with instant coffee as I believe it's not as strong, I also don't think using instant coffee will make too much of a difference. Most recipes call for instant coffee. And if it's asking for hot coffee, then make sure that's what you use.
Personally I'd try using instant coffee instead of freshly brewed, first, and see how that tastes.
The cake won't be as chocolatey without the coffee, however should you wish to remove it, you can by simply substituting the same amount of hot water with the amount of coffee specified by the recipe.
Hope this helps.
it's just replacing water for added, complimentary flavour in your cake. it's like making a soup or stew with chicken or vegetable stock instead of just water. you can get the same effect with water and instant coffee/espresso added. coffee and chocolate are best friends.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.799258 | 2012-04-26T03:35:38 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23352",
"authors": [
"Betty Spinks",
"Cascabel",
"Deborah Nerpel",
"KatieK",
"Marie Claire",
"Mien",
"Rick G",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133108",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52859",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52861",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52862",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52870",
"paolo",
"rump roast",
"vordhosbn"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
23788 | What are the core differences between strawberry varieties?
What are the core differences between strawberry varieties? (For commercially available strawberries in North America and worldwide0) For example, strawberries from Oregon and Washington are smaller and redder than those from California, but they don't have as long a shelf life.
(Also, what names - rather than their origin - identify these different strawberries?)
In my experience local strawberries in general tend to be smaller and to not have the white cucumber-like cores of typical commercial long-distance-shipped strawberries, which require greater resistance to crushing and a greater shelf life.
There are at least as many varieties of strawberry as varieties of apple. I doubt that a whole state grows only one variety.
I can only answer this for northern europe:
In Europe 'Elsanta' is the variety most grown commercially. Its because it stands up to transportation better then anything else. But its taste is lacking. Given a choise, get something else, even if they look good, which they will.
Grown in Denmark:
Honeyoye - early. taste ok, not great.
Sonata - very good strawberry and its mid season.
Polka - good taste mid season.
Florence - late season. Good taste.
My experience with strawberries is get it locally, always. The great tasting strawberry varieties don't stand up to transportation very well, Its best if they are eaten within hours after picking. If that is not possible I would get strawberries from as cold a climate as possible, because berries in general get more complex flavors if grown under cool condition.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.799569 | 2012-05-16T17:36:36 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23788",
"authors": [
"Megan Styles",
"Pete",
"TheWind777",
"Theodore Murdock",
"chrgrsgrl811",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53960",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53961",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9057",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
51651 | What should I look for in a cookie jar?
I would like to upgrade from the novelty plastic bin I currently use for cookies. What cookie jar features would prevent the cookies from getting stale for the longest amount of time? What shape of jar will allow for storing the most cookies? Is light sensitivity a factor?
How long do you keep your cookies in the jar?
I'd like to extend the life of the cookies to a little over a week. Currently they start getting stale around day 4.
Cookies! (There are hats; I'm allowed to have fun now, right?)
Do you have a most common type of cookie you keep?
Let's say it's snickerdoodles.
I've found a cookie jar buying guide on Walmart.com that has some interesting tidbits. For functionality alone, looks like a glass jar should do the job well. Something like this would have an advantageous shape to make cookies easier to reach, and the jar less prone to falling.
One feature you may want to look for specifically would be an hermetic sealing lid, which would help keep moisture in the jar and slow down the drying. Same kind of jar that is often used to store flour, sugar, coffee, beans, etc.
Is light sensitivity a factor?
I don't think it would be, in most cases, unless you kept your cookies in an area that is heavily lit by the sun.
"I don't think it would be, in most cases, unless you kept your cookies in an area that is heavily lit by the sun." Doesn't glass provide some protection from heat caused by sunlight anyway, due to blocking ultraviolet?
It does to an extent, yes. I was more concerned about the heat from the sun, which could affect the texture. I will add clarification!
actually, it turns out ultraviolet is a much smaller proportion of the energy from sunlight than I thought, so it's irrelevant. Sorry.
Well, more info is better than less, I guess. I still think sunlight would be the very least significant factor, either way :)
If it's a dry (or moist due to oil, not water) cookie, I wouldn't think that glass would be a problem. Typically moist things in glass containers are a problem as the water evaporates, then condenses on the inside of the jar.
The only thing I would add to this answer is that it's important to consider the size of the opening to the jar - so that you can insert and retrieve large cookies without breaking them.
One thing you can do for anything which goes bad (rancid) due to oxygenation is to spritz into the jar a bit of canned air sold for keyboard cleaning. These cans contain a refrigerant gas which is heavier than air, so even a little bit in a bottle or can of oil keeps the oxygen away from the oil.
It will work with cookies and other things as well since it stays on top of oils, you only need to hit them once. I don't know about cookies...they never last long enough to go stale!
Hello, and welcome to Stack Exchange. The air in most such "canned air" aerosols is mixed with a bitterant to keep people from huffing the gas, and there's no way you want that bitterant on your food.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.799725 | 2014-12-16T19:45:29 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/51651",
"authors": [
"Archie Todd",
"Ashley McCoy",
"Cascabel",
"Daniel Griscom",
"David A",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"KatieK",
"Larene Biles",
"Leah Beezley",
"Phrancis",
"Psul Langan",
"Random832",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122309",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122311",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122316",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122326",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7495"
],
"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
} |
23809 | What should I look for in strawberries at the market?
When I'm selecting strawberries at the market or farmer's stand, what should I look for to indicate the most flavorful berries? I don't need the strawberries to keep; I'll be using them immediately.
Smell. Really, this is the most reliable criterion for practically any fruit.
Flavor contains both taste and smell. For a strawberry, you want a fragrant smell together with enough sweetness. For both, the berry has to be ripe enough. If it was picked underripe, it won't smell good enough yet, and it will also be hard and sour. If it was picked long ago and is not fresh any more, it will have lost the more volatile components of its fragrance. So ripe, fresh strawberries smell great. I have had occasions when I entered a supermarket to quickly buy one thing, aimed at the correct aisle, but when the smell of good strawberries reached me near the produce, I turned and added a pack of them. I have never been disappointed with such strawberries. Also, if you smell the slightest hint of mold, fermentation, or foulness, you know they may not keep even one night.
Another sign is that a ripe strawberry will be red through and through. A strawberry picked underripe will be white or even slightly greenish at the top. It doesn't taste good then. But this is a negative sign, because not all red strawberries taste good.
Don't ever go by shape. The tastiest sort of strawberries my grandparents grew produced ugly, lumpy strawberries of a light, slightly orange color. They also had a few rows of a sort which produced perfectly conical, deep red strawberries, they looked like an advertisement - but they were hard and dry, and didn't have much aroma. Probably, there are some strawberries which both look and taste good - just don't think that looks or color predict a good strawberry, because they are independent.
And of course, any strawberries which have visible mold or fouled spots are not good any more. You can usually also recognize overripened strawberries in their appearance, but I don't know how to describe it well. They just look old.
Older/overripen strawberries looks duller and has less sheen. And obviously if its starting to wrinkle and wilt, its old.
I mostly agree with Rumtscho, except that I think "red through and through" is a bit too strong: a bit of white at the top doesn't have to mean anything, as long as it is not too much, and as long as there is not white in the bottom half—so these look good:
Another thing to watch out for is how far apart the seeds are. I think one can never be sure of anything with strawberries, but, if the seeds are farther apart, that usually means they are sweeter. I also like the ones where the seeds are a bit deeper into the skin better. The ones above look good in both respects. These, however, do not:
One thing I learnt from villagers in Central/Eastern Europe where wild strawberries were often seen growing along the sides of streets was that smaller strawberries have more flavor. It was though each strawberry was born with 'x' units of flavor, so the bigger it got, the less flavor-dense it became.
I've never done any scientific testing of this, but I must say since those days I've been only choosing smaller strawberries and my success rate feels like it has gone up.
This only holds true within a strawberry variety. There are big strawberry varieties which are very tasty and beat certain small strawberry varieties.
Yes correct, I should have indicated that.
This is anecdotal, but I think accurate. I am not a farmer, but buy strawberries at a farmer's market where there is quite a bit of friendly competition for things like "best tasting strawberries." From what I've heard, farmers here make a choice whether or not to irrigate their berry plants. Those who do tend to end up with bumper crops of not very exciting strawberries. Those who don't have lower yields, but more intensely-flavored strawberries. You can always ask the farmer, but it doesn't take much taste-testing to figure out which ones go for the concentrated flavor over a quick buck. I'm not sure about the science behind this, but I've heard it holds true for tomatoes as well.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.800015 | 2012-05-17T16:43:27 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23809",
"authors": [
"Aaliyah E",
"Andrew Cole",
"Dadad",
"Ethan Parisi",
"Jamie Bull",
"Jay",
"Johan Vandenbroucke",
"Leo",
"Pam Gilford",
"Tin Man",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54014",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54015",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54016",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54019",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54844",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54858",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54861",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8315",
"jontyc",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
20718 | How can I fix rips in a puff pastry sheet?
Sometimes, a sheet of puff pastry that I'm working on will tear or rip. Sometimes this happens when I'm unfolding the sheet of puff pastry, and sometimes it happens when I'm shaping the pastry around the other ingredients.
How can I fix rips in puff pastry to best preserve the height expansion of the pastry?
I think it depends how fussy a presentation you are working on. If it has to be perfect, there really isn't going to be any fixing it. If some variation is acceptable, just wait til it is a bit softer and patch the rip back together like you would any other dough. You'll get less nice separation of the layers in that area.
Can you clarify your favorite "patch" process? I would just pinch the ripped sides together with my fingers, but I wonder if that's best.
I'd usually take cut off a small piece of scrap and push it down over the spot. I'd rather create a little thick spot than the thin spot you get from pinching. But either way works.
I don't have an answer about how to fix (and probably there isn't one satisfying answer, since breaking it means breaking lots of layers), but in case you don't already do, try warming it a bit before working with, don't try to unfold when just out of the fridge. I place it into my oven for a few minutes at minimum temperature.
Or simply leave it at room temperature for about 10 minutes. You'll quickly develop a feel for when it has reached a workable-but-not-too-soft texture.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.800465 | 2012-01-23T20:57:27 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20718",
"authors": [
"KatieK",
"Michael Liebman",
"Michael Natkin",
"Sarah",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45541",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45542",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45543",
"user6288139"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
24411 | How to choose appropriate drinkware for cocktails?
How do I choose the appropriate drinkware for cocktails?
Is there really a difference between something served in a highball or shaker glass, and something served in a hurricane or Martini glass?
How does the drinkware selection affect the taste, flavor or other properties of the cocktail?
The most obvious difference is that a highball glass is much larger: 8 to 12 ounces as opposed to 4.5 ounces for a martini glass. Cocktails served traditionally in a larger glass usually include a large quantity of mixers, such as a Tom Collins (served traditionally in a Collins glass, 10-14 oz, though a highball would be appropriate), which only contains about 2oz of gin and is topped off with a large quantity of soda water, or a Cuba Libre (traditionally served in a highball glass), which contains mostly Coca-Cola with a small amount of rum. On the other hand, cocktails served traditionally in smaller stemware, such as the Martini, may contain nothing but the alcoholic ingredients (gin and vermouth). Therefore, they require smaller quantities before one would be inebriated, and thus are served in smaller glasses. Furthermore, stemmed glasses keep your hand further from the (presumably cold) drink, thus keeping it colder longer, important for drinks traditionally served neat (whereas a highball would have room for ice).
If you ask an enthusiast, the shape of the stemware used can be crucial; for example, red wine apparently tastes better after oxidation, so red wine glasses maximize surface area to increase the amount of wine that oxidizes, while white wines do not oxidize well. Champagne needs to stay bubbly, so a champagne flute tries to minimize the amount of bubbles that escape, while some alcohols have a pleasant aroma and thus benefit from wider glasses like a sherry glass that maximize the amount of aroma that escapes.
However, for many average consumers, stemware is stemware is stemware. The differences may or may not be enough to be noticeable to people who are not wine enthusiasts. I would say, if you're looking to stock a kitchen, get a couple types of stemware you find attractive and improvise rather than trying to make every drink in its own special glass.
@Yamikuronue gave a pretty good list of the real basics and the reasons for them. The more highly specialized glasses like shot, margarita and pousse-cafe are easily interchanged with the basic types he described for you. In the end, your cocktail is much more about getting the recipe right, rather than what glass it is in (i.e. don't fill up a pint glass with a cosmopolitan martini unless you're ready to deal with an extremely drunk individual). For home use, you can really get away with a red wine glass, a beer pint, and a smallish glass (like a little 8 ounce glass). This will get you through all kinds of wine, beer, martinis, shooters, daiquiris, margaritas, long islands, jack n cokes, you name it.
Shot glasses are the ultimate example of the "smaller for harder alcohols" principle :)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.800609 | 2012-06-13T03:22:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24411",
"authors": [
"John Kinyama",
"Kieran Edraney",
"Kriarvi95",
"Pratik Ambani",
"Uppitycakes",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55574",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55575",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55576",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
12761 | Garlic Infused Oil—Safety
I recently received a bottle of garlic and herb infused olive oil as a gift. It came in a fancy bottle with a cork on top. I tried it out last night and it's terrific.
I've heard about the dangers of garlic infused oils and the possibility of botulism. Is this something I have to worry about with a store-bought oil? Are there any precautionary measures I can take?
We had a very similar question about making your own garlic oil here:
Botulism, Garlic, Cold pressed Olive oil and mason jars
Oil is effectively an anaerobic environment, which promotes the growth of the bacteria and spores responsible for botulism.
However, these types of risks are common in home canning. Major factories producing canned or bottled goods are going to want to protect themselves against millions of lawsuits, so they are going to take steps to pasteurize (for lack of a better word) the foods before packaging them. Commercially-packaged infused oils have probably either been heated, acidified, or filtered to guarantee food safety.
On the other hand, the linked question above demonstrates that there are people out there who aren't taking the appropriate precautionary measures. If this oil came from a well-known company with a good track record then I would not worry (and you can always contact them if you are worried); however, if it came from somebody you've never heard of, and can't find any reliable information on - i.e. somebody who's making this stuff from home - then I might be a little more concerned.
If you trust the source, then trust the oil. Otherwise, you might want to try sterilizing it yourself; you need to either heat it to 250° F (121° C) or expose it to acid conditions. Neither of those things are really desirable; heating it can taint the flavour or even burn the oil depending on what kind of oil it is, and if you want to take the acid route, you basically need to to pickle it. But there you have it, that's what you can do if you don't trust the safety.
Thanks for the info. That's very helpful! It an off-brand that almost looks "homemade". I'll probably investigate further. Thanks!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.800846 | 2011-03-03T18:25:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12761",
"authors": [
"Loki",
"Vecta",
"daniel aagentah",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26366",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/296"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
22394 | Why do my cookies deflate when coming out of the oven?
Immediately after I remove my cookies from the oven, they start to deflate and lose some of their puffiness. What are the primary causes of this?
This occurs with both old and new baking soda; though the effect is lessened with new baking soda. This happens with most kinds of cookies. I chill the cookie dough in the fridge while baking each batch.
Are you trying to prevent this? Only certain kinds of cookies are really expected to stay tall.
Yes, I want to prevent or reduce the deflating, and end up with cookies with some body, rather than super-flat cookies with occasional chocolate chip mountains.
Hm, if they're thinner than the chocolate chips, maybe they're going a bit farther than they're supposed to. I was thinking of the difference between, say, normal flat-ish chocolate chip cookies and something like chocolate crinkles.
What are the primary causes of this?
The steam and other hot gasses that were puffing the cookies up either escapes or condenses. Without heat to create more steam, the cookies deflate.
You get exactly the same effect with bread, quiches, and other baked goods. You can hear bread start to make a crackling sound almost as soon as it comes out of the oven, and the sound continues for some minutes until the bread has cooled a bit. Quiches are always quite puffy looking when they're in the oven, but they start to shrink a bit as they cool.
If you want your cookies to shrink less, you might try cooking them at a slightly higher temperature, or cooking them a bit longer, or perhaps not chilling them so much prior to baking. Bumping up the amount of egg white in the cookie may help, too. The idea is to get the structure of the cookie to set a bit more by the time you remove the cookies from the oven. That will, of course, cause the cookies to be less chewy and more crunchy.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.801046 | 2012-03-19T17:58:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22394",
"authors": [
"Belian",
"Cascabel",
"KatieK",
"LJH",
"Matt Skeldon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50349",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50350",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50352",
"jmb2154",
"kevzettler"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
45305 | Without knife skills, how can I quickly and accurately dice vegetables?
As an occasional cook, I know the value of correctly diced vegetables when the recipe calls for it. But I don't have the knife skills to work through a soup's worth of vegetables in under an hour. In lieu of simply "getting better" with the knife (if I were going to be a chef, it would have happened by now), how can I quickly and accurately mow through a pile of dicing work?
There are dicing (or "cubing" kits) for some mandoline models. If you can't improve your knife skills, improve your technology.
Are you open to redefining what "correctly diced" means? If so, then it'll make your prep quicker and less stressful and you'll find that your knife skills are accurate enough. As long as they evenly cook and don't take up the entire spoon, is that enough? Or do you really need to visually impress?
@djmadscribbler - Tell me more.
@MichaelE. - They don't need to look pretty, but they do need to cook as expected. For example, when making soup, I need the celery and onions to practically dispensary, and for the potatoes to be small enough to give up their starch and thicken the soup.
@KatieK - for uniformity, djmadscribbler is on point, a mandoline is quick and easy.
I'll typically slice and cut vegetables where some pieces are a bit larger and less square than others and I figure that the smaller pieces will reduce more than the larger ones (e.g. potatoes). For celery and onions that need to dispense (? disperse/disappear ?) you can grate them. It's a bit 'rustic', but it works.
I cut either the parsley, cilantro, sweet pepper, mint or onions into ~2-inch strips (into quarters for onions) and simply throw them into a blender without exceeding the height of blender blade by more than a cm. Turn the blender on for 10 to 20 secs and accept the mushy result.
How much is a soup's worth of vegetables from your perspective?
Try a mandoline. If you're not familiar, it's a gadget that has a horizontal blade for slicing as you slide food across it. Most have a dial that allows you to adjust thickness or to create julienne or "French-fry" shape. You can then just do one more chop to turn the "fries" into dice.
Aside from that, I'd be remiss if I didn't make a plug for improving knife skills! :)
practice practice practice! It's worth the time investment.
class! I took a 2-hour knife skills class at a local kitchen supply store. I went from mediocre to slightly-better-than-mediocre knife skillz in no time! You'll learn some tips and tricks to make it go more smoothly.
Good luck.
For the record, looks like @djmadscribbler beat me to the mandoline idea!
Standard mandolines only slice or julienne. To achieve a dice, you can either perform the largest julienne and use another knife to cut the strips into cubes, or you can find a mandoline (I believe that OXO has a "V-slicer" -as they call it- as well as other manufacturers such as de Buyer) that have a with a cube kit or cubing capabilities.
Mandolines are famous for taking off the ends of fingers, so be really careful! I'd suggest a protective glove when using one.
agreed w/ GdD -- the ones for home use come with hand guards for a reason.
Here's the cubing attachment for the Oxo mandoline. That said, I have no idea how such a thing would work... A blade would need to be going cross-wise to the slicing motion. Looking around I see several questions about how this works but no answers.
You don't quickly and accurately mow through without knife skills, you are either slow and accurate or quick and inaccurate. Which you chose depends on the result you want.
If you have a load of vegetables and not much knife skill here's what I suggest:
Bigger pieces mean less cuts, and therefore less time
Go for a rougher cut, less accuracy means less time. Tell them it's a rustic dish
if you are cutting long vegetables like zucchini or carrots try cutting them the long way into 4 pieces, then chopping across, that way for every cross cut you are getting 4 pieces. Try to use this principle for other vegetables as well, it's a big time-saver
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.801231 | 2014-07-03T17:21:29 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45305",
"authors": [
"Cynthia",
"GdD",
"Hamid Reza",
"Joe",
"KatieK",
"Michael E.",
"Simtrick",
"Susan",
"djmadscribbler",
"hoc_age",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107876",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107877",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107878",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107895",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107941",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9799",
"rackandboneman",
"user107876",
"user132797"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
23338 | What's the difference between latte, mocha, and all the other drinks on a coffee-house menu?
There are many different coffee-based drinks on an average coffee-house menu. But what makes them different from each other? What are the differences / distinguishing characteristics between: latte, caffe misto, cappuccino, mocha, macchiato, Americano, and Cafe Au Lait?
Espresso: This is a finely ground very dark roast coffee, packed somewhat tightly in a special metal filter, with water "expressed" through it under pressure. A very strong dark coffee, typically served in 1-2 ounce portions. Very commonly incorrectly called "Expresso."
Americano: Italians typically don't drink American Strength coffee. They drink espresso in tiny cups. Then the tourists came and wanted a mug of coffee like they get at home. The Italian solution was to make an espresso and keep the water running through the grounds to weaken the coffee, and make the desired quantity. (edit: Some locations may simply add hot water to the espresso in the cup. This doesn't change the basic concept.) An Americano is simply an espresso that has been drawn out with extra water to an American strength beverage -- Not to be confused with the typical brewed coffee, which is usually filtered.
Caffe au Lait: This is strong filtered or brewed coffee (not espresso), with warmed milk. This is probably the easiest specialty coffee to make at home. Just scald some milk in a pot and pour it over strongly brewed coffee.
Cappuccino: A 1:1:1 ratio of espresso, steamed milk, and milk foam. Typically the milk is steamed through a special high pressure steam pipe on the espresso machine. This serves two functions. To warm up the milk and to create a stiff foam on the top. When pouring, the foam is held back with a spoon, and then scooped out on top. I'll arbitrarily define the cappuccino as the base beverage for all that follow.
Macchiato: Typically in North America, this is a cappuccino, but with the steamed milk component missing. That is, it is espresso and frothed milk foam only. Also called a "Dry" Cappuccino. Macchiato has different meanings elsewhere.
Latte: A "wet" cappuccino. Hold back the foam with a spoon, and pour the warm milk over the espresso. Put a little bit of foam on top for decoration only.
Mocha: Any one of the above espresso + milk drinks with chocolate added. Some places will add hot chocolate to the drink, others will add a chocolate syrup. A mocha latte is the common preparation. Not to be confused with Mocha beans, which are an Ethiopian coffee bean which has a little bit of a naturally occurring chocolate flavour.
Misto: A Starbucks synonym for a Cafe au Lait.
In the US, an Americano is two shots of espresso topped with hot water. There is no extended extrusion.
Edited to show the variations.
I am surprised no one has mentioned this wonderful graphic (Credit: Espresso Field Guide by the aptly named Jay Mug ):
Latte: An espresso drink that consists of espresso, steamed milk, and foam. In a latte there is a greater percentage of steamed milk than foam.
Mocha: An espresso drink that consists of espresso, steamed milk, foam, and chocolate syrup. In a mocha the chocolate syrup in stirred with the espresso to create a caffeinated hot chocolate with foam.
Cappuccino: An espresso drink that also consists of espresso, steamed milk, and foam. In a latte there is an equal percentage of steamed milk and foam. In a wet cappuccino there is a slightly greater percentage of steamed milk. In a dry cappuccino there is almost no steamed milk and consists of almost pure foam.
Espresso Macchiato: A real macchiato is a shot of espresso and a single dollop of foam on top. The shots can vary from 1 to 4. Any more takes too long to pull and spoils the first 2 shots. *Starbucks has a drink called a caramel macchiato which is just an inverted latte with vanilla syrup at the bottom and caramel drizzle on top.
Americano: A cup filled with hot water and topped with espresso shots. An americano is an alternative to a regular cup of coffee and usually is more flavorful.
Cafe Au Lait: A cup of coffee filled 1/3 of the way with steamed milk. An au lait is preferred by customers who want to add milk or cream to their coffee but do not want to lose the heat by adding cold milk.
Red Eye: A cup of coffee that has shots of espresso added to make it stronger.
There is a fantastic graphic from Oatmeal, that explains the contents of most of your coffees. I'd argue that a true cappuccino only contains foam, and no steamed milk, but besides that, to me, it's quite accurate. The one it doesn't mention that I've made before, and is often confused with a mocha is a Cafés viennoise. This is a latte where the milk is replaced by hot chocolate.
Irish coffee (Irish: caife Gaelach) is a cocktail consisting of hot coffee, Irish whiskey, and sugar (some recipes specify that brown sugar should be used), stirred, and topped with thick cream. The original recipe explicitly uses cream that has not been whipped. The coffee is drunk through the cream.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.801577 | 2012-04-25T19:06:05 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23338",
"authors": [
"Arman B",
"Chris Cudmore",
"Cynthia Athen",
"David Baucum",
"David W",
"Deland",
"Jacob G",
"Mack Rakib",
"Mariah Elaine",
"Name",
"Sarah Hanson",
"deej204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/121989",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152835",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52827",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52828",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52831",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52833",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55048",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55055",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71384",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8499",
"user52831"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
23715 | How to thicken a raw fruit relish?
I have a raw fruit relish that I'd like to like to thicken into more of a jam consistency. I'm thinking about heating in a saucepan with some cornstarch or syrup, but I don't have any idea how much cornstarch to use, and I don't want to mess this up. What approach should I take to thicken this relish?
Here is the recipe for the relish:
2 pounds fresh cranberries
1 cup sugar
1/4 cup Grand Marnier liqueur
1 orange, zested and juiced
Place all the ingredients in the bowl of a food processor, pulse
several times to breakdown the cranberries and incorporate the
ingredients; it should still be a bit chunky. Allow the cranberry
relish to sit at room temperature for at least 30 minutes, so the
flavors can marry.
From Fresh Cranberry Relish by Tyler Florence and JoAnn Cianciulli.
Cranberries have a ton of pectin- which is one reason why cranberry jelly is so prevalent.
Just simmer the cranberries, sugar, and orange juice together for a while and they will eventually gel. I don't know how the liqueur will behave but if it was supposed to be served raw then you probably would want to add it after boiling so the alcohol wouldn't boil off.
Of course- you won't be able to call this a "raw fruit relish" anymore- it would become a pretty standard cranberry sauce recipe.
If you want to keep the berries raw then I would recommend combining the sugar and orange juice with some other thickener such as corn starch or gelatin.
If I need one, I usually use guar gum as thickening agent in raw dishes. The result is similar to using corn starch, it is more or less without flavour, but does not need heat to activate. I would probably dissolve some in the orange juice and then mix with the other ingredients.
I would recommend a flax or chia egg; it is a common substitute for egg in many recipes as it is a gelling agent that requires no cooking. If you go this route you will preserve the "raw" designation, and not have to worry about cooking off the taste or activating the thickening/gelling agent. It will not have the surface tension of arrow root or corn starch or some other boiled ingredient, but for raw it should improve the consistency.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.801971 | 2012-05-11T19:01:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23715",
"authors": [
"Gabriel Gaster",
"Gary Colton",
"Sir Whiteout",
"Trent",
"gabe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53758",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53760",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53768",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53771",
"oldtechaa"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
23773 | What's the fastest way to hull a strawberry?
I often need to hull and slice large batches of strawberries. But hulling by cutting a cone out of the top of the berry with a paring knife can be slow work. How can I quickly remove the core (the hard white part near the stem) from the strawberry?
What do professional chefs and kitchens do to quickly hull strawberries?
I don't know what professionals do but if I am going to slice the strawberries anyway then I slice them in half and take the hull out of each side as a quick triangular cut.
Why do you remove the center? I eat it. If the strawberry is terribly unripe, then I cut off the whole top up to the place where it turns pink, but leave the lower part of the core inside.
Go to Amazon and search for "strawberry tool". There are several for under $10.
@rumtscho: On occasion I've purchased huge mutant strawberries where the green/white "stem" goes all the way down to the center; they were very difficult to hull properly, maybe that's what Katie has.
Generally I get "Hood" strawberries (from Oregon or Washington), which are softer, juicier, and have a shorter lifespan than the more common California berries. The white core of strawberries has a different (undesirable) texture and taste.
@cosCallis - Have you used them?
@katiek, no, but they all have good reviews.
I don't usually hull strawberries, but when I do I use a straw. The idea is that you push the straw up through the tip of the strawberry and it comes out at the stem. For pictures you can see http://amy-newnostalgia.blogspot.com/2010/06/hulling-strawberries-with-straw.html are just Google "hull strawberries with a straw"
That is ingenious. Is it fast?
I think so - but I haven't used a "strawberry tool" so I don't have much to compare it to. For me it's faster than trying to use a paring knife to carve out the stem and it takes less skill then using the spoon technique (plus I've had the spoon mangle berries that were very ripe).
Perhaps that's where their name comes from!
I always use a teaspoon to scoop out the green. Going any deeper than 5 mm is unnecessary anyway (it's only the green and the little stalk that are unpleasant), but you can go as deep as you like. It is fast and it works perfectly. You press the spoon's edge into your thumb, so to speak, with the strawberry in between. You can easily continue to hold it in the right position in your right hand while you pick up new strawberries with your left hand. When I found this out years ago, I couldn't understand why the whole world wasn't using this, just as with grating garlic. The only thing quicker than a teaspoon would be a teaspoon with thinner (= sharper) edges.
Pictures from Thepioneerwoman.com
Doesn't a spoon destroy the berries, rather than cut? Perhaps you and Ree Drummond have sturdier strawberries than I do...
@KatieK: No? They become more or less as in the picture. I guess if they're extremely ripe it becomes hard (then I would personally not like them anyway).
I think a lot depends on the edge thickness and the ripeness of the berries. Personally I have mangled quite a few berries using this technique because the spoon edge wasn't sharp enough and just deformed the berry.
@djmadscribbler: I don't know...I have used this method exclusively with strawberries for years, and never a problem. I wouldn't use it with other berries, probably.
I'm guessing the thickness of the spoon's bowl will be a factor -- I have a bunch of different spoons, and I'm guessing the thicker ones wouldn't be useful ... but I'd be inclined to use a grapefruit spoon (as I have one).
@Joe: Absolutely, the thinner the better!
Never used it, but I'm assuming these exist for a reason:
Has anyone used these?
Looks like you waste a lot with that...
Alton Brown recommends a star-shaped tip from a pastry piping bag. He mentioned this in the Good Eats episode on strawberries, which has tons of good info on why hulling is important and the effects of not hulling.
All you really need to remove is the stem and leaves, so just a quick down and up cut (or a V, one cut from each side) will get it done, just wasting a little of the top of the berry on either side of the stem. I think it'll work better than using a spoon if you don't have a sharp/thin enough spoon and your berries are pretty ripe; otherwise they're roughly equivalent.
For another dedicated gadget option, a tomato/strawberry corer/huller:
I tried my grandmother's a couple times; it works fine, though I'm personally happy with a paring knife and a tiny bit of waste.
Try using the small end of a melon baller (AKA Parisienne scoop).
I just did 16# today. I use a tomato shark. Doesn't waste the berry and takes out the green leaves at the same time. Costs $1.49.
Welcme to the site! Could you please explain: What is a tomato shark?
What is "16#"? Is that a quantity or is it referring to a list somewhere? I can't tell if this is intended as an answer or comment.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.802206 | 2012-05-15T16:46:46 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23773",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Beverley Porter",
"Cerberus",
"Cos Callis",
"Euroclydon37",
"Grandmagail",
"Hannah",
"JVC",
"Joe",
"KatieK",
"Kendra Skibinski",
"KyloRen",
"Mark",
"MarlenaPerry",
"Max Feinberg",
"Michelle Wahl",
"Mien",
"ScotchBonnet",
"Sobachatina",
"Sox Fan 56",
"Spam",
"Stephie",
"TheOnlyRick",
"William Palmer",
"aleijche Davis",
"dgoverde",
"djmadscribbler",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136298",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53915",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53916",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53922",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53924",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54054",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54911",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55065",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85252",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85253",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85254",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85255",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9799",
"nico",
"rumtscho",
"user30910",
"user85252"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
23331 | How can I make coffee with a minimum of equipment and maintenance?
My household doesn't regularly drink coffee, but we occasionally want to provide coffee for our guests, or need to use coffee as an ingredient in other dishes.
We do have a coffee maker (a "free" one with a subscription to mail order ground coffee beans) - but it's been sitting the garage for ages. It's now dusty, and requires too much cleaning and counter space for the intermittent times when we do want to use it.
What's the bare minimum of easy-to-maintain equipment that I could use to produce plain old coffee?
I'd pick up a simple cone filter at the local coffee shop.
Insert a paper filter, add grounds, pour hot water through.
With the bonus that it can be used for filtering in general.
Why the down vote? Is this not the "bare minimum of easy-to-maintain equipment that I could use to produce plain old coffee?"
This is a good answer. The Chemex coffeemaker is considered to be the best way to make drip coffee by many connoisseurs, and it's essentially the same thing, though they make high quality filters for it. http://www.chemexcoffeemaker.com/
@ChrisCudmore Weeeell I guess you don't really need the mug, as long as you're tough enough to drip the coffee directly into your mouth :)
If your guests like Italian coffee you can buy a Moka.
This is ubiquitous in Italy, where it is called la macchinetta - the little machine. Every household has one, or often more then one, with different sizes. The classical one is sold by Bialetti, and it looks like this (now they sell more modern-looking one).
Source: Wikipedia
Personally, I don't think the brand really matters so much although, as many Italians, I use Bialetti for sentimental reasons.
The use is very simple:
Source: Wikipedia
Fill the reservoire (A) with water, up to the level of the safety valve (not shown in the schamatic, but you can see it in the photo)
Put ground coffee in B. It is important to use espresso-grind, which is fine. Too coarse a grind will not give good coffee
Screw the top reservoir (C) onto A.
Put on a stovetop and wait for the water to boil and pass through the coffee powder. The coffee will accumulate in C.
You will hear a typical "gorgling" sound when the coffee is ready, due to the fact that there is no more water left in A.
If you're using a gas stovetop, don't use too strong a flame, otherwise the plastic handle may burn!
Mainteinance is easy: let it cool down, disassemble it, remove the grinds (use them as compost for your acid-loving plants!), and wash it under running water.
Never use soap. Be sure to remove the ground that sticks to the rubber between A and C, otherwise the two parts may not screw well together and coffee may spill out.
Tradition wants that you should not over-wash a moka, as coffee will taste better the more (and more often) you use the moka. Many people would go as far as throw away the first batch from a moka that has not been used for a while (remember, coffee is an after-lunch/dinner ritual in Italy and people will argue about it if it is not good!).
Dry the moka and store disassembled, to increase the life of the rubber band between the two reservoirs.
Moka are cheap and come in different sizes, from 1-cup to 10-12 cups. Of course the number of cups depends on how much you put into each one: Italian coffee is usually served in very small cups and it definitely is not what you get at Starbucks, both regarding volume and taste. It may be served black, with sugar, with a dash of milk (caffè macchiato), with a dash of grappa (caffè corretto) etc.
Note that this is NOT espresso. The moka does not have sufficient pressure to make espresso. This is what is usually drank at home, rather than at the bar, where you would instead get espresso from a high-pressure machine.
As a cultural curiosity: in Napoli, where people really care for their coffee, a variant of the Moka is sometimes used, the macchinetta napoletana, which looks like this:
Source: Il chiodo arrugginito
Apparently this is called Flip-over coffee pot in English, this blog page describes it quite well, and also has a video.
And for those who understand Italian, this scene by one of the best Italian actors of all the times, Eduardo de Filippo, needs to be linked:
Questi fantasmi - coffee scene
As Eduardo says, [making coffee is] the poetry of life.
I was in the same situation as you, and I bought a French Press, as someone else suggested. Very few parts, easy to clean, takes up very little space, and my boyfriend (who is the coffee drinker) says it makes great coffee.
The one drawback seems to be that the steeping process gives you a product that isn't as steaming hot as a coffee maker does. I suspect the problem may be that the glass canister does not hold heat as well as say, a porcelain teapot. My boyfriend compensates for this by filling the glass with the hottest water he can get out of the tap while the water is coming to a boil. He also pre-warms his coffee cup by filling it with boiling water while the coffee steeps.
Get a stainless steel double walled French Press. That keep the coffee hot!
I personally use an Aeropress. It's cheap, quick to make decent coffee, super easy to keep clean. It requires a small filter (I bought a pack of 250 or so when I first got it 18 months ago and am only just running out now. The finished grounds are pressed into a "puck" which can easily but put into the bin/recycling without filling your bin with water which can happen with some coffee makers.
It's better (in my opinion) than a french press or filter as it is quicker and uses some degree of pressure which should allow more oils etc to get pushed through into your cup.
It's also very easy to keep in a cupboard - it's barely bigger than a large cup.
If you do invest in one, the inverse method (check youtube) is meant to give even better results than the standard procedure but for me makes a bit more mess.
Cezve is an easily cleanable pot that allows you to make Turkish coffee, which, in my opinion, is the best method overall and by effort/result ratio. The complete unshortened process is hard, but it is worth it, plus all you need is the cezve.
Also, French press is tolerable. Here is the method:
Grind coffee beans (coarsely).
Wash the glass with hot water and wipe it dry.
Put 3 tea spoons of coffee (20 grams) into the pot.
Boil some water.
When the water boils, stop heating the kettle, wait for 10 seconds and pour it into the glass. Stop pouring when it reaches the upper ring (or two fingers below the top).
Quickly and thoroughly stir it with a wooden stick or a spoon. NOTE: don't use metal spoons because the glass is very fragile.
Seal the glass with the plunger, don't leave the tip open.
Wait exactly 4 minutes (adjust the time later).
Push the press, rotate the cover, get the coffee.
Drink the coffee and clean the device.
Filtered coffee IMO is not much better than instant coffee powder.
For someone who doesn't drink coffee, the quality of filtered coffee makes not one iota of difference.
@Marti: The question states that the coffee is to be provided to guests who do.
You can make coffee in a saucepan or some kind of pot that you can boil water in. I use an enameled cast iron pot by Staub but anything that won't absorb the coffee flavor will work. Measure water and coffee to your preferred strength and bring to a boil on the stove. I turn it off as soon as it starts to boil and reduce the heat to very low to keep warm. The coffee can then be poured over a cone type filter or directly through a cloth or paper towel which can then be immediately discarded. When finished with the coffee, just dump the grounds and rinse the pot. Some even prepare the coffee and water the night before and let it sit overnight then warm it in the morning.
French press or filters are pretty easy and don't need much storage space. You could also just use a regular pot or saucepan, although that can be really tricky at first, and might be more trouble than it's worth.
You could get one of those little moka stove-top coffee makers though. They're pretty convenient and don't need much storage space at all.
This sort of adds one more element, but has other, non-coffee uses also, and won't make the coffee process any more complicated: an airtight, hermetically sealed jar in which to store the coffee so it'll keep longer term even with infrequent use.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.802794 | 2012-04-25T17:46:04 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23331",
"authors": [
"Addie Marie Townsend",
"Anne Pru Dances",
"Anthony Lumini",
"Chris Cudmore",
"Eric Morin",
"Graham Turner",
"Lara Hill Raich",
"Marti",
"Mcramen",
"Michael R",
"Mischa Arefiev",
"Nhu Phung",
"Peter Taylor",
"Richard Crowley",
"Sharon Tripp Hawkins",
"TFD",
"Tacroy",
"Vince Smith",
"dandavis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52815",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52819",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52843",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52864",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52865",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52883",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54881",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8486",
"paul",
"sara"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
28723 | Why didn't my turkey stock gelatinize?
We made turkey stock of out our Thanksgiving scraps. We simmered the turkey bones (unroasted) and all the vegetable trimmings for about 7 hours, and then chilled everything and stashed it in the refrigerator overnight.
But the chilled stock doesn't have any jelly-like thickness to it. It's pretty much a tan-colored liquid.
Without the gelatin-induced thickness, is this a failed stock? Can we use this "pseudo-stock" when a recipe calls for stock?
What was the ratio of bones and meat to water?
Umm, I don't really know how to answer with a ratio. There was a lot of water - enough to cover all the solid bits, including the turkey carcass. There was at least two gallons of water.
Did you add your drippings to this stock as well or did those go in the gravy? Depending on how long the turkey was roasted, I imagine most of the tendon and fat may have melted into the drip tray, unlike a chicken which cooks so much faster (leaving a carcass with much more intact tendon). Nonetheless, if it tastes good, it is good. Don't throw it away!
It was a brined and roasted turkey. The pan drippings all went into the gravy.
My best guess is that your stock is very weak. Two gallons of water to just the bones from one turkey will not be a strong stock.
It may well well have gelatin in it, but very thin.
I make stock for a single turkey with the wing tips (not the 'drumstick' part), the back, the neck--everything but the breast and leg/thighs in with about 1 gallon of water to start, which reduces to several quarts over the course of three-four hours.
This produces a very shaky jelly--much thinner than the one in a jar of Smuckers for example.
The recipes I saw say to cover all the solid ingredients with water. How in the world did you do that with only one gallon of water?
You don't have to literally cover them--if a tiny bit sticks out, over the course of 3-4 hours, and the very occassional stir, it will all get submerged. I use a wide dutch oven (which is not ideal) so that I can get the back in without having to cut it up. Another option is to take a cleaver to all the bits and pieces, and cut them up into chunks of about 2-4 inches in size. I just don't own a cleaver.
If you have a heavy knife, you can use the back of the knife to crack the bones, which will help the water get in there, even if they're not all cut up.
@KatieK these recipes contain certain assumptions about pot geometry. A ratio for classic stock would be between 1.3:1 and 1.6:1 meat/bones to water. If you fill a tall stock pot with bones and (almost) cover them with water, you get this ratio. It is not "wrong" to make a very thin stock as you describe it, but you shouldn't wonder if it doesn't look and taste like classic stock.
I should also share that I cut my turkeys into parts (leg/thigh, breast, cut the "forearm" and "hand" off the wings, cut out the back. I do this primarily because I think the turkey roasts much better in parts. I then roast the bits bound for the stock pot at 500 until they are visibly brown for a richer stock, then put them in the stock pot. But they are far from cooked through when I do it.
@rumtscho - Is the ratio of meat to bones based on weight or volume?
@KatieK Weight. Normally, a ratio is always weight-based. In this case, volume also has some importance (you want your bones to be mostly covered, and the heap could be taller or lower), that's why I gave the range from The Professional Chef and not the fixed ratio of 1.67:1 found in Ruhlman.
If you heat some up, and add a little salt, does it taste good? Then its a successful stock.
If you want it to be thicker/stronger, simmer it a while to reduce it. As SAJ14SAJ says, that's a fairly large amount of water vs. the amount of bones.
Of course, don't add salt to it and then simmer it down, or it'll turn into a salt lick. (and be careful about boiling it down -- I once didn't pay attention, and boiled it dry, but the non-water bits burned something fierce ... smelled like burned hair, and the pot never really came clean after that.
Yes, I'm saying to take out a little bit, put it in a cup, microwave it, and add some salt to that. You just want it salted appropriately to taste it.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.803508 | 2012-11-28T17:29:19 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28723",
"authors": [
"AdamO",
"ChristopherBrown",
"Joe",
"KatieK",
"La gente no es un problema ",
"Leonel Pérez Ruiz",
"Matt Voda",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66470",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66472",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho",
"user66471"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
6865 | How can I get salt to stick better to buttered or oiled popcorn?
I make popcorn with butter or olive oil, but still when I add salt, especially kosher salt or coarse sea salt, it won't stick. Is there anything I can do to get it to adhere better?
The key is to have the finest possible salt. One way to do this is to take any salt you like, and grind it fine in a mortar and pestle. This just takes a few seconds, and then you can customize to a particular sea salt you enjoy and avoid the need to buy a special popcorn salt. A rotating action in the mortar and pestle (as opposed to pounding) is most efficient for grinding salt.
Grind the salt in a small spice grinder or food processor until it is a powder.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.804145 | 2010-09-07T00:24:07 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6865",
"authors": [
"Pierre",
"RTBarnard",
"bjtaylor",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13914",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13916",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14034",
"lealea"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
21529 | How much salt can I safely add to bread dough?
I recently made ciabatta, which turned out very well, with a good crust and nice open crumb. However, I felt it could use more salt to give extra flavour. I'm aware that salt and yeast do not make good bedfellows (or should that be breadfellows?), so how much salt can I safely add to the recipe without compromising it?
FYI, the recipe in question uses 3.25 cups polish, 3 cups of flour, and 0.75 cups of water to 1.75 teaspoons of salt (I use table salt to avoid lumps of undissolved salt in the bread).
Get more kick from the salt you have by powderising it first, and then dissolving into some hot water as part of your total water. Salt appears to dissolve in normal water, but it tends to have significant amount of suspended crystals, and hence a less even salty taste
2% works nice, between raise time/Taste. If more salt is preferred, sprinkle some on top, like pretzels.
Need to know the flour/water ratio of your poolish.
Based on experience and experimentation alone (I bake bread several times a week), I'd say to be consistently safe you probably want to max out around 3% in baker's percentages. 2-2.5% is much more common, but I've done as much as 3%. After 3%, things got very inconsistent. Sometimes it would work if the structure was just right, but mostly I got loaves that didn't rise well.
If I did my math and conversions to weight right, it looks like you're probably in the 2% range, so you should be able to add about 50% more salt.
EDIT: It must be higher, but I'm not sure how high. Bread Baker's Apprentice as a 4.2% Poolish Focaccia and other others in that range. BBA seems to max out in the low 4's.
I'm sure somebody will point out a recipe somewhere that has 6% salt or such, so given a really sugary dough, it might be possible to push it further.
+1, Assuming that we are talking about primarily lean/rustic breads (ciabatta was noted) then I'm sure you wouldn't see anything up to 6%. Peter Reinhart in Bread Baker's Apprentice recommends 1.5% - 2.5%. 3% is probably pushing it a bit, but should be possible. Plan on a little extra rise time to compensate for slightly weakened yeast?
I can vouch for a 3% salt bread. Was a quick-rise too, with around 9% live yeast equivalent, so maybe not so good for a BBA recipe. But it worked, and didn't seem to inhibit the yeast - it rose a lot in a short time, I think it could have worked with more salt too (although it wouldn't have been to my taste).
Yep, 3% seems to be the maximum recommended.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.804253 | 2012-02-20T15:35:21 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21529",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Food Lover",
"Git.Coach",
"Optionparty",
"Sam Ley",
"TFD",
"TomBrooklyn",
"Viv Cyriac",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36780",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47760",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48281",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9091",
"rfusca",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
24318 | Metal cutlery food pairing
Given the recent research on the taste of metals in cutlery (flatware) and their potential food pairings, is there any food unsuitable for stainless steel, or is this the universal make do metal?
Has anyone tried metal/food pairings for specific dishes?
We do use the heirloom silverware for delicate desserts, but that's about it!
Some references:
Institute of Making - Sensoaesthetic Properties of Materials
Fine Dining Lovers - Cutlery food science
I only have experience with metal and non-metal cutlery/food combination. I'm aware this isn't really what you've been asking, but still find it worthwhile to share.
From my personal experience there is a tasting difference between metal (I only know stainless steel) and non-metal (in my example nacre) with eggs. The difference comes from the "mouth-feel" of the spoon. I tried this with the same egg and the spoons both rested at the same place (to compensate temperature differences).
I experienced the metal spoon as cold (even though it was at room temperature), kind of "hiding the eggs flavor", while the nacre spoon was not only warmer, it felt kind of as if it wasn't there or at least much less prominent, offering a fuller flavor of the egg.
Found a few other references to these foods tested by the Institute of Making
After three years of research, they unleashed the spoons on this complex Indian dinner, served with a flight of seven beers. The sight of 15 adults sucking their spoons like babies was an unusual start to a dinner party, but they had surprisingly different flavours. Copper and zinc were bold and assertive, with bitter, metallic tastes; the copper spoons even smelt metallic as they gently oxidised in the air. The silver spoon, despite its beauty, tasted dull in comparison, while the stainless steel had a faintly metallic flavour that is normally overlooked. As Miodownik pointed out, we were not just tasting the spoons but actually eating them, because with each lick we were consuming “perhaps a hundred billion atoms”.
When the spoons were tasted with food, there were some surprising revelations. Baked black cod with zinc was as unpleasant as a fingernail scraped down a blackboard, and grapefruit with copper was lip-puckeringly nasty. But both metals struck a lovely, wild chord with a mango relish, their loud, metallic tastes somehow harmonised by its sweet-sour flavour. (“With sour foods, like mango and tamarind, you really are tasting the metal,” says Laughlin, “because the acid strips off a little of the surface.”) Tin turned out to be a popular match for pistachio curry. And Laughlin sang the praises of gold as a spoon for sweet things: “Gold has a smooth, almost creamy quality, and a quality of absence – because it doesn’t taste metallic.”
As well as the full publication called The use of standard electrode potentials to predict the taste of solid metals which appeared in Food Quality and Preference vol.22
I have found this Journal to be an amazing tool, there are many topics on the lesser thought of aspects of cooking, presentation, and consumption of the perfect dishes.
Duplicate. That's just a commercial publication from the author (Zoe Laughlin) of the first link in the references
@TFD it's not quite a duplicate, its the original source article FOR your reference. It includes more information. Did you check the link?
Yes, I have it already, it's the same author. Looking for other science or practical experience
@TFD Gotcha, well let me know if you come across anything. I have experimented a little with this, but not enough for any relevant perspective. I have found though that conductivity is a pretty good indicator as to how much flavoring will change.
Based on everything I've ever read, stainless steel should be non-reactive with anything you'd encounter in a kitchen. There are specific warnings about copper and aluminum, and semi-nutty warnings about plastics and cast iron in some situations, but I've never read anything remotely reputable denigrating stainless steel.
I suggest you re-read the question, which has nothing to do with reactivity or food safety.
@Alesh_Houdek According to the tests referenced, people do detect a taste difference from metals including stainless steel (it's steel, not magic) with certain food groups
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.804497 | 2012-06-09T01:57:57 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24318",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Brendoodle",
"Dustin",
"JesseW",
"Paula M. HURLEY Miller",
"RAMECA",
"TFD",
"Welness Cook",
"dankilev",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55329",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69276",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71801",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71810",
"tina blue"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
15526 | Amount of salt in bread
I've been baking bread on and off during the last two years. Now, finally, I found a nice recipe. It calls for 2% of salt (20gr per kg of flour). It gives a tasty bread.
On the other hand, the health service recommends using less salt in bread, but I don't know the recommendation, nor the tastefulness of the recommended bread... (that's a lot of recommends in one sentence).
So, what is the recommendation and does it produce a decent bread?
What is "the health service"? There are numerous health authorities in each country around the world. Each of them can make a recommendation, no way to know which one you heard. Second, a blanket recommendation is suspicious in itself - how do they know how much bread do you eat? Third, there is no clear-cut definition for "decent bread".
+1 You're ever so right in all aspects. We're talking about the Spanish health authorities. Apparently the bakers are using less salt now than a couple of years ago. The current bread is pretty tasteless. 'Decent' according to my taste of course... My bad.
With all due respect to them, the health service doesn't have to eat the results of their recommendation. Bread without salt is nigh-inedible, and the salt isn't just for flavor. Reducing it also hurts the texture.
To quote On Food and Cooking (page 535): "Though some traditional breads are made without salt, most include it, and not just for a balanced taste. At 1.5%-2% of the flour weight, salt tightens the gluten network and improves the volume of the finished loaf."
This means that a less-salted loaf will be denser and less chewy, and an unsalted one even more so. Now, you can knead more to compensate for reduced gluten development, but it still won't be as good. Having baked and eaten bread without salt due to a hung-over cook forgetting to add it to the dough, I can confirm the changes in texture. It also seems to rise differently and overproof faster.
Oh, and it also tasted like cardboard. But again, the health service doesn't have to eat the results of their recommendation. I could go on an hour-long tirade about the culinary atrocities committed in an effort to reduce sodium.
At 2% this bread is really nice. Thanks for the answer.
FYI - much traditional Tuscan bread (actually made in Italy, not something called "Tuscan" you buy in another country) is made without salt. I've had a lot of it and it can have a good texture and even some interesting flavor, though obviously much different from most breads that contain salt. It is often dipped in or spread with ingredients or sauces that are quite salty though, which make up for that "absent" flavor. However, the texture, done properly, can be very good.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.804870 | 2011-06-16T14:49:42 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15526",
"authors": [
"Alex A.",
"Athanasius",
"BaffledCook",
"Beth",
"Doug Washburn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32899",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32904",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
6044 | Beef Wellington - how to get it (especially the pastry) right?
I'm thinking about cooking Beef Wellington this upcoming weekend for six adults and three kids. I've made it, with ok-ish results, before, but the trick is always getting the pastry right. Not too dry, not too soggy. (It was a bit too soggy when I last made it).
Wikipedia suggests a crepe to help prevent this: what are some other techniques I can use? Should I make multiple smaller ones, should I twiddle with temperatures or let the pastry defrost more than I normally do - I'm open to suggestions.
Update:
I am using store-bought puff pastry
4 sheets of pastry vs ~350 g of meat
the meat has not been frozen and has reached room temperature before being wrapped
Starting at 200C
fairly small gas oven
Wikipedia suggests a crêpe, not crêpe paper. You might not get such good results with crêpe paper. I've heard that putting a crepe at the bottom of the beef can help absorb the excess moisture from the meat and avoid the soggy pastry.
What kind of pastry are you using? Homemade dough? Storebought puff pastry? What temperature are you starting out at? What is the ratio of dough to meat? All of these things will be helpful in knowing how to fix the soggy dough problem.
I don't know your exact prep but the best thing you could do is bring your dough to a completely thawed state, store bought will work fine.
Make sure you beef is at room temperature before doing a quick sear, this will not only add flavor but will give you a layer of protection.
Another problem that can occur is the puff pastry releases some steam and it needs some way to escape. After you have wrapped your piece of meat, take a knife and make small slits in it with the tip of a sharp knife. This will help release the steam and should take away the moisture.
425 degrees would be a good temperature to cook at and you should hit your ideal around 40 to 45 minutes.
Hope this helps and let me know how to it turns out.
The technique I use (with shop bought puff pastry) is to work it a little (about 2 minutes with warm hands will do), then return to the fridge for a couple of hours before using. This breaks down the butter layers and gives a less puffy and dry texture to it when it's cooked.
To avoid sogginess, as Sam suggests in the comments, wrapping the beef (coated already in the mushroom filling) in a crepe before covering in pastry can seal in the sogs nicely. I recommend using an ordinary crepe mix and adding finely chopped chives and a twist of black pepper. The trick is to aim to make a really airtight parcel.
If you are feeling really decadent you can wrap the coated beef first in parma ham, then the chive pancake...
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.805217 | 2010-08-26T13:27:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6044",
"authors": [
"Avery Wittkamp",
"Sam Holder",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2052",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
25164 | Why does oil change the color of salmorejo?
We did a few experiments last year with salmorejo, a cold soup made of very ripe tomatoes and bread, very similar to gazpacho.
We noticed that while blending, the salmorejo would turn pink. This is because the tomatoes get into contact with oxygen. We don't like the colour/taste of the pink salmorejo. Adding more oil to the soup would miraculously restore the colour/taste.
So, there's the question: why does adding more oil (EVOO) restore the colour of the tomato soup?
When tomatoes are fried, you can see that the oil becomes coloured red - so at least some of the colour components are preferentially soluble in oil.
I will hazard a guess that, under the circumstances mentioned, the oil coats the tomato particles, and some of the colour migrates into it to give a red surface. Because the oil forms a coating, that coat will inhibit oxidation. The oil will also improve the mouth feel of the soup.
Just the way I see it ...
"blending", you didn't use a food processor did you?
You must chop and fold by hand if you want good colour, and to some degree taste
Yes, we do use the hand blender.
That's an easy fix then. Chop and blend by hand. No significant colour change, and a better looking soup
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.805456 | 2012-07-21T13:57:32 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25164",
"authors": [
"Altagracia Pacheco",
"BaffledCook",
"Pamela",
"TFD",
"gayle",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57536",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57550",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"john daly",
"user57562"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
28131 | Substituting oil in baking?
I have a cake recipe which calls for 1 1/3 cup of vegetable oil. What are the essential properties of vegetable oil in baking? What changes would be expected if I were to substitute peanut or canola oil for the vegetable oil?
FYI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetable_oil#Particular_oils
Peanut and canola are vegetable oils. Vegetable oil is a catch-all term, it's not asking for a product labelled "vegetable oil" although you can buy it in the store. Oils labelled vegetable oil are blends and can be any proportion of things like canola (rapeseed), peanut, corn, sunflower, etc. Just don't use Olive oil, it is a vegetable oil but it won't be good for cakes!
Different vegetable oils will give different properties although most will give you about the same result. Canola is flavorless and relatively light while peanut is a bit richer and, well, peanut-y. The differences in your cake will be subtle, however.
Subtle might be an overstatement - I'm not sure most people would even be able to tell the difference between peanut oil and canola oil in a cake.
Why would olive oil be bad for cakes?
What they hey, infinitesimal is too hard to spell.
@KatieK, because it tastes of olives. Just think, chocolate cake with an olive tinge - yech!
Not all olive oil have strong olive taste. Although olive oils sold in non Mediterranean countries are somehow luxurious, and therefore stronger tasting.
I use extra virgin olive oil in cakes all the time because that's usually all I have on hand it it works just fine. Never tasted a difference and never had anyone else taste a difference. I expect it'd be the same with peanut or canola, which don't even have a strong fragrance like olive oil.
It sure would be nice if people would say why they're downvoting people, especially a new person. If you disagree, say why you disagree, so that others can decide if they're willing to take the change. eg, extra virgin olive oil tends to be more expensive, so maybe you're miserly. Or you don't agree on the doesn't give a different flavor (which might be true in the US, as we tend to have olive oil cut w/ cheaper oils)
You probably would not notice much difference substituting peanut or canola oil for "vegetable oil", because of the amount of sugar in a cake. On the other hand if you substitute with extra virgin olive oil you will notice a difference, not so much in the flavour, but in the texture. Unlike the other oils mentioned EVOO contains natural mono- and di-glycerides, which are emulsifiers which will give the cake a fine, dense crumb, and help it to hang onto moisture, so that it remains fresh longer. There is a long tradition of using EVOO instead of butter in cakes in places like Italy and France.
As an aside, in the case of pie crusts, which do not contain sugar, I have noticed a flavour difference between oils (if you have not tried making pie crust with oil, do yourself a favour and give it a try; they are super easy). Avocado oil has a slight fruity flavour, and canola had a slight fishy flavour (maybe because it is high in Omega 6) which I find unpleasant. My favourite is peanut oil which has a rich taste (highest in saturated fat) and seems the closest to butter. Unfortunately I did not include EVOO in my side-by-side testing but I am guessing it would produce a very tender crust similar to ones made with shortening, since they both contain mono- and diglycerides.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.805616 | 2012-10-31T16:21:20 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28131",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"GdD",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Joe",
"Jontron",
"Jules Heptinstall",
"KatieK",
"Lucas Gebremichael",
"Wowfunhappy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122289",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147692",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64698",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64700",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64701",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"stijndg",
"user64700"
],
"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
} |
39836 | Why is bacon commonly baked in a cold oven?
When cooking bacon on a sheet rack in the oven (for about 25 minutes at 400 ° F), it's common to put the bacon in the oven when the oven is cold, so that the oven is "pre-heating" while the bacon is inside. What is the purpose of this? Why start the bacon in a cold oven when so many other things use a pre-heated oven?
As the oven heats up, the bacon will slowly warm, and slowly start to render its fat. This minimizes the curling from shrinkage. It is not absolutely necessary, and makes the total time to the bacon being done shorter, if you start timing from when the oven is turned on.
For more insight, see the various answers to Cooking Buffet-style Bacon
In addition to the advantages already listed, starting the bacon in an un-preheated oven also saves the energy that it takes to pre-heat, while still taking the same amount of time to cook. Thus, you save overall time, since you don't have to wait for the oven to come up to temperature.
Of course, if your oven is already warm from previous use, you can also cook your bacon directly without waiting for it to cool down first!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.805898 | 2013-11-28T07:11:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39836",
"authors": [
"Chris A",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101445"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
45493 | Are "non-fat" condiments as effective as full-fat versions at reducing spiciness?
Nice creamy condiments are known to reduce the effect of spicy foods, such as sour cream on Tex-Mex food. I have a pretty low tolerance for spiciness, so I often need to put a glop or two of sour cream on what I'm eating. Would switching to low-fat sour cream (to reducing fats) still have the same spice-reducing effect?
It's the fat that actually cuts the spiciness - see my answer on making a sauce less spicy/hot. When you're dealing with the type of spiciness that's reduced by cream (generally capsaicin), it's pretty safe to assume that it's fat-soluble, and the same principles apply when you're using the "reducer" as a condiment vs. including it in the recipe.
There's certainly a possibility that certain non-fat/low-fat substitutes will work, but it's going to be luck of the draw; it depends on how they're made. Alcohol in general is almost as good as fat at cutting spice (sometimes better), but that's not going to be a common ingredient in these products. Generally they'll have a bunch of emulsifiers and other E-numbers to maintain their consistency, not many of which (possibly none) have any documented relationship with capsaicin or its like.
Low fat (as opposed to non-fat) might be fine because it still contains some fat. "Light" sour cream is typically still 5-10% fat and would probably still work pretty well, if not quite as well as full-fat. But don't expect any miracles from non-fat products.
Actually, low fat products work perfectly, not just "pretty well". There is nothing in fat which "cuts" the spiciness, it simply dilutes the capsaicin. All you need is something which can dissolve the capsaicin. 1% yogurt works perfectly fine for the purpose - the capsaicin concentration in a single bubblet of yogurt-fat might be higher than if you used creme fraiche, but because it is dispersed in a very large volume of water, it ends up working as well as an equivalent volume of high-fat product. (I have experienced this in practice too, it's not just theory). I agree on the non-fat part.
@rumtscho: I don't think it's quite that simple; in many/most cases the food you're eating already has oils or other fats, and the concentration of capsaicin might be quite high, certainly too high for a tiny bubble of 1% yogurt or milk to take it away. I've eaten tacos with salsa hot enough that even the usual dollop of sour cream didn't entirely eliminate the piquance - which of course was the point. If your food is "slightly spicy" then yes, a small amount of low-fat whatever is probably fine.
by "bubble" I meant each individual droplet in the emulsion. Of course if you add too little stuff, you don't get enough dilution. But my point was that, once your stuff mixes with fat well enough, it doesn't matter what percentage of fat it has itself. And low-fat yogurt mixes well enough. My personal experience is that low-fat yogurt and high-fat sour cream have the same heat-mildering power per gram. If a spoon of lfy is not sufficient, then a spoon of sour cream won't be sufficient either.
@rumtscho: These terms you're using don't have very precise meanings. In some places, "low-fat yogurt" could have nearly the same %mf as sour cream, particularly if you're buying "light sour cream". Of course the percentage isn't the sole issue - it's the combination of percentage and quantity. Getting equal results with the same quantities of products with vastly different %mf does not mirror my own experience; that would only happen if either (a) it's not very spicy to begin with or (b) you're using far more than the minimum necessary to cut the spice.
(b) is a possible explanation in my case, I am usually generous with dairy.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.806031 | 2014-07-11T16:59:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45493",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
35107 | Why didn't my puff pastry "puff"?
I used store-bought puff pastry to make a tart with two layers of pastry (with some soft cheese in the middle). Even though it baked, neither the top nor the bottom layer of pastry rose or puffed at all.
I kept the puff pastry in the refrigerator instead of the freezer for a few days between purchasing and baking. Whoops! I was also pretty sloppy about "room temp"; I just worked the dough when it was flexible. Would this incorrect temperature management have caused the failure to rise?
I did not use an egg wash. I baked at 400° F for about 17 minutes, in a square ceramic dish, pre-greased with sprayable butter. Since the pastry didn't quite fit in the dish, I used a butter knife to trim the edges off of the pastry.
Additional info: The center of the pastry was not risen at all, even though it was ~9 inches square. I didn't roll the dough at all.
Puff pastry is a laminated dough, with very strong gluten development, so an extra couple of days in the refrigerator should not have caused problems.
450 F seems like a typical temperature, and the time seems in the normal range.
The only thing you have mentioned is that is definitely outside the standard treatment is trimming the edges with a butter knife. Normally, you want to trim or cut puff pastry with a very sharp knife or pizza cutter, in order to cleanly cut through the layers. A blunt knife like a butter knife can mash the layers together, making it hard for them to separate at the edges of the pastry.
Still, this should have lead to lopsided or strangely risen pastry, rather than a complete failure to rise, especially in the center.
The other possibility is that the dough was too warm when you rolled and worked it, or that you rolled it too much, which would work the fat or butter layers into the dough phase, rather than keeping discrete layers of flour then fat, which is what allows the rise.
Keep the oven door closed, as steam plays a crucial roll in interacting with the butter and making the pastry puff and opening the over door, causes that important steam to escape.
I have found that the critical thing with cooking pastry is putting it a preheated hot oven. I also recall issues with pastry having lain in the fridge for a few days. It doesn't tend to puff up so much after that.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.806309 | 2013-07-05T18:55:19 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35107",
"authors": [
"KatieK",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
16480 | How to make smooth ice cream flavored with fresh fruit?
What are the key techniques to create a smooth ice cream that's flavored with fresh fruit? How do I prepare the fruit, and when is the best time to add it to the ice cream?
In the past, I've had trouble where all the juice came out of the fruit and I ended up with flavored ice.
are getting their ice cream crystallized?
@uncle brad - Yes, smooth and flavored ice cream with no chunks.
My suggestion would be to cook the fruit down with the sugar into a syrup mixture.
Preface: I'm not a big fan of fruit-flavored stuff (I like fresh fruit by itself, just not in stuff...) so I can't speak to these from personal experience.
For fresh fruit, puree in a blender or similar. Moist fruits can probably be pureed in their own juices; otherwise, you'll need to add some. You'll probably want to add some sugar, but offset this by reducing the sugar you add to the ice cream mix. (Seeds might be an issue too - get seedless if possible.)
As Manako suggested, you can also cook it down and then puree, though this will result in a wetter mixture than with their natural juices alone. This will also present a different flavor profile from the fresh fruit, so experiment to find what you like.
Another possibility would be to cook out some of the water from your puree.
In any case, you'll want to reduce the liquid ingredients of your normal recipe by roughly the same amount as the pureed fruit you're adding.
In light of the previous item, you'll probably want to use a higher-fat cream than normal, since the fruit will add a lot of water.
Unlike "chunky" additions, you don't really care that the ice cream should be at a thick consistency before you add them. (for suspension) I'd just add it directly to the mix before you start churning.
As an aside, for most fruits you really won't want to add more than a half-cup to a cup (?) to a half-gallon freezer if you're looking for ice cream as a result. Add too much, and you're in sorbet territory. And you still want the ice cream character to come through without being overwhelmed by the fruit.
Almost any fruit or berry is going to have some pulp or seeds so if you want it really smooth, you are likely going to need to strain with a fine mesh strainer.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.806510 | 2011-07-29T03:42:20 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16480",
"authors": [
"Andrea Jasper",
"GalacticCowboy",
"KatieK",
"Ladislav Naďo",
"Leônidas Nunes Reis",
"Manako",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6873",
"thelsdj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
11143 | In what kind of recipes can I substitute stock for water?
I imagine I could use turkey stock instead of water when cooking a box of couscous, but that boiling pasta in stock wouldn't work so well. In what kinds of preparations could I use stock instead of water? Could I use a 1-1 substitution? (I've got a ton of turkey stock in the freezer, and I'm looking for ways to use it.)
Any recipe where the water is part of a sauce or is expected to be absorbed (including rice, couscous, and yes, pasta too), you can use stock instead to increase the deliciousness. If you have an opportunity to add flavour, why waste it?
Of course, there are some caveats to consider when making the substitution:
Stock is going to contain a certain amount of gelatin (how much depends on how the stock is made). This is often a good thing, leading to a richer mouth-feel, but if the thickening effect would be detrimental to your recipe, then don't use stock.
Stock can clash with other flavours, although less often than you'd expect, since it's effectively a mega-dose of umami. In particular I'd probably avoid using it in recipes that are either very sour (sour meat is the taste of rancidity and highly displeasing) or very sweet (since the sugar will overwhelm the flavour of the stock). So don't use it in your candies or in your pickling solutions, but any dish based primarily on meats, vegetables, and grains, is definitely fair game.
Because it's a meat product, it has a limited life span. I wouldn't recommend substituting it for water in anything that's going to sit in the fridge for several days and/or be re-frozen, due to food safety concerns.
Oh, and I probably wouldn't use it in baking. The effects of using homemade stock when the primarily role of the liquid is to develop gluten would be unpredictable, to say the least. And somehow the thought of turkey-flavoured cake just doesn't sound very appealing to me.
As for the right ratio - that depends entirely on what went into the stock, how long it was simmered for and whether or not the stock itself was reduced prior to storing/freezing. You're definitely going to want the same total amount of liquid, but if the stock is highly gelatinous then you might want to dilute it, and conversely, if the stock is very weak then you might want to reduce it. There really is no golden ratio, but I'd probably stick with 1:1 for a "typical" stock.
We're going to have to coordinate on our answers. We're splitting the upvotes too much by posting the same thing all the time!
There are a few cases where you use stock in baking (pan drippings in yorkshire pudding, for example), but it's certainly not common!
@Bruce: In this case by "baking" I mean "flour and water", as opposed to "anything that goes in an oven." You could certainly use stock in casseroles and marinades and glazes and so on.
Yorkshires are flour + water (and can use stock or drippings), much like a cream puff. There are a few muffin recipes I make that are savoury and have 50:50 stock/water (and I'm sure I've seen it in crepes too, which are a similar problem). It's just not as common.
Okay @Bruce, I admit there are some nuances; let's just say I would keep it out of desserts and pastries, and at least think twice before using it for breads and quickbreads (Yorkshire Pudding being a notable exception).
As long as we're getting all detail-oriented, it's worth pointing out that Yorkshire puddings have a significant amount of egg in the batter as well.
Ah, I wasn't being picky ... I find it curious how you can transform certain desserts into savoury things with something like stock. Food is so malleable! I've made bacon muffins before, but always wondered if bacon cookies would work?! Bacon + chocolate cake?
@bruce - maple cookies (made with either high quality maple syrup or maple sugar) with real bacon crumbles mixed in and small piece of salty, thick-sliced bacon on top are delicious!
Well, first off you've probably noticed that turkey stock really takes over in anything where you use it. It's not as flavor-neutral as chicken or beef stock. They add richness, but not necessarily a heavy chicken or beef flavor. Turkey stock, on the other hand, makes things taste strongly of turkey.
Apart from that I think you can use stock most places you'd use water or broth. Because a proper stock is usually a good deal richer with gelatin you'd probably want to thin it with water in many applications. For example, you'd probably get bad results using straight stock to boil pasta because the stock may be harder to absorb. But thinning it with a bunch of water would still get some extra flavor into the pasta, and reduce the possible cooking difficulties.
I'd consider stock to be just another flavorful liquid (thanks Alton Brown), to be usable in exchange for others like wine, etc. You need to be conscious of the gelatin aspect and mindful that some substitutions will be more successful than others, flavor-wise, but it's always worth considering if stock might be a good substitute for any other flavorful liquid.
We make rice with stock all the time (though if it's a really rich stock we cut it with as much as 50% water), and it's great for poaching chicken for a chicken salad.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.806709 | 2011-01-17T18:20:42 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11143",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Al2",
"Bruce Alderson",
"Sean Abraham",
"Stefan Kögl",
"Vik",
"Zivka",
"bikeboy389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22840",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22845",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22847",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"shelli",
"stephennmcdonald"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
23176 | How to clean and trim parsnips?
I have some parsnips, and recipe for them which said to:
Wash and scrape parsnips, and cut into 2 inch strips. Place into 2 inches of boiling water, and cook for 10 minutes, covered. Drain, add butter, salt and pepper as desired.
By "scrape", does the author want me to just clean of most of the dirt / color with a brush, or should I just peel the parsnips? Also, should I retain the core of the parsnip?
While I think that it is a good thing to clarify the term in a question, I doubt that your recipe will suffer, whatever method you use. Washing, scraping and peeling can be used interchangeably, depending on taste preference, skin thickness and dirt amount.
My grandmother scraped both her parsnips and her carrots. Basically you hold your knife perpendicular to the vegetable and drag it down the length. It's the same action as using a peeler. In fact, I usually just peel mine with a peeler. But scraping leaves a tiny bit more of the vegetable.
This is what my mother does, but she does it with a finely toothed butter knife. It removes all the dirt and very little of the vegetable itself. Like using a brush, but more thorough.
I generally peel parsnips like I would a carrot and then core them using this method:
After trimming the ends and peeling the parsnip, quarter it lengthwise. Hold a sharp paring >knife parallel to the cutting board and slowly run the knife between the core and the tender >outer part of the parsnip. The core curves with the shape of the parsnip, so you won’t be >able to get it all, but that’s fine—just remove as much as you can without sacrificing too >much of the tender part.
Before I knew better I would also just slice them like a carrot prior to boiling and mashing, and that works ok for smaller parsnips when the core isn't too tough/woody.
You only really need to core older woody parsnips. In a kilo I might only cut out the core from the a handful, normally you can see some discolouration where they are woody.
I use a vegetable peeler. I could use a knife, but I found I was losing a lot of parsnip that way. I also found that they really needed to lose that outer layer, texture wise, after washing and popping them in the pot one time. They were a bit... chewy.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.807096 | 2012-04-18T16:21:24 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23176",
"authors": [
"Jay Stiff Tecnocolor",
"Lasagna Cat",
"Lissa L Weirauch",
"M. Nguyen",
"Shadow",
"TJH",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52414",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52416",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52460",
"rumtscho",
"vwiggins"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
30112 | Can you freeze almond paste?
I've got some fresh almonds and they're starting to become stale. I'm thinking of making an almond paste with eggs and sugar.
Does this keep well in the freezer? I suppose it does, but asking doesn't hurt.
Numerous sites all agree that almond paste can be frozen with no deterioration of the product. The key is to wrap it up in several layers of plastic bags or plastic, then aluminum foil to keep out other flavors from the freezer as my experience has been that ground nuts will absorb odors if improperly wrapped.
Once in the freezer, hopefully in manageable-sized packages for easy thaw and use, the almond paste should keep for several months at least.
I've stored ground almonds in the freezer for a year with no harm to the flavor.
Best of luck!
What does a layer of aluminium foil achieve? It is never going to be airtight!
I'd think main drawback of aluminum foil is that it can be punctured quite easily, so you need something else around it to protect it. Aluminum is somewhat reflective to heat, so it may help when you open the freezer.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.807412 | 2013-01-15T18:17:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30112",
"authors": [
"Florence banuchi",
"HaHa",
"Honeybee00013",
"Pam In Florida",
"Pascal Belloncle",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70264",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70265",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70272"
],
"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
} |
10778 | How to season minced/ground goat
So I have about ten pounds of ground goat, ten pounds of goat sausage, and 2 racks of goat ribs. This is an ongoing supply, my folks keep meat goats so goat is cheap and plentiful.
The meat isn't particularly gamy, but it does have a bit of a gamy flavor. Right now I want to take some goat meat and make a cottage pie (potatoes over meat over crust). I have two questions:
1- I love pie crust, but my cottage pie never really holds together in a pie slice. What can I do to give it more consistency?
2- What can I do to minimize the gamy flavor of the goat?
Goat is pretty mild, as gamey meats go, so it is possible that you just aren't fond of goat? I know people who love lamb and so I turn them on to goat, which is milder, but if you eliminate what many would call gaminess, you have effectively blanded out your goat completely.
One technique that can work with your ground goat is to brown the meat, then rinse it with water, in a colander, to remove excess grease. Much of the gaminess is in the fat.
The main trick is just to work with recipes that are designed for that taste. Goat is great in curry, for instance. The shepherd's pie that you describe is also good for goat because the blandness of the potatoes offsets the stronger taste of the goat. You wouldn't want to make a traditional shepherd's pie, for instance, with chicken breast, or pork loin. Not enough flavor.
To get your meat filling to hold together better, when you brown the meat, add a couple of tablespoons of flour and cook it in with the fat. You are basically making a roux in place which will then thicken as your pie bakes, holding the moisture rather than letting it run away. If you do the rinsing idea I mentioned above, then you would do this step after rinsing, although you might need to add a little oil to the mix.
The traditional way of reducing strong flavours in meat is to soak it overnight, or even longer, in milk or buttermilk. I know I have read somewhere that brine is supposed to work equally well in reducing "gamey" flavours. If I were the proud owner of all that goat meat, I would try using a brine with some extra bay leaves and juniper. However, as I am writing this it is dawning upon me that you said your meat was already ground. I suppose you could still brine it, but you should probably reduce the time to a few hours. Also, I think brining it will give you problems if you were planning on browning the meat later. It will probably be too saturated with liquid to brown properly. I guess this is not much of an answer to your question, but perhaps it will give you some ideas.
As for the cottage pie, which part of the pie is the problem? If it is the mashed potatoes you could try putting a couple of egg yolks in them, that should firm them up a little and also help give them a nice colour when they brown. If it is the meat stew that is too runny, just cook it down a bit longer, until it is quite dry.
Usually the meat ends up a bit too loose... I'd like it to hold together more like a french meat pie.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.807538 | 2011-01-05T20:48:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10778",
"authors": [
"Alexandre Rondeau",
"Margaret Scott",
"Roxane",
"george t. melvin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22083",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22084",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22094",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3310",
"philosodad",
"rabbitluver"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
10781 | How to broil a rack of goat ribs
It's football playoff time, and I have two racks of goat ribs. My cooking plan is to wrap the ribs in foil and broil them. Any recommendations about what to do with them first, and what to put in the foil with them?
I am assuming that you have actual goat ribs, like pork ribs, and not a rack of goat chops. I had a full goat breast that I just cooked them the other day. If you just broil them as you describe they will be tasty...and tough...and greasy.
You want to treat these like pork ribs, needing a slow cook. I first smoke my ribs, then braise them, then finish them under the broiler with a thinned sauce. Here's the whole process in great detail at cookloose.com
Unless you are saying broil as a means of describing putting them on a grill, note that wrapping the ribs in foil before broiling defeats the purpose. Broiling is directional heat...heatfrom a direction. Wrapping them in foil reflects the direct heat away.
However, your method is, almost, correct. You DO want to wrap the ribs in foil with a little liquid (beer?), maybe some garlic and a bay leaf, or do a full rub, and then put them in the oven at low heat for a braise. This will cause the meat and connective tissue to get soft and yummy. THEN pour off the liquid, open the foil and slip under the broiler to give them a crusty finish. Brush with a sauce or not, as you wish.
So...slow cook in liquid...broil to finish, but not wrapped in foil for the broil.
I'll confirm that these are ribs, not chops.
Again, assuming they're similar to pork ribs: I'd cook them in Lager until soft - test with a fork every now and then - then leave them in the liquid until cold and for as long as you like - I regularly leave my pork ribs in the beer for a day or two. Then take them out, drain them, brush them with sauce and broil them until hot and crispy on the outside.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.807791 | 2011-01-05T21:27:44 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10781",
"authors": [
"Jennie B",
"Krishna",
"Uncle",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22088",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22232",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3310",
"philosodad",
"user22089",
"user22124"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
5903 | How to make spherical chocolate-enrobed candies?
How does one enrobe a candy center in chocolate in such a way that you get a smooth sphere with no ugly mark where it was sitting on a rack, or hole where it was held by a skewer?
What if you tried two hemisphere molds, made the shell, filled with your center, and then put the two halves together? If you want a liquid center, you might need to freeze it first or only fill one half.
This method leaves a seam, but that can easily be fixed by adding a small amount of chocolate along the seam and wiping off the excess. Or heating up a small knife and melting the seam together.
In order to obtain a perfectly smooth spherical coating, you will have to use a mold.
If you are hand-dipping your centers, you will get a "foot." The warmer the chocolate, the bigger the foot.
Rather than dipping your center, I would recommend you "roll" the center to coat it. Granted, this is messy, but you will probably get the closest to having a "non-footed" product.
To do this, after you temper the chocolate, put a ladle of it onto a marble slab (a dinner plate also will work). With one hand, "play" with the chocolate. It will get thicker as it cools more. When it is pretty thick, but still liquid, use your clean hand to drop a few centers into the chocolate. Roll them over to coat well with your "messy" hand. Pick up the center and place on a sheet of parchment or wax paper... whatever you are using. You can also use your finger to make a swirl on top, but your chocolates will not be perfectly smooth if you do that.
When the chocolate on the plate starts to get too thick, you just add more warm chocolate to it. Unfortunately, this is an experiential method. It takes a while to get the "feel" for this to make the chocolates as pretty and "foot-less" as possible.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.807986 | 2010-08-24T22:00:41 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5903",
"authors": [
"Laurie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"kitukwfyer"
],
"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
} |
32492 | French Press Coffee amount
Okay so I have a french press, and I have been trying to figure out how much coffee I need. Here is the scenario:
It is a 15 oz press, I been reading that the general rule of thumb is 2 tbs of coffee per 6 oz of water, so if my math is correct that would me 5 tbs of coffee. or roughly 25 grams...
This seems like a lot of coffee for that amount of water?
Secondly, do I measure the scoops prior to grinding or after grinding?
I know there isn't an exact answer and there are other variables to consider, but I was wondering if there are any general guide lines I should be following... or opinions about this?
There will be a test later (a taste test) so you better get it right.
This has already been very well-covered in What's the Ideal Coffee to Water Ratio for a French Press?. (That question doesn't explicitly ask when to measure, but the answers make it clear it's after grinding). The rest of your question, asking for general guidelines and opinions, isn't really a specific enough question to work well here, but if you have specific follow-up questions please do post them!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.808158 | 2013-03-07T17:29:24 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32492",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
9955 | Cooking alcohol: how many calories are lost?
Google fails me.
I'm curious how many calories are burned away when you cook various kinds of alcohol...wines, liquors, beers (including lite beer).
It depends on how much alcohol there is relative to other things--sugars primarily, as they are about the only calorific part of most alcoholic beverages once the alcohol is gone (alcohol is the most calorific part for sure). You can use the alcohol proportion by volume (ABV) to approximate a little.
Assuming equal amounts of each:
Spirits don't leave much calorific stuff behind at all after the alcohol is gone because they're mostly alcohol. Alcohol by volume is between 40 and 60 percent in most cases.
Wine leaves a bit more, as there is more unfermented sugar remaining in the beverage you buy, but there's still not a heck of a lot. It depends on how dry the wine is. Alcohol by volume is between 10 and 20 percent mostly.
Beer can leave quite a bit, as many have significant amounts of unfermented/unfermentable sugar. This can be where ABV lets you down for estimating--high alcohol beers are also often high in unfermentable sugar too, so when the alcohol goes you're still left with quite a few calories. ABV can be anything from 4 to 20 percent, with the majority clustering around 5 percent. Lite beers are usually pretty low in alcohol and also pretty dry, meaning low residual sugars too.
A gray area is liqueurs and the like. Many are fairly high in alcohol by volume, but also heavy on sugars.
I should also point out that in many cooking applications, the calories added by the alcoholic beverage are fairly negligible, given the small amounts used relative to the number of servings. Even a Boeuf Bourguignon or Coq au Vin with a whole bottle of wine in it doesn't have all THAT much wine per serving--that whole bottle gets broken down into 6 or more servings, so each person gets less than a glass worth of alcohol-free wine calories. That probably averages something like 40 extra calories per serving.
You're assuming the alcohol magically disappears from the food. It doesn't. When you bring a pot of water to a boil, it doesn't all immediately turn to water vapor. Same with cooking alcohol: some of it evaporates, yes, but not all of it. To get all of it to evaporate, you'd need to do the equivalent of boiling the pot dry.
That's fine, and I get that--see my participation in the other answer. I still think the basic content here is sound, because I'm explaining how different types of alcoholic beverages behave. And also making the point that in general practice the calories from alcohol are minimal in any case. If people want to do the math, I'd recommend MFG's answer over mine.
Not all of the alcohol is burned off as you cook. I wish I could find the reference, but I remember reading that the alcohol volume levels off at about 5% no matter how long you cook it. The key is to reduce the total to a minuscule amount, or add a water-based liquid after boiling it down.
Alcohol is 7 Calories per gram, which is higher than carbs but less than fat.
I'd like to see that reference. That number would suggest that if you cook with the average domestic beer (4-4.5 percent), no alcohol at all would cook off. That seems unlikely to me. I'm open to persuasion, though.
I found a reference: http://www.ochef.com/165.htm This states that at 2.5 hours of cooking 5% of the INITIAL AMOUNT of alcohol is left. So that means that if we started with 100% alcohol, we'd be down to 5% at the end of 2.5 hours. So if you had a recipe with 100 ml of 10% ABV wine, after 2.5 hours you'd have half a milliliter of alcohol (100 ml @ 10% = 10 ml alcohol. 5% of that is .5 ml). Definitely negligible from a calorie standpoint.
@bikeboy389: There's a question asking specifically about alcohol cooking away.). I'm fairly certain that it's more complex than the table you found (also linked from that other question): the fraction left probably depends on the initial percentage. Those references make no mention of the initial concentration. (There's some statistical mechanics going on there, but the upshot is that mixtures do not behave intuitively with respect to phase changes.)
I seems right as there is always some Ethanol burn in the mouth after a flame off or a slow cook (I notice it as I don't normally drink Ethanol based drinks)
Here is a link to a distiller's page regarding boiling off during the distilling process.
He also has a calculation page for plugging in your specific variables (ie. ABV, etc).
If you take for granted the Alcohol being 7cal/g, and use a formula like [100% - ABV% = [CBV%]], the CBV% (non-volatile caloric percent) can yield the calories you're stuck with (probably). This would be found with something like [ABV%*7cal/g = Acal]; then Tcal (total calories by volume) - Acal (alcohol calories) = remaining calories in less volatile components (fats being less able to be boiled off than alcohol).
My math may be fuzzy and the formula may need re-worked, but basically you solve for (volatile) alcohol calories that will burn off (based on time cooked, using the O Chef graph or the distillery calculator), and then subtract them from the stable calories less likely to be cooked off.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.808274 | 2010-12-10T03:40:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9955",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"DanteTheEgregore",
"Francesco",
"Gabrielle",
"Kimchi lover",
"Marti",
"Naveen Kumar",
"TFD",
"bikeboy389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20399",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20400",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20404",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20416",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"pattivacek",
"zoned post meridiem"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
35939 | Do coffee and tea need to be agitated while brewing?
Do they need to be agitated in order to let the solution come into contact with every little particle of coffee/tea, or does it work the same without agitation? If not, can you explain why with physics?
Tea and Coffee contain a spectrum of flavour compounds and most certainly, not all are pleasant.
If you've ever had an over steeped tea or over brewed coffee you'll know that the optimum extraction point is long before maximum extraction. Where you are no longer extracting just pleasant compounds and picking up higher concentrations of things like caffeine, bitters, etc.
Agitating tea or coffee runs the risk of (or facilitate) reducing the time it takes to extract the unpleasant part. On that front, experiment with not yo-yo dunking tea bags and squeezing the tea-bag with the back of the spoon (mild forms of agitation) to see the taste difference.
There are many different methods of brewing tea and coffee, so lets consider three just as examples.
Before looking at them, however, it is worth noting that water is composed of tiny molecules that are polar. This makes it an exceptional solvent for almost all polar molecules, which is the reason why it has the reputation in chemistry as the "universal solvent" which is nearly true.
The flavor and aroma molecules in tea and coffee tend to be larger molecules that are dissolved into the water.
Tea Bags
Obviously the tea cannot be agitated. However, the volume of water is large, and it is cooling so there is going to be some convection.
The tea bags are also designed to have a large surface area exposed to the water. That is why they are thin, instead of compact and spherical.
The extraction is good enough.
Drip coffee
The water drips past the grounds. Even if a given volume of water, as it passes through the grounds were to become saturated, the next volume of water that passes it may not yet be saturated.
The time, temperature, and drip rate are calibrated (via empirical experience) to optimize the extraction.
The motion of the water under gravity, dripping down, ensures that no single volume of water remains exclusively in the vicinity of a particular section of grounds for a long time.
French Press Coffee
This is the only common coffee method where there is little natural convection, nor any movement of the water due to pressure, gravity, or other means.
It is also the only method where stirring the water and grounds once or twice is recommended.
However, even so it is not essential, as all of the grounds will be surrounded by some volume of water which extract the flavorants locally. When the plunger is used, the various regions will be mixed.
Conclusion
In general, the extraction power of the water, especially at brewing temperatures, is sufficient to the task, even with little additional agitation.
With tea, there is no need to agitate the pot/mixture in order to improve the extraction. In fact, you need to stop the extraction before the unpleasant components get too strong.
Since you asked for a physical answer, I think it's the Brownian motion from the boiling water that takes care of everything not done by the fluid dynamics of convection.
I'm somewhat of an expert in tea, though not in physics, mind you, so you can take the answer with a grain of salt.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.808680 | 2013-08-11T15:45:25 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35939",
"authors": [
"Berkley White",
"Colin Addison",
"Debbie Good",
"Michael Percy",
"NDbakes",
"Stephen Jennings",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84276",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84585"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
26023 | Where do I buy a large amount of dried vegetables?
I'd like to buy a large amount of dried vegetable matter to stock up on backpacking supplies. I'm interested in almost any kind of edible vegetables, including the generic, assorted, mixed, ground-up, and processed kind. I'd just like to have a lot of options to look at, but CHEAP above all! Wholesale retailers are also of interest to this OP.
And why vegetables? For flavor, fiber, and vitamins.
Food dehydrators aren't terribly expensive...
Do you have a food co-op or health food store near you? Lots of them sell in bulk, including dried veggies or dried mixes (for example refried beans or falafel). Additionally, you can ask if they offer a case discount, which means you buy a 20-or-so pound bag and sometimes can get about 10% off the bulk rate. To see if you have a co-op in your area check coopdirectory.org
I removed the statement "which are also healthy" because we tend to stay away from making any health claims on Season Advice.
Most of the hikers that I know buy when stuff's on sale, and dehyrate their own. (but I think they do more fruits than vegetables, for the energy needed for hiking)
As for where you buy 'large' amounts, it really depends on what sort of quantities we're talking about. I'd really suggest trying lemontwist's advice, and looking for a local food co-op first.
If you don't have one nearby, you might try some of the 'disaster preparedness supply' websites. Most sell full meals, but if you dig through the websites (or mail order catalogs, in case you're concerned with the government knowing that you're making these preparations), you'll find that some have bulk dried foods in either resealable cans or bagged, and each site will stock different varieties and sizes (anywhere from 1.5 oz to 2+ lbs) ... and remember, that this has no water in it, so 2lbs could be 20-40 cups); many mention '#10' can, which is roughly 13.7 cups (~3.2L)
Another option is to look for various dried 'soup mix' (also available from the emergency preparedness folks, and in some grocery stores), but check to see how much salt's been added. A health food store's going to be more likely to have a low-salt option than your general grocery store.
There is a great little shop just off the main bazaar in the town of Leh (in the Himalayas) that sells almost any kind of fruit or vegetable that is completely dry. I found them quite tasteful and useful for treks as you don't have to worry about your food going bad.
Actually, when I think about it, you can find dried foods in most of that town since it's a trekking center.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.808977 | 2012-09-06T20:20:56 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/26023",
"authors": [
"Jay",
"Remnaf Concept Limited",
"baka",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146607",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
12391 | Ball Canning Jars: Use them over and over?
A simple question:
Can I seal and reseal Ball canning jars over and over? How long before the seal gets busted usually?
Also, how do you clean the rubber seal ring without damaging it?
Sure you can use the jars over and over, but the lids should never be reused. That rubber seal is damaged the first time you use it. They are designed to soften during the canning process in order to form an air-tight seal. They may not form that seal upon reuse. You should always use new lids when canning.
exactly this. i will also add that you can reuse the jars and the rings (the part that screw down) over and over, but you should always feel the rims of the jars before using them to make sure they are not chipped (which may affect the seal), and make sure the rings aren't rusty.
Note that for jams and other stuff you use in modest quantities you can continue to use the lid-and-ring for storage in the fridge after opening if you can get the lid up without warping or puncturing it in the first place. Just don't try to can with it a second time.
I have reused the lids for years. They work fine and have never ever created a problem.
Hello Kathryn, you probably got a notification that your post was downvoted. Sorry for that -1. It is a side effect of the system - it flagged your post as suspicious because it is so short, and I dismissed it as the wrong button. I cannot undo the dismissal, so I gave you a +1 to return you to neutral.
I have had trouble attempting to use lids a third time. The results were so disappointing that I decided to "waste" money and materials by only using new lids.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.809191 | 2011-02-20T02:58:58 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12391",
"authors": [
"Brian K1LI",
"CMPSoares",
"DrRandy",
"Richard Tingle",
"Sandy Carter",
"dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten",
"franko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112037",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25515",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73476",
"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
} |
13891 | Is there such thing as white wheat berries?
I have been told that you cannot home grind white flour for white bread. Is this true, or is it just harder to find white wheat berries to grind?
According to wikipedia, there's definitely such a thing as white wheat berries. I don't know anything about obtaining and grinding them, though!
Sorry, my answer was incorrect (it used to say that there is no white wheat). The only defense I have is that such newfangled things like white wheat have not yet reached my part of the world (is Europe really that old-fashioned?). Big thank you to Jefromi for correcting me and teaching me something new.
"Normal" white flour is, as I described in the old answer, made from the inner part of the wheat berry, discarding the yellow-brownish hull. You can't make this at home. But it turns out that there is such a thing as white wheat. When it is used to produce whole flour, the result is a flour which is white in color (but behaves more like whole flour when baked, and has nutritional properties like whole flour). So if your definition for white bread is just based on color, it is probably possible to make white flour from white wheat. They say that the taste is milder than "yellow" whole flour, too, closer to the refined white flour. But from what I read, you probably won't be able to produce a fluffy soft baguette with it, just because it bakes differently.
If you want to make flour which is equivalent to the common white flour in the supermarket, you are still out of luck. The machines for removing the bran are too complicated, you can't do it in a grinder (look here for a patent for a bran removing device). But if "white whole wheat flour" is good enough for your purposes, I don't see a reason why you can't grind albino wheat at home.
Wheat berries are the whole wheat kernel. See also this question about cracked wheat and wheat germ.
Then what's the deal with "white whole wheat flour", for example from King Arthur? They say it has "100% of the nutrition".
Wikipedia mentions white whole wheat flour as well, as ground from hard white spring wheat instead of red wheat. It also says that it has less gluten (about 2/3 the protein content) - but with a "citation needed".
@hobodave, thank you for that information. But, "rice grain" and "maize kernel" and "wheat berries"? Are you people deliberately creating such traps in your language for the sole purpose of watching foreigners fall into them?
@Jefromi, I didn't know about white wheat. It also seems to be unknown on the entire German Internet, that is why I only knew of a single thing called "white flour", and described it in my old answer. Thank you very much for the correction. If you feel that you can write a better answer, please do so and I will be the first to upvote you - I tried to salvage mine, but seeing that it is based on some hasty reading of the web, the quality isn't as high as I'd have liked.
I think you know a lot more than I do about the things besides the existence of white wheat - maybe someone else can do better, but I don't think I can. Glad we got it sorted out! (+1)
@rumtscho It would be far too boring if we used the same word for everything.
I use hard white wheat as well as hard red wheat for a lot of things.
When you think of the hard, almost astringent, taste of whole wheat it is almost certainly red wheat.
White wheat is much milder (and as you would expect, paler in color) but, unlike soft southern wheats, still has enough protein for bread doughs. The bread made from finely ground white flour is much closer in consistency and flavor to white bread. I can also use it in my normal bread recipes and it doesn't require extra sweeteners or the extra protein that red wheat requires to make light bread. I have started using hard white flour in all my baked goods and use the harsher red wheat when I make bulgar wheat, sprouts, or just hot cereal.
As Rumtscho's answer says- The flour from whole hard white wheat still has the bran and so is not "white flour" but I think you will find that it still sufficient for your purpose.
As for obtaining them: Hard wheats are from the north and here in Texas they have to be shipped. Even so, all the places that I frequent for bulk wheat berries carry red as well as white. I can't make recommendations because they are local bulk food/food storage places.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.809392 | 2011-04-08T20:40:52 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13891",
"authors": [
"Adam Jaskiewicz",
"Cascabel",
"Dr C",
"Duane Shaw",
"dzampino",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
13637 | How do Blue potatoes differ from Yukon Gold potatoes?
In what ways do Blue potatoes differ from Yukon Golds? (Other than the color.)
Do they have comparable amounts of starch and water?
Do they have a different flavor or texture?
How should I be prepared adjust my cooking method if substituting Blues for Yukons?
In my experiment, blue potatoes were substitutable for Yukon Golds. However:
Blue potatoes are smaller than Yukon Golds. Therefore, cooking time should be lessened by a between half to a third, particularly when parboiling.
Rather than having the subtle creamy flavor of Yukons, Blue potatoes have a distinctly nutty flavor. This flavor may drown out more subtle flavors that are common to recipes calling for Yukon Golds.
Great follow-through!
There definitely is a difference in flavor, although it is rather subtle. I find that the blue potatoes are a touch richer or more "potato-y" than Yukon Golds. However, in cooking with them I've had plenty of success doing direct substitutions. Other than the blue color being a little odd-looking in some recipes I think you'd be safe just swapping one for the other in most cases.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.809835 | 2011-03-31T16:50:18 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13637",
"authors": [
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60"
],
"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
} |
14584 | What impact does the order of assembly have when making cookies?
What is the impact of assembling a cookie batter in a different manner than that described in the recipe? What's the best general order for combining the creamed fat & sugar, the dry ingredients and the wet ingredients?
For instance, the Toll House Chocolate Chip cookie recipe says to add the eggs to the creamed mixture, and then the dry ingredients (flour, salt, baking soda). I sometimes add the dry ingredients, and then the eggs. What problems might this cause with the finished cookies?
First, fat & sugar are part of the wet ingredients.
Given that, I do it different than daniel suggests. I always add the wet to the dry.
Adding the wet to the dry tends to be less messy, and allows for easier mixing when you start. It's less messy because you're not pouring powdery dry ingredients. It mixes somewhat easier at the start because you're pushing the wet into the dry instead of pulling it up through the dry. This means you're also less likely to flip a big cloud of dry ingredients across your kitchen.
This technique is explained by Alton Brown in his book I'm Just Here for More Food: Food + Mixing + Heat = Baking.
See Also:
A chowhound thread which contains supporters for both methods, and in which some claim that it wet-to-dry leads to less clumping.
An anonymous reader has this comment: "I like to offer you some advice. NEVER mix powdery ingredients (flour, confectioners' sugar, etc) on HIGH mixer speed. I personally start on the lowest setting then work my way up to medium or high depending on how thick it's becoming."
There was a mention on Serious Eats that mixing baking powder with the sugar before creaming gives you a dough that you can wait longer before baking (as the butter coats the baking powder keeping from reacting with the liquids until it's baked.)
I would suspect that mixing the flour into the creamed butter before adding the eggs or other liquid could do the same thing to a lesser degree. It could also coat some of the flour, giving you a more tender cookie vs. the chewiness from developing the gluten.
I think the key in this case is making sure that you've thoroughly incorporated everything. Since (wheat) flour has gluten, the more you mix it while wet, the tougher it can become, hence mixing the egg thoroughly with the butter and sugar first.
Is it going to cause disasterous results? Unlikely, unless things aren't mixed well.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.809958 | 2011-05-09T04:21:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14584",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"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
} |
15114 | What's the best way to store asparagus?
What's the best way to store asparagus so that it stays fresh and crisp, rather than getting droopy?
white or green aspargus?
I'm asking specifically about green, but would be interested in hearing if there's a different method for white, too.
In a cup with water. You place them straight up in a small cup with a little water. Just like you would if you were storing flowers.
You'll want to store this in your chill chest on the top most rack; to avoid any cross contamination from other possible food products (chicken, etc).
You may want to leave the rubber band on to allow it to stay tidy. If you must you can cover your asparagus cup with a zip lock bag on top.
With this method we usually can store asparagus for 5-7 days.
If you must keep them longer it maybe better to just freeze them in an air tight bag. after they're dried out.
It's best to use them the day you bought them, but this isn't always possible.
The best way of storing them is putting them in a wet towel, and putting the towel+asparagus in your refrigerator. But really, try to use them as fast as you can. I don't think they can last really long (more than two weeks) like that. If they were in the fridge for a couple of days, they can be a little bit dehydrated. Just cut off the bottom 2 mm and put them in cold water for 20-30 min.
If you will need them more than a week after you bought them, freeze them! Wash (and peel if you prefer that) them and put them in the freezer; no need to cook them first. And when you want to use them, don't thaw them, you can put them frozen in boiled water.
that's indeed what's mentioned on the pack (put in damp/wet towel and in the lowest shelf in the fridge). At least for the white ones!
You can also apply this for the green ones ;-)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.810185 | 2011-05-29T03:31:51 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15114",
"authors": [
"Izzydorio",
"KatieK",
"Mien",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3721",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
15210 | Why does chilled equipment help when whipping cream?
Why a does chilled mixer bowl help when making whipped cream? Does it have any effect on how long the cream stays whipped?
If you use the jar shake method, the jar's mass will not warm cream from fridge more than the required few degrees, and the minimum energy input will keep cream from warming up further. Makes a smooth spreading cream, not a stiff wiped cream
Basically, cream whips better when it's cold. If cream were stored warm, the advice would be to cool the cream. Since it's already cold, the advice is to cool the equipment (as warm equipment will increase the temp of the cream).
Mild science: the temperature effects the size of the bubbles that form, how fat clings to itself, whipping time, and overrun (air cell structure / air phase volume). In other words how light and fluffy it will get and how long it is likely to stay that way.
Warning, heavy science from Influence of whipping temperature on the whipping properties and rheological characteristics of whipped cream:
The effects of whipping temperature (5 to 15°C) on the whipping (whipping time and overrun) and rheological properties of whipped cream were studied. Fat globule aggregation (aggregation ratio of fat globules and serum viscosity) and air bubble factors (overrun, diameter, and surface area) were measured to investigate the mechanism of whipping. Whipping time, overrun, and bubble diameters decreased with increasing temperature, with the exception of bubble size at 15°C. The aggregation ratio of fat globules tended to increase with increasing temperature. Changes in hardness and bubble size during storage were relatively small at higher temperatures (12.5 and 15°C). Changes in overrun during storage were relatively small in the middle temperature range (7.5 to 12.5°C). From the results, the temperature range of 7.5 to 12.5°C is recommended for making whipped creams with a good texture, and a specific temperature should be decided when taking into account the preferred overrun. The correlation between the whipped cream strain hardness and serum viscosity was high (R2=0.906) and persisted throughout the temperature range tested (5 to 15°C). A similar result was obtained at a different whipping speed (140rpm). The multiple regression analysis in the range of 5 to 12.5°C indicated a high correlation (R2=0.946) in which a dependent variable was the storage modulus of whipped cream and independent variables were bubble surface area and serum viscosity. Therefore, fat aggregation and air bubble properties are important factors in the development of cream hardness. The results of this study suggest that whipping temperature influences fat globule aggregation and the properties of air bubbles in whipped cream, which alters its rheological properties.
For me, this essentially comes down to throwing a few ice cubes in the bowl of my stand mixer and swirling it around for a good 30 seconds or so to make sure it's seriously cold (then dumping the ice--the water could ruin your whipped cream).
If you whip cream by hand, you can nest one mixing bowl in a larger one with ice water. No worries about getting water in your cream!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.810622 | 2011-06-02T17:27:36 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15210",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Ray",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
13321 | How can I prevent simple syrup from crystallizing?
When I store it in the refrigerator, my simple syrup always seems to crystallize. How can I prevent this? How long should I expect simple syrup to keep?
So we might be looking for data on the saturation concentration of sugar at various temperatures... something I was going to post a question about, since the syrup for my lemon sherbet crystallized slightly in the refrigerator today!
I think a more important question is, why is it crystallizing at all? I've had simple syrup in my fridge for months and it didn't crystallize. Perhaps my fridge is colder or warmer than Katie's? Is this a 1-to-1 water-sugar recipe?
@Neil - Yes, it's a one part water to one part sugar recipe.
Agave syrup doesn't crystallize.
@Chloe Agave syrup doesn't crystallize because it's mostly fructose and glucose, roughly the same as high fructose corn syrup.
I had 2+ sugar : 1 water syrup crystallize (took a while, though - months) in the fridge, so I went whole hog on inverting (citric acid and SLOW cooking) when I refilled and dissolved what was in there - it's quite a bit different tasting, though.
There are a couple of things you can do to prevent sugar crystallising. You can add some glucose syrup, or you can 'invert' the sugar by adding some acid, namely cream of tartar. Both should be readily available, online if not at your supermarket. Cream of tartar is also useful when making meringue.
Doh! Shouldn't have followed Lebovitz's recipe so carefully - he had me add the lemon juice after chilling the syrup.
I always throw in some corn syrup when make a simple syrup. The extra glucose adds some "chaos" to the mix and keeps the crystals from forming their structure.
I also like to add some cream of tartar to help break up the sucrose in the table sugar into its component parts of fructose and glucose.
Simply adding a few drops of lemon juice in boiling sugar solution will prevent it from crystallizing.
If you can, I'd love a bit of explanation of how this works.
When my honey crystallizes, I put it in an electric oven set to 50 degrees C for a couple of hours. Perhaps this trick would work with syrup as well since their composition is similar. Also, make sure that there are no crystals when you put it in the refrigerator, they act as seeds on which more crystals grow.
You can cook simple syrup again to remove the crystals, but it's not really effective for preventing crystallization in the first place.
A scrupulously clean saucepan is important. It's possible that banging or scraping the spoon along the insides of the saucepan "seeds" the crystallization process. Also, "A seed crystal is a surface that sucrose molecules (that's the sugar) can begin to attach themselves to—it could be a few sucrose molecules stuck together, a piece of dust, or even a little air bubble." So, stirring well but not crazily is advised.
I make a lot of syrup because I love pancakes and waffles. There are a couple of things I do which I have found keep my syrup from crystallizing (this is based on personal experience and not any kind of scientific proof).
1) I only use about 3/4 the amount of sugar. My recipe calls for 2 cups but I only use 1 1/2 cups.
2) I don't boil the sugar. I boil the water, remove it from the heat, and immediately stir in the sugar. just make sure the sugar dissolves completely.
This does make the syrup thinner, but we prefer it that way.
This will surely prevent it from crystalization, because your solution is no longer supersaturated. But it will also be unusable for most recipes. It will only work as the end product (such as pouring over pancakes), but never as an ingredient in candymaking.
Add lemon juice, or citric acid.
You also need to clean the sides of the pot while you are boiling your syrup. The sides of the pot contained undiluted sugars, so when they touch the syrup your syrup will crystalize.
If you're adding sugar and water together, don't bring it up to a boil. Gently simmer it for a longer period of time until the sugar is completely dissolved. Also, the higher the sugar ratio, the higher the likelihood of crystals forming. From my experience, bringing it to a boil is what causes the crystallization, for whatever reason.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.810900 | 2011-03-20T22:46:27 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13321",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Chloe",
"Ecnerwal",
"Goodbye Stack Exchange",
"Jolenealaska",
"KatieK",
"Peter Moore",
"Ralf Doehring",
"SourDoh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112255",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94329",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9679",
"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
} |
19432 | Do recipes which measure flour by volume assume that I'll sift the flour?
I would like to try some baking recipes where the flour is specified by volume, with no alternative measurement for weight. Do recipe authors generally assume that I'll sift the flour to measure it?
In all the recipes I've followed with a cup measurement (volume) of flour, it is unsifted.
From what I've read, if a recipe calls for sifted flour there's two ways to do it:
If it calls for "sifted flour" you sift the flour first, then measure it.
If it calls for "flour, sifted" you measure first, then sift it.
I assume, unless it is noted specifically in the recipe, the flour is measured unsifted. If you measure it sifted I guess much of the "looseness" from the sifting will be lost moving it from one container to another.
I would also think that if the amount of flour needed to be so exact that it mattered, the authors would measure it by weight, not volume, as it is generally easier to measure it exactly that way.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.811255 | 2011-12-06T06:24:07 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19432",
"authors": [
"Bar Akiva",
"Jim",
"Kijewski",
"Sarika",
"Yvon",
"gillyb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42282",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42284",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42960"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
12693 | Why clean a pot (used to cook rice) with cold water?
Some people have told me that it's better to clean a dirty pot (used to cook rice) with cold water, rather than the hot water I use for all the other dishes. What would be the purpose of this?
Note this is also true with wheat flour mixtures as well, but the reason is different. Cold water will cause the gluten to contract and release its grip from the bowl, making it easier to clean.
I have found when cleaning pots and pans with starch that it dissolves and washes away faster in hot water & dish soap. It just does. I don't know what science has to say about that but that's what I have observed.
Residual starches swell up and get sticky in hot water. This doesn't happen with cold water -- In the time it takes to wash a pot.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.811365 | 2011-03-01T20:20:58 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12693",
"authors": [
"MaciejLisCK",
"Mary West",
"Michael Natkin",
"Paula",
"Shirley",
"Shorono",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26189",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76656"
],
"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
} |
8084 | What mechanism causes a butter crock to function better than other options?
How does a butter crock work better than a plastic or ceramic butter dish?
I can see how the water and stoneware would slow the butter's response to ambient temperature fluctuations. But after a day, at most, cold water would warm up to room temperature.
I can imagine how the water on the bottom layer of butter might prevent bad microbes (only those that don't water) from getting to the butter there. But how does that improve on the wax paper that most butter already comes in? I'd imagine that the process of getting butter from a pre-wrapped stick into the crock would have a large potential for introducing foreign materials.
Butter, like most fats, is actually quite resilient to microbes. The problem you are more likely to experience is rancidity. Fat goes rancid by oxidation. Exposure to light, heat, and air cause oxidation and accelerate the process of butter going rancid.
Putting butter in your refrigerator addresses the heat and light, but does nothing for the air. The paper that butter sticks are wrapped in are quite porous. You can see evidence of this as a rind that develops on your butter after a couple of weeks. Butter can also absorb odors in your refrigerator through this wrapper.
A butter crock, as shown in the accepted answer to this question actually serves to protect the butter from air, light, and heat. Butter does not need to be kept below 40 F to stay fresh. The butter crock referenced there will keep butter fresh up to temperatures of 80 F, and likely higher, but the butter will be too soft and slip out at higher temperatures.
A plastic or ceramic butter dish are similar in function to the paper that wraps butter. Ceramic is unlikely to seal at all, so the butter will still be exposed to air. Plastic, while capable of a great seal, will still trap oxygen in the container with the butter, allowing oxidation to occur.
A butter crock really does seem to be the best of all worlds. You get easy access to soft butter, with little risk. Mold will eventually grow on the butter, but this should take weeks at room temperature. If you don't use a stick of butter within two weeks, you're doing it wrong. :-D
You might need to change water every couple of days, but other than that, this answer is spot on.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.811472 | 2010-10-13T17:29:07 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8084",
"authors": [
"Trey Jackson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/229"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
10355 | Most efficient technique to prepare milk and butter for proofed yeast?
I have a recipe for rolls where 1/4 cup cubed butter is added to 2 cups of warm milk. The butter / milk mixture is added to proofed active dry yeast, and then a cup or so of flour is added to get the yeast started.
My problem is that preparing the milk and butter mixture always seems to take too long. My kitchen seems to be too cold for room temperature milk to take in the butter without clumping. Then it's a huge hassle to put the milk/butter mixture on the stovetop and heat it until it's warm but not curdled.
What are some easy techniques to help the milk come to room temperature (or a little above) faster? Can I melt the butter in the microwave, and then put that in the milk?
I would put the milk in a glass, and then put that glass in a large pot filled with warm water, this should help get the milk up to temp quickly with out haveing to worry about going over. When ever I use yeast i always shoot for around 100 F. Since body temp is 98.6, just stick your finger (clean finger) in the liquid and if it feels slightly warm you should be good to go.
Normally milk is scalded before being used in bread. So if you did that, your milk would be plenty warm to melt the butter. You'd be waiting for it to cool instead, though. Trick here would be that part of your water content can be ice, to cool the milk. Alternatively, submerge the cup in ice-water (~32°F), ice-brine (~0°F) if you're really in a hurry. Polypropylene, for example, will not mind this temperature shock.
Alternatively, if you aren't going to scald it, just heat it in the microwave. Heat part of the milk and then bring it back down under 115°F by adding cold milk. Ideally, you'll hit the 110±5°F window when you have the right amount of milk, but if you wind up with too much milk, you can just drink the extra.
I don't scald the milk. Isn't the purpose of scalding the milk only for killing bad microbes?
@KatieK: No, its also for inactivating enzymes & proteins.
I usually warm milk in the microwave to the top of the approved temperature for yeast (about 110 degrees F). I tell by the finger test, which is where I stick a clean finger in the milk and if I get too hot after a few seconds, the milk is too hot as well. If it's just comfortable, it's the right temperature. You can cross-check with a thermometer. I then add butter that has been cubed quite small from the fridge. The warm milk will warm it. Another friend always warms her butter with the milk in the microwave, flipping steps.
With my bread I usually add my yeast to the milk/butter mixture, although it sounds like you are proofing it in warm water already.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.811662 | 2010-12-20T18:18:31 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10355",
"authors": [
"KatieK",
"Kobus Myburgh",
"Leo",
"Mike Fisher",
"Scruffy",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21141",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21232",
"nick d",
"user21142"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
9476 | If I have much lower than normal humidity, how should I change the amount of flour that dough needs?
I made some rolls that came out dense, rather than light and fluffy, and with much thicker crusts than I would have preferred. After the second of 3 rises, the dough was much less sticky that I expected it to be. I didn't need to add the reserved 1 cup of flour; that extra flour that you might or might not need.
It was a very dry day for my area of the country; it didn't get above frozen outside, and we had lots of static electricity in the house. Was the humidity a likely cause for the dry rolls and poor result? If this happens again, how should I adjust my baking procedures?
Do you weigh your flour? If not, that is the one change that you can make that will make this problem go away. Most of baking, particularly at the commercial level, is based on ratios by weight.
While there will be some minor differences in the amount of moisture in 10 ounces of flour based on the humidity, how much flour packs into a cup can vary a lot on humidity, how much you've fluffed or sifted the flour first, whether you scoop or sprinkle...you get the idea.
If you don't weigh your flour when you bake, then there are lots of possible problems that could have occurred that may or may not have had anything to do with the humidity.
The only other "seat of the pants" solution is to know your recipe so well that if you notice that there is a problem, you'll catch it early. Third rise is a little late to be adding moisture, so you would have had to have noticed the problem at the beginning.
Weighing your flour and water solves many baking problems and makes you look like a pro.
Since you are weighing, then "knowing your recipe and adjusting on the fly" seems to be the only real answer. I checked around and even Rose Levy Beranbaum says if you weigh, only minor adjustments are needed. In the situation you described I might have added a bit of water at the third rise, then let it have another rise.
Another thought is that, possibly, the air being so dry caused the tops of your rolls to dry out some, so they weren't flexible and you didn't get any oven spring. A spritz of warm water across the top of the rolls during final rise and, indeed, in the oven (I do it with my sourdough loaves, for instance) helps the bread skin to be loose enough to not inhibit the initial oven spring.
Yes, absolutely. For me, weighing the flour is also much easier than using the measuring cups.
I've discovered baking bread is much more a feel than measurements. As Doug stated, weighing makes a huge difference, but even then, the flour can have more or lest moisture depending on the atmosphere. I usually leave my dough a little more tacky to start off with because you can always add more flour. It's my insurance policy as I used to have a problem with mixing in too much flour and making a dense loaf.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.811904 | 2010-11-25T20:28:19 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9476",
"authors": [
"Induster",
"KatieK",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19384",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19410",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19411",
"n. m. could be an AI",
"oerpli",
"pbarrette",
"stucampbell"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
40307 | Adding Adjuncts to Meringues
I'm planning on making some peppermint meringues tonight but am a little concerned about my recipe. I've successfully made meringues in the past with peppermint extract but this recipe contains crushed peppermint candy.
A commenter on the recipe mentioned that the moment they added the peppermint pieces their meringue went flat. What is the proper way to add an addition such as this to a meringue?
You want to be sure that the egg whites are fully whipped before you add pieces of anything (it's also best to incorporate sugar as either a syrup or very finely ground sugar once the eggs are already whipped as sugar can make the whipping take longer).
When you incorporate pieces of anything into your meringue, be it nuts, candy, etc, fold it in gently with a spatula. You can also add a stabilizer like cream of tartar to help prevent the meringue from falling.
To add peppermint candy to meringue, you want to crush it into as reasonably fine a powder as possible to minimally disrupt the meringue. You don't need it as fine as flour, but you definitely don't want any chunks that wouldn't easily pass through a larger meshed sieve.
After you get stiff peaks in your meringue, fold the crushed peppermint into the egg whites gently. This is much akin to folding in a nut flour to make a dacquoise.
Do peppermints with their potentially sharp edges behave differently? I've been putting chunky things in for years (chocolate chips, red hots, chopped up candied or maraschino cherries), and haven't had problems w/ folding them in.
No, making them small is to make them easier to incorporate since the OP was having trouble.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.812278 | 2013-12-16T21:04:28 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40307",
"authors": [
"Jeremy Boden",
"Joe",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"Tim Mwaura",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93709",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93711",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93713",
"nachime",
"w88lives59 spam"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
44745 | Self-Saucing Pudding—Storing?
I've made this recipe once before and it turned out really well. I'd like to make it ahead of time for an event that I'm going to but I'm really not sure how it should be stored overnight.
The top of this dessert ends up with about an inch and a half of cake with a golden-brown crust. Beneath that it forms a custard-like rhubarb sauce that is fairly "liquidy" when it comes out of the oven but firms up as it cools.
I'll make it in the evening and will serve it early the next day. Should it be left on the counter or refrigerated? Covered or uncovered? Or, given the proximity of cake and custard to one another, is this a dish best left to serving immediately? Thank you!
Actually, I just asked the author. I'll let you know if she answers.
Here's your answer, directly from the creator of the recipe:
This dish is terrific if left for an hour or so after cooking as it
gives the saucy bit and the cakey bit some time to separate a little.
I have devoured leftovers of this 24 hours later, after i left them in
the fridge. In all honesty after being left for this time it's very
different to what it's like warm - more like a gooey pudding than cake
and a sauce, but absolutely delicious. I doubt very much that it would
reheat as it would dry out (although you could try it briefly in the
microwave if you have one).
I hope that helps.
By the way, the Guardian printed a version of this recipe which had
one of the ingredients (milk) missing from the method. Hopefully the
one you're using is the correct one, but if you do find the milk is
missing, the correct version is on my website
Best wishes
Sue
(just to make sure: I'm not Sue, this a copy of the email she sent me in response to the forwarding of your original question)
+1 because emailing the original author almost seems too obvious and I'm ashamed not to have even considered it.
@ logophobe It's very nice of her to answer so quickly too.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.812452 | 2014-06-09T16:32:20 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44745",
"authors": [
"Holly Brix",
"Mihaela Cosinschi",
"Mikouer",
"P. O.",
"Peti44",
"Venkitasubramanian Cr",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106250",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18343",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"logophobe"
],
"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.