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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
117947 | Ensuring dry-brined turkey process is safe
I put my 22lb turkey in the fridge to start thawing last Tuesday in the evening. I took it out today and spatchcocked it and salted it all over with an herb/salt mixture and popped it back in the fridge to brine until Thanksgiving. It has only been out of the fridge long enough for this process.
My recipe says to brine for 3-4 days.
I've since read that the USDA recommends roasting 1-2 days after thawing.
This got me concerned that I'm going to serve a bunch of people a past-its-prime Turkey.
Does the brining extend this time in the fridge or is the 1-2 days too conservative? Thinking back I'm concerned I didn't salt the bottom enough and wondering if I need to add more or if I'm just overthinking this.
Thank's for the help!
Dry brining sounds like an oxymoron to me. That sounds like saltless curing
While the term has gained popularity, "dry brining" isn't really a thing. This is going to ruffle some feathers (pun intended), but brining happens in a wet environment. It's definition is a "cure dissolved in water." When there is not water, it is "salting." So, what you have is a salted turkey. (I know...semantics. Sorry, it's a pet peeve. I like accuracy in language.)
So, perhaps an interesting question is, does either salting or brining extend the time poultry can be stored in the refrigerator.
Brining and salting were developed as preservation techniques, as salt greatly inhibits bacterial growth. However, you need a salt content of at least 3 to 5% in order to begin to have confidence that you are realizing this benefit.
Given that you just sprinkled salt on your bird, you probably have no way of knowing how close you are to that minimum. In fact, you would need about a cup and a half of salt (in a dry situation) to achieve 3% for 22 pounds of product, according to this calculator. I bet it is safe to assume you've used far less.
While people take chances all the time, no one is going to tell you that the USDA is too conservative, especially on this site. All the advice I see is to store only 1 - 2 days after thawing. However, there is no harm in re-freezing. Perhaps a viable solution is to place your bird in the freezer for a day or two.
"However, there is no harm in re-freezing. Perhaps a viable solution is to place your bird in the freezer for a day or two." Well, more freeze/thaw cycles will degrade quality too. And you'd probably be faced with roasting a partially frozen bird, which is not in itself problematic, but that might require cooking modifications and will actually end up putting the interior of the turkey in the "danger zone" longer while roasting because of the need to thaw. Overall, I'm not sure it'd actually be safer and would definitely degrade quality.
Salt does not do anything on it is own to kill bacteria what it does is create the anaerobic environment that inhibits microorganisms from multiplying.
Well, I'm going to be the one to say the USDA is conservative here, as other experts have different recommendations. In particular, Butterball -- which notably operates a "turkey talk line" every year, partly to give people sound and safe advice for cooking turkey, fielding over 100,000 questions every year -- says the following in their defrosting instructions:
Allow at least 1 day of thawing for every 4 lbs of turkey
Use turkey within 4 days after thawing
For a 22-pound turkey, that's 5.5 days of thawing minimum. (Note the thawing guidelines tend to be off more with larger birds, as it takes even longer for the center to thaw.) Which gets you to Monday morning of this week. If you are cooking on Thursday, that's 3 more days, and within the Butterball recommended time frame.
Now, you did go against their advice, since you removed the turkey from packaging to salt it. The additional exposure to air might lead to some faster quality degradation. But that would mostly be surface level, and partially counteracted by salt on the surface.
Given that you're within the guidelines offered by the "turkey experts," I wouldn't worry too much, particularly if your fridge is at a proper temperature (40 degrees F or below) and you have kept it inside the fridge continuously. Just be sure the turkey is completely cooked at the end using a thermometer at several spots.
Or, if you're really concerned, call the Butterball helpline and get advice there.
Note: in the future, I would consider planning the "dry brining" to occur during the last couple days of the defrosting process, as the outer layer of the turkey will be thawed and will absorb the salt well without the concern about holding the turkey too long in the fridge.
Don’t worry. Leave bird in refrigerator. Take out an hour before cooking—-Cook to 180 degrees (leg, not touching bone with thermometer) then remove from oven cover with foil and let rest 30-45 mins. Remember cooking will kill bacteria so make sure it’s done. The salt ‘brine’ draws the moisture of bird to top to mix in with salt so it actually is brining in its own juices. Your will delicious and your guest will be singing your praises.
A turkey cooked to 180 degrees F will be dry as dust, particularly the white meat. Even the ultra-conservative USDA doesn’t suggest a temperature that high.
It is quite dangerous to freeze partially cooked meat. Also, defrosting a 22-pound turkey in the fridge is going to take forever. Brining is better served at room temperature as cooling the liquid greatly retards the movement of moisture between the protein strands.
That being said even at room temperature a 22-pound turkey would take close to a week to completely brine. I also wonder why you are salting the bird? Are you doing it to finish the meat with the salt or do you actually intend to cure the meat?
Curing meat completely as a general rule of thumb takes 4 days in salt mixture per kilogram of meat. In this case, you have a 10 kg turkey which would lead to 40 days dredged in salt before that massive piece of meat is fully cured
This question isn't about partially cooking or curing.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.812673 | 2021-11-22T02:51:51 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117947",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Neil Meyer",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
9766 | Utensil materials - plastic, metal or wooden?
I'm just starting to cook for myself in college, and I'm curious what the best material of cooking tools are for pasta in a metal pan and stir fry in a non-stick wok. To make this question more general, when should you use plastic, metal or wooden cooking tools?
Are there reasons not to use a certain type sometimes? For example, is it unsafe to use wooden tools with raw meat in stir fry?
There is no good material for cooking in a non-stick Wok, because the non-stick coating is already an extremely poor material. The temperatures used in stir-frying are way too high for it to handle. I understand that you're just starting out but you'll want to replace that with a carbon-steel wok ASAP - they're not expensive, and food won't stick to them after seasoning and regular use.
Aluminum filled stainless also works nicely, but every nonstick wok I've seen is basically a dispo item.
@WayfaringStranger I actually have two (Banquet brand) which are still pretty much like new several years after purchase. I am very gentle with them though.
Metal
Advantages: durable, no risk of absorbing flavours
Disadvantages: may scratch certain cookware
Wood
Advantages: doesn't scratch, looks nice
Disadvantages: can wear down over time, can sometimes absorb flavours
Plastic
Doesn't find a place in my kitchen other than a rubber spatula for baking.
Silicone
You didn't mention this, but I like it, because it works like rubber but can withstand high temps (brushes, spatulas)
I think the answer really depends on what you cook. A good basic set might consist of a wooden spoon, a spatula that can handle heat, a good ladle, and maybe a set of tongs or chopsticks. You'll quickly learn what you wish you had to make it a little easier.
I actually rather like "wooden" spoons (you know, that shape) made from plastic. Much less flavor absorption, easier to clean, nearly as cheap--what's not to like?
@Roland can't withstand high temperatures, can bend
On the plastic score, I only use melamine utensils with non-stick, they can withstand pretty much any temperature and don't bend. I use silicone coated whisks however.
It's also a non-renewable resource. I'm not strict or crazy about it, but since I prefer the look and feel of wood and metal anyway and I don't need to worry about heat....
Wood disadvantage: Not dishwasher save
@Agos -- I'm very aware of the meltability of plastic spoons (I have several that are bent, and learned the hard way not to use them for scraping out the last of a fresh-cooked roux). Used carefully, I still like them.
@user2215 Ha! Tell my dishwasher that! ;P
If you do decide to go with wooden spoons (they are cheap after all), you should get at least 2. Write "sweet" or something else on the handle of one so you're less tempted to use the same spoon for cakes as you are for a heavy garlicky curry!
The main rule here is to not use metal tools on nonstick cookware. Even nonstick cookware labeled "metal safe" can be scratched by using metal tools.
Clean your wooden tools with very hot, soapy water (but don't leave them soaking in water), and they'll be fine.
Plastic/silicone & wooden: on NON-Stick metal surfaces
Metal/stainless steel & wooden: on metal/cast iron surfaces
I do not recommend using plastic for cast iron cooking. Reason being that most of the time the temperatures are higher (i.e deep frying) which may melt the plastic.
I have non-stick safe utensils made from a hard nylon, I believe that may be more common for harder, non-bendy utensils like sturdy stirring spoons, and flat pancake turner type tools that you want to be strong and not terribly flexible as some softer plastics are.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.813153 | 2010-12-04T07:17:21 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9766",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Agos",
"Banda Isle",
"Elisabeth",
"JohnEye",
"Orbling",
"RolandTumble",
"SnakeDoc",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"aortizmena",
"deadchef9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19985",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3625",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9475",
"talon8",
"user2215"
],
"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
} |
96116 | How long is too long for sous vide steak
I have sous vide for a while with mixed success. Mostly good, but still mixed. One thing I question which I hoping to get opinion on is time to sous vide beef (steak specifically, e.g. ribeye or strip).
I have read and heard where people have left beef in the bath for 24+ hours and rave about it. All the Anovo guidelines say 4 hours or less. I have not tried more than four hours. What gives, and what is overdoing it with sous vide cooking?
When cooking low temperature, over time the texture of the protein that you are cooking changes. For a tough cut, like a shank, or short rib, this is desirable, and where you would see cooking times of 12, 24, 48 hours...or longer. Most people want to enjoy a steak that chews like the traditionally cooked product. After 3 to 4 hours, the texture of your steak will change. It will become more mushy. That is why it is recommended that you only cook until done (1 to 2 hours). So, overdoing it, as you describe it, would be cooking it too long so that the texture becomes undesirable. For a steak, I think 4 hours would be pushing it.
TLDR: Just like pork, steak cooked for an extended period of time starts to shred and get mushy. It's not what most would call a traditional steak, but if you're open minded, people like pulled pork as well as pork chops...
Pictures:
Serious Eats has very thorough sous vide guides on both steak and chicken.
Here's what they have on steak timing:
To figure out exactly what happens when you cook steak sous vide for
extended periods, I cooked identical steaks at 130°F (54°C) for
periods ranging from one hour all the way up to 48 hours. I found that
the most important differences typically occurred between the four-
and 24-hour marks.
Take a look at these slices of steak I've cut off and torn:
As you can see, the steak cooked for just one hour stretches and pulls
when you tear it. This gives the steak a pleasant amount of chew. It's
still tender, but it tastes like a steak. By the time we hit four
hours, that chew has been reduced a bit. Connective tissue has broken
down, and individual muscle fibrils split apart easily instead of
sticking together, though a four-hour steak is still pretty decent.
Head all the way over to the 24-hour mark or beyond, and your steak
ends up nearly shredding as you pull it apart. It's a strange
mouthfeel: The steak is still plenty juicy (a steak cooked 24 hours
loses barely any more moisture than a steak cooked for one hour), but
the meat shreds instead of offering resistance or chew.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.813483 | 2019-02-03T18:22:06 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96116",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
82391 | Baking cauliflower with potatoes
I like to cook a very simple recipe for roasted potatoes: I peel and cut potatoes to cubes, mix them in a sauce of olive oil, garlic and sweet paprika and place in the oven for about an hour under aluminum foil. I then take out the aluminum foil and for about 10-15 for a crunchy texture.
Now, I want to add cauliflower to the dish. I plan to cut the cauliflower to small pieces and just mix them with the potatoes. I don't have much experience with cauliflower - will I get thoroughly cooked and crunchy cauliflower? Do I need to pre-boil the cauliflower?
What is your baking temperature?
Baking temperature is about 200C.
With an hour in the oven at roasting temperatures (400-450 F/205-230 C), small pieces of cauliflower will likely overcook, not under. Most recipes call for only 25-30 minutes in the oven at this temperature. Under foil, the cauliflower will add a lot of liquid - steam - and may even get sort of mushy before you remove the foil. You definitely don't need to pre-cook the cauliflower.
You haven't noted your baking temperature or the size of your cubes... for that long amount of time, I'm guessing you're baking your potatoes at a lower temperature, as recipes for 1/2 inch (1 cm) cubes of potato don't generally require that long of a baking time... but most recipes don't call for cooking under foil for that matter.
Have you thought about finding a recipe (if only for the methodology, not flavors)? Seems like you should be able to ditch the foil, cook at 400 F/205 C for about 30-40 minutes and be done with it.
OP meant crunchy, like oven-crisp, I think, not crunchy by being undercooked.
@MarsJarsGuitars-n-Chars Yes? Where did I say anything about undercooking? I specifically say that an hour will overcook the food, particularly in conjunction with par boiling it, which would likely turn the cauliflower to mush.
OK, misread first sentence ' OVERcooked, not under.' I thought you were referring to undercooked = crunchy by rawness. Amir asked 'will it be fully cooked and crunchy' as he is looking for crunchy surface on potatoes with combination cooking method.
The method you describe is essentially a combination cooking method, not unlike par cooking potatoes for crisping like in homefries. To add cauliflower to this method, you have to match size and cooking time of the cauliflower to the potatoes, which are more dense, generally.
Roasted cauliflower can acquire a nice texture in the oven in the 10-15 minute uncovered time, presuming you are cooking at a high enough heat. little pre cook will probably help here, so it can spend time crisping.
I would experiment with blanching the cauliflower for about 10 minutes, or adding it to the covered potatoes for about 10 minutes, then uncover everything and finish at high heat.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.813710 | 2017-06-14T15:53:16 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82391",
"authors": [
"Amir Rachum",
"Catija",
"MarsJarsGuitars-n-Chars",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/353",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3853"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
19772 | What is the proper oven rack height position for baking cakes and cookies?
My oven has five rack positions. When baking a cake mix, at what height should the oven rack be placed at? If it helps, I usually bake using two 9" round pans. The box of cake mix typically doesn't specify. Is there a norm?
Also, at what height should the oven rack be when baking cookies (e.g. chocolate chip)?
Mid height for cakes in non-convection ovens, slightly above mid height for thin cakes, top for cookies. In a convection oven it doesn't matter because the airflow distributes heat evenly throughout the oven's volume.
Are you putting one pan of batter in the oven, or two? If two, then they should not be on the same rack - put one second from the bottom, for example, and one two levels up from that. Put one almost all the way to one side and the other almost all the way to the other side. That way the lower one won't block airflow and create a cool "shadow" above it that would interfere with cooking the upper one.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.813942 | 2011-12-19T16:44:29 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19772",
"authors": [
"DonaldW",
"ave",
"cl3",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43133"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
7565 | Using Elderberries in Cooking
I noticed that there's lots of elderberries near where I live, and I had an idea about making an elderberry brulee, but I'm sure that the elderberries would be a little too sharp if simply cooked.
Would it be worth cooking them down with sugar first, then maybe removing the skins with a sieve? Any thoughts welcome on this.
Your mother was a hamster...
One of the very English methods for rhubarb cake is to cook the rhubarb in apple juice first.
Since rhubarb is incredibly tart, the cooking and the apple juice help relax it a little.
The same should work for you with the elderberries. Naturally, you can substitute a sugar solution for the apple juice, but you should dissolve the sugar in the water first and then add the berries.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.814054 | 2010-09-23T20:24:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7565",
"authors": [
"Moses",
"Skylar Saveland",
"brittany",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15536",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15538",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15564",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/835",
"meathead",
"sdg"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
4589 | What does it mean to "fold in" an ingredient into a mix?
I see this in baking recipes, but I've never been quite clear on the difference between mixing and "folding."
"Folding" is a more gentle mixing technique than "stirring" and "mixing". Stirring and mixing both denote a more vigorous action.
Folding is usually used for items where something has previously been whipped (such as egg whites or cream) or where tenderness is desired and thus less mixing is advisable (muffins & biscuits).
Folding is usually done with a rubber spatula (for liquid & dry ingredients) or with a wire whisk (often beneficial for whipped cream and egg whites so that the mixture gently incorporates as it falls through the wires).
To "fold" ingredients together: Hold the spatula or whisk in your dominant hand and grasp the far edge of the bowl (side that is away from you) with your non-dominant hand. Turn the bowl towards you with your non-dominant hand while simultaneously scraping around the edge (also toward you) and finish by folding the mixture over on top of itself. Return both hands to the far side of the bowl and follow-up by cutting through the center of the mixture with your utensil and once again folding the mix over on top of itself (again, turning the bowl simultaneously). Alternate scraping around the side and through the middle of the bowl until the mixture is just combined together.
Note that if an airy mixture such as egg whites or whipped cream start to go from soft and billowy to more liquid-like, you are overworking it and need to stop to maintain volume.
In the case of whipped cream and egg whites you typically add a small portion to the heavier mixture and actually DO stir this in. While yes you're losing some of the volume of that portion, it serves to help lighten the heavier batter/mixture. The rest of the whites/cream are then folded in to the mix in several additions.
Sometimes dry ingredients may be sift on top of whipped eggwhites before being folded.
The larger the spatula or whisk, the fewer strokes that will need to be made and the better the results will be.
so you literally are folding the mixture on top of itself...
Good explanation of WHY to fold. But it's easier to show HOW to fold than describe it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rLQFfolobY
@Sam: yes, you fold it on top of itself.
@Tim: Most definitely EASIER to show than describe!
Mixing is alot more vicious than folding something in. So if I am mixing I tend to go round and round in circles. However if I am folding something in, I tend to take the spoon from the bottom and lift (ie fold) the mixture onto the top again. It is a slower process but does not cause as much air to be brought into the mixture.
Or in many recipes, does not squeeze out the air that has been deliberately introduced to the mixture (e.g. whisked egg white)
Step 1:
Folding is designed to combine ingredients without knocking air out of the mixture. Start by selecting the utensils you need. Rubber spatulas and large metal spoons are ideal.
Step 2:
Add the lighter mixture (such as beaten eggwhites or cream) to the heavier mixture (such as chocolate). Make sure the heavier mixture comes no further than halfway up the mixing bowl to allow plenty of room for folding in the lighter mixture.
Step 3:
In a single action, run the spatula or spoon around the side, then along the base, of the bowl. Now fold the mixture over onto itself. Rotate the bowl 90°. Repeat until just combined.
I just want to add that this can also be used to mix batters, etc. Knocking air out isn't a concern, but the technique is about the same.
Folding is a technique to gently incorporate one ingredient into another. It's primary purpose is not to overmix, because the jostling would disrupt the texture of the dish. It's particularly common with egg-whites; great care is taken to create air-filled, fluffy dishes, and the addition of a foreign liquid, like, melted chocolate, could easily destroy all of that airiness. Folding is often done with a rubber spatula, because of it's soft edges and flat surface. You can do it with a large spoon if you're careful.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.814165 | 2010-08-08T21:02:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4589",
"authors": [
"Andy",
"AnthonyBlake",
"Darin Sehnert",
"Denis Tsoi",
"Jennifer Stuart",
"Sam Hoice",
"SourDoh",
"Tim Gilbert",
"Tomas Buteler",
"abc",
"brainimus",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1804",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8748",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8749",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8750",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8751",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8754",
"slim"
],
"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
} |
4677 | What spices are used to make a mexican fajita seasoning?
I'm trying to make my own homemade fajitas, for both vegetarian and non vegetarian tasters.
I know they have grocery store pre-mixed fajita seasoning, but I'd like to know how to make my own.
I'm going to try this and post an account of my results. Thanks Chad, Ocaasi and Adam for giving me a good place to start.
Penzeys (a spice co.) makes theirs from:
salt, black pepper, paprika, Turkish oregano, cayenne pepper, garlic, celery, Mexican oregano, basil, nutmeg, cumin, marjoram, thyme and rosemary.
No numbers are given, and you probably don't need two kinds of oregano, but I've made it before with a similar list, and it is generally insensitive to precise ratios. I'd start with
2x black pepper, paprika, oregano, cayenne, garlic,
1x basil, cumin, marjoram
1/2x nutmeg, thyme, rosemary
bulk up with salt (store-bought stuff is mostly salt), and experiment from there. You can probably find more on google. Add hotter things or anything you find interesting :)
Mexican oregano is well worth seeking out; it tastes totally different than the typical European oreganos. Pretty easy to find if you have even a moderately well stocked Mexican grocery in your area.
Salt, pepper, garlic powder, onion powder, cumin, coriander (seed), cayenne pepper, paprika (or smoked paprika).
Cayenne ups the heat, cumin ups the cumin, paprika ups the sweet/smoke.
That's what I'd put in mine.
I would guess: salt, pepper, cayenne, cumin, sugar, onion and garlic powder
or you can try this which has a few more items in it: http://busycooks.about.com/od/homemademixes/r/fajitaseasonmix.htm
Sugar? Interesting...
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.814623 | 2010-08-09T20:21:46 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4677",
"authors": [
"LordStryker",
"Marco Mondini",
"MikeJerome",
"Mnebuerquo",
"Ocaasi",
"Peter Levine",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1836",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8957",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8958",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8963",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8964",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8965",
"mizar",
"txema"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
4696 | How to store Onion
I've just harvested onions from my garden. I have quite a few and should last me about 3+ months. What is the best way to prepare the onions for storage and how should I store them so they last as long as possible.
I've never tried to store them myself, but one of the books that I got when I started gardening was the "Encyclopedia of Country Living", which is loaded with information on growing, canning, storing, etc. Its recommendations for globe onions is a follows (minus the typos of my transcribing):
Curing Bulbs. Let them sun-cure for 3 days. Spread them out on top of the ground until tops are thoroughly dry. Then sort. Bulbs that addicentially got cut with the space go into the house to be used soon. Sets that for some reason didn't take off are cured some more (maybe 2 weeks in a shady, airy place) and then saved to be given another chance next year. They often make it the second time they are planted. The winter storage onions are cured some more and then bagged for keeping.
Storing. If properly cured and stored in a dry, airy place, many of your winter-keeper onions will last 4 or even 6 months. Every summer we bring in onions from sets by the gunnysackful for our winter supply. The trick is to sure them very well in the sun for 3 days or so before bringing in. Rip off the "set" portion before drying if you can. The onion grown from a set has 2 parts. One is small and extends up into the a stiff hollow stem. That is the part you should rip off -- or else the onions won't keep long.
After you bring your onions in from the field, continue drying them. We have tried all sorts of systems for this. You can braid them by the dry stems and hang them up in bunches with wire or twine around the bunch. Or them them in an "onion"-type bag or into old pantyhose and hang them up. My current method, and easiest one yet, is to dump them into cardboard boxes and bring them into the kitchen. I check them occassionally by running my hands through the boxes and removing any damp ones. Any onion that feels the least bit damp is on the verge of spoiling. When the rest are absolutely bone-dry from the kitchen's heat (once that old wood cookstove starts going, it really gives them the treatement), they can go under the bed or into the attic -- anywhere they won't freeze and will stay dry.
Slight freezing doesn't hurt them, provided you don't handle them while frozen. Good ventilation is very important to their storage place, and what's why they should be in some sort of loosely woven bag or hanging basket.or braided and hung up or some such, although I get away with a box. They do better stored dry and cool than dry and hot because with too much heat, they have a tendancy to gradually dry away to layer upon layer of papery nothingness as winter goes by.
When we use our big winter onions, we take the largest first and gradually work our way down in size. That way, if there are any left over come spring, they will be small ones suitable to use as sets in the spring planting.
I should also note that I've seen the pantyhose method in use before, I think at my godparent's place. They had loaded an onion into the toe of the stocking, tied a knot, loaded in the next one, tied a knot, etc, so the onions didn't actually touch which might affect their drying out, and then hung them up so they weren't touching anything.
Great answer. Now that you mention it, I recall seeing the pantyhose method being used when I was a kid. I completely forgot about it.
The book's a great wealth of information -- it's part of my "surviving the zombie apocalypse" collection. If I was just working from memory, I'd have mentioned the pantyhose bit, but wouldn't have known to sun-dry them first, or have thought about the braids of onions or garlic that you find in european markets.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.814775 | 2010-08-09T21:41:02 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4696",
"authors": [
"BAM",
"Joe",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8995",
"tliff"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
71754 | Why is my stock jelly-like when cold but watery when hot?
I made a chili with home-made stock that appeared to have plenty of gelatin in it as the chili wobbled like a jelly when defrosted but when I subsequently heated it the sauce was very watery.
Is this a case of simply not reducing my sauce enough when I originally made it (despite its jellyness) or is something else going on?
That's just how gelatin is... I thought? Anything that has gelatin in it (say Jell-o) will solidify when cold and will liquefy when hot. Is there something else that you're asking about here?
Yep, that's just how gelatin works. But - are you saying that the chili was the proper thickness when you made it, but watery upon reheating later?
"Watery" als in consistency or taste?
I had expected it to act as a thickening agent to some extent, I thought this was one of the benefits of a good stock? Am I mistaken? thanks everyone.
This sounds right - if you used bones and connective tissue when making it, the collagen would become gelatin in your stock. When properly reduced (which you did), the stock should set in the fridge into a jelly. If you didn't reduce enough, there'd be too much water remaining.
The properties of gelatin are that it gels when it cools and turns liquid above 90F (32C). There's nothing wrong, it's supposed to do that. The melted gelatin has a silky mouth feel which many consider desirable.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.815121 | 2016-07-29T15:41:13 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71754",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Chris Bergin",
"Si Keep",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1719",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42830"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
13076 | How can I get crispy skin when pan frying fish?
I struggle to get crispy skin when pan frying fillets. What's the secret?
You need a hot pan. Use either clarified butter or an oil that can withstand high temperatures without burning. The oil should be quite hot but not at smoking point otherwise the fish closest to the skin will be overcooked and the skin will be charred as well as crispy.
The pan shouldn't be quite as hot when it comes time to cook the fish skin-up.
It's also best to use a non-stick pan so that the skin stays attached to the fish.
I disagree (re: non-stick). If you're using a non-stick pan you can't safely go to the temperature you need to sear the fish. If you're using stainless steel you can get it SCREAMING hot and the fish won't stick, and will crisp much better. If you're having problems with sticking in stainless steel, you're likely not properly heating your pan, watch the videos here: http://www.houseboateats.com/2009/12/on-properly-heating-your-pan.html
@stephannmcdonald I take your point, although very few cooking oils have a smoking point above 500 °F, the temperature at which Teflon begins to degrade.
@stephen If its that hot and it sears the fish quickly, won't the inside be raw?
@Chris, If you heat a non-stick pan dry, it will get well above 500 F in a matter of about 2 minutes (depending on setting). It's all a matter of proper pan use, as long as you're heating it with the oil in it, you should be safe as long as you don't have your knob on 10/10. If you heat it dry, studies have shown (and my laser temp gun has verified) that it's very easy to get a dry pan to 500 F or higher in a matter of minutes. Plus, just because the oil isn't 500 F doesn't mean the pan isn't, which a lot of people don't realize. Heat takes time to transfer.
@Click, it depends on the thickness and type of fish. If you've seared both sides and you still feel the fish is raw, you throw the pan in a pre-heated oven for a few to finish it - yet another benefit of using a stainless steel pan :)
@stephennmcdonald Thanks for replying. I'll probably switch to stainless steel based on what you have said.
@Chris, my pleasure - I highly recommend reading Darin's answer on this question which, combined with the houseboateats.com link in this comment thread, taught me a lot about properly using my stainless steel. Good luck!
A good tip is not to move the fish around too much in the pan. Just leave it in place until it should be about ready to turn (You can gently lift a corner of the fish to check but just don't shake it around in the pan very much).
Do not crowd too many pieces of fish if you are frying little pieces. The pan and oil have to be VERY hot. Do not shake the pan.
The thing that gives you a crispy skin is lightly dredging the fillets in seasoned flour. Shake off any excess. I use half regular butter and half olive oil, and add the fillets when the water in the butter has boiled off but before the butter has browned much.
Flip the fillets only once.
As mentioned, don't crowd the pan, as you need any water to escape so that the fish grills, rather than steams.
When done, put the fillets on a plate, then deglaze the pan with butter and lemon juice to make a nice sauce for the fish. You can also add slivered almonds and/or capers.
But the flour is what takes care of the browning/crispiness and it works every time.
The secret I learnt somewhere and can attest from experience to work, is to dry out the skin.
Dry the skin with a paper towel. Sprinkle a decent amount of salt on the skin and let it sit for a little while. Dry off the water that was drawn out and wipe off the excess salt. Now proceed to place the fish skin down in preheated oil and let it cook until it's done on that side and ready to be flipped. It should come out very easily, and the skin will still be attached to the flesh.
Start with the fish being nearer to room temperature, rather than straight out of the fridge.
Then get the skin as dry as possible, any water makes crisping hard. You can lightly press with a paper towel and/or a light dust with flour (cornflour, plain flour, potato starch, whatever you like).
Next, to a hot pan add some cooking oil that has a high smoking temperature (e.g. rapeseed oil). Lay the fillet/s skin side down away from you to prevent splashbacks. The skin on the fillets tend to want to curl up, so you can lightly press down the flesh so the skin is in contact with the pan. It should flatten and you can leave them to fry skinside down for the majority of the cooking time. The temperature and time will vary depending on the fish and the thickness of the fillet.
Once the skin is crispy enough and the heat has travelled to atleast halfway up the flesh of the fish you can turn the fish flesh side down. You can add butter if you like and depending on the heat of the pan and type of fish, (eg sea bass) you could remove from the heat and the remaining heat of the pan can finish cooking the fish. Also you can add lemon juice or any fresh herbs if desired.
TL:DR
Dry Skin, hot pan, fry skin side down for atleast 2/3 of the cooking time, press the skin onto the pan at the start.
How I would do it:
Fillet Fish
Salt to Taste (Be liberal)
Coat with Cornmeal
Heat oiled pan, on a low to medium heat
Add fish skin side down, turn once skin looks crisp then allow to cook through.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.815290 | 2011-03-13T09:49:29 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13076",
"authors": [
"0x0",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Click Upvote",
"Dean Smith",
"Delfina Ambriz",
"Eyad Sibai",
"Ram",
"Suzanne Taylor",
"Trippy Biscuits",
"Waxen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126394",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27085",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27087",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27090",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3806",
"stephennmcdonald"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
16654 | What is a good alternative to Sea Bass?
I am cooking a recipe of Asian style sea bass. What would be a good, cheaper alternative to sea bass that is readily available in a UK supermarket?
Depending on exactly the recipe you are using it in, I'd either go for a meaty white fish such as Cod, haddock, or the cheaper fish like pollock.
You may also be able to get away with something like mackerel, which isn't as white and chunky but is much cheaper.
You should be able to get all of these in a UK supermarket.
You could also try a fishmonger (either in the Supermarket or independent) - ask them what you could use instead.
Many Asian-style sea bass recipes call for steaming or frying the fish, and in my opinion that's not the best technique for mackerel. The other options sound reasonable, though. Just keep in mind that many recipes for sea bas are for cooking the whole fish, which might not be feasible for the larger alternatives like cod.
Try tilapia - you can definitely get it at Tesco and Waitrose now and possibly other supermarkets too. It has small, thin fillets like seabass, has a nice delicate flavour and is not expensive.
Coley is also a cheap alternative. From an ethical stance, we should be trying to use a range of types of fish and not just cod or haddock.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.815737 | 2011-08-05T09:30:43 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16654",
"authors": [
"Abdus Salam",
"ESultanik",
"Janice",
"atoman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35523",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35738",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35739",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
16057 | Is there any flavor difference in heated sugar (e.g. cotton candy)?
A friend writes:
Why do people continue to think that cotton candy is a flavor? It's spun sugar with food coloring. It tastes like... sugar.
Now I'm curious.
Ignoring for a moment any possible contribution of the food coloring, are there chemical changes to the sugar (sucrose, I presume) during the heating process that are distinguishable by the human olfactory or taste system?
The smell of a cotton candy machine and fresh cotton candy definitely seems distinctive; I'm sure the machine itself and the increased aerosolization of the sugar in the vicinity both have something to do with that. Similarly, the increased surface area of the sugar probably changes the magnitude of our tastebuds' responses. But I wonder about the specific chemical changes involved, and whether they're detectable by most humans.
(Psychologically and/or neurologically, I'm sure there's something to be said about the whole experience of cotton candy changing our perception of how it tastes. In this case, I'm looking for the basic chemistry and biology.)
Cotton candy tends to use flavored sugar..
@Brendan Long: ah, fascinating. I've experienced maple cotton candy myself, but you're saying the generic pink stuff is usually flavored too? Know what they use?
I was in a hurry when I posted that. I went back and did a bit of research and posted an answer.
What Rincewind42 says about caramelization is true in itself, but it doesn't apply here. Cotton candy is made from sugar syrup at the hard ball stage (130°C), so too cold for caramelization. Caramelization only starts occuring at 160°C and above. In fact, caramel has a very different texture from sugar, so it is practically impossible to spin cotton out of it. It makes spidery, unendly elastic strands, unlike the brittle cotton candy strands. Plus, it is visibly brown, and tastes very different from sugar, so you'd notice it when eating the cotton candy.
The flavor of cotton candy is indeed sugar (unless it has had something else added). But taste is not the same thing as flavor. Things taste different to us based on texture, aroma, color and food name. (I once read about a study made with unusually colored puddings. People who had eaten cherry pudding with yellow coloring were sure they are eating banana or lemon, and they were convinced the pink vanilla pudding was strawberry). So it is entirely possible that a gelato customer who eats a gelato called "cotton candy", has lots of sugar and is painted a pastel color will perceive it as having a different taste from non-flavored ice cream which has lots of sugar, but not the color or the name, especially if the texture of the "cotton candy" flavor is tweaked a bit.
"Cotton candy is made from sugar syrup at the hard ball stage (130°C)" -- interesting, thanks (+1). And yeah, I'm specifically interested if there are any olfactory- or tastebud-detectable chemical changes. The psychology of taste perception is a fascinating subject, but I'm looking for something a bit less broad than that.
At this temperature, there aren't any chemical changes. You can see it for yourself - buy cotton candy, wet & compress it in your mouth, and chomp on it - the texture gets very sandy and you can taste that it is really like sugar. There is a small whif of caramel, because stray sugar in the machine does get too hot and caramelizes, and the caramel aroma it gives off mixes slightly with the cotton candy, but it is too weak to call it a flavor in its own right.
Between this and @Taste Five's answer, I think the mystery is solved. Thanks. =)
Cotton candy sugar comes in several flavors:
Cotton Candy Express sells grape, cherry, pink vanilla and raspberry.
Flossugar comes in a bunch of flavors like vanilla, banana, and blue raspberry (the actual names of the flavors are pretty weird).
Based on that, I'd guess that the "cotton candy flavor" is whatever flavoring they usually put in pink cotton candy, which seems to be just vanilla.
As @Brendan said there is flavor added to cotton candy. The mixtures aren't just sugar. The flavoring comes from an ingredient called flossine. If my memory serves correctly it is manufactured by Gold Medal, and is basically some proprietary mixture of coloring and flavor.
I believe the standard flavor is cherry. The last time I ran a cotton candy machine was a couple years ago for a church fall festival.
You can just run a plain sugar through the cotton candy machine, but it wont give you the taste you are looking for.
To answer your question, there is a chemical change in the sucrose as it moves from crystal to liquid form, but nothing that I believe would affect what we can taste. It is all really in the flossine.
FYI, if you are looking for that flavor in something else, like a cake or ice cream you can buy the flossine concentrate, and use it for whatever. Just make sure you aren't using any other flavors that will destroy the flavor profile of the flossine.
Hope this helps with what you are looking for.
When the sugar is heated to make the cotton candy, it will caramelise. This causes many chemical changes. The following clipped from wikipedia:
Caramelization is the removal of water from a sugar, proceeding to isomerization and polymerization of the sugars into various high-weight compounds. Compounds such as difructose anhydride may be created from the monosaccharides after water loss. Fragmentation reactions result in low-molecular-weight compounds that may be volatile and may contribute to flavor. Polymerization reactions lead to larger-molecular-weight compounds that contribute to the dark-brown color.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.815879 | 2011-07-09T20:08:35 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16057",
"authors": [
"Brendan Long",
"Ellen",
"Hugh Jassle",
"Jason Duffett",
"Josh Sherick",
"Torii",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1721",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34378",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"leander",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
12396 | Is low sodium salt really effective?
In Israel, there are some low-sodium salt substitute, which brag to have "60% less sodium than regular salt".
I suspect that there's a catch. I strongly suspect that indeed they contain 60% less sodium than the regular salt, however, you need to add 60% (or 50%, but a larger amount) more of the salt-subtitute to get the same taste.
Is that true? Did anyone else think about that?
Aside: be careful about the possible health benefits (and possible harm) of reducing sodium intake: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt#Health_effects
I'd say that's not strictly true,mostly because no salt substitute I've ever seen can get the same taste anyway.
"Real" salt is sodium chloride (and maybe iodine, or minor impurities if it's sea salt). Most salt substitutes are partly or mostly potassium chloride. This is technically a salt (chemically speaking) and does have a similar salty taste, but it doesn't taste quite like sodium chloride, and can be bitter or metallic-tasting. Some salt substitutes add herbs or other things to help make the potassium chloride more palatable. Sounds like your has some "regular" salt as well, if it's got a significant sodium content.
So while you are right that there's likely a "catch," it's more likely to be that your salt substitute will never taste quite right, or will be bitter, and less likely that you'll be piling loads of extra on in an effort to get the right saltiness.
It may also be ammonium chloride (AKA salmiak). A small amount of that tastes crazy salty, and of course, provides absolutely none of the dietary benefits of sodium chloride or iodine. You have to be really careful with this stuff if you're not on a low-sodium diet for medical reasons; it can trick your body into thinking you're getting enough salt when you actually aren't.
@Aaronut, thanks. Last time I checked, dietetics claimed that if you're having a modern diet, you already have all the salt that you need, so they recommended, generally speaking, never to add extra salt to your plate if possible. You'll have enough of it if you're not on a special diet.
@Elazar: There are many contradictory opinions with regard to sodium intake; the most well-supported at the moment seems to be that sodium levels in the body are tightly-regulated, like body temperature, and the amount you have in your diet isn't particularly important; if the level is out of whack, it's probably due to some serious medical condition. Excessive intake of sodium (or anything else) can still force your liver/kidneys to do extra work, and in general I'd encourage everyone to do their own research rather than take my word for it. But really the sodium issue is vastly overblown.
@Aaronut - hey, that nearly looks like medical advice and opinion? Have the rules changed :)
@TFD: I doubt that anybody would read that as medical advice. As for the rest - the comment is clearly on topic here, since it was in response to another comment explicitly stating the assumption which probably motivated the question in the first place. I also clearly indicated that there are different expert opinions. There never were any "rules", we just ask people not to offer up unverified medical opinions without context when it's not directly relevant to the issue at hand.
See the wikipedia article on salt substitutes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt#Salt_substitutes
They use strongly salty-tasting chemicals that aren't sodium chloride (but may or may not be more healthy, depending on what serious diseases are forcing you to reduce your salt intake).
If one adds salt by volume to dishes, low salt sodium helps, since each tsp, for instance, contains less sodium than normal salt. If one adds till something tastes right, then it doesn't help since one would have added more tsps of it thus adding more sodium. Regular salt would have worked just as well. It is a little bit like keeping you clock ten minutes ahead. When you look at it, you are likely to react to the displayed time even though you know that you have kept it ahead. (Stimulus control.)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.816317 | 2011-02-20T08:05:34 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12396",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"DCTLib",
"Elazar Leibovich",
"MGOwen",
"Puneet Agrawal",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1751",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25520",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25521",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41"
],
"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
} |
10961 | Carrot Pie: custard or stew?
So I have a plan to experiment with making a carrot pie. I can think of two approaches to this.
One would be to create a custard. Carrots aren't very starchy, so that may be a bit of a problem, but not one that some corn starch wouldn't solve.
The other is to make a fruit style pie "stew", maybe with raisins.
What direction would use the characteristics of carrots to their best advantage?
I can see this as being similar to a sweet potato pie. Best bet in that case would be to cook the carrots, then puree and mix with eggs, milk, etc. just as if it were a sweet potato or pumpkin pie.
Two alternatives that come to mind would be to treat it like a fruit pie, as you say. Because of the texture of the carrots, I would grate them with the large holes on a box grater, toss with sugar, raisins, some tapioca and whatever spices your heart leads you toward.
An alternative would be to make a molded gelatin like pie, similar to a refrigerator lime pie. Lots of gelatin and grated carrots. I, personally, wouldn't like it, but I am not fond of jello with carrots in it either.
Happy experimenting.
+1 for "Sweet Potato Pie". That's the closest vegetable analog. They're sweet, soft, and orange.
Treated it like a fruit pie. Tasted great!
You can make a carrot custard pie by substituting cooked carrots for pumpkin or sweet potatoes in their respective pies. But chances are, nobody will notice.
To really showcase some fresh homegrown carrots, I've made an off-beat but really delicious carrot pie based on the Indian dessert "Gajar ka Halwa". This involves stewing the carrots in whole milk until the milk is almost entirely evaporated, spicing and adding nuts & raisins. Unlike a custard, in this recipe the carrots are truly front and center. (Which means this can only be as good as the carrots you use!)
What kind of spices do you use?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.816746 | 2011-01-12T00:20:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10961",
"authors": [
"Chris",
"Jeff the Chf",
"Lex",
"Satanicpuppy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24094",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3310",
"philosodad"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
67200 | When cooking pulled pork in a slow cooker, should the meat be submerged in liquid?
I am making pulled pork in my slow cooker this week. I am going to use a pork shoulder and am planning on cooking it on low for 8-10 hours while at work.
How much liquid should I put in the slow cooker? Should the liquid cover the pork or should there just be a little liquid in the bottom?
If the pork isn't fully submerged, will the parts of the meat that are not submerged cook? If so, how?
\ /
\ ******************** / <-- Should liquid cover the meat?
\ ******************** /
\ ******************** / <-- Or go half way up the meat?
\ ******************** /
\ ******************** / <-- Or should I just have a little liquid in the bottom?
\-----------------------------/
I'd be surprised if 8-10 hours on low was enough for pulled pork. I haven't made it myself but this is based on cooking pork joints, gammon etc. Also my slow cooker book said to avoid cooking pork joints on low for safety (presumably the centre temperature, but possibly the time to reach temperature.
For pulled pork, there is good reason to only use a small amount of liquid. Use only enough liquid to come nearly half way up the side of the pork.
The pork that is sticking out of the liquid will brown, much like a sear. The mechanism is different, but result is the same. The exposed meat will develop color and that extra meaty flavor that gives good BBQ its character.
Since you're planning on an 8-10 hour cook, you can flip the meat halfway through to get that effect all around.
Flavor your added liquid generously, and be prepared to de-fat it when the pork is done, it will make for a great sauce.
If he's at work and the slow cooker is at home, it's kind of hard to flip the meat halfway through...
@Marti That's one of those things to fudge as much as you can. It's not critical.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.817236 | 2016-03-07T23:14:00 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67200",
"authors": [
"Charlotte Leeder",
"Chris H",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kirsty George",
"Marti",
"Matt G",
"Robert Kane",
"Stephanie Carver",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161226",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161227",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161934",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
10125 | Is there a big difference between Yellow and Yukon Gold potatoes?
After moving to Canada six months ago, I still haven't found Yukon Gold potatoes at the grocery stores. Instead I find Yellow potatoes and was curious as to whether or not they are considered to be the same or if they are completely different. I find that the texture is a little bit "harder" than the Yukon Gold potatoes but overall seem pretty similar. So, are Yellow potatoes the same as Yukon Gold and can they be used interchangeably?
They are often used interchangeably. The truth is, yukon gold potatoes are a type of yellow potato. They were developed in Canada. You will definitely see them on store shelves here in Canada, but it can be seasonal, depending on your location. I am in Winnipeg, and I find YG about six months of the year.
I live in the Maritimes and I have yet to see them in stores, but I shall keep my eye out for them. I had had the feeling that they were developed in the Yukon Territories, hence the name. ;)
Yeah, I guess that was a little obvious. Here in Manitoba, we grow a lot of russets and yukon golds, our soil lends itself to those varietals. Can't speak to their availability in the far East. However, they are very similar, so as long as you can get yellow potatoes, you should be OK. Although, I must admit, I find the yukons to be just a bit nicer myself.
Look for Maine Carola Potatoes. They are the closest to the actual Yukon in both flavor and texture. Maine grows lots of Yellow White and Russet potatoes. I'm willing to bet that some stores in the maritime have the Carola Potatoes.
In Ontario I find that yellow potatoes are not the same as Yukon gold! Yukons have a different texture and cook differently. I can't find them right now (late September) and am disappointed. Hope they are available soon!
Can you elaborate on what the differences are in texture and cooking? (Does one take longer, not hold its shape as well, etc.?)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.817434 | 2010-12-14T22:20:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10125",
"authors": [
"Avery",
"Deb",
"Geraldine Tham",
"Laura",
"Laurette Alexander",
"Manuel ",
"duchessofstokesay",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20713",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42250",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61566",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61575",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76774",
"matore",
"mrwienerdog",
"user20715"
],
"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
} |
27920 | What's the minimum amount of oil for making popcorn?
My wife makes popcorn by adding the corn to a pan, then tilt the pan and add oil until the popcorn is just covered. This seems to be a lot of oil. Does anybody know how to make popcorn with less oil?
The way I do it is put 1-2 tbsp of oil in my pot, add 1/3 cup or so of corn, cover, and heat on medium until it starts popping, then turn down a bit and shake the pot occasionally until it is all popped. So, not oil free, but not a whole lot of oil either.
Sounds like way less oil to me :-)
Yup, this is how I do it too. Super tasty and very little oil.
I add a tablespoon or two of (peanut) oil, throw in about three kernels, and once they've popped the oil is obviously hot enough,then pour in the full batch.
I tried it and it works, see picture here
That's still too much oil, you just need to coat the bottom of the pan, not drown it
@TFD, 1-2 tbsp does coat the bottom of my pan, which is large and shallow. Only one I've got.
1-2 tsp should be enough, not tbsp, even for a large pan. Adding to much just makes greasy popcorn
Maybe it depends on how much popcorn you make. I usually do 1/3 or 1/2 cup. Never been greasy.
If you use an air popper, you don't need any oil.
I still add a little bit back in (with a pump sprayer), so the salt will stick ... but you could theoretically use none at all.n
+1 I prefer this method because you don't have to heat your oil at all...I usually drizzle on a very fruity olive oil, though a pump sprayer would make it easier. Making popcorn in a pan with a good olive oil would be a very bad idea, as the oil would go rancid from the heat.
Probably a good method if you're planning on making it often.
The minimum amount of oil to do popcorn is ZERO! here is the trick to make popcorn with less oil!
Edit: The method described by 'the trick' is to add a half cup of corn to a plain brown paper bag. Fold the bag closed, and put it in the microwave for 3 minutes on high. When the corn stops popping (less then two pops per second), take it out of the microwave. Add flavoring to taste.
This would be a better answer if you were to summarize the technique right here in your answer. This way, we still have the information if the linked page goes away.
+1, The minimum amount of oil is, indeed, zero. You can also achieve that with an air-popper as described by Joe.
Ok thanks for the tip @BaffledCook I will ensure to make it this way the next time. edit: dunno why I can't make your username resolve as expected. Might be a js issue with my linux chromium browser.
I remember reading when I bought my whirley pop, to use 2 tablespoons of oil per 1/2 cup of corn. It works out fine for me, although if I'm cooking it with butter as the oil, I usually add 3 tablespoons (because butter isn't entirely fat).
I think butter is a little under 20% water, and the milk solids don't have much volume, so 3 tablespoons of butter is closer to 2.5 tablespoons of oil, so you're probably overcompensating a bit. You could probably get away with 2.5 tablespoons if you're trying to minimize oil like the OP.
Butter is, if I recall, 42% fat, and the rest is milk (excluding milk fat), and water. Don't quote me on this though.
Nope. Look up nutrition facts. http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/dairy-and-egg-products/0/2
You're right, wikipedia lists it as being 81% fat by weight.
In my Whirley pop I use half a teaspoon for 1/3 of a cup of kernels, less oil the healthier it is, works for me, I eat popcorn everyday!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.817657 | 2012-10-21T21:23:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27920",
"authors": [
"Aaliyah Harte",
"BaffledCook",
"Cascabel",
"Dan",
"DoughHands",
"Hope Rodriguez-Cruz",
"Howard Butler",
"Jacob G",
"KatieK",
"Malfist",
"MargeGunderson",
"Peter",
"Quar",
"TFD",
"Theodore Murdock",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14033",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2736",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64157",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64166",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64261",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64308",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9057",
"lemontwist",
"robotsauce",
"vinni_f"
],
"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
} |
13688 | How do you properly wash hands after dealing with raw chicken?
Whenever I get done dealing with raw chicken, I feel like I need to wash my hands repeatedly with hot water and soap. Is this going to remove the potential bacteria away or is there a different way I should be cleaning my hands?
Your fine, as long as your washing your hands completely. Don't stress it. The fact that your being mindful of it means your probably not going to have problems.
I wash my hands with hot water and anti-bac soap, then a little alcohol hand rub after. It may be a little OCD, but I have had food poisoning from undercooked chicken and it's not pleasant at all: I lost 14 pounds in 3 days.
As I recall from all my food safety training: to properly wash your hands, wet them with warm water (at least 100 F), apply soap, scrub all over your hands and in between your fingers for 20 seconds and rinse. That should thoroughly remove the bad bacteria and any other debris clinging to your hands. That should be all you need.
I think it was 30 seconds last time I took serveSafe, anyhow. To add to this answer. Under your finger nails is a hot spot you don't have to go crazy digging them out just keep it in mind and make sure to check them. (there are nail brushes but I hate them)
30 seconds, warm water, soap, and soft scrubbing is all that's needed. It's not a toxic problem, just a simple clean that's needed.
Here is a resource from FSIS (USDA) on handwash procedural efficacy. For retention, I'll include the text contents:
Handwashing for Food Safety
Inadequate handwashing has been identified as a contributing factor to foodborne illness, especially
when preparing raw meat and poultry. Hands can move germs that can cause illness found in raw meat
and poultry, around the area you are preparing food, which can lead to foodborne illness. Washing our
hands often is one of the best ways to stop the spread of harmful germs that can cause illness, including
foodborne illness.
How Should You Wash Your Hands?
Control the transfer of bacteria in your kitchen by knowing when and how to wash your hands and
following these five steps:
Wet your hands with clean, running water (warm or cold), turn off the tap and apply soap.
Lather your hands by rubbing them together with the soap. Be sure to lather the backs of your
hands, between your fingers and under your nails.
Scrub your hands for at least 20 seconds. Need a timer? Hum the “Happy Birthday” song from
beginning to end twice.
Rinse your hands well under clean, running water.
Dry your hands using a clean towel.
When Should You Wash Your Hands?
Here are crucial moments when you should remember to wash your hands:
• Before, during and after you prepare a meal
o Especially after handling raw meat, poultry, seafood or eggs or their juices
• Before eating
• After blowing your nose, coughing or sneezing
• After using the bathroom
• Before and after caring for someone at home who is sick with vomiting or diarrhea
• Before and after treating a cut or wound
• After changing diapers or cleaning up a child who has used the toilet
• After touching an animal, animal feed, or animal waste
• After handling pet food or pet treats
• After touching garbage
Observational Study Results: Handwashing
Recent USDA research conducted in test kitchens revealed some startling insights about how bacteria
may be spread around the kitchen when individuals are preparing meat and poultry products.
Researchers observed more than 1,000 people to understand their food handling behaviors before,
during and after meal preparation.
In the first year of research, USDA observed the kitchen behaviors of people preparing turkey burgers
and a side salad in a test kitchen. In the second year of the research, USDA observed the kitchen
behaviors of people who self-reported washing poultry; these individuals were asked to prepare chicken
thighs and a side salad. In the third year of research, USDA observed the kitchen behaviors of consumers
preparing Not-Ready-To-Eat (NRTE) frozen stuffed chicken breasts and frozen corn products.
• During all three years of the observational study, participants did not even attempt to wash their
hands, or did not wash their hands sufficiently, about 95 percent of the time before and during
meal preparation. The most common reason for unsuccessful handwashing when it was attempted
was not scrubbing hands with soap and water for at least 20 seconds.
• During the first two years of the observational study, participants did not wash their hands
sufficiently 99% of the time before and during meal preparation. The most common reason for
unsuccessful handwashing was not scrubbing hands with soap and water for at least 20 seconds.
• During the first two years of the observational study, researchers identified thousands of
opportunities in which participants should have washed their hands to prevent the transfer of
bacteria. Across both studies, participants did not even attempt to wash their hands between 70
and 75% of the time when it was required.
• When they did attempt handwashing, many participants did not scrub their hands with soap and
water for at least 20 seconds. Other errors included not wetting their hands with water before
applying soap and not drying their hands with a clean or one-use towel, which are crucial steps.
• Inadequate handwashing has been identified as a contributing factor to foodborne illness, especially
when preparing raw meat and poultry. Hands can move potential pathogens found in raw meat and
poultry around the area you are preparing food, which can lead to foodborne illnesses.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.817988 | 2011-04-02T22:55:01 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13688",
"authors": [
"Bruce Alderson",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Feltope",
"Prime",
"Rodrigo Gómez",
"Sandra Davis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5524",
"user3317084"
],
"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
} |
10092 | Why do people put oil/butter in pan when frying ground beef?
I have always wondered why people put oil or butter in a pan before browning ground beef. It doesn't make sense since you end up having to drain the grease in the end anyways. What is the purpose of the oil or butter? Is it used for pans that are not non-stick? Flavor?
Maybe I've been doing it wrong all these years, but I cannot remember a single time when I've ever used another fat to brown ground beef. The only thing I ever add to the pan at the same time is onion.
I have always grown up just putting the beef directly in the pan as well. It wasn't until a few years ago while watching T.V. that I saw some chefs add oil to the pan before the beef. I have been confused ever since.
Maybe they're using the extra-lean stuff and it's rendering hardly any fat by itself?
Transfer of heat. First you need a hot pan (sprinkle some drops of water on the pan, it should sizzle). Then you add a drop of oil and swirl it around. When the oil forms a striated pattern, it's hot. Then you put the meat in.
The hot oil helps to transfer heat from the bottom of the pan to the meat. You only need a spoonful of oil.
Junkie But does this actually benefit the beef flavor-wise or is it solely for better heat distribution?
Depending on the oil / butter it adds flavor. However read the latest article from Harold McGee on how heat influences oil flavor. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/17/dining/17curious.html?_r=1
how much oil do u put?
@Goldname, just enough to cover the bottom of the pan
@BaffledCook does the oil at all get absorbed? Would it be worthwhile to add more? Also, I tried adding butter but I didn't seem to taste the buttery flavor. I was looking forward to getting something like the buttery jack burger from jack in the box.
@Goldname To get a buttery flavor, you should add the butter near the end at a lower temperature.
@BaffledCook Ah I see I was trying to fry it in the butter.
Try ghee instead of butter as the smoking point is high. I personally use duck fat and it does add to the flavour.
If the ground beef is very lean then adding a small amount of cooking oil to the pan is necessary. Otherwise, ultra-lean ground beef will burn and stick to the pan before the center of your burger is even done. Additionally the burger would be extremely dry and unappetizing when cooked.
After it is done squeeze out excessive grease with napkins or paper towels before consuming.
Another reason people put butter in the pan because the milk solids in the butter (which separate when the butter melts) contribute positively to the "browning" of meat. So, if you're looking to get a nice brown color on a steak, butter in the pan will help.
If you need butter to help brown a steak, your pan is not hot enough before the meat goes in. When your pan is at the temperatures required to easily cause the Maillard reaction, it's far too hot for butter, as the butter would burn.
If you add butter to ground beef, say, burgers in a pan, it makes them taste better, and gives them a slight crunch on the outside, and yes, attributes to a better color. Same with steaks. It's not done out of necessity, it's done out of deliciousness.
Saturated fats and unsaturated fats will form a bond producing triglycerides. Rinsing the beef with hot water, practically makes your 73/27 beef into a 90+/10- beef. It's healthier and much more cheaper per pound! With that said, butter may make it Brown and taste better, due to the dairy components and thus adding more saturated fats.
Welcome! I'm not sure what the first two sentences have to do with the question.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.818420 | 2010-12-13T23:06:41 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10092",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"BaffledCook",
"Catija",
"JobHunter69",
"John Spong",
"Moe",
"Rei Brown",
"Sridhar Ratnakumar",
"bikeboy389",
"duchessofstokesay",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20652",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20902",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65009",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7202",
"merab",
"user20652"
],
"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
} |
9515 | How do you properly defrost frozen fish?
I recently bought a package of frozen cod that contains about 6 pieces. How do you go about properly defrosting them? Thanks.
This summary of acceptable methods to thaw foods is newer than this question, but see also: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36999/what-are-the-acceptable-methods-to-thaw-food-items
There are two safe ways to defrost, one more rapid than the other.
First method is to defrost in the refrigerator. This keeps temperature below 40 degrees F, in the safe zone. This will, also, take a while.
Second method is to defrost in the sink under cold running water. The water doesn't have to run rapidly, but it should change regularly. This will defrost the fish more rapidly than in the air (water is a better conductor of heat than air) and will keep the fish in the danger zone for the shortest period of time. If you are not going to cook it immediately, then return to the refrigerator.
If you are deep frying, there are some techniques that will allow you to go direct from frozen to fried, but that is generally done in a professional kitchen where they have powerful fryers that can take the temperature hit and come back strong.
This is also a great site for a BUNCH of different options in addition to Doug's suggestion. http://www.foodsubs.com/Defrost.html
In the fridge is always best, but you need to plan ahead properly :-) Otherwise what's wrong with leaving it on the bench? It's still covered etc. It's not being fiddled with by unwashed hands etc. Most countries in the world don't have the water and energy to spare to be running the tap for any length of time. If free-flow'ish they should be defrosted enough for cooking in a couple of hours
Instead of holding it under running water (which wastes a lot of water), you can put it in a bowl of water. I was taught to change out the water a few times, but I don't know why.
Yes, Monica, that's the idea. The changing of the water is because if water doesn't move (as in a bowl) the water next to the fish gets colder quickly but the water further away from the fish doesn't, meaning the heat is transferred more slowly and defrosting takes longer. It's the same principle as a convection oven. The goal is a steady slow stream, which wastes very little water. Streaming into a bowl in the sink works also if you are really concerned about using minimal water, although the refrigerator defrost uses the least amount. Speed vs waste. Tradeoffs happen.
This is not quite correct: there are four recognized safe ways to defrost. The two listed above are the most frequently used, but the full list is: 1) In the refrigerator; 2) As part of the cooking process; 3) In the microwave; 4) Under cool running water.
My mother leaves the fish in the kitchen overnight to defrost for 15+ hours. Is this safe ?
is defrosting it in warm water not safe ?
Kitchen overnight - definitely not safe. Defrosting in warm water - depends. The trick is to not have the fish in the danger zone (40-140 degrees F) for very long. Warm water can defrost the thinner parts of the fish (now in the danger zone) before the rest of the fish defrosts. Moving water is more important than temperature for defrosting, so you gain very little using warm water.
What is the "Danger Zone" and what happens when fish are in it? When you cook it, won't that just kill whatever it got from the "danger zone"?
Danger zone is the temperature range where bacteria grow. The longer that fish or any other food stuff is in the danger zone, the more bacteria you have. Raising the temperature over 140 for a long enough period of time (there are charts on this stuff) will kill most bacteria, but the idea is to avoid having them grow in the first place.
Defrosting quick frozen fish in fridge is the most recognized way but far from the best.
Quick-frozen fish (or any food) is frozen in a short time which means that the ice crystals
will be very small which is most important to preserve the quality of fish.
The risk to miss this quality happens when you start to defrost the fish. Doing it very slowly as by keeping the fish in fridge overnight means that this slow defrosting process creates big ice crystals in the fish meat; loss of valuable protein and liquid and fish becomes dryer and less tasty.
Therefore the main matter in defrosting is very simple. As it is beneficial to freeze quickly, the same goes with defrosting. Therefore for best result: Defrost in water 18 - 20 C in sink or in a big ball. Defrosting will take less the one hour and it is not necessary to use running water; the cold water nearest to fish will move by itself.
Running water may not be necessary but is prudent, and for any commercial kitchen, at least where I live, it is required by code.
From the FDA website:
Thaw frozen seafood gradually by placing it in the refrigerator overnight. If you have to thaw seafood quickly, either seal it in a plastic bag and immerse it in cold water or — if the food will be cooked immediately thereafter — microwave it on the “defrost” setting and stop the defrost cycle while the fish is still icy but pliable.
I have a little to share based on my experience as a restaurant owner, there are 5 ways to thaw the fish properly and safely.
Place it in the refrigerator, this slows down the icy crystals inside the fish.
Put it in a running water, cold preferably, to maintain the toughness of the meat.
Cut the fish to desired size before cooking for a couple of minutes.
Thaw the fish by salting more faster than the rest of the methods.
Place it in a sealed bag then thaw it in a bowl of water.
What about laying frozen cod on a sheet tray at room temp, to prevent waste of water and needing faster than in fridge? Isn't thawing anything at room temp, as long as it's put away before hitting danger zone, natural thawing?
It's not clear to me that this is an attempt to answer the question. Anyhow, thawing at room temperature, it is next to impossible that the fish would be completely thawed before the exterior of the fish has hit the danger zone (4°C/40°F). Remember that no portion of the fish should remain in the danger zone for more than two hours.
Unsafe per Chris' comment.
I think this was probably an attempt to answer, albeit not the most confident (or correct) one - I think it's fine to have it here with the downvotes and demonstrate that we think it's a bad idea!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.818759 | 2010-11-27T15:27:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9515",
"authors": [
"Alex Kwitny",
"Andrew Paul",
"Cascabel",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Connie",
"Doug Johnson-Cookloose",
"FoodTasted",
"GorillaApe",
"Monica Cellio",
"Preston",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Shruti",
"Spammer",
"TFD",
"Tomek Kobyliński",
"amphibient",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19473",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19475",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53332",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6541",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79872",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86950",
"user19477",
"user86950"
],
"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
} |
13492 | What can I do to add more flavor into my beef barley soup?
This time around my beef barley soup is tasting a bit on the plain side. It has the right amount of saltiness but is lacking in the flavorful department. The ingredients used thus far have been:
Beef Stock, Water, Salt, Ground Black Pepper, Seasoned Pepper, Rosemary, Onions, Carrots, Barley, and Cubed Beef.
What can I do to help boost its flavor?
Beef stock on its own should be extremely rich; how did you make it?
If the soup is already made and you just want to deepen the flavour, try a shake of a pre-made sauce such as Worcestershire, brown sauce, barbecue sauce, soy or even kecap manis etc. For next time, more or better beef stock.
If you use self-made beef stock, try boiling a bit longer, so that the flavour of the beef is a bit more concentrated.
Boil your soup a bit longer.
Use more beef stock and/or cubed beef.
I don't know how much herbs you put in. Maybe a bit more pepper or rosemary can make a difference.
I put in about a 1/8 t of ground black pepper, a few shakes of the seasoned pepper, and a pinch or so of rosemary. When I cooked the beef roast, before cubing, I rubbed on salt, pepper, and rosemary.
+1: It is all about the stock. If you want the sort of soups you get at restaurants this is the secret. Make high quality broth, and reduce, reduce, reduce.
One way to boost flavour would be to roast some beef bones till they brown a little (you can get bones from your butcher) and then cook them with your soup. You can take them out when the broth is cooked. This will add a nice depth of natural 'beefy' flavour.
And the gelatine from the bones makes a huge difference in texture and depth of flavor.
Reconstitute and chop up an ounce of dried porcini mushrooms, reserving the liquid. Filter the liquid to remove grit, and then add it and the mushrooms. You'll add a good burst of umami and a nice earthiness, without adding too much bulk.
Also, fine-chopped celery works to give some interesting higher notes.
Alternately, you can just grind up the dried porcini mushrooms and add that to the soup base for a nice burst of umami. Add some peppercorns and/or dried peppers to the grinder along with the mushrooms to add more spicy flavor.
Also, adding the celery is a significant improvement in the overall taste of the finished product even if you, like me, hate the taste of celery on its own. In this case, make sure to leave the chunks large enough that you can avoid them when dishing it up and not get ambushed by a blast of that distinct celery flavor.
I have no idea how this works but... I find with a lot of beef soups/stews letting it go cold and re heating it the next day seems to do the trick. Some how all the flavor comes out of the meat when you cook it and then goes back in long after my guests have left.
If any one has an explanation for this please let me know!
I am making my version of Beef Barley soup and I add cumin,curry and tumeric as I am browning my diced meat and onion. I only add a small amount of each but it adds a lot of flavor and I use vegetable juice instead of boulion.
I too have trouble sometimes when making soups. I recently discovered that about a half of a medium rutabaga peeled and diced in 2 quarts of soup adds a lot of flavor. It takes about an hour to cook them so plan to put them in at the beginning. You can also add a pinch of dried thyme. Be cautious with thyme because it can easily overpower your soup.
I've had good luck adding a small packet of unflavoured gelatin, it's not enough to gel the soup (gross), but it adds some of the body that long simmered beef bones would add.
Celery is essential, as someone else mentioned. You wouldn't think it would add much, but there's something magic about it.
I also toss in some celery seeds (not celery salt!) I grind them to a fine powder for beef barley soup but add them whole for chicken soup.
I usually choose not to add celery to some things due to the fact I am not a big fan of it (mostly texture wise). But I might try adding in some celery seeds next time as I don't mind those.
Yes, with the beef stock add same amount of chicken stock, and a touch of sirachi sauce
It sounds like you had enough spices. Are you sure you used meat meant for soup? Cuts intended for frying/roasting are more tender, but have much less aroma. For soup, you need older, tougher meat. Also, you say "Cubed beef", which sounds as if the bones have been removed. Cooking the meat together with the bones gives you more flavour. Third, you are supposed to sear the meat and sweat the onions before simmering, because that develops flavour. It doesn't get clear from your question if you did that.
Another way to have more flavour is to use more fat. Even if the fat itself is neutral tasting, it makes you taste the other aromas stronger. Add it when sweating the onions.
It may be worth trying to first roast the barley in the oven, or even prefrying it, like prefrying rice for a Balkan/Middle Eastern dish. I haven't tried this and cannot guarantee that it will work.
You can also use MSG or other glutamates. They are usually not sold pure in the supermarkets, but are included in other products, like broth cubes and seasoning powders. Maybe you can get them pure in a Chinese shop.
None of the ideas above apply to your already cooked batch soup (you could take out some of the liquid, dissolve a broth cube, and put it back, but it will make it much saltier). The only things I can think of will add flavour, not strengthen it, thus changing the original idea. I don't know if this is a problem for you.
If you don't mind changing the flavour, you can 1) add other herbs (they need to be fresh, dried ones should have cooked a bit). Parsley, marjoram, and lovage come to mind. 2) Add condiments. Worceshire sauce is unusual in soup, but works well for my taste. 3) Cook chopped dried mushrooms in a very small amount of liquid, then add them to the soup together with the liquid. 4) throw in crumbled feta cheese (good quality, preferably from sheep milk).
Other ideas which change the flavour, but cannot be applied to the already cooked soup, would be adding celery and bay leaf.
I cooked the meat prior to adding it in the soup and then cut it into small cubes. The meat is very tender. I sweated the onions in some butter along with the carrots. I ended up adding a bit more pepper and rosemary and that did the trick.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.819423 | 2011-03-27T17:50:05 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13492",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"BarnsMa",
"Danielle Chase-Roberts",
"Ginie",
"KimbaF",
"MargeGunderson",
"Satanicpuppy",
"brianj",
"duchessofstokesay",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137862",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137875",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30915",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93154",
"user93154"
],
"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
} |
9492 | I need help to plan a Menu: 10 people, dinner with lovely friends at home
I am planning to prepare a menu for friends at home, on saturday.
I need it to be easy, relatively fast and tasty.
Following this rules (and being italian) I need:
appetizer
pasta
second course
dessert
I've already solved (strange) the pasta problem: I'll prepare it with a delicious pink tuna I have, capperi, a little garlic, lemon and a sprinkle of white pepper.
Sounds boring but it's delicious :D yum! :D
The dessert is done because friends always bring wine and dessert in Italy so I don't care.
What can I do for appetizer and second course?
I really don't know :/
Meat is not a wise choice unless I prepare something particular, I guess...
For appetizer a selection of cheese could work?
I just can't think about anything that works in harmony but I still want to prepare that tuna so badly.
Help, please!
What do you mean about preparing "something particular" in terms of meat? What are your actual restrictions? (I'd be happy to make suggestions, but I need a bit more information.)
If I have to cook for a big group, 9 times out of 10, I go for scampi.
But if you use scampi as the second course, I'm not sure what to serve it with.
(I make it as an entree). Rice or bread, I'd say. I've never tried it with baked potatoes, but maybe it could work; or other options of course.
But I don't know if two times fish (in a broad meaning) works for you.
You can also make your meat in advance (stewing, ragout (of chicken, in vol-au-vent), meatballs) so you just need to warm it.
Edit: Oops, I just saw that this is an old question...
I will write what I've done leaving here a very easy and succesfull italian recipee from my uncle :)
Arrosto di cima di filetto di maiale lardiato.
You'll need for 4 people:
Pork fillet (800gr, more or less)
Lardo di colonnata (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lardo_di_Colonnata it is... Lard. Just look for lard slices: it'll be fine anyway. You'll need 100gr of that)
potatoes (5 ore 6)
carrots (2)
an onion
seasalt (if you can find the big one like this: http://www.saltexpo.com/files/u1/camargue.jpg you can use a trick)
So let's start!
Take the fillet, put it in a pan where you put just a little oil.
Cook all its surface without fear.
You don't want to carbonize it but you want its surface to be cooked WELL.
After that take a little time to wait for it to lower its temperature and take the big seasalt and spread it with your hands on the fillet.
Don't worry about exaggerating: it'll take only the salt it'll need :)
Done that roll the lard around the fillet and with a cord tie it so it won't move while you cook it in the oven.
Cut potatoes and carrots and onion.
I do prefer to cut the onion in "half rings": delicious :D
Now you can take a metal recipient (can't tell the name in english but it's like this: http://eshop.pcmitaly.com/images/product/LP16362P.jpg) and put a fair quantity of olive oil in it and your fillet, carrots, potatoes and onion.
Cook it for 40 minutes in your oven (210 degrees) and when you get to minute 20 turn your sweet fillet.
Enjoy it with a Chianti Classico Castello di Ugozzano (not very costy but lovely).
Have fun! :D
What I tend to think of for appetizers is something fairly light. You could make a salad -- either tossed or prepared. Or you could serve some sort of light vegetable soup. Or something with fruit -- grapefruit is in season, and you could make half grapefruits fancy by coating them with some brown or white sugar and broiling to give a nice crust.
Another option, and fairly traditional Italian, is to serve an antipasto. That way you could put out different cheeses (fresh mozzarella and provolone are fairly standard, I think), roasted peppers, olives, marinated mushrooms, artichoke hearts. And if you want meat at all, you could serve some with that.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.819952 | 2010-11-26T09:55:57 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9492",
"authors": [
"Great Big Al",
"Martha F.",
"Stephen Oller",
"gonecasescenario",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19420",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19421",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25950",
"mart"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
125617 | Confused about advice from Coleman about seasoning their porcelain coated cast iron grill grates
Basically, I thought porcelain coated grates don't need to be seasoned, but the official instructions from the Coleman page explicitly recommend it.
I've got a Coleman grill for 3 years now and I think my grates are starting to rust. I'm wondering if I messed up the maintenance...
I'd always put on oil before grilling, then after grilling burn off excess bits on high heat for 20 min or so. And over fall and winter I'd always take the grates inside.
I'd appreciate some coherent cleaning and maintenance tips so I don't mess up the grates further if I either get rid of the rust or buy replacement grates.
Are you sure it's rust? And not built-up burned on crud?
Took a wire brush to a small localized area to see if it'd come off, and it didn't, so I assume it's "in" the material.
‘Burning off’ everything may have caused the porcelain to crack and flake off. And it tends to carbonize seasoning (a crazy hot grill is one of the recommended methods to strip nasty cast iron)
Got it. I was following advice from different sources... ever since Canada quasi-banned steel brushes, I find that cleaning the BBQ just doesn't work as well. Those plastic or wood bristles sometimes just don't cut it.
My personal solution would be to just used the grates for one more season and then replace them. I've generally found cast iron grates -- enameled or not -- to have about a 3-year useful lifespan (which was one of my reasons for getting the expensive cast Alumninum grates).
As I understand it, porcelain coated cast iron doesn't need to be seasoned. What would be the point? I do see on the Coleman website where they recommend seasoning. I wonder if their advice is somehow related to warranty legalities.
If you are seeing rust, I am assuming that some of the porcelain has worn off. The rust is happening because you have bare cast iron. That is what seasoning could help...just like a cast iron pan. Clean it well, wipe on some oil, hold at high temp for 10-20 minutes. You can probably work this into your clean up routine.
You can cook on non-porcelain coated cast iron, so no need to buy replacement grates, unless the breakdown of the porcelain is quite extensive and it bothers you or you notice inconsistent cooking.
Thanks; for the "clean it well part" I'm also confused by all the advice. If it's rust, I guess I'd need to get aggressive. But with porcelain I understand I don't want to be aggressive. Any advice there?
I cook on a cast iron grate. I get occasional rust when I don't use for a while. I just hit it well with a wire brush, then season. So, remove any loose stuff...not overly agressive.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.820250 | 2023-10-22T23:13:51 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125617",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe",
"Lagerbaer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3560",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
9648 | How can I check if my flour is self-raising or plain?
If I have some unlabelled flour in the cupboard, is there a way I can determine if it is self-raising flour or plain flour, before cooking with it and just checking if the cake rises? :)
Put your flour in water. It should be slightly fizzy due to the presence of baking powder if it is active self raising flour. If it is plain it should react like normal flour.
I was going to say "Rub some on your gums" but I like your method better.
and what, detect for a numbing effect in the white powder? haha
Mix equal parts of the flour & white distiled vinegar (dont need much, maybe a tablespoon each). If its self rising flour, it'll bubble/foam slightly, whereas plain flour will not.
This sounds like a more reliable method than water, depending on what baking powder formula is used.
Self-rising flour is usually salted. Regular flour isn't. You can taste a tiny bit.
The self raising flour in my cupboard doesn't have any added salt. It does taste a little bit different to the plain flour though.
Self rising flour is US & does contain salt. Self raising flour is UK & does not.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.820482 | 2010-12-01T13:06:52 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9648",
"authors": [
"Kelly P Fitzgerald",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Tamlyn",
"Tetsujin",
"chummus",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19739",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19740",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19741",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"rackandboneman",
"user19740",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
66109 | How should I prepare meat to be ground?
I am having trouble at the moment with my new mincer because bits of connective tissue keep getting caught in the works and clogging it up, stopping the mince coming out. However I'm not quite sure how to prevent it. I try to take obvious bits off, but a lot of it is in very thin sheets which are challenging to remove, especially when the meat is cubed.
Are you chilling your meat before feeding it into the grinder?
My husband and I regularly grind our own meat. What we do is trim the meat before cubing. If any connective tissue / silver-skin is on the outside of the meat or running through the meat we are getting it off of a larger piece of meat, which is much easier because you can get a better hold on it.
We also use a filet knife for trimming the tough tissue. It allows you to trim much closer and with much more control, minimizing any waste.
And last but not least, chilling the meat helps also. While you don't want it frozen, firm is easier to handle.
What cuts do you tend to use? Generally chuck from the butchers comes pre cubed in the UK
@Tom just ask them not to cube it :) They should have some 'out the back', and if not, they will order it in and keep it for you.
BTW, a good meat grinder with sharp, well aligned knife will deal with the connective tissue without a hitch, the meat will be minimally less tender at the benefit of avoiding the most bothersome part of the work (maybe second most, after washing the grinder).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.820613 | 2016-02-01T21:28:36 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66109",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"Kurt Moser",
"Madeline Ellis",
"SF.",
"Shelby Turner",
"Sherri Woolverton",
"Tom",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158205",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/759",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
1731 | How can I get my bread to be more fluffy and less dense?
I've been making bread for a while now, but I can never get it to rise enough. The bread comes out really dense, so it's not very useful for sandwiches. I give it ten minutes after kneading, bash it down again, then another hour before baking. I've tried adding sugar as well but this hasn't made much impact.
As you can see from the wide variety of answers, there's many factors in play, and it's difficult to guess what's going on! Could you post a specific recipe and technique you're using? I think this would help produce more targeted suggestions. Welcome to Seasoned Advice!
What flour are you using and what region do you live in?
The short answer to dense bread is always rise.
There are many solutions to rise problems. There are also many other bread problems that are not just about rise (colour, flavour, wetness, shape). However, denseness is always about the rise.
Rise happens when microbes (yeast) make air pockets in a network of gluten (or starch, in the case of rye and gluten-free breads). If your microbes don't make enough CO2, you don't get rise. If your gluten network isn't strong enough to hold the CO2 in pockets, it escapes and you don't get rise. Take note that both air pockets and gluten structure change over time, so time is critical. Temperature (besides baking) doesn't affect gluten but it drastically affects microbe activity, so that's important too.
Yeast, gluten. Time, temperature.
Nearly everything else that affects bread rise is a function of one or more of those variables. Here's a very brief list of a bit of the 'everything else'. If you want a more specific answer, you'll have to make your question more specific.
Yeast:
Yeast must be alive. (Check it's not dead, also not excessive antimicrobial ingredients such as salt or raw garlic.)
Yeast must be able to move to more food. (Water.)
Yeast must have food to ferment. (Raw flour is food. Note other microbes can compete for food.)
Yeast must be at respirating temperature to ferment. (This is a window. Very low temperatures will stop activity entirely, moving up the scale will permit slow activity, all the way up to ideal, very fast activity and eventually death.)
Yeast must ferment for long enough for air pockets to form. (Not enough time means underfermenting).
Yeast must not ferment so long that the air pockets start breaking. (Too much time means overfermenting. Stop the fermentation by baking it.)
Gluten:
Gliadin and glutenin must be present in the flour in sufficient quantities. (Check content of flour, eg gluten-free flours will not produce a gluten network).
Gluten must be formed and developed by kneading and/or time. (Not enough is underkneading)
But not too much. (Too much is overkneading)
If rye, pentosan network must not be kneaded too much, if at all. (Shape it like clay.)
Gluten must not be broken down by factors such as acid or enzymatic activity.
On oven temperature: Yes, oven temperature will affect your rise very slightly, in that lower temperatures will delay the killing of the yeast of the inside of the dough, allowing slightly more fermentation in the centre than on the crust. Depending where your fermentation is, how hot the oven is and what shape your bread is, this may be fine, or it may allow the centre to overferment. For that reason it is usually recommended to bake bread at very high temperatures so that the entire thing cooks at once. However, if your problem is a dense loaf, oven temperature is not your problem.
On slashing: I'll grant that slashing allows a little more rise than without slashing in the specific case that your dough has trouble finding a weak point in the crust to expand. However, excessive uniformity in shaping is not most newbies' problem, and of course slashing will not help rise for anyone new or old where there is not enough air in the dough to begin with (can't expand on nothing). Again, if your problem is a dense loaf, slashing is not your problem.
On the other hand, if by 'fluffy' you mean 'like cotton fluff', as in fine in texture, insubstantial in taste and white in colour, there are recipes and specific dough-handling techniques that will give you that. Recipes will never guarantee airy bread, though, so you might still end up with dense bread if you don't keep track of your yeast, gluten, time and temperature.
Are you slashing the doughball before baking it?
Although they can be decorative, they're functional -- once the crust is formed, the bread can't rise any more, which is going to affect the density. The slashing allows for expansion even after the crust has begun for form.
Also, density might be a sign that you've worked in too much flour. As you end up with more flour if you use dip-and-sweep vs. spoon-and-sweep, you might be adding extra flour without even realizing it.
After reading all the responses I would add that dough handling is very important. The dough isn't a boxer or your enemy so don't punch it or bash it down but rather treat it like a lover. When kneading, don't rip the dough apart, stretch it until it just begins to tear. After the first rise, at least an hour in a bowl covered with plastic wrap, I gently turn out the dough on the counter top and cut to size then tuck the dough into balls and let bench rest for 15 minutes before repeated folding to shape loaves pinching closed the folds to trap gases. Let rise at least another 45 mins before slashing and baking.
Most recipes that I have made require a lot more rising time. Usually an hour or more for each rise…some do best with 24 hours in the fridge for the second rise. Certainly, there are some recipes that do call for less, but I expect that giving only 10 minutes for your first rise is not enough.
Also, you want to make sure that you are kneading the bread enough and not too much. As a rule of thumb if I don't have a better guideline from the recipe, I will kneed the dough until a bit pinched off the dough ball will stretch about an inch before separating completely.
I agree. It takes me at least 3 hours to get some bread done, from start to finish.
Add wheat gluten.
"A small amount {of wheat gluten} added to yeast bread recipes improves the texture and elasticity of the dough. It is often used by commercial bakeries to produce light-textured breads." Even my bread machine recipe booklet suggests additional gluten for lighter-textured loaves. On the other hand, it's true that IANAB (I am not a baker). I tried adding gluten, it worked. That it's counter-intuitive I leave to far better minds than mine.
If the problem is underdeveloped gluten, then adding wheat gluten will help the (otherwise insufficient) kneading develop the gluten better, even if the proper solution is to knead it longer, not add gluten. However if the problem is that the yeast is dead, neither adding gluten nor developing the gluten more is going to solve that.
Only ten minutes proving time after kneading and before bashing down? That's pretty much the same as only letting the dough rise once. You also don't say whether the dough's increased in size before you bake it.
As a simple thing to try, leave the dough after kneading for long enough for it to double in size, then bash it down, shape it, then leave it until it does the same size increase again, then bake it.
If it doesn't grow, you've got a problem with your yeast. If it won't double, you might still have a problem with your yeast, or not enough food for it, or the gluten network's just too strong for it to stretch out that far.
Try some differn't recipes, there are lots and lots of differnt kind of breads and they work better in differnt places (altitude), flours (damper flours, finer flours) and ovens (all ovens vary). Try a new recipe book and see which breads work for you.
There is no short or easy answer to this. I spent around 15 years learning to master this.
In short, the main factors are:
The right flour and balance between water and flour - depends greatly on flour quality.
The right kneading.
The right handling of the wet dough.
The right baking.
You can read a detailed description of my efforts here (including pictures and videos):
http://www.rkursem.com/food/bread/fluffy-bread/
Hey @Rasmus, nice blog post. Could you clarify if you used Celsius or Fahrenheit? Thanks!
I used to always get dense bread by always following the rule to rise once and then punch it down. Unfortunately supermarket yeast is often lame and the crap would barely rise a second time no matter how much time I gave it in a warm place to proof period. I recommend forming the dough out immediately after kneading or dough hooking and let it proof just one time.
if your flour has sufficient gluten and your bread does not rise, watch out for two things: it is either your yeast is dead or the dough is not allowed to proof for long enough. check the proofing temperature as well.
That information was already covered by the other answers.
Add xanthan gum, 1tsp/400g flour.
Even work with high protein bread
If you've tried all the previous methods and still are not having success, I've heard that using seltzer instead of water can make the bread fluffier, usually recommended for whole wheat varieties since that flour is denser, but in other uses too.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2003-01-08/entertainment/0301080031_1_dough-sparkling-carbon-dioxide
Add baking powder and don't punch it down.
If the bread isn't rising enough to begin with, I'm not sure trying to turn it into soda bread is really the answer.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.820818 | 2010-07-18T12:02:29 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1731",
"authors": [
"0xDBFB7",
"Bora M. Alper",
"Cascabel",
"Leo",
"Miguel Trias",
"Robert Seifert",
"Sneftel",
"Spammer",
"Thiago Chaves",
"ccsdg",
"chadgh",
"goblinbox",
"hoc_age",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107583",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108274",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108275",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108284",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17564",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3135",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41652",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94033",
"user148298"
],
"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
} |
123305 | Why do panko breadcrumbs absorb less oil than regular breadcrumbs?
In various sources I see that panko is lighter and airier and absorbs less grease but they don't back this up with why that would be the case.
My theories are
It's the crustless bread - doesn't make sense as it isn't the crusts that absorb grease
it's because it's they're baked after being turned into crumbs - but surely drying them out would leave more gaps in them for oil to enter?
Question #0 is: DOES panko actually absorb less oil?
How panko is made: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFbQuHE4z7g
Yes. See Adam Ragusa https://youtu.be/n-hKc2QhJzc?t=337
Empirically, katsu & schnitzel/milanese will use whatever you put in the pan ;)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.821637 | 2023-02-06T17:56:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123305",
"authors": [
"Candid Moe",
"FuzzyChef",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84638"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
101053 | Does adding flour before egg coating and breadcrumbs help sticking?
When deep frying chicken, assuming:
flour and seasonings
egg and milk mix
breadcrumbs
does the first layer of flour help the egg to stick better? Why not just add seasonings to the breadcrumbs and skip the flour layer entirely?
Yes it is helpful for an initial dip in flour...as it would help the egg to stick better...
A little addition of oil in the egg also helps thin the liquid coating, with the extra fat from the egg will help brown the breadcrumbs better underneath. The proteins in the flour and eggs help the bread crumbs stick to the food once cooked. A fabulous and crunchy crust is formed around the food once fried in a pan.
Do let me know if my answer is helpful
The first coat of flour gives the egg something to adhere to, and creates a kind of paste for the breadcrumbs to adhere to. Breadcrumbs stick to this paste far better than egg alone.
Is there a difference between applying the flour and egg separately and combining them before dipping?
I imagine combining them would form a batter. Batters tend to puff out when dropped in oil (at least when deep frying), which steams the food inside. Think of how fried fish works. I imagine there would be textural differences.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.821735 | 2019-08-30T19:57:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/101053",
"authors": [
"Tom",
"cad",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/759"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
100955 | What is the purpose of cooking byriani in stages?
Risotto and pilaf are generally cooked as a one pot dish, where the aromatics are fried and then rice and cooking liquid are added.
Most byriani recipes are see the rice is part cooked separately and then layered on top of the sauce. Since its all mixed together at the end this seems to add complexity in two pots and having to drain the rice.
What's the advantage that this two step process adds?
You know there are 2 types of biryani, Hyderabadi & Lakhnawi? One starts separate, the other all goes in one pot. They are similar but really different meals & I honestly don't know what 'advantage' may be in either process, so I cannot provide an answer, just maybe somewhere to research.
A risotto and a pilaf are very different dishes from what is happening during the cooking process. In a risotto, you want the starch to come out of the rice to make the "sauce", whereas in a pilaf the rice is generally soaked, washed, then pre-fried in oil or butter to prevent excess starch causing the grains to stick together, or indeed a sauce forming. While both can be cooked in one pot, the risotto will be more liquid and starchy than the pilaf, which should have clearly separate, dryish, but buttery, grains.
The same applies to a Byriani. If you were to add uncooked rice to the pan, the meat, veg, juices etc. and then seal and cook, the result would be more like a risotto and the rice stodgy. Byriani generally uses partially or fully cooked rice for this reason, resulting in more separate grains.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.821858 | 2019-08-25T11:47:30 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100955",
"authors": [
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
105836 | How to finish sous vide carnitas without drying them out
I've followed this recipe from Serious Eats to make sous vide carnitas. The sous vide step is easy - just leave it in the bag for 12-24 hours. The last step of the recipe is to break up the meat with a fork and put it under the grill for 10 minutes. However when I do this the meat goes from delicious and moist to crispy but completely dried out!
How can I finish the meat and keep the moist meat I spent so long preparing?
Make sure not to break up the meat too much. In particular, try not to smear it between the fork and the dish... You want chunky pieces, not spread-out strands. The more broken and strand-y the pork gets, the greater its surface area and the faster it dries out. You also want to crowd the pieces in the pan as much as possible while browning. It's better to have a bunch in the middle of the baking pan, than individual pieces spread around the pan.
It sounds like your meat is being grilled too long. 10 minutes is a guideline, not a hard and fast rule, you want to cook to the target color and crispiness, not a time. Your grill may be hotter than the person who wrote that recipe. So, if you can select a lower grill temperature do that first and see if that improves things, if you only have one temperature try lowering it away from the heat and reducing grilling time.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.822020 | 2020-03-15T10:19:49 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105836",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
115244 | How to avoid excessive steam build up in oven
When cooking things like a whole chicken or chips (fries) my oven builds up a lot of steam. So much that it comes out as a huge cloud when opening the oven door. I think this leads to a lack of crispness because it's so wet inside.
Is there a way to avoid this? Or is it a design flaw of the oven?
Are you confident that it's much more steam than is usual for an oven? Mine doesn't have problems I'm aware of, and I'll get steam when I open it – I don't know if it's as much as your 'huge cloud'. The steam is also much more prominent if it's cold in my kitchen.
The location of the oven makes a big difference to the experience - if the steam hits you in the face it feels like much more than from a high oven, even condensing on your face
What settings does your oven offer? Usually an oven should have proper venting of excessive moisture. Are you maybe using a special "steaming" setting instead of regular heating? If it's a regular setting that you're using, your oven might have a technical problem with ventilation that a service mechanic might be able to fix.
As a meantime band-aid fix, you might want to quickly open your oven door ever so often to let out excessive steam. If this does nothing to reduce the amount of steam, it might indeed be a steaming setting that somehow traps or even injects moisture into your oven chamber.
Your problem isn't humidity. It's water, and temperature.
A closed oven which has a significant amount of food in it will be quite humid, in the sense that the gas inside it contains a high percentage of gaseous water (aka steam). It's possible for food to crisp up, and even burn, even with that steam being present.
But that high percentage doesn't equate to much mass of water. When the oven is hot, the density of the gas is low.
Assuming you preheated the oven, it was hot. But when you open the door and see a big cloud of vapor, that means that the oven had cooled off, probably because of evaporative cooling (as water evaporates off the food, it cools both the food and the air). It's the cold oven that's limiting your crisping.
If there's a lot of water, and a lot of surface area for it to evaporate off of, and not enough oven power to build up a temperature gradient, the food can effectively hold its own temperature down. This is what causes "the stall" when BBQing, and it's what causes limp, moist oven fries.
Potential solutions:
Increase heat flow to the food by using convection if available, or by using all heating elements if your oven has multiple independent elements.
Decrease evaporative cooling by cooking less food at once.
Cook longer. Once you've dried out the surface of your food, evaporative cooling stops, temperature rises, and crisping/browning picks up.
If you weren't preheating your oven, preheat your oven. The oven walls have a high heat capacity which buffers the evaporative cooling.
Things that are not potential solutions:
Opening the oven door. I know it seems like that's "letting the steam out", but the steam was going to come out anyway; you're just letting the heat out with it and slowing things down.
Increasing the temperature. This doesn't make your oven work harder! When it's being limited by evaporative cooling it's already working as hard as it can. Redlining the thermostat is just going to put your food at risk of burning.
Hot air doesn't hold enough water as cold air is the wrong way round. For the same relative humidity hot air holds far more water. Some of your conclusions might be right, but OTOH if the oven walls have a high heat capacity (they do) they'll also buffer letting out hot air with the steam, which yes, would have come out sooner, but it taking too long to come out may be the problem
@ChrisH Yes, I think I confused things by using the "relative humidity" terminology, which is only really relevant up to 100C. Past that, the water is of course gas, and as the temperature increases the density decreases -- so, less water. My point about the oven walls was meant to describe why one preheats an oven, even though the air itself comes up to the target temperature (and past it!) well before the thermostat switches off.
You can use the fan setting and have a very small opening at the door so you force the steam to escape.
Please note that depending the recipe we want to have moisture inside (chicken). So not having any moisture as cooking can cause your chicken to be extremely dry.
Best way is just to open the grill with fan for a 15min at the end of cooking.
A dry interior would be caused by overcooking. Ambient humidity would have virtually no effect, unless you were cooking it for many many hours.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.822158 | 2021-04-12T20:38:49 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115244",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Sneftel",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
115466 | For the non-specialist, what is the difference between various knife qualities?
Trying to buy a knife recently there are some that are $10, some $50 and all the way up to $300+. I understand that there are differences in the quality of the steel and its hardness and how long it holds its edge for. However there isn't a clear difference in features at the different price points apart from I assume more expensive works better somehow.
For the non-specialist, by which I mean someone like me who cooks daily and would like a good tool but doesn't care about the marginal gains, what is the right level to buy?
I'm assuming like a lot of things there's an 80/20 principle where you get 80% of the benefits after a certain expenditure and then next few hundred bucks are squeezing out the last few percent
Voted to reopen. This is a very different question than the one you link to, @rumtscho. That one is only about hardness, this one is about general quality.
That said, it's possible this question should be closed as "opinion-based", given.
I can see there's potentially a subjective element in the answers, but the question is definitely different from the posted duplicate - this is about what criteria are important in a knife generally and where cost starts to outweigh gain.
@FuzzyChef thank you for pointing that out, I had misread the question as focusing on hardness. Tom, we do have a question on the general "what criteria to look for", so I exchanged the duplicate target. The price discussion is not really answerable - to the extent that there is a correlation between price and quality (and it may not be as strong as you seem to think), choosing an optimal point is very subjective. One person's "marginal gains" are another person's must-haves.
Hmmm ... there's no way to revoke my reopen flag.
Example: many folks (including ATK) love the Victorinox stamped-blade chef knife, which is about 40% of the cost of competing knives by, say, Wustof. However, some people find the lighter weight and flex of the Victorinox intolerable, wheras others kinda like it. It's very much a matter of opinion.
Fair enough @FuzzyChef - I see it's not a good fit
Yeah, sorry. You really want somewhere you can have a discussion, and SA isn't that place.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.822535 | 2021-04-30T07:30:00 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115466",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Tom",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/759",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
116515 | What container for olive oil for longest shelf life?
I have bought a 5l container of olive oil which is impractical for daily use. I intend to decant it into something smaller but I'm not sure what to buy.
I know that olive oil is affected by light and temperature. However particularly on light I don't know whether a green bottle is enough or is it better to block all light? How long does it take for light to spoil it?
Where are you planning to keep the bottle? In a normally closed cabinet or sitting on your kitchen windowsill?
From my research on this, it sounds like you should be minimising the following as much as possible (two of which you've mentioned in your question):
Exposure to light
Exposure to heat
Oxidisation
To avoid this, it sounds like the best option is a fully opaque, thick-walled vessel, that is sealable. This article on the Kitchn recommends a ceramic cruet, which seems like a sensible choice, but sounds like anything along these lines would work. So if I had the choice between tinted or attempting to block all light, I'd block all light.
Even storing in these conditions, most of what I've seen says it is ideal to consume within approximately 3 months of opening (some sources say a little less, like that Kitchn article which quotes 1 month, and some say a little longer - around 6 months) - though unopened oil should keep for about a year or 2. I don't know that it's possible to say how much more quickly the oil would go rancid in a clear container, however, I think leaving it out for 6+ months will have an impact on flavour.
Two years is too long. I never buy oil more than year after its pressing date, ideally less than six months. Stores will still sell it until 18 or 24 months, but even unopened olive oil can start to taste like crayons after this long, and buying it that old can be a bit of a diceroll.
@J... I agree that olive oil degrades and loses its properties with time, and after 12 months from production it shouldn't be purchased, because it has lost many properties. However the fact that EV olive oil tastes so bad ("crayons") after two years unopened is really a symptom of either very bad quality (fake EV oil?) or really bad conservation. I've regularly kept sealed high quality EV olive oil cans for 2 or 3 years in my cellar and never had any problem, besides having a less tasty oil (I use them for cooking instead of dressing and there is no real difference there).
@LorenzoDonati--Codidact.com In your cellar, perhaps. From the supply chain, it can be a dice roll. It also depends on how much "less-tasty" bothers you. Really, there's no reason to cellar olive oil. It's only good fresh and gains nothing with age. I just try to buy as fresh as possible, and only as much as I'll use in a month or two. It's not something to stockpile.
@J... I totally agree with you. Here in Italy there's a say that sounds like "Old wine, new [olive] oil.". It's happened to me often because distant relatives in the oil business send it to me as a gift regularly and often I don't manage to consume it all. As I said in my comment, it's not that the oil cannot be made last for many years if you take care of it appropriately and for frying things you don't really need the newest oil, since the temperature is going to alter it anyway.
@LorenzoDonati--Codidact.com Agreed, but if you can avoid putting yourself in the situation of needing to stretch the shelf life of the olive oil, so much the better.
@J... Of course, that goes without saying. However we don't always have that option, for whatever reason. So, once you do have got too much oil, it is useful to know you have a third option besides either gulping it all down in a year (or so) or throwing it away altogether because you think it's no longer edible or completely crap.
@LorenzoDonati--Codidact.com Yes, agreed. As for low quality oil - the last time I ever bought oil that was past 1yr was Toscano IGP at just over 28 months past pressing (I had forgotten to check the date), so definitely not low quality oil, just too long in storage and it was definitely not good by then.
Get a darkened glass bottle - can be dark green or amber-colored. Amber-colored filters out better than green, it is easier to recycle and produce (therefore, cheaper), that's why we very regularly use them in pharmaceuticals.
The most important things for you to focus on, though, are temperature and oxygen. Your bottle must have a well-fitting cap, bung, or cork and you need to fill it with the least headspace possible. After filling, keep it in a cool and dark place, like a pantry or cabinet that doesn't go very frequently or for extended periods above 27-30C
If stored correctly, your oil should be good for around 2 years. It might still be usable after this, but you need to check for oxidation after opening
Let me state a premise.
You can preserve olive oil in the original, sealed, metal can for years without much harm, if stored in a cool place (between about 5°C and 15°C) with few temperature variations.
I did it for years with extra-virgin (EV) olive oil. The only problem is that the oil will lose many micro-nutrients (especially vitamins) and some of its organoleptic properties (less tasty). However, it will still be good and have a fine taste nonetheless.
Now to the point.
The worst enemies of olive oil in day to day use are light, temperature variations (and high ambient temperature) and air ingress in the container.
As for light, a very dark green glass bottle is enough if you keep it in a closet where light can't enter. Depending on how much oil you consume, you should consume it all in a couple of months, before refilling.
Always clean the bottle with very hot water and heavy shaking and let it dry before refilling. You could (I don't) use a drop of dish soap to clean the residue from the bottle, but you must be sure to wash away all the soap residue very thoroughly.
Refilling a bottle from the can with new oil before the "old" is not finished may increase the chance it goes rancid. So avoid that, especially if a bottle (1 liter) of oil lasts you more than a month. In this case it's probably better to use a smaller bottle for everyday use.
If storing the bottle in a closet is unfeasible or impractical, you can improve its resistance against light by wrapping it with aluminium foil. Some very high quality EV olive oil is sold here in Italy with bottles that are already wrapped in alufoil.
It is better to keep the bottle tightly closed with an airtight cap. However this is somewhat impractical. If you use a small bottle, you could afford some kind of "beak-caps", which let you pour oil in minimal quantities and still keep the bottle closed (but not airtight).
This is an example:
Since you asked for some numerical data, I give you those from my direct experience. I get EV oil in 5L metal cans. Once opened, I keep the can in my apartment pantry, which is not particularly cool (26-28°C in Summer), for about 6-7 months. It's not ideal, but the oil never got bad.
I use the can to refill a small, very dark green bottle (500ml) with a "beak-cap" similar to the photo I posted, which I keep near my kitchen table, so not inside a closet, but not in direct sunlight.
I perform a refill about once every 2-3 weeks.
The setup is not optimal, but it is convenient and practical. Never had any kind of problem: no rancid oil, no bad taste, no lessening of the taste or perfume of the oil.
Note: I've been exclusively using EV olive oil for my entire life, and so my mother's family (my granddad was in the olive oil business). By exclusively I mean, the only fat used for cooking, frying or dressing, with the very rare exception of the occasional butter.
It's a very expensive product, but it's worth any drop of it. It's probably the best edible fat under any aspect. The ancient called them "the green gold" and sometimes you here that expression still used here in Italy from people knowledgeable in the field.
Beware, though, that you should buy EV olive oil, not plain olive oil or other olive oil products which are not marked "extra-virgin", which are far inferior products.
Be also aware that there are lots of fake products, especially some fake "made in Italy" ones. They dilute normal (non EV) olive oil with other kind of oils and if the color doesn't end up resembling that of a variety EV olive oil they add up colorants (e.g. chlorophyll).
High quality "made in Italy" EV olive oil (made with Italian olives) is quite expensive. You won't find any under about 8-10 EUR per liter (retail) here in Italy. Anything under much lower than that price is highly suspicious.
Even if it's not fake, it may be "made in Italy" but using olives coming from abroad, or it may be EV oil only bottled in Italy.
If you are lucky, you get a fine product anyway, although not high quality (e.g. it would have less good properties, taste not exceptional or be more prone to go rancid). Otherwise you may end up getting some real crap, although you may be unable to tell the difference by just tasting it, unless you are a bit of connoisseur.
EDIT
After some research prompted by comments in the whole thread, I found a very interesting PhD thesis about olive oil, that in part address the storage question.
"Innovative techniques improving the olive oil nutraceutical quality and the extra virgin olive oil shelf-life" (PhD Thesis), Nari Anita, University of Pisa (PDF)
For further reference, here is the link to the portal of the university relative to that thesis.
Instead of the aluminum foil, I try to select a bottle that fits in my cabinet, so it’s not exposed to light unless I actively take it out to use.
@Joe Yep, that's completely fine. The alufoil trick is really useful if you are in a situation where you have no closed cabinet or none near your kitchen table.
I had the same problem. Here's how I solved it. First, I distribute 5 L of olive oil into a bunch of mason jars. Second, I put them in the fridge. It is a dark place, and the oil preserves well there. In my experience, it tastes great for at least a year after I do this.
Interestingly, it congeals while refrigerated. That's why I use a spoon to scoop out when I need to use it. It melts very quickly.
Some further information here
That's not really a good method. Letting the oil cool down so much it solidifies will make it lose much of its good properties. This is only acceptable if you can't store it in a cool (~10-15°C), thermally-stabilized place, like a cellar. Between storing it at 4°C (like in a fridge) or at 25°C I'd choose the latter if it is a fairly stable temperature and still not exposed to light.
@LorenzoDonati--Codidact.com Disagree completely - this is the best answer. Solid olive oil is not ideal for using it, but it's just a phase change - when you warm it back up again there are no permanent changes to the oil due to having been cooled to solid. Especially if you need to keep the oil for a long time before using it, putting it in the fridge or freezer is the absolute best option since temperature and light are the main drivers of oxidation and spoilage. Colder, ipso facto, means it lasts longer.
@LorenzoDonati--Codidact.com Any sources for what you say? I've been wondering about this. This website says it doesn't change
@axsvl77 That same site you cite says the contrary (emphasis mine) "Refrigeration is best for long-term storage of all olive oils except premium extra-virgin ones."
@J... see my other comment.
@J... "..there are no permanent changes to the oil due to having been cooled to solid." Mmmh, I've not a source ready, but I'm not sure it is so easy. I think I remember something about some of the oil components breaking down when the oil is refrigerated. Not that the oil will go bad quickly when taken to normal temperatures (it happened to me during some very cold winters when my cellar temp went very low), but I think something will change. I need to find a source though.
@LorenzoDonati--Codidact.com Interesting. Maybe I will sacrifice a small bottle to the olive oil gods and do a long term experiment to compare frozen to cellared to see. From a chemistry standpoint it's very rare that cold accelerates spoilage, but I suppose it's possible.
@J... See the edit of my post. In that PhD thesis, at page 105 I found: "This indicates that even storage at low temperature cannot avoid the loss in positive sensory attributes characteristic of EVOO (Bertuccioli et al.,2014).", although it states that the storage at 6 °C in green glass bottle was better than the other methods analyzed in the thesis (If I got it right). So I remembered well: there are some perceivable changes. Probably I shouldn't have said "much of its good properties", but "some" in that comment.
@LorenzoDonati--Codidact.com Well, of course, nothing stops the relentless advance of time, but the GG6 sample (green glass@6C) was by far the best of all the storage options tested. "In fact, the oil stored in GG at 6 °C mostly preserved positive attributes [...] Moreover, GG6 maintained the highest BI and did not show defects at the end of storage, further suggesting that storage in GG at a low temperature (6 °C), could represent a promising storage condition to slow-down the oil degradation during market storage."
@LorenzoDonati--Codidact.com Also from that thesis : "...GG6 was the only sample that maintained olfactory sensations of grass, leaf, artichoke and tomato at t0" and "GG6 was the only sample which did not present defects"
@J... Yep, but all that (as I red it) confirmed that GG6 was the best between the alternatives, but there was still some degradation with respect to the reference. In fact at page 50 it says "In conclusion it is necessary to avoid too low temperatures that make oil freeze and also too high temperatures that speed up degradation processes".
@LorenzoDonati--Codidact.com Well, the reference was a fresh, brand new bottle, so yes, time is unkind no matter what. It's just a matter of degree. I'll have to read this paper in more detail, but thanks for the link!
@J... Yes, it's an heavy document and I've only skimmed on it (and I'm no biochemistry expert), so I could have gotten something (very) wrong. The general impression I get is it confirms the lore I've always heard form the experts (non-scientists) in the field (part of my mother's family had been in the EVOO business for two generations) and professional EVOO users (which abound here in Italy). The only disagreement with my previous knowledge was that I believed "extreme" cooling did more damage to the product. Anyway, traditional lore sometimes doesn't agree with science.
Summary: a wine bottle and a matching vacuum pump (and/or marbles).
Wine has many of the same issues with storage. I occasionally enjoy a good dry red, but that is infrequently and only about half a glass at a time. What to do with the opened bottle?
Wine comes (mostly) in coloured glass bottles, which protects against light (more about that later)
I store it in a dark cupboard on the cool side (away from the equator's direction) of the kitchen
I use an air pump to create a partial vacuum in the headspace
Bottles are almost all 750 ml - usable but not too big
So I can drink from a bottle for around 6-8 weeks. Yes, oxidation does start to affect the wine, but much less than if it were simply stoppered up. And some wines do well with a little bit of "breathing", so it has never bothered me.
Another way to displace air from a container is to drop in (clean) marbles (the spherical glass toys - does one still get them?) to take up the space of the decanted liquid, then stopper up. This is actually done to store e.g. opened champagne for a few days, as the vacuum pump would "suck out" all the bubbly otherwise. (Seems like a bit of a chore to clean up the marbles after use, though...)
What colour wine bottle? This is my experience with a single datapoint (anecdote, so take with the necessary pinch of salt). I was interested in reusing the same empty wine bottles in a "passive solar water wall" (use your favourite search engine if you want to find out more about the concept). However, I was concerned with algae growing in them - the wall should be exposed to as much sunlight as possible, but sunlight fuels the growth of algae (as seen in white plastic bottles I use as a drinker for backyard chickens). So for my experiment I took the lightest-coloured green wine bottle I had available, filled it with plain tap water, and stoppered it up with a cork wrapped in plastic food wrap (to get a somewhat more air-tight seal). This I placed in an equator-facing window, which gets full sun throughout the day. After a year there was still no algae growth, no specks floating in the water, and the water did not smell "off" (not very scientific, I know). So I think any handy coloured wine bottle would be just fine to protect against light (as others have stated, you could always wrap it in some opaque material and/or store it in a cupboard).
About the marble thing: you should really be sure that the glass they are made off is ok for contact with food. Glass is mainly SiO2, which is inert, but to give glass its properties some additives are used in small percentages. Some additives, such as lead, are toxic and may leach in the food. AND THIS IS PARTICULARLY DANGEROUS if the contact is prolonged.
When shopping large quantities of olive oil for regular household use I would recommend to go for a brand that is using bag-in-box packaging instead of the common tin containers as this allows to dispense oil as required while avoiding oxygen contact of the stocked part entirely.
That is most probably some low quality oil. So the advantage of not having headroom for air is likely offset by the lower quality. I've never seen EV olive oil sold in Italy in such a container. Not even the lower brands.
@Lorenzo Donati: I agree that the BiB is not yet a very common packaging for olive oil, but when it is used then (at least in the german market) rather for organic and premium qualities than for the low-end stuff.
See the edit in my answer. Effectively it seems that plastic containers are starting to being used for EVOO (outside Italy, I guess), so I may concede it's not automatically a sign of bad quality. However, that PhD thesis I linked to states (p.52): "[...]the storage of oil in tin containers and dark glass bottles is the most adequate packaging material because these containers show the greatest stability against oxidation, while polyethylene containers and clear glass bottles show a significant loss of quality during storage (Gagouri et al.,2015)." So, not ideal.
@LorenzoDonati--Codidact.com The whole paragraph is about PET “bottles” (including clear ones) and doesn't deal with BiB at all. Importantly, if you look up the original reference (Gagouri et al., 2015), you will see that while there are measurable chemical differences, there really isn't much of a difference in organoleptic qualities between the different packaging and those are dwarfed by the difference between fresh and stored oil (no matter how it is stored).
@Relaxed Sorry, but I don't read that paragraph being only about PET containers. It talks about containers in general (although non specifically about BiB). In a previous paragraph it also ranks the various plastic materials wrt oxygen permeability. The sentence I cited appears to be just the summarization of the previous paragraphs. Anyway, in a previous paragraph a "clear PET covered with aluminum foil" container is cited as part of the comparison, so a combination similar to BiB (light protection + plastic in contact with EEVO). If I can find time I'll look for that reference (Gogouri).
@Relaxed Anyway, I'm always very wary of plastic as a food container (especially for liquids). Glass and metals have been used for ages and we know quite well their shortcomings and advantages. With plastic you discover some bad thing every couple of years. Sometimes you can't forfeit the convenience it affords, sure, but I try to avoid it. So EVOO may be packaged in BiB without suffering appreciably, but I would decant it in glass bottles for long-term storage at home as soon as possible.
@LorenzoDonati--Codidact.com That sentence ends with a reference. In academic writing, it means it's a summary of that reference and you can refer to it to see what what actually tested. It's easy to find and I read it before writing my earlier comment: no BiB. In fact, the major result from Gagouri et al., 2015 is that olive oil declines over time, no matter the packaging. There are some differences between different packaging but, in terms of taste, none as large as the decline you can expect even in a metal container.
Beyond that, some of the arguments might or might not generalise to other plastic containers but the main feature of a BiB is that very little air is getting into the internal bladder. That's a major difference with regular packaging of any material and a solid container made of clear PET covered with aluminium foil is not comparable at all. Obviously, I am not surprised that you would have some prejudice against modern packaging (BiB have a bad reputation as wine packaging in France for exactly the same reason) but don't try to pass it on as the result of scientific inquiry.
@Relaxed "...main feature of a BiB is that very little air is getting into the internal bladder" that's good to know. After reading this Wikipedia article I realize I may have some prejudices about BiB because I only saw it employed for food products decades ago and the implementation was miserable (air would definitely enter the bag). If the BiB nowadays actually can be made to avoid air ingress during pouring, well this is a definite advantage wrt oxidation. I'm still wary about long-term contact with any plastic material.
"... don't try to pass it on as the result of scientific inquiry." I'm not trying to pass on anything. I found some scientific evidences that I may have interpreted incorrectly, both because I had not the time to read them thoroughly and because I don't have the necessary biochemistry background. I'm always open to stand corrected when someone shows me hard data and a correct interpretation.
For many years, I did the same as what my mother did— I kept a smaller bottle sold for olive oil, and refilled it from a large can of olive oil.
The reason is, it has the little plastic insert in the bottle so it doesn’t pour too quickly, and it’s a dark green glass, to prevent the light issues. (But I keep it in a cabinet, so it’s only out in the light when I’m using it)
I never worried about the can of oil. I takes me about a year to go through it, but I’ve never noticed any adverse taste to it in that time.
Many years ago, I got an olive oil dispenser like Alton Brown used on Good Eats. It’s a stainless steel cylinder with a flip lid that you activate with your thumb, and there’s a plastic insert with a pour spout. (It looks like this, but I don’t think that’s the same brand) I love it, but a word of caution— if you overfill it, the oil will push enough to eject the whole plastic insert. I move my thumb to the plastic insert when pouring.
(+1) for your bottle strategy. However, that metal can is really useful only if you use a lot of oil, for example if you cook really a lot and have to refill it daily. It's really a restaurant thing, unless you are a cooking maniac that goes through a liter of oil in a few days! :-) It is really not indicated for storing oil for everyday use otherwise: too much air ingress and headroom and too few heat insulation if you don't keep it in a place with no stable temperature.
I’ve gotten enough glass bottles of olive oil over the years (as I get mid-grade stuff for cooking in the cans, and get smaller bottles of extra virgin oil for salads and such), that if I had saved them, I could’ve emptied the cab into a bunch of bottles.... but I’ve not noticed enough degradation to have to worry. And pouring the oil itself would aerate it some, I would expect
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.822769 | 2021-07-22T07:23:49 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116515",
"authors": [
"Astor Florida",
"J. Mueller",
"J...",
"Joe",
"LorenzoDonati4Ukraine-OnStrike",
"Relaxed",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35424",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50876",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85345",
"user3067860"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
124537 | Does the ratio of rice:water change if rinsed first?
In Tim Anderson's Japaneasy he instructs to cook 300g of rice in 390g of water (1:1.3).
He also says to rinse the rice first. When I rinsed the rice and weighted it again after letting water drain, it now weighs 348g.
Should the amount of water I add to the pot to cook it be 390g? Or 342 (subtracting the amount of water absorbed by/clinging to the rice already).
How is the rice being cooked? Absorption method on the stove, rice cooker, or something else?
If that's absorption on the stove then that brings it closer to the ratio I would use without rinsing, ie 1:1.5
@FuzzyChef absorption on the stove
So, I went to the bookstore and looked up the basic rice recipe in Japaneasy.
The extra water from rinsing the rice is expected. That's a recipe for cooking on the stovetop by the absorption method, which is normally a 1:1.5 ratio. And (390 + 48) / 300 is 1.46, just about the same amount.
You'll notice he does not use this formular for rice cookers, which use less water.
Great answer - so the additional water from rinsing is factored into the recipe already
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.824796 | 2023-06-22T17:15:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124537",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Tetsujin",
"Tom",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/759"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
115426 | Care and warping of wooden chopping board
I bought a new 1.5 inch wooden chopping board around a month ago. I have been trying to take good care of it: I never submerse it, clean it with a cloth, applied mineral oil when I bought it.
However it still has some slight warping. Is this normal no matter what you do? The warping is very minimal, only around 1mm, but it still makes it rock when on the convex side
Is that normal and should I be doing more/less to keep it in perfect condition?
One trick I learned working in kitchens is to take a damp washcloth and lay it out flat under the cutting board and press the board down on it. This will help keep the board from slipping and also help stop rocking and spinning due to curvature.
And if you do this on the concave side (for not too long), it might eventually even lead to warping back.
Wood is always working. Even if you plane a board and leave it in a room overnight, it might warp. There's really no way you can avoid that in principle after a piece has been finished. (Now, this particular board should do a bit better than sawn wood, since it is glued, although it does not seem as if special care has been taken to orient the growth directions alternatingly, which is what you should do in such a case. An even better solution would be to put orthogonal strips onto the end-grain with a tongue and groove.)
Anyway, that's likely not really bad in your situation. Since the wood is always working, it doesn't have to stay that way: maybe it's just wet now and will warp back in a couple of hours or days. In my experience, you can sometimes speed up things by trying to dry the piece evenly (for example, by leaving it in some dry place with a gap underneath to let the air through), re-wetting it on one side, and letting it dry again. And when you have a board for some time, you'll know how it reacts.
The oiling is a good idea for the surface but does not help very much with warping. What does help is to keep moisture always even: when you wash or wipe the board: do so on both sides. When you dry it: keep moisture and temperature the same on both sides (e.g., avoid standing it up next to your oven or something like that). That means you can submerse it (and should even do so, to wash it) -- just don't let it stand in water, and wash it from all sides equally. Avoid drying in an oven or other drastic temperature changes.
One thing you really want to watch out for, though, is splitting between the individual strips, which can happen due to the stress of repeated warping. In that case, there's little left you can do (save shortening the board). A split is not technically problematic (the whole thing will still be stable), but the groove can collect nasty stuff (still OK for cutting bread, though). Quality boards, specifically made for kitchen use, will be less prone to this, though.
My brain got tied in a knot over "plane a board", I usually see those words in a different order "board a plane". Thought maybe you were talking about differences in air pressure warping your cutting board - which I guess is probably a thing, but how many people take their cutting boards with them on a flight?
Planing a board uses a plane (a carpenter's tool for cutting the surface of a board) to make it flat.
Yup, carpentry, not air pressure :D This particular piece will be quite hard for hand planing, but in case you know someone with a thickness planing machine, go for it.
I use a card scraper to flatten and smooth my cutting boards, it even works on plastic ones. Whenever I try to hand plane a wood cutting board it eventually catches on the grain somewhere and gouges the wood.
Wood is a natural material and it "works". This warping means that the wood was not properly aged before the board was made, and as it continued drying out in your kitchen, different parts dried to a different volume due to its internal structure. This kind of warping should slow its progress and even stop with age, if you don't expose the wood to rapid changes in humidity (steam is especially bad).
1 mm is relatively easy to sand out, especially on something as small as a cutting board. If you do it, you will prevent the annoying rocking.
1 mm on both sides of a beech board, if you want to get back a flat surface, can actually be much more annoying than one thinks... especially if it likely warps back again.
@phipsgabler It will be sufficient to sand the bottom only, there is no rocking from the warped top, and it will get concave with use anyway. I was even going to suggest to simply flip the board, but this kind of board usually has a draining channel on top. I don't expect to see warping back, in my experience a wooden glued board is much more likely to continue warping in the same direction, and that warping to reduce with age. For perfect results, the board can be left undisturbed to age for a year or two and then planed/sanded, but not many people would want to do that.
True that. I was probably too much in perfectionist carpentry mode.
Buy good quality boards (I believe end grain chopping boards are meant to warp less). If you wet one side (eg washing the board), wet the other equally. Stand the board on its edge to dry. These three things have mostly stopped mine from warping.
If they do warp, my normal approach is to get both sides pretty wet, put the board on a flat surface, put something very flat that doesn't bend (and isn't wood) on top and covers the entire area, then put the heaviest thing you can find on top of that, and leave it overnight.
That's really interesting to hear the solution is not keeping water away as much as possible, but keeping it even
For me the issues of wood-warping are most frequent concerning wooden doors. Even when they never get wet, the temperature changes of the air is enough to make a previously "well-installed" door stop before it enters the door frame.
Wood warping happens when the moisture content of different sections the wood changes unevenly, like when one part of the wood dries faster than another. Yes, more often then not there is a moisture percentage in your household wooden appliances, either from the start or from absorbing it from the air.
Since you have no control of the moisture content of your cutting board, I would recommend you simply warp it back to its original state, via placing it on a flat surface and placing some weights evenly among the warped edges.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.824948 | 2021-04-27T07:53:40 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115426",
"authors": [
"Darrel Hoffman",
"JimmyJames",
"Netduke",
"NomadMaker",
"Tom",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43744",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64346",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91386",
"phipsgabler",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
115801 | What is the purpose of oiling a wooden chopping board?
I recently bought a wooden chopping board to replace my plastic one. In the course of my research I read that it's important to regularly rub mineral oil in (some people say once a week, some say once a month). It's said that it "protects" it and makes it last longer, but what is the oil actually doing?
I agree with @rumtscho on this one, oil is cosmetic. Plus, do you actually want to eat the stuff even if it's food grade? If you want your wooden cutting board to last the secret is to keep it dry. Don't soak it in water, basically.
@GdD although we don't have a wooden chopping board, I agree with your statement.
I have several wooden chopping boards, some over 20 years old. They'e never been oiled
@GdD I'm confused: what potential issue do you think consuming microscopic quantities of foods grade oil carries?
Mineral oils are petroleum distillates, and even though they are food safe that doesn't mean I'd be in a hurry to eat them @KonradRudolph. Plus, any oil will oxidize when exposed to oxygen and add off flavors, although with the small quantities involved it's unlikely to be noticed.
@GdD Sorry, you’ve essentially just restated your initial comment. Why would you not be “in a hurry to eat them”? They’re food safe. This means that, by definition, they’re safe to ingest. And, as you stated yourself, you wouldn’t even notice having done so.
@KonradRudolph There is a difference between food grade and safe to ingest. One is a classification by humans, the other by nature. For instance BPA treated plastics were once thought to be food safe -- that is no longer the case.
@KellyBang OK but that’s not useful. You can only take the precautionary principle so far. There’s other stuff you do ingest daily which is known to be vastly more harmful than trace amounts of mineral oil (and which are nonetheless absolutely fine in practice). FUD isn’t a healthy attitude towards food safety.
@KonradRudolph As other comments show, oiling the cutting board does not protect it, so why use it? Doing things just for cosmetic reasons is at best a harmless waste of resources.
@j4nd3r53n That's neither here nor there. I agree that oiling is probably useless. My comment is merely objecting to a comment spreading health FUD.
@KonradRudolph I apologise if I misunderstood your comment - to me it sounded as if you promoted the use of unnecessary chemicals, where they are certain to be consumed.
The oil is not actually doing anything to protect the wood - the idea that it does so is a very widespread myth. This is the conclusion of the guy who wrote the book on wood finishing, and I can confirm it from personal experience. You can continue using it for cosmetic reasons, I am personally partial to the look given by flax oil - although there are people who prefer the opposite, because cuts are much less noticeable on unoiled wood.
To get real protection on an wooden item, you have to apply a layer that actually seals the wood. The substances which do this well are shellac, nitro lacquers, acrylic finishes and alkydic finishes.
While you could use a safe-in-trace-amounts finish on a chopping board, the mechanical action of a knife will soon damage such a layer to a point where it becomes useless. Most people are just not interested in refinishing their chopping board a couple of times per week.
As for the source of the myth: Long before good finishes were discovered, people tried protecting wood. Since it was known that wood is most damaged by moisture, they used all kinds of water-repelling substances, such as different oils and waxes, sometimes also natural resins. The protection afforded by those is minimal, but it was all they had - and to the naked eye, it does look like a great protection, since oiled wood has an entirely different appearance, and water droplets pearl on it instead of visibly wetting it.
This is a concept that is known in science as "face validity" - you look at an approach and your intuition tells you that it must be working, so you are likely to conclude that it works. Scientists try to prove that methods work independently of their face validity, but cooks and woodworkers rarely do so :) And since there is a tradition, which convincingly does something, people continue applying it and promoting it.
Very interesting! So if water pearls on the surface does it eventually soak in or get through gaps? How come it appears to be working if it's not?
Here is a classic study that compared wood and plastic cutting boards to determine whether bacteria lived longer on wood boards than on plastic - the result was pretty clear. Bacteria die on a wood board even faster than they do on plastic. The only thing that seemed to help the bacteria hang on a bit longer was treating the wood with mineral oil, but not by enough to really be worth mentioning. Go figure.
There are oil finishes for wood, and stuff sold as "oil" which is not oil at all. For example the widely available "lemon oil" sold for cleaning and protecting guitar fretboards is actually surgical spirit (rubbing alcohol) plus some lemon-scented perfume. Products based on genuine medical-grade non-mineral oils are something completely different, and have been used for at least 300 years, which is a long time for people to rely only on "intuition" that they work.
I suppose one thing oil does objectively accomplish is to make stains less visible than on bright plain wood. Which is good for a cupboard that should look nice. Perhaps actually kind of counterproductive for a board that comes in contact with food.
@alephzero the age of a myth is not related to its veracity. People have been believing that rain dances bring rain, or that the sun rises because the Pharaoh calls it forth, for a lot longer than 300 years.
@Tom I don't the exact mechanism, sorry. I only know the specialist's opinion I cited, plus the evidence from my own board. If you are interested in this level of detail, you might read the book I linked, I have read it once and it was good.
@KonradRudolph which health claims? If there are any, they should be removed, not referenced. I did not intend to make health claims though, and can't see them when I reread them.
@KonradRudolph it refers to protecting the wood from wear, tear, dirt, and moisture damage. It is what was asked about in the question, and it is a summary of the main conclusion of the answer - you can regard the rest of the answer as just the support for this one claim.
Yeah that’s fair.
What the....
I'd always thought that "sealing" the wood (i.e., make it waterproof) was nice cosmetically but another purpose of oiling a board was to give the thirsty wood something safe to soak up. A board saturated with mineral oil wouldn't act like a sponge and soak up the juice from the raw chicken being cut.
The oil protects the wood from drying out not from physical harm. Drying out can lead to the board warping, cracking, or even falling apart if you have a cutting board that is made of multiple pieces of wood.
I have solid single piece wood cutting boards that are decades old and still going strong with no oil but I've also had cutting boards split in half after only a few uses when someone ran it through the dishwasher, which removes the oil (detergent) and dries it out (heat drying cycle).
ran it through the dishwasher - there is an additional BIG problem - it isn't so much that the wood gets dried out, but in the wash cycle the wood absorbs a lot of water, causing it to swell, and then that same water gets dried out. Almost like (though not quite the same) a freeze/thaw cycle on concrete. If it didn't get so wet then I think the heat wouldn't really be such a problem.
Upshot - dishwashers are bad for wooden things generally.
Sorry, this is incorrect. Wood drying out is a good thing, you want it to happen as much as possible, and wooden items made from fresh, undried weiß, are inferior. The warping from the dishwasher is an entirely different process.
Maybe a more accurate way to put it would have been to say quick changes in water content cause issues because it causes the wood to change shape/size. Oil can help prevent those quick changes.
Also, green woodworking is totally a thing and there are advantages to using fresh wet wood in some circumstances like certain chair joints. Usually dry wood is what you want but not always. If you live in a very humid climate and you kiln dry wood to way below ambient that's going to cause problem too.
And yes the dishwasher is bad for wood on many levels.
TL;DR = stop putting wooden things in the dishwasher!
Oil would protect it from absorbing water as well. Changes in water content -> wood movement which causes cracks warping delamination which are bad. Oil can protect from moisture level changes.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.825489 | 2021-05-25T07:20:56 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115801",
"authors": [
"Andreas",
"Charleh",
"Criggie",
"Derrick Williams",
"GdD",
"Head Pancakes",
"J...",
"Kelly Bang",
"Konrad Rudolph",
"SiHa",
"Tom",
"alephzero",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68224",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79024",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84663",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85536",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94083",
"j4nd3r53n",
"leftaroundabout",
"manassehkatz-Moving 2 Codidact",
"rumtscho",
"spuck"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
115467 | Should I sharpen a brand new knife?
I recently bought a Wusthof Chinese chef's knife. When I tried it out the other day I was a bit disappointed by how sharp it is. Compared to the no-name £20 knife I have had a few years and sharpened myself on a 6000 whetstone (I'm not an expert by any means, but I guess I did a reasonable job) I had trouble getting through whole carrots and onions.
Would it be crazy to sharpen it out of the box? Or am I just using it wrong?
If you are regularly resharpening your knives anyway, and feel confident enough for sharpening in general, I don't see why not. You can always try to fix it later, especially with that big a blade. (And as a side node: I find Chinese chef's knives to be especially easy to sharpen, since they are easy to hold and have little curvature.)
If a Wusthof or any other well-known brands for good knives is blunt I would ask the shop for a replacement or at least that they get it back in shape. These knives leave the factory in perfect shape and should therefor be as sharp as they can be (German documentation about the Wusthof production).
I'm by no means an expert on this, but a couple of thoughts…
Firstly, I wouldn't risk an amateur hand-held re-shape on an expensive factory-edge knife without due caution.
In the past, I've often thought that a knife fresh out of the box is not as sharp as once I've sharpened it myself - but as my sharpening skills are a bit hit & miss, I've been hesitant in the past. My current favourite veg knife spent 10 years in the drawer unloved because it just didn't cut well. After some TLC on a series of whetstones, & more recently a 'pro' electric sharpener which really pulled it into shape, it's now almost never out of my hand.
Having said that, before sharpening it, I'd most definitely try just honing it. The current factory edge might actually be just a bit too smooth, something a quick hone might see improvement on.
Secondly - drag. How much drag there is on a deep-bladed knife compared to a slim blade. An onion is kind of middle ground on this factor, a whole solid white cabbage might be your decider.
A skinny blade [both narrow and shallow] will make short work of a tomato, so long as it can make the initial incision in the skin.
By the time you're up to cabbage, then drag becomes a much bigger factor. A blade that is too deep [top to bottom] yet skinny [thickness] will quickly lock in a cabbage. A fat blade will push the cut portions apart & prevent this sticking.
So you have two things to consider before you risk taking off a good factory edge - not just how sharp is the blade, but also how 'fat' is the blade?
I'd try the tomato test for sharpness, & a cabbage for 'fatness'. See how they both feel.
I could imagine different reasons why the edge is dull from the factory:
They put a larger angle on the blade to make it tougher at the cost of sharpness to make it less susceptible to chipping - you can try grinding it to a sharper angle
The edge just needs to be honed as @tetsujin pointed out
The blade was designed to be sharpened before first use as is the case with most handmade traditional Japanese knives
They just suck at sharpening (probably unlikely given it's wusthof but you never know)
At some point soon you will need to sharpen the knife anyway so if you have the feeling that it is too dull already and you feel confident enough in your sharpening abilities I would go for it.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.826279 | 2021-04-30T07:33:49 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115467",
"authors": [
"Andreas",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91386",
"phipsgabler"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
101254 | Are there uses for sodium citrate other than with cheese?
I bought a tub of sodium citrate to use for this recipe. It's been in the cupboard a while and I've since discovered a mild allergy to dairy which means I won't be making it again any time soon.
Are there other things you can do with sodium citrate or am I better off giving it away?
Unsure why this would be off-topic - it's a question about uses of an ingredient in food preparation
In general, questions on "the uses" are indeed off topic, because they tend to become big-list questions. We do have exceptions for rare ingredients with few uses, https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/740/can-i-ask-about-how-to-use-a-specific-ingredient-aka-culinary-uses-guidelines - it is up to the voters to decide whether a concrete question falls under that exception.
Sodium citrate is sometimes used in "spherification", a rather unnecessary "molecular gastronomy" technique. Beyond that, it's generally used with dairy, so not much help to you. Also, if you don't have any on hand, it can be produced pretty easily by combining lemon juice and baking soda in the proper ratio. If I were you, I'd give away the tub.
Citrate buffers can be useful: https://www.aatbio.com/resources/buffer-preparations-and-recipes/citrate-buffer-ph-3-to-6-2 You'll need some citric acid too. The citric acid is great for cleaning out lime deposits, sodium citrate, note so much.
@WayfaringStranger I don't think the OP had "RNA isolation" in mind, or he wouldn't have posted on this site. ;-)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.826686 | 2019-09-10T08:36:58 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/101254",
"authors": [
"Sneftel",
"Tom",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/759",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
110590 | Length of cooking time for stews and sauces
Let's say you're cooking a beef stew. The tough cut of beef needs time to soften and the onions and carrots will need time to soften. What other processes take place that require time? Or once each ingredient has had enough time to break down enough is that complete?
As an example this recipe for curries instructs a total simmering time of 1.5 hours? Given that the ingredients are just spices and vegetables, does anything take place beyond the first 10-15 minutes?
Sure, a few things happen (or, rather, continue to happen) after the first 10-15 minutes.
Spices continue to release their flavor. Not a big consideration for finely ground spices, but something like whole coriander, cracked black pepper, or cinnamon bark will definitely have more to give at that point.
Vegetables will continue to cook. More cell walls will break, softening the texture and releasing more flavor. Starches will break down into simpler carbohydrates, becoming sweeter. Various other compounds will break down as well.
Water will boil off, concentrating the flavor.
Flavors will diffuse in and out of the vegetables, making the broth taste more like the vegetables and the vegetables taste more like the spices.
On the bottom of the pot, the high temperature may lead to a small amount of caramelization or Maillard browning.
Whether those are important or not depends on what you're going for. Fresh, summery vegetable stews don't need to cook for long, and benefit from careful texture control, while a smooth, melty ragout can't be rushed. Often you'll cook some of the stew for hours, then toss in more ingredients scant minutes before serving.
All of these things make sense to me intuitively, but then there are a lot of things that seem intuitive like sealing meat. For the first two, and the diffusion of flavour are there any sources/research that back this up?
Probably. But it’s most compelling if you see it for yourself. Try this: boil a carrot in water for 1 hour. Then add a second carrot, and boil both for 15 minutes. Then see if you can tell which is which.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.826853 | 2020-09-07T18:37:20 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110590",
"authors": [
"Sneftel",
"Tom",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/759"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
110728 | Is there a rubric for what ingredients go into a Chinese stir fry?
Looking at these two recipes:
https://omnivorescookbook.com/tofu-and-broccoli/
https://omnivorescookbook.com/ginger-chicken/
they are quite similar but have minor variations. This seems to be the case for a lot of Chinese cooking - there are many recipes that use slightly different quanities or omit a single ingredient but are recognised as a different dish.
For example the ginger chicken contains
1 tablespoon oyster sauce
1 teaspoon soy sauce
1/2 teaspoon dark soy sauce
1/2 teaspoon rice vinegar
but the tofu stir fry by the same chef contains
1 tablespoon hoisin sauce
2 teaspoons dark soy sauce
1 teaspoon soy sauce
2 tablespoons Shaoxing wine
And then for another ginger chicken recipe (https://thewoksoflife.com/ginger-chicken/), the sauce has
1/4 cup Shaoxing wine
2 tablespoons soy sauce
1 teaspoon dark soy sauce
2 teaspoons oyster sauce (optional)
What confuses me is that distinguishing between ginger chicken and another chicken stir fry seems to rely on these small variations in flavours.
But these variations aren't consistent between chefs, so is there really just one "mother" stir fry recipe that you can tweak to your preference? Or do the variations actually result in something that you could tell apart by what you get on the table without knowing what its called?
The more recipes the faster you can fill that recipe book! There is a youtuber Alex (Frenchguycooking) who have made Stir-fry generator https://www.frenchguycooking.com/stir-fry-generator "Generated out of more than 4800 Stir Fry Recipes" now play with the quantity and you could make "different" stir-fry everyday for the rest of your life.
Is there a rubric for what ingredients go into a Chinese stir fry?
Usually, some optional mixture of liquids, vegetables, noodles, fruits, and meats.
A bit of a facetious answer, but really- stir frying is just a method of cooking food.
While there are certain ingredients that we usually associate with stir frying, the existence of a 'mother stir fry recipe' is about as real as a 'mother grilling recipe', or a 'mother microwaving recipe'. It's silly to say, isn't it? You can grill whatever you want, however you want.
So why do two different recipes have minor, small variations?
Well, because they're different recipes. Those chefs just decided that's what they wanted their recipe to be, so it is.
Your implicit follow-up question seems to be "Are those small differences enough to make a difference?" and of course, as always, the answer is 'it depends.' The difference in 1/4 cup of Shaoxing wine to 1/2 teaspoon of rice wine? That's a pretty huge difference. You'll taste that. You might not know what difference you're tasting, but that's not the goal, is it? Just the fact that it's different is enough for it to be, well, a different recipe.
If you look around enough, I'm sure you'll find two recipes that are essentially identical with different names. That's okay too, isn't it? Two different people could eat the exact same thing and experience the taste of that in different ways, and thus name it two different things. If a dish contains hot peppers and garlic in equal measure, one person might call it Spicy Pepper Dish and another person might call it Sweet Garlic Dish. They're both valid names.
Hope my long rant was at least a little bit helpful. Thanks.
Very helpful thank you. I suppose my frustration comes from wanting to have an ability to be able to cook a 'ginger chicken stir fry' without reference to a recipe, and then the next day cook a 'broccoli beef stir fry' and actually have two distinct meals. Instead of just two stir frys that I've dumped a load of 'Chinese' ingredients in.
I guess it's like burgers - there are beef burgers, chicken burgers, with cheese, with bacon, with brioche buns. There isn't really a fixed taxonomy, you just have to have a strong understanding of each ingredient and how each one affects the final dish.
@Tom That's pretty much the size of it, yep! In order to have a better instinctive understanding of the ingredients involved in stereotypical asian stir fry dishes, I think the most "fun" way is to do some experiments yourself, taste-testing your own dishes after making single-ingredient modifications, and progressing by cooking. An alternative method may be to check out the books recommended in FuzzyChef's answer. Either way, I wish you the best of luck in your endeavors. :)
There are 12 major Chinese cuisines in China, plus countless local specialties for each city and town. Outside China, there are many variations on expat Chinese cuisine, including Chinese-American, Chinese-Japanese, Chinese-Indian (weird but surprisingly good), and many others.
Almost all of these cuisines cook at least some dishes over high heat in a wok, pan, or griddle, otherwise known as "stir-frying". We're talking thousands of named dishes and hundreds of thousands of unnamed ones (many of which I will never get a chance to taste, more's the pity).
So there isn't "one mother stir-frying" recipe, any more than there is "one mother soup recipe" or "one mother cookie recipe".
There are, however, some standards on what's expected to go together in specific Chinese cuisines. For example, just like French cuisine has Five Mother Sauces, classic Szechuan cuisine has Eight Primary Flavors. So, just as classic Escoffier French cuisine could be reduced to "Protein or Vegetable + cooking method + Mother Sauce", Szechuan cuisine can be formulated as "Protein or vegetable + cooking method + Primary flavor(s)".
If you've explored French cuisine at all, though, you realize that's a fairly reductionist approach (although useful for coming up with quick weeknight meals); it's equally so for any of the various Chinese cuisines. And, of course, the 8 flavors apply only to Szechuan cuisine; Hunan or Jaingsu or Shandong cuisine each have their own set of canonical flavors/ingredients.
You're not going to learn these basics (whether French or Szechuan) from random Internet recipes, though, which tend to be a mongrel assortment of low-end fusion cuisine. For learning Chinese food, I strongly recommend the cookbooks of Fuschia Dunlop, who has done a terrific job of exposing the true heart of Chinese cuisine to English speakers.
Thanks, helpful as well! I will look more about the primary flavours of ech region and get a better sense of the roots of the flavour combinations.
Virtually anything edible can go into a stir fry. Yes, you can stir fry things like milk, or even cheetos (wouldn't recommend it though). I've never seen stir fried potato chips or Snickers bars, but I don't see why you can't do that :-)
There are some basic rules however:
all ingredients are cut into identical or similar shape and size. Some people call this the "shape rule". If your ingredients don't look the same, they won't heat the same way;
quick-cooking ingredients go into the wok last. This should explain itself;
put in the condiments at the end, while you're still on high heat. If your recipe involves starch-water mixture as a thickening agent, however, that goes in on low heat, or the texture of your stir-fry won't be even. Note that there are (mostly regional) exceptions to this rule.
Other things really vary a lot. Sometimes people add the aromatics at the beginning, sometimes they do it in the middle of cooking. In some dishes, you don't want to burn your chili peppers, but in other cases (such as kung pao chicken), you must slightly burn them. But then it's just a matter of trial and error.
However, stir frying involves cooking ingredients on high heat for a very short time, so your ingredients better cook fast. Of course, there's a solution to this problem: you blanch your ingredients in water or "slow deep fry" your ingredients in oil (in Chinese, this technique is called "going through the oil" 过油). Some people may opt to pan fry the ingredients.
There are eight major Chinese regional cuisines, and stir frying is a basic technique in all of them. However, not all of them use this technique equally frequently. These rules of thumb are for Cantonese stir fries, which is probably what most people in the West think of when they think of stir fry. Hunanese and Szechuan cuisine also use stir frying frequently, and the rules are generally the same.
However, in Shandong (Mandarin, northern China) cuisine, rule 3 above is often violated. Frequently, condiments and aromatics are added to the wok first, producing a thick sauce, and then the ingredients are added. This technique is often called "sauce popping" (jiangbao 酱爆); you can't do it the other way round, or either the sauce won't thicken enough, or your ingredients will overcook. The most famous example of this cooking method is probably Peking shredded pork (jingjiang rousi 京酱肉丝), where a sweet-savoury sauce is prepared in the wok, slightly reduced, and then the (pre-cooked) shredded pork is added to the sauce and stirred thoroughly.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.827078 | 2020-09-16T12:15:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110728",
"authors": [
"Onyz",
"SZCZERZO KŁY",
"Tom",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/759"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
65984 | How should burger patties be prepared in terms of mixing and flavourings?
In this article by Kenji from serious eats he discusses forming the patty to a bare minimum so the strands of ground beef are still visible. He also recommends only salting the beef just before making it. Both strategies to avoid toughness.
In this video by Gordon Ramsay (and other burger videos by him) he completely mushes up the mince to turn make it completely consistent. He also adds salt and a bunch of other flavourings, which a lot of people don't recommend.
So who's right? Assuming Kenji is right in his assertions, why would Gordon do that to his burgers? Is it true that the meat should be just formed and otherwise left alone?
Heston is right ;)
But seriously: If you go through the videos/blogs of renowned chefs describing how to make burgers, for every one showing ugly pictures of what happens when you do X instead of Y, there will be one showing similar ugly pictures of what happens when you do Y instead of X. I doubt there's An Answer.
I will only say that I J. Kenji Lopez-Alt has made an extensive study of all things burger related http://aht.seriouseats.com/the-burger-lab/index.html and in many cases he approaches things scientifically (measuring weight before and after for each technique, measuring liquid expelled for each technique, etc) and personally I trust that more than Mr. Ramsay.
@djmadscribbler: Science can be an aid in achieving what you want, but it's not a template of How Things Must Be Done. Aiming for less expelled liquids must/might need to be balanced with The Science Of Seasoning. Escoce's answer highlights that very nicely.
To my mind, the two methods depend entirely on which side of the Atlantic you were born. US, all meat, UK,+ onion, egg, & sometimes breadcrumbs. Gordon's burger looks just as good as Kenji's when cooked. My bet is that Kenji's 'bad example' was seriously overworked to prove a point.
There's no right or wrong answer as there are advantages to both and it's about what you want out of a burger.
The advantage of the minimal disturbance method is that the strands of the meat give the burger structural strength. It also gives a pure beef flavor as you aren't adding anything to it. The mix up method breaks up the strands of meat which come out of the grinder which makes patties more fragile, however flavorings are distributed evenly.
Some people add binding agents like egg and breadcrumbs to hold it together when using the mix up method in which case it becomes more of a flat meatball than a burger.
My personal preference is the minimal disturbance method as it is fast, the patties hold together, and I like the flavor of pure beef. After forming the patties I salt them on both sides. After the final flip I grind fresh pepper on the cooked side - pepper gets bitter when burned. If I did want to add flavorings I would grind my own meat for the burgers and add the flavorings then.
Neither is right nor wrong, it simply depends on what you are trying to accomplish.
The way I make a basic burger is to try and pull off the right amount of ground meat from the package and shape it right there as is without kneading it at all. Literally just enough handling to shape it.
However sometimes I want a seasoned burger, and that's more like making a patty shaped meatball and you can't really avoid mixing/kneading it in the case.
Sometimes seasoning the outside of the burger is all that's needed.
Even if you want it seasoned, you could still save the salt for just the outside, right? It looks like Kenji is saying the salt is a much bigger problem than any other seasonings you might want mixed in.
Well salt doesn't burn, but it will drop off with the burger juice somewhat. As I said I don't usually make a seasoned burger, I usually make a plain fresh burger using the least handling method
From a traditionalist perspective, Kenji is right.
I didn't click through to the Ramsay video, but from your description of him adding lots of stuff, and mushing it up, his burger could more accurately be called "Salisbury Steak on a Bun." Not that that is a bad idea.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.827772 | 2016-01-28T16:38:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65984",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Colette Locock",
"Escoce",
"Kat",
"Kate Weight",
"Kristi Smith",
"Ryan Kopke",
"Sarah Thomas",
"Tetsujin",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"djmadscribbler",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157856",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157871",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9799"
],
"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
} |
58876 | Is it possible to create the flavour of a food by using the component chemicals?
For example, if I were able to identify the flavour compounds of bacon or cabbage, could I take just those ingredients and create the flavour?
Is identifying the flavour compounds something that has been done extensively by food scientists?
I realise that food companies have been trying for a long time to create synthetic flavour, but they are presumably trying to do it cheaply for mass production.
possibly of interest : https://theconversation.com/the-science-of-strawberries-why-do-they-taste-so-good-44291
How do you think chip brands make so many flavors? They do it all chemically.
It's a little hard to understand exactly what you're asking, but flavor and fragrance scientists have been at this for a long time, and yes, there are people who specialize in flavor research, using methods like "collecting headspace" (gathering flavor compounds) and analyzing those with techniques such as gas chromatography. They work to figure out what the "most relevant" compounds are in a particular food. Seasoned professionals are usually able to recognize and name specific flavor compounds by smell.
But with a few exceptions, most of those chemicals aren't super easy to just buy off of a shelf somewhere without consulting with IFF or a similar company. (You can buy artificial vanilla, for example, and methyl anthranilate, the dominant flavor from concord grapes used in artificial grape flavoring, as a bird repellant). So for most of us without labs for fermenting synbio vanilla, we will find it more cost effective to use the original ingredient.
Most foods have hundreds of distinct flavor compounds and fooling the tongue, and especially the nose, isn't super easy. But it can be done in some cases, sure. It's worth noting that a great portion of how we experience flavor comes from texture in addition to the flavor compounds, however. Even when you buy a flavored chip that is meant to taste like steak or mango salsa or whatever, you'll often find it a bit off, perhaps the food industry's equivalent of the "uncanny valley" problem, thanks to texture and context differences.
As an example -- Jelly Belly tried making a 'pepperoni pizza' flavored jelly bean. It was so foul, that they ended up using it as basis for the 'vomit' flavor for the "Bertie Botts Every Flavour Beans".
It's very hard to make flavours, that why even today artificial banana flavour taste of a long extinct banana variety
Hehe, artificial banana flavour is what I had to think of already when reading the title... one variety is just a single chemical compound, isoamyl acetate, you can buy it in some regions.. and yes, it smells intensely of artificial bananas, through a sealed bottle. Most fruit aromas come from a few esters each (https://jameskennedymonash.wordpress.com/2013/12/13/infographic-table-of-esters-and-their-smells/, and these are present in the actual fruit too and not just a possible petrochemical mock-up.). In fruit liquors, a lot of the aroma is from more complex alcohols the fruit ferment into.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.828127 | 2015-07-07T22:58:30 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58876",
"authors": [
"Alvin MidgetteSr",
"Catija",
"Derek Traynor",
"Joe",
"Lee J",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140500",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"r. eli",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
12793 | Can you put egg shells down the garbage disposal unit?
The Google has conflicting answers. I come from a background of "everything goes in the garbage disposal", my wife's background is "never put anything in the garbage disposal". I suspect reality is somewhere between us.
Note: I'm talking about the garbage disposal unit under the sink.
From what my home inspector told me, not if you want it to last a long time.
I've always put egg shells down the disposal. The "official" word from one manufacturer is:
Most forms of food waste can be put
through the food waste disposer —
bones from fish and poultry, meat,
large meat bones, fish scraps,
vegetables, fruit, egg shells, and
much more. Very stringy or fibrous
foods such as celery should be
avoided. Food waste disposers are
designed for food waste only and
packaging materials should not be put
into the disposer.
Given that this manufacturer says you can put large bones in a disposer, I can't imagine that eggshells would do any damage.
And as a practical matter, I've seen name-brand disposers at Home Depot for $100, so even if you felt you were shortening the life of your disposer by a small percentage by putting too much into it, it's not a big deal to get a new one.
Its one thing to replace a garbage disposal for a mere $100, but if plumbing problems result from putting the wrong stuff down, that can cost a great deal more. That said, I am comfortable putting most small items down. But I avoid bones, vegetable peels, celery, etc.
If you have a septic tank, avoid using the garbage disposal, especially for anything like egg shells, bones, coffee grounds, and other things that the bacteria in the tank won't eat. Worst case scenario is that they can plug up your leach field for a very expensive repair.
Generally if you have a septic tank you shouldn't put in a garbage disposal. Usually septic tank houses don't come with one pre-installed.
Living in an old house (~100 years) with old plumbing and old pipes, I barely put anything down our drains except liquids. Besides, eggshells are FANTASTIC for your roses and your compost. Why waste them? : )
I live in a condo in the city. I've only got two options: sink or dumpster.
if you rinse them out and let them dry, i am sure someone with a compost pile would take them off your hands. i am just really leery of putting too much down a disposal, to be honest, plus they are so good for soil that it just seems silly to me to waste them that way. if you must, i would think grinding them up in a disposal would be ok.
We live in a major metropolitan area, and I recently replaced our garbage disposer. While it was off I took a look at the pipes under the sink and they were just caked with black rotting gunk inside them. I replaced them with new ones, and since then our cockroach problem seems to have gone away completely. I believe all that rotting crud inside the pipes was a full time food source for the bugs. Used to be if you turned on the kitchen lights at 2am you would see a scurry of activity on the counters. Apparently, now that the food source is gone, they left. Turn on the lights at 2am these days and there are exactly ZERO roaches.
Now we use the disposer for cleaning the scraps off the plates, but that's about it. If there's a large quantity of something that needs to be thrown away, we'll put it in a two Walmart bags and store it in the freezer till trash day.
Most garbage disposals can handle just about anything you put down them, up to and including pieces of bone. The problem is the drain pipe: if you have a long, gently-sloped drain that the material is going through then heavy, granular material (e.g. ground eggshells) will settle to the bottom and accumulate. Dry onion peels can also accumulate, especially when there's grease in the pipe.
I've had both eggshell-based and onion-peel-based clogs in my kitchen drain (which goes 18' across the house without a whole lot of slope). So now I never run either down the disposal.
I had never had a problem with our disposal until today... the day my wife put eggshells in there. There could probably have been other contributing factors.
I have read multiple debates and the controversy is enough to get me to discontinue the practice. Garbage, compost, chickens, or a giant laser, all seem like better options to me!
We give our egg shells back to our chickens.
They need the chalk for new eggs and they like it.
But I think this isn't really an option for you, unless you sometimes feed the birds in the park or something.
You can eat the egg shell yourself, it's quite healthy (if I can believe the internet).
You can put them in the compost container, but I wouldn't put them in the septic tank.
Just throw them away in the garbage.
Another use for egg shells is when brewing coffee -- my dad would put an egg shell in with the coffee grounds; the internet claims it's a pH thing, to counter acidity.
@Joe: I didn't know that. And does it affect the taste? Or why does your dad do it?
he said it made a difference; others on the internet know about it, but none really seem to know why it's done. I personally don't like coffee, so I've never done a taste test to compare. (and then he'd put both the shells and coffee into the compost pile afterwards)
Biggest no-nos are starches, fats, (Thanksgiving is a plumbers busiest day), proteins, and fibrous vegetables. I live in a city highrise. I do put some egg shells and coffee grinds occasionally. What I do weekly, is put 1/2 cup of baking soda and 1 cup of white vinegar in the drains (disposal and other kitchen drain). Let stand for 1/2 hour or so and follow with very hot water. This is good practice. Also helpful are white vinegar ice cubes. They clean the blades.
I would not put said refuse in a septic system for the same reasons as others gave.
Don't starches, fats and proteins pretty much cover everything?
@PoloHoleSet - no, that's why he had to add fibrous vegetables to the list. I think with that addition, it does cover pretty much everything.
@Megha - I probably have to turn off the "science" part of my brain that's so pedantic about exact language, and look at things more from the common, everyday and practical use perspective. For instance, a chain of starches is no longer considered a starch, because it can't be digested and broken down like a basic starch can, which is where I went wrong here. Thanks!
I was always taught the egg shells were good for the pipes, but when our drain clogged, the trap was filled with coffee grounds and egg shells. Perhaps the egg shells would normally be fine, and they only got stuck because of the coffee grounds (which I know should not go down--our guests did not). Even still, after that experience, I now have a policy against egg shells (and coffee grounds) in the disposal.
I found on manufacturers site http://www.insinkerator.com/en-us/Household-Products/Garbage-Disposers/Pages/Disposer-Dos-and-Donts.aspx and http://garbagedisposalexpert.com/insinkerator-comparison/ that, for some models, says “Stop worrying about what food you can or can’t put in your disposer”.
So, depending on the model
I wouldn't trust that at all. It's easy for the disposal manufacturer to say their systems let you put anything down the drain, but that DIRECTLY contradicts what I read from companies that inspect and pump septic systems. Insinkerator even sells a model that claims to help your septic system by injecting beneficial bacteria every time you use it. But other experts say that adding the bacteria is a waste of money and can actually destroy the anaerobic bacteria needed in your system!
Many years ago my mom had clogged kitchen pipes; after the plumber cleaned it all out, he
advised her not to put egg shells, celery or onion skins down the disposal. I didn't know if
the disposals had been vastly improved since then, but sounds like items like these are still questionable.
The key to success in putting anything through the disposal is to avoid putting too much in at one time and don't skimp on running water to flush it down. In that way you can even put eggshells, coffee grounds, and vegetables down your disposal.
If you have a lot of leafy or fibrous vegetables to put down, or shrimp shells, you can do it but you end up wasting a lot of time and water; better to just put that much stuff in the trash, or better the compost heap if you have one.
In the case of shrimp shells and veggies, freeze them and use them for stock making!
Well since I live in a city with a sewer system I pretty much run everything through my garbage disposal. I replaced the 25 year old original with a new KitchenAid and the guy told me I could run just about whatever I wanted through it. I avoid bones and extremely hard substances but egg shells, peels, left over food, it all goes down and gets turned into paste before being washed down into the city sewer system. So I would say it depends on your disposal and the condition of your pipes. If my pipes were older I would probably be more careful about what I put down the drain.
Growing up my grandma told me that egg shells were good for the garbage disposal. They sharpen the blades. I wouldn't put potato peeling or coffee grounds in it
Ma told me the same thing. Nowdays she won't let eggshells near a disposal.
Yeah, that was an old grannies' tale. I just read that the membranes inside the shells can bind up in the disposal, not helping at all.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.828444 | 2011-03-05T02:06:20 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12793",
"authors": [
"Chris",
"Donna Knoupf",
"FACM",
"Fragment",
"Joe",
"Justin Standard",
"LeeAnn Nolan",
"Mads Leonard Holvik",
"Megha",
"Mien",
"Ms. Nobody",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Preston",
"RAM",
"RoyM",
"S2inVT",
"Vux",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"autochad",
"franko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26444",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26453",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26454",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26461",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26473",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26668",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3844",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41804",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51740",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51789",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84988",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85055",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90576",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9474",
"joran",
"justkt",
"kotaro48",
"kubi",
"mikazilla",
"ramblinjan",
"user1354825",
"user3580913"
],
"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
} |
16083 | How to tell if frozen mussels are good?
I live a far distance from any body of salt water, so the only mussels available are packaged frozen mussels.
I have always heard that cooked mussels must open or they are not good to eat, but when we cooked the frozen mussels only a few opened. I went ahead and ate them anyways, they tasted fine and did not make me sick.
Is it normal for frozen mussels to not open their shells when cooked?
If it is normal, is there a way to tell if they are safe to eat?
'You shouldn't eat mussels that don't open' is an unfounded myth. It was first mentioned in a book by the British food writer Jane Grigson in the 1970s and grew through repetition to the point that 90% of cook books mentioned it in the 1990s.
The fact is, mussels that don't open after cooking are more likely to be safe than those that do.
You should, however, be careful to remove any mussels that have opened before cooking, as they'll be dead and likely to make you ill.
This conflicts with what was said previously here http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1168/how-do-you-know-when-mussels-are-done I am inclined to believe you though. Here is a link that supports your statement http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/10/29/2404364.htm
If the mussels are frozen prior to cooking they are most assuredly dead already. That brings the question, "Do already open frozen mussels need to be discarded?"
If they're fresh and open then it implies that they have been dead a while and thus have been rotting. While frozen ones are definitely dead, they are also A) frozen and B) closed, reducing the amount of bacteria involved considerably.
I can't believe no one has mentioned this. That uncooked mussel that's suspiciously open? Give him a good tap. If he's alive, that will scare the little sucker, and he'll close. If he's still open, then he is trash.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.829287 | 2011-07-11T16:53:33 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16083",
"authors": [
"Alec",
"Ben",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Jolenealaska",
"Max",
"Wulfhart",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34232",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34233",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34239",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4343",
"user34234"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
12265 | Anise Seed vs. Fennel Seed with Taste as No.1 factor
I've noticed that in some recipes Anise seeds can be used interchangeably with Fennel seeds. I understand their taxonomical differences but in regards to taste, can they be used interchangeably without any big difference in taste?
For example, I've found a lasagne recipe which calls for fennel seeds. I do not have any but I do have Anise seeds (not star anise). Could I use the Anise seeds in the recipe without much noticeable difference?
I thought this was an interesting question, so I went into the kitchen and had a comparative chew. Anise Seed (or aniseed where I come from) is smaller, darker and gives a more immediate anise hit, but it fades quickly. Fennel seed is two or three times larger and paler. When you chew it, there's little flavour at first, but then a wash of anise flavour comes in. I think fennel tastes a bit softer, smoother, "greener" and more rounded.
If I had to substitute anise for fennel, I'd probably use a third or even a quarter of the original quantity. Although you might just want to leave it out. I agree with bikeboy - the great joy of fennel in Italian food is biting on fennel seed and getting that green-spicy hit in a meat dish (oh! I have a pasta dish with sweet Italian sausage, tomato, cream and fennel that is to die for). I don't think you'd get the same effect with anise.
Kudos for doing a direct taste-test and describing it well!
Thanks for sharing the results of your kitchen experiment! (That pasta dish sounds delicious! Is it online anywhere?) I posted a link in bikeboys comments if your interested in some other literature on the same subject :) Ps - your username is my father's name + initial so that was a bit of a laugh when it looked like my dad had responded to my question :P
Soften a couple of sliced red onions to golden in a good splosh of olive oil. Stir in four large italian sausages (remove the skin and crumble them in), two cloves of sliced garlic, four sprigs of rosemary finely chopped, 2 bay leaves, 1 teaspoon of fennel seeds and a half-teaspoon of chilli flakes. Cook over a low heat until sausage is well browned (about 15 mins). Stir in a (400g) tin of tomatoes, chopped and simmer while you cook 1lb pasta (penne is good). Add 5fl oz heavy cream and some grated parmasan to the sauce. Toss the sauce with the drained pasta and serve with more parmasan. Enjoy.
I think it's originally from The River Cafe in London, who produce a range of superb books if you like simple, gutsy Italian food.
Don't forget Caraway. That gets subbed for the other two as well. Whichever you use, don't be afraid to put it through a spice mill. You'll get a lot more flavor that way.
I'm curious how the side-by-side test fares when both seeds are run through a spice grinder instead of eaten whole.
I found a bread recipe that called for fennel seeds, but I only had anise seeds available. I used the anise seeds and the bread came out quite well, with a nice smell and taste of anise, but not over powering. I do not know what the bread would be like with fennel seeds.
I would not say that those two are directly interchangeable. While their flavors/aromas might remind you one of another when tasted separately, are really pretty different when compared directly.
Fennel seed is milder, sweeter and less astringent compared to anise seed, in my experience, so you'd have to adjust for potency and while biting into a fennel seed can be "exciting" biting into an anise seed would be much more so.
You could try it, but I would not do a 1-to-1 substitution, and I would really expect a very different result than if you just used fennel seed. Maybe I'm wrong here, but that's my $.02
Thanks for the info bikeboy. I just found this article on the net that specifies Anise Seed as an "ideal substitue" for fennel. I'm not trying to argue against your thoughts, but would you in general disagree with what they say? http://www.buzzle.com/articles/fennel-seed-substitute.html
@justin: All I can say is that their summary doesn't really agree with my own taste experience. I admit that I read that before posting my answer and kind of rejected it out of hand because they seem to suggest that caraway, cumin or dill seeds are equally good (or nearly so) substitutes for fennel seed, though they differ VERY significantly in flavor in my book. They might be good in the same dishes, but they are nothing like each other.
thanks for your excellent responses. I do agree that I felt some of their choices didn't make sense to my taste experience as well, which sort of discredited the article in my mind as well. Thanks!!!
Fennel has more of an earthly taste and smell than anise seed. Anise seed is more sweet and herbal smelling and tasting.
While they don't taste exactly the same, I would use the anise seed before I'd drive to the store to get fennel seed, unless it was a major component of the dish, which I imagine is unlikely in an italian recipe.
I am going to guess that people who think anise and fennel are interchangable don't like black licorice. That supposition is based on the idea that they taste the same. They are distinctly different. Anise has a sweet aftertaste and pairs better with sweet things. My point friends is no they do not taste the same. Yes anise has more flavor, but is it the right flavor (when called for).
Clifton, welcome to the site! May I suggest some heavy editing of this answer? You do have some valid points, but as it stands, this reads more like a general rant than a helpful answer. Perhaps you'd like to have a look at our Help Center, e.g. the "How do I write a good answer" page.
Okay, let's not have a debate about what we like here. I've edited out everything about personal preference.
The reason people think they taste similar is because both contain anisole, which most people will recognize as "black licorice" flavor. True they have different flavor profiles overall, but they also quite similar, and thus the discussion about substitution.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.829491 | 2011-02-16T21:34:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12265",
"authors": [
"Alexandre Rafalovitch",
"CBear",
"Cascabel",
"Daisy Hayes",
"Dryer Repair",
"Eric Johnson",
"Laf",
"Michelle Nissen",
"Paul L",
"Stephie",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"bikeboy389",
"dennislloydjr",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155336",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155780",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24402",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25270",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4411",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4547",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65323",
"justinl",
"mpoisot"
],
"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
} |
3364 | How long should tilapia filets of normal thickness be broiled?
I have a packet of fresh tilapia filets from the grocer, and I'm planning to broil them with BBQ sauce. How long should they stay under the heat and how far should they be from the heating elements?
My broiler is the "under-the-oven" kind which re-uses the gas flame that pre-heats the main oven.
Edit: Are there any additional preparation steps I should be aware of? I'm a novice when it comes to cooking fish.
How thick is "normal thickness"?
Normal meaning what you'd find in a grocery pack. Eyeballing the filets I have here, I'd say about quarter to half an inch thick, perhaps 2 inches wide and 4-5 inches long.
Broiling fish is extremely easy, although I would recommend saucing the fish after it is cooked as your BBQ sauce will most likely burn under the heat from the broiler. Your food should be about 8 to 12 inches away form the heat source, but most under oven broilers have a fixed height away from the flame. You need to make sure that your fish is fully scaled before cooking and you should season it with salt and pepper as well. Lay the fish on a pan, making sure that you lay it skin side down and that there is room on each side of each piece. Turn on your flame and slide the fish under the broiler, remove when the fish is flaky, white and lightly browned on top. If you are unsure if it is done, take a fork and twist it in the flesh of the fish and it should flake away fully white, it's done.
Then add your sauce and serve.
Additionally, BBQ sauce will mostly overpower the flavor of your tilapia, you might find that whipping up a butter sauce or a white wine sauce will suit you better. Also, alot of fish does well with just a little salt, pepper, and lemon juice.
In my oven, about 4-5 minutes per side seemed to do it. I did put the BBQ sauce on before cooking (I started before reading your post). I've still 3 fillets left, so I'll try your approach with the butter sauce next time. Thanks!
no problem. Fish also great using a pan sear if you start to look for a new method.
The common rule of thumb I've heard for cooking fish is 10 minutes per inch of thickness.
You really don't want to overcook fish. 130-135 degrees is usually just right. It's easier to test fish than meat without a thermometer, because you can just flake off a piece. In fact, once you can flake off a piece, it's done. Anything else is going to dry it out.
If the fish is drying out before getting browned, your broiler is not hot enough or the fish is not close enough. If the fish is getting too brown, the broiler is too hot or the fish is too close.
I'd prefer to cook in the over at 350 and then finish in the broiler as close as possible for the last minute or so.
Also, a good dose of olive oil, lemon juice, salt and pepper make the fish I cook consistently taste good and not dry out too easily.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.830025 | 2010-07-26T22:40:25 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3364",
"authors": [
"Brian Minton",
"Mike",
"NW Tech",
"RedDragon",
"Suppressingfire",
"hd01",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6095",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6097",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6113",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6157",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6376",
"itchi",
"sarge_smith"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
14615 | How to get rid of the taste of flour in homemade bakery?
I usually get random cookie and cake recipes from the internet and try them. They are good but all of them have floury taste to me. Possible culprits are the flour I use and how I mix and bake dough. I use Gold Medal All-Purpose Flour and my hands to mix ingredients, having no mixer. What can I get wrong? Is there an easy fix?
Assuming you aren't very unlucky and happen to download a series of bad recipes I think it's one of a few things.
It's possible you could be undercooking your goods. Fully cooked baked goods should not taste like flour.
It's also possible that you could be mixing insufficiently. If this were the case though you'd likely have some cookies that weren't floury.
The most likely culprit though is packed flour. If you are using volume measurements (most likely given the source) for flour, it's quite possible to use nearly twice as much flour as the recipe intends simply because your flour is packed down more than the author's was.
I recommend using either a food processor or a sifter to sift your flour adequately before measuring. Don't undo your sifting by rapping your measuring cup on the counter either! Simply scoop, scrape to level and dump it in the mixing bowl.
See Also:
What Kinds of Recipes Should I Sift/Aerate The Flour?
How can I make sifting easier?
What is the purpose of sifting dry ingredients?
Better yet, find a recipe that measures the flour by weight.
I had never understood the need of sifting flour before measuring. Thanks a lot. I will try with the same recipe and see the result. First, I have to buy a sifter and, probably, a proper cookbook.
Alternatively, convert the recipes to weight. Flour is around 120g (4¼ oz) per cup, depending on measurement method. And once you've converted a recipe, you can make it again in the future with near perfect consistency.
@puri: there's a rumor over here that in ancient times it had the purpose to sift out mealworms & Co...
I've only ever had this issue if I under cook the baked item.
You get the same issue if you don't cook your roux long enough.
My grandmother was born in 1909 in New Zealand. She moved to the UK and started her family. When we were young she was always busy in the kitchen, making bread, cake, lemon curd, fruit scones...… she would allow the mix to sit, somewhere cool before she cooked the scones. It made all the difference. I tried her recipe which the family recorded, my father's verdict.... 'its a bit floury!' and the reason? I hadn't allowed the mix to sit long enough- I was too impatient. SO my suggestion, try setting the mix aside for several hours and seeing if it makes a difference. Same with making pastry. You would mix it, roll it out on grease proof paper and then stick in the fridge for a few hours of the next day before using. Its funny because this is how things were done 100 years ago- and none of the modern recipes either online or in cook books mention this. But it was once de rigueur!
So my husband got this cookie recipe recently, and they just tasted like flour too. I decided to tweak the recipe I added more sugar, vanilla, and blueberries as they were blueberry cookies so I'd recommend vanilla extract, and more sugar.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.830568 | 2011-05-09T20:12:29 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14615",
"authors": [
"ESultanik",
"Geoff",
"cbeleites",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/519",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"puri"
],
"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
} |
11392 | How do you Tell if Home Made Pasta is Dry Enough to put through the Cutter?
When making Pasta with my new pasta maker I had the following Steps:
Make sheets from the dough using the roller part of the Pasta Maker
Let these sheets dry to a certain extent
Put the pasta sheets through the spaghetti or linguine cutters
It seemed if it wasn't try enough the pieces would stick together to much and if it was too dry it would break up a little and be a little hard to get started in the cutter.
What qualities do you look for in the pasta sheets to tell when it is the ideal dryness to pass through the cutter?
Personally I just flour it until it doesn't stick too much. That seems to work well.
The real answer is that you learn by feel. So what you do is, start feeding it and if it is a little sticky, dust some flour on it. Conversely, if it is too dry and starts to crack, spritz it with a little bit of water from a spray bottle. Soon you will learn when to make these adjustments.
I think it is rare that the pasta would be too dry to cut. If it is hard to get started, rub just a little bit of water on the end of the sheet. Once it gets going, you should be OK. A more likely problem is that it would stick together after cutting. If you are making several flat sheets, you can dust them with flour so they won't stick to whatever surface you are setting them on. Similarly, once the pasta is cut, you can toss it with a little bit of flour if it seems sticky. Finally, small batches make everything easier to control.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.830894 | 2011-01-23T19:49:39 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11392",
"authors": [
"Pamela Dawn",
"Ryre",
"bbbggg",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23396",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23397",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23399",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23400",
"justkt",
"plamtrue",
"user23398"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
23631 | Can I use citric acid instead of lemon juice when canning?
I am making wine jelly and have run out of lemons. I have some citric acid in the pantry. Can I use the citric acid instead? The jelly calls for half a cup of lemon juice. If I can use it, how much citric acid would I use?
Yes you can. Don't know about the quantity though. I'd just add it in small quantities until it tastes right.
@ChrisCudmore, the lemon juice is used mostly to bring up the acidity, not for taste. So adding the citric acid based on taste sounds like a bad idea.
Yep, unless you trust your tongue as much as a pH meter, you're going to want to be sure about quantities.
Though actually... I don't know your recipe, but I think wine typically has a pH (3ish) well below the cutoff I've seen for boiling water canning (4.6)?
Yes, you can. In fact, many canning and jarring recipes specifically call for citric acid.
Presumably you are using citric acid in its dried, crystalline form. In that case, a solution of around 4% citric acid (e.g. 4gm in 100ml of water) should be around the same strength as lemon juice.
Compared to the lemon juice, citric acid solution won't be as flavorful. I imagine you could dissolve the citric acid in something else to keep from diluting the jelly, though then you might want to know about the pH of that something else.
No doubt. Although most of the flavor from lemon juice is the citric acid (and ascorbic acid) in it, so I doubt it would mar the flavor that much.
In 7 cups of jelly, I couldn't taste half a cup of lemon juice, but I think I'll add a bit more than the suggestion just to be safe with my pH levels (even though, as mentioned above, the pH levels are probably already OK).
This link http://www.livestrong.com/article/520416-how-to-substitute-lemon-juice-for-citric-acid/ says 1/4 teaspoon of citric acid substitutes 1 tablespoon of lemon juice.
So for half a cup of lemon juice, use two teaspoons of citric acid, and compensate for the missing liquid.
Hmmm. So they claim lemon juice is equal to a 6% solution of citric acid, instead of 4%. I wonder which is correct?
They could both be correct depending on the variety of lemon used.
I googled it, and it says 1/4 teaspoon citric acid= 1tablespoon lemon juice
1 teaspoon citric acid =1/4 cup lemon juice
Hello, and welcome to Stack Exchange. This was already stated in a previous answer; if you have something more to contribute, please edit it in.
The rule of thumb:1 Tablespoon of lemon juice can be swapped for 1/4 tsp of citric acid powder for canning. But citric acid is not used for adding flavor. It is used more like a preservative. For jams or jellies I would strongly suggest you use lemon juice.
Howdy! Welcome to SA! You're offering an answer which is substantially the same as prior answers, though, which you may find doesn't get upvoted. When answering a question, please check to make sure the answer you're giving hasn't already been posted.
I just read you can add 3g citric acid/l or kg to make jam or marmalade.
It would help to know where you read this - we have no way to verify the accuracy of this ratio.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.831064 | 2012-05-07T23:24:09 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23631",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Cascabel",
"Chandra",
"Chris Cudmore",
"Daniel Griscom",
"Diane Dicey Caunt",
"FuzzyChef",
"J R Valverde",
"Jay",
"Jorge Agurcia-Fasquelle",
"Karen Williams",
"Nunzia",
"Vosmaya",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4592",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53550",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53564",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305"
],
"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
} |
23050 | How to mix the perfect amount of salt?
I take a tumbler with an ounce of water and add a teaspoon of salt to it and then add this salty water mix to the curry or dish I am preparing at the moment. I repeat with lesser quantities of salt with each iteration until the dish tastes good. However this approach means adding salt multiple times, before the salt feels right. Not that repetition is bad, but I find people who sprinkle salt either by years of experience or by muscle memory tend to be much better with salt.
What approaches do you follow for adding the perfect amount of salt?
You what? Why would you add salt to water to add to a dish? Just add the salt, taste, repeat until you're happy with the flavor. Salt is very personal. :-)
I must admit that I am not as patient as my mother who knows every single time how much of salt to sprinkle. Most of my dishes are Indian curries. So adding a bit of salted water is not too bad. If I don't use this technique, I find it difficult to make distribute the salt evenly in some of those potato or cauliflower pieces.
@Animesh - salt will dissolve (and redistribute) if there's even the tiniest bit of moisture in a dish. Sprinkling helps it happen faster, as does waiting a bit to give it time to dissolve, but it will distribute pretty evenly with basic mixing. I suppose salt water is better if you don't want to mix much for whatever reason, though (foods that will break down to flake or mush if over-mixed).
Perhaps I am not entirely qualified to answer this post, but as someone who was taught to cook (by my mother) mostly without recipes, when it comes to dishes like curries or stews, salt is simply 'to taste.' This, however, is always with the added note that you can always add more salt later, but taking it out of a dish that has been over saturated with it is a hassle, if possible at all. So just start with a sprinkle and taste, adding more as you see fit.
Probably the most important part of my kitchen is the large jar of salt by my cooker, an ever present reminder to season lightly, but season often. I'm assisted in this discipline in that the jar has a very shallow spice spoon, capacity probably just under 1/2 a teaspoon, which makes it very difficult to over-salt a dish and forces me to come back every so often.
To flavour a dish with salt properly, it is essential to appreciate that it is best transferred into whatever you are cooking via absorption of the liquid or stock. Take two dishes, say rice. One is cooked without salt and the salt sprinkled on afterwards. The other dish is cooked in salted water. The second dish will taste considerably better, as the salt will be distributed evenly throughout. The other dish will be bland and tasteless with the occasional burst of flavour.
So what I tend to do is to lightly season at every stage of the cooking process, tasting as I go. Frying some onions? Add a touch of salt. Adding some chicken? Make sure it is seasoned before it goes in the pan or season it as it is added. Obviously, you don't want to taste the uncooked chicken, but you get the idea. Whenever you add ingredients, it then becomes second nature. Just remember to add a little seasoning at each stage
What is important though is to realise that some ingredients are more "Salt tolerant" than others. Potatoes and rice for instance, will require more seasoning than bacon or olives. You will pick this up with experience, but if you season lightly and frequently, tasting as you go along, you will not go far wrong and your dish will be well balanced and flavourful.
As one chef once commented (I can't remember who), it is totally unforgivable not to taste a dish for seasoning prior to serving. That is the very least one can do, even if you have forgotten or skipped seasoning throughout the cooking process.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.831354 | 2012-04-15T20:02:13 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23050",
"authors": [
"Andrew Morton",
"Animesh D",
"BaffledCook",
"Mark Fisher",
"Megha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4711",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52105",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52113",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"marti",
"theredtomato"
],
"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
} |
17996 | How can I keep my waffle iron relatively clean when making waffles?
I do not make waffles overly frequently, but when I do I tend to make a mess of my waffle iron. I use a ladle to place waffle batter in the middle of my waffle iron. On accident I occasionally overfill the iron so that when it is closed batter runs out the sides. The obvious answer is use less batter, but then I tend to use too little. To complicate matters I rarely use the same waffle batter recipe and some tend to make a larger mess than others.
Aside from eyeballing is there a good ratio of batter amount to iron size I should be using? Is there a way to easily cleanup a waffle iron after use that does not take a long time?
This question is right up there with 'are we alone in the universe?' for me!
Try a different sized ladle, or measuring cup, until you find the right amount to use?
Replace your ladle with an ice cream scoop.
You will be able to control the amount of dough for each waffle much easier.
For my waffle iron and scoop I use two scoops.
An additional advantage over a ladle, is that the dough releases much easier
from a scoop, which reduces the probability of making a mess.
And dishers comes in lots of different sizes (some for small cookies, some for cupcakes & muffins, etc.). Check the sweep, and it'll hopefully have either size stamped on it (eg, '2 TB') or a number. If it's a bare number, it's the number of scoops to make a quart ... at least in the U.S.
@Joe - My problem is I have a scoop that is almost perfect - you have to fill it almost full and it works right. Too much and it leaks out. I've not found a scoop that is a little less without being too much less.
Spray non-stick oil on the outside edges of the waffle iron, or spray some on a paper towel and wipe the iron's edges. Also, find a measuring cup that has the correct amount of batter for one waffle. Mine is a level 1/2 cup.
I fear that there isn't really a "correct" answer to this question: it's almost impossible to tell how big a waffle iron is (in terms of how much batter it holds) without just experimenting to see how much batter it holds. The amount you need will depend on the size of your waffle iron, whether it's round or rectangular, and how deep it is.
Similar to what other people have said, I figured it out by trial and error. I use an almost-full ladle (scraping the bottom of the ladle over the lip of my mixing bowl to prevent drips) and pour the batter to the middle of the pan. That's the perfect amount for my waffle iron.
I actually don't recommend spraying the outside of your waffle iron with non-stick spray/oil. In my experience, it makes things messier in the long term. The oil gets kind of cooked on because it's constantly being heated.
To make cleaning easier, just clean it as soon as you're done. If your waffle iron is hot enough, any drips on the outer part may have cooked to a crisp, meaning you can just scrape them off with a spatula or knife and be more or less done. The other thing I do that works on mine is wipe it down with a sponge or damp paper towel while it's still warm (just be careful not to burn your fingers, and don't use a plastic scrubby sponge that might melt on contact). If there's a lot of grease on the outside of the pan, a drop of dishwashing soap on the damp paper towel or sponge should help.
I usually find the worst mess is from the drips on the way to the waffle iron. Try putting batter in something with a "pouring" spout (large measuring cup or bowl with spout or even a pitcher) and pour batter in. Pour into center of waffle iron and don't let it get all the way to the edges - that will be too much. Let it get about halfway to each edge from the center, stop adding batter and close.
Apart from soegaard's answer, I'd say, don't even try! As the batter outside the iron becomes hot it will become a waffle, then you can just cut it on the outside and be done with it.
I don't know what size or kind of waffle iron you have, but the manual for my Black and Decker Belgian Waffle maker says to use 2/3 cup of batter and pour it right in the middle of the iron. It'll pretty much spread out on its own but you can use a rubber spatula. There are pancake cup/dispensers you can buy to pour the batter. Some have long spouts. Others have a trigger and dispense from a hole in the bottom of the measuring cup.
It also says to never use non-stick spray on the iron. You season the iron with the first use by using a brush to paint the plates with vegetable oil. Heat for 5 minutes, then let cool completely down. First waffle you make, throw away because it will be greasy with oil. After that, your waffles will be fine. It's already been seasoned so no need to paint more oil on it.
Not sure about the first part, feels like it is part of making waffles, failing the first or two, or three, or four with a new recipe.
But the second part is easy, while the thing is hot, leave it on a little longer so everything burns to a crisp, wipe the inside with oil. when it cools, wipe away any extra oil that is left, and spray the outside with a bit of dish soap + water if necessary. I find that much better than washing if you use the iron often, next time it sticks less.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.831771 | 2011-09-25T18:12:01 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17996",
"authors": [
"Atrebla",
"Beth Mohr",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40464",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78487",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
11859 | What is pizza sauce?
I am making a dip that requires 'pizza sauce'. The store doesn't sell anything called 'pizza sauce' that I could find. Instead, I got plain tomato sauce. What do I need to add to it to make it 'pizza sauce'?
Pizza sauce is, presumably, whatever tomato-based sauce you'd put on a pizza. Those tend to be essentially like smooth (not chunky), lightly seasoned spaghetti sauce. If by "plain tomato sauce" you mean a jar of tomato sauce for spaghetti, you're probably in good shape. If you mean a can of pure tomato sauce, with no other ingredients, you'll probably want to add some seasoning. Basil and oregano are good bets for herbs; garlic and onion are also common, and perhaps crushed red pepper if you want a little kick.
If you're looking for a real recipe, this isn't a recipe request site, but search engines will serve you well.
As for the tomatoes, you can start with pre-sauced sauce, paste, stewed tomatoes, or fresh. One recipe I've seen has the tomatoes cooked on a hot grill, then mashed into the pizza with herbs. I often use stewed/canned tomatoes, and mash them into something more sauce-like while reducing them. The closer to fresh, the better they taste!
In my family pizza sauce it just fresh garden tomatoes simmered for a few hours or more with a good drizzle of nice olive oil
I leave the pot lid on until the tomatoes have fully rendered down and are just lightly bubbling
Add fresh chopped herbs when serving or adding to a dish i.e. smearing on pizza base
Pizza sauce is typically much thicker than the tomato sauce you would put on pasta and more heavily seasoned. The idea is that you are spreading a thin layer of the sauce over a large area, so a thinner sauce won't work and/or might lose too much liquid as you bake your pizza. Don Pepino pizza sauce is great, assuming you can get it where you live. If you have a jar of commercial pasta sauce around, I would add basil, oregano, and garlic to it. Then, add a good bit of tomato paste to make it thicker.
Most grocery stores carry Pizza Sauce. I know for certain I have purchased a Ragù variant at Publix, Walmart, Sweetbay and Meijer on separate occasions. It typically comes in a much smaller glass jar than that of spaghetti sauce. I've seen it shelved either with the pasta sauces, canned tomatoes or in a bakery section next to pizza doughs.
Or you can just make your own, as I tend to do most of the time these days.
Good luck!
Just add some italian seasonings to the tomato sauce and reduce it a bit. Garlic, Parsely, Basil, Oregano, pepper, salt...etc...touch of olive oil..
at home I just used tomato paste, and added something simple, ex. salt
While this can work for a pizza, I don't know if it would work in a recipe that expects something more seasoned.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.832173 | 2011-02-06T18:12:36 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11859",
"authors": [
"Bob Daye",
"Bruce Alderson",
"Bushibytes",
"Denise Thompson",
"Erica",
"Jimmy.D",
"Kaji",
"Stephanie ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133024",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24411",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24414",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24519",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68538",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68542",
"mjsolo",
"samanna paramasivam",
"sandy"
],
"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
} |
9430 | How do I make a cheese, sausage, cracker spread?
I'm not sure what types of cheeses, crackers, sausages are needed for a holiday spread. What types of cheeses and sausages are acceptable use for this type of thing? What will give me a decent variety? Would it be better to have a cheese spread instead of the traditional sliced cheese?
Ironically, the kind of sausage you want is called a summer sausage. There are many varieties as the term really just refers to a sausage that doesn't need to be refrigerated. You might be able to find a few different kinds to give you some variety.
As for cheeses, you can sort of go with whatever you'd like. Generally with sausage you'll see stuff like jack, cheddar, havarti or swiss. With crackers you might see a cheeseball which is usually a blend of cream cheese and a cheese like cheddar.
Any cured meat works, of course summer sausage being the most traditional. Check this site out for alternative meats: http://www.projo.com/food/content/fd-fortuna_sausage_04-08-09_B0DT615_v18.205cb1e.html. I tend to go with a medium sharp to sharp cheese, especially when making a cheese ball (which are awesome and easy). I also have a tendancy to mix in some bacon bits and roll the cheeseball in bacon bits too (not the stuff in the bottle, but actual bacon crushed up).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.832425 | 2010-11-25T00:40:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9430",
"authors": [
"Edgar Shen",
"FoodTasted",
"Nathan Donnellan",
"Sherry Waters",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19302",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3234"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
9407 | How to make frozen pizza taste good?
As a college student, I eat a lot of frozen pizza. Unfortunately, the brand of frozen pizza that I eat has very little taste.
Recently, I started adding Parmesan cheese, basil and garlic powered to the pizza before putting it in the toaster oven.
Can I do better than that? What can be done with frozen pizza to make it taste better?
We have a pizza stone that makes the finished pizza taste so much better. In addition we add more toppings to the pizza. For instance sliced mushrooms, pineapple, olives, peppers and cheese. The sky is the limit. And this way you can have a 5 topping pizza for the price of the toppings and a cheap frozen pizza.
For the pizza stone you don't want it to make a drastic change in temperature otherwise the stone would break. So for the oven I put the stone in the oven then preheat it. So the stone heats up with the oven. During this time I prepare the toppings. When the oven is hot enough you take out the stone, careful it is hot, put the pizza on, throw the toppings on then put back in oven and cook.
Is a toaster oven apt for heating a pizza stone? (sorry, no experiences with t.o. here) How long does it take to get enough temp?
I don't think so. At least the one I have would be too large.
@belisarius - you can buy stones sized for toaster ovens and large toaster ovens that can fit regular stones.
For a dirt cheap "pizza stone" (college student budget I assume) go to a home improvement store and buy a ceramic (not porcelain) tile. Should cost about two bucks and works quite well, used mine for years.
If you have no space for a stone, get a tray with holes in it - a crisper. "Soggy bottom" will go away with that.
Domenico DeMarco might be the best pizzaiolo alive:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAolCtDMTu4
Just watching that my pizzas improved considerably: parmesan, fresh basil and extra virgin olive oil after baking the pizza. He puts some oil before baking and I think it's a good thing, but most people disagree on that.
Frozen pizzas have two problems:
Bad crust You can improve it baking in a pizza stone or, if that's not an option, putting some olive oil in the tray you put the pizza.
Bad ingredients It's always a matter of taste, I suggest keeping it simple. Mozzarella and any other cheese that melts should help.
By the way, making pizza at home, from scratch, couldn't be cheaper. Believe it or not, you're overpaying for the frozen stuff.
Also, you are grating your parmesan, right?
+1 for making the pizza yourself. If you're using a pizza stone and adding a bunch of ingredients, you're halfway to making it anyway - and pre-mixed, unbaked pizza dough is available in stores, that's really the only part I wouldn't want to hand-make.
@Cyclops - you're right, but it takes space to roll out even pre-made dough, and it makes a bit of a mess. (I use the dining-room table.) Some stores do sell pre-rolled pizza dough, but I can't vouch for its quality.
If you have limited kitchen space, buying a pre-made crust is a good option. It's what I used to do in university since it takes much less time/effort than dealing with dough and still ends up much nicer than frozen pizza.
If you're a person who likes spicy as a compensation for other flavor deficiencies - try adding red pepper and/or Tabasco. My favorite is actually Tony's Creole seasoning. The stone idea sounds like it would help a lot for texture, too :)
While not relating to taste directly, I find cooking the pizza directly on the rack instead of in a pan makes it quite crispy and I enjoy that texture more than the soft dough texture you'll get from cooking it in a pan. You may want to place the pan you would have used on the lower rack to catch any cheese or crumbs that might fall.
Other than that I've usually used various spices to kick up the flavor (garlic powder, crushed red peppers, etc).
I'm sorry, but I honestly don't think there's anything that can make frozen pizza better. All you can accomplish by adding fresh ingredients is to make THEM taste worse. That's not a way to have a meal.
Instead of eating frozen pizza, order pizza if you don't have time to prepare your own.
And pizza is really easy to prepare - if you're adding all those ingredients to frozen pizza you're already half way there. You don't even need to make your own dough, you can usually buy it in the local bakery and then either freeze it or keep in a fridge for a day or two.
Please don't eat frozen pizza. Every time you eat a frozen pizza, an Italian fairy dies. :(
I would put it less dramatic, but: this! If you have to buy fresh toppings anyway, and have a freezer at hand, you can make your own pizza! If you have the freezer-space, you can even take the dough, take about half an hour to an hour at some point, and prepare the basics: roll the dough to the proper size, add pizza sauce and a base layer of cheese. Put wax-paper between the pizza-slices, wrap up in cling wrap, and freeze the stack. Works great for me!
Add some fresh ingredients:
basil and/or oregano
chopped up ripe tomato
fresh garlic
sundried tomoato
You'll find after dressing up a pizza, you can just start making your own from scratch.
Personally I'd put the basil and/or oregano on after cooking unless they are dried.
I usually do a bit of both (as they add some mojo to the chopped tomatoes during baking).
add extra ingredients and another layer of sauce and cheese. You can make the sauce by taking a can of tomato sauce (not a jar of spaghetti sauce) and add Italian seasoning to it.
I will swear blind that the only thing it really needs is olive-oil. A light drizzle of olive oil.
I just got /ate a walmart pizza as featured in their "deli" section. The directions said to put it directly on the oven grate but I ignored that as I tried it before and it drooped and melted between the wire rack .. what I did was added a slew of ingredients and boosted the temp from a terrible 35o to a better 450 Also i use a pan nut put a grate under it with small spaces and sprayed the underside with olive oil spray .. It was the best store bought crust I ever tried .. I cooked it the same time they suggested about 16 minutes .. bear in mind this was not a frozen pizza
This was flagged as not an answer. I think it's probably fine, though borderline - yes, this wasn't a frozen pizza, but the same things might well work on both, so it's worth keeping.
In my family, we add more ingredients to improve frozen pizza. Also, I lower the heat.
I always "build up" the pizza by starting with the spices and olive oil (the spray will work as well). We use mainly: tumeric,cumin,cinnamon and sage, Italian spices are good too. Add a dash of curry if you like it spicier. Don't over spice it, rather drizzle olive oil. Crush the spices in your palm to help bring out their flavor.
Thinly sliced onions go next. My personal favorite is to tear up some deli honey ham,then lightly whisk an egg and drizzle. This helps the cooking process and gives an almost quiche taste. Then we use deli cheese. Tear or crumble the cheeses so they're even,then top with chives and sliced tomatoes. I give a quick dust of butter or olive oil spray to crisp the cheese.
Please don't add "thank you" as an answer. Once you have sufficient reputation, you will be able to vote up questions and answers that you found helpful. - From Review
@dlb How is this a "thank you" answer? I mean, sure, the last couple of sentences thank the other answerers for their contributions and you could edit those out if you really object to them. But the post as a whole is 90% answer to the question and gives a huge number of suggestions. Don't vote to delete an answer that contains actual information and which can easily be edited to remove the content you object to.
I edited this to be more readable and to remove the health advice, which is off topic here. As it stands, it is mostly OK as an answer. The remaining problems are inherent in the question itself - it is easy to interpret it as an invitation for recipes, or "which toppings to add", and this interpretation makes it too broad.
@DavidRicherby I think it has been stated repeatedly that comments need not be justified. As stated, the main issue is with the question itself, but I do not agree with voting to close 7+ year old questions that have been allowed to stay for that long. There were multiple things with the answer as shown by rumtscho's edits and we learn what is on topic and useful by comments and edits. I chose one of the standard options, could have chosen another or taken the time to rewrite 2/3 and was done. I appreciate those effort, I just chose not to and did not tell someone else to.
@dlb Sorry but if you're going to say "I'm voting to delete this because it's just a thank you", when the post blatantly isn't just a thank you, you should expect people to take issue with that. You objected to the "thank you" at the end; it would have taken seconds to delete that. If you wanted to object to other content, you should have also written a custom comment to point out what the problem is, instead of objecting on nonsensical grounds that leave the poster no clue about how to fix the problem themself.
shaved truffles
I'm sure you're kidding, but... yeah, no. Truffles won't fix frozen pizza unless you have access to a supplier who brought them over in the last week or two, while they are still fresh.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.832587 | 2010-11-24T14:46:59 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9407",
"authors": [
"Aesin",
"Allison",
"Bill",
"BobMcGee",
"Bruce Alderson",
"Cascabel",
"Cyclops",
"David Richerby",
"Dr. belisarius",
"Goodbye Stack Exchange",
"Kyra",
"Layna",
"Makena",
"MzEmzee",
"Nimmers",
"Olga Duncan",
"Orbling",
"chrisfargen",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1771",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19262",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3492",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51687",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51695",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"justkt",
"mkchandler",
"rumtscho",
"user2259",
"user51687",
"volent"
],
"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
} |
18953 | How to select a drain rack for pots and pans?
I use a dish rack for air drying pots and pans. Unfortunately all of the dish racks I have ever purchased do not stand up to the abuse of pots and pans. Eventually the dish rack begins to break down or doesn't effectively drain water drips because the weight of the pots and pans is not equivalent to that of dishes.
How do I go about selecting a drain rack which will hold up to pots and pans?
If you hang them from a rail, you don't have to use up space with a rack.
@rumtscho I guess I am unsure of what you mean by a "rail"
I mean this thing: http://www.ikea.com/de/de/catalog/products/30072646
Go to a restaurant supply store and get a dish machine rack. They're ugly, but they're built to take a beating.
Alternative: buy some heavy-duty cooling racks. We use these for our pots and pans, and they hold up well.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.833355 | 2011-11-14T20:47:59 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18953",
"authors": [
"Cate",
"Danny Rodriguez",
"LexaPhoenix",
"Undistraction",
"ahsteele",
"elzell",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41109",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41111",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41332",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/809",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
29617 | How do I eliminate a lingering smell of fried food?
Some great friends of ours cooked us an amazing meal in our home three nights ago. The meal included gourmet french fries cooked in a home use deep fryer. While the fries were outstanding the lingering smell three days later is not. The trash is long gone as is the deep fryer, but the smell still remains. We have throughly cleaned the countertop and surrounding area. Additionally, we have been lighting scented candles in and around the kitchen since the morning after the meal to no avail. The smell is definitely less, but upon leaving and returning home the scent hits you when you walk in the door.
How do I eliminate the lingering smell of fried food? My wife and I have never used an indoor deep fryer is this just part of the deal of home frying?
Use the fryer outside!
@TFD hindsight is always twenty-twenty. :)
Try various oils, I found that the smell left is eg far worse with generic vegetable oil than peanut oil...
+1 for peanut oil. Since it had such a high smoke point it doesn't leave an oily residue on every surface in the home.
@ahsteele if the smell is in the house, time and fresh air are the only things that will clear it out.
Was the deep fryer below anything? Cabinet, Vent Hood? Those areas could be probably be cleaned to help.
This happens to me in my house when I fry up bacon. The only solution is fresh air and ventilation. I open a couple of windows, get a nice cross-breeze and it should dissipate over a couple of hours.
+1 Ventilation is the key. Micro-droplets of oil get deposited everywhere from deep frying, so unless you're willing to scrub the ceilings and walls of the entire kitchen, the only solution is ventilating.
@CareyGregory tomorrow when it is a bit warmer will be opening up the windows.
Try washing or changing the kitchen curtains, towels, pillows on the chairs, and any other porous material that was in the kitchen. The material has absorbed the smell and it will not go away unless you use soap and water. I would even consider scrubbing the wall just in case from the fumes. Don't cover smells with other scents, that doesn't solve the issue.
I use an IONIC air cleaner in my small kitchen. This completely cleans the air long before any cross ventilation. Originally I bought it for a bedroom, but in my new apartment (without airconditioner), I found it absolutely indispensable in the kitchen.
Maybe look into an odor neutralizing spray. There's a brand called Ozium that you can get online or at a tobacco shop. It works really well and gets most smells out. A couple years ago, a roommate of mine got a fryer for the holidays and went rampant with it and left my kitchen/apartment in the same condition. He went out, got a can of this Ozium product, and within a few minutes of spraying it around the kitchen the odor was gone.
One quick and easy way to get rid of most smells is to actually just use a spray bottle on it's finest setting so it just mists the water out. Then it's up to you if you have some essential oils that you could mix in the water. Then you just spray the whole room pointing up in the air, the finer the mist the better, the water vapor or droplets will capture those smelly food/oil particles and drop them to the ground. Now all you have to do is vacuum and shampoo your rugs but the air is nice and fresh.
But prevention is the first thing to do. Like another poster put, cook outside. But if you can't then at least close all doors surrounding your kitchen/dining area, so you don't get those smells in the rest of the house. Then turn on that vent/hood and make sure that the vent screen is clean and oil free. If it can't get through that screen it's not going to be sucked up. I also like to open one window/door across from the vent/hood just a crack to allow for cross-ventilation in the kitchen. This really seems to help the vent work better.
Splatter guards also help. And watching the actual temp of what you are cooking. Oil/foods that get too hot it will smoke.
In the summer I just open the windows and doors... I only fry on breezy summer days. But I really want latkes in wintertime, it's comfort food. The place I rent has no vent and windows are closed. I avoid half of the stink by putting the pan outside to cool as soon as I'm done. Just PLEASE make sure you cover your pan outside, so birds and other wildlife don't fall into it, I'm a wildlife rehabilitator and can tell you greased birds are a nightmare. The smell reminds me of when I grew up in NYC: all the apartment building hallways smelled like onions. I've dreamt of getting a fifth burner to fry outside but I don't think this ancient home's wiring could handle the wattage, and the ones advertised on television get terrible reviews. I've tried oven frying but it's still frying... and then I have to clean the oven, and as a vegetarian I rarely have to do that. Most foods I eat are microwave or stovetop prepped (steaming, simmer or sauté) but lord help me, I want latkes. I might leave out onions since they are the usual aromatic. One thing I am SO very glad about is finding out I'm not the only one who hates the residual stink! I am certainly not going to use toxins like Febreze, do some research on it, how it works and sticks to everything, before you poison yourself. Perhaps the only thing left is to mask it with simmering vinegar or a towel swung in the air wet with vinegar, or simmered herbs of my choice. I guess it's a "risk/benefit ratio" of the humorous kind.
I had the same problem, googled and found these solutions:
Dab a little vanilla extract on light bulbs when they are off. Once turned on the heat will cause the smell of vanilla to spread in the house and get rid of the smell of fried food..
Or you may try boiling citrus peels or boil cloves (whole/ground). Air fresheners also work.
We'd really prefer things that you know will work - have you tried all these things? It sounds like they'll mostly cover up the smell until it fades, and it'll fade a lot faster if you just ventilate well like Jacob's answer suggests.
Boil cinnamon sticks in water or tea
You might want to expand on your answer. Give a little evidence/thory or a more complete method.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.833487 | 2012-12-31T21:11:27 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29617",
"authors": [
"AdamO",
"April Jones",
"Carey Gregory",
"Cascabel",
"Dennis Campbell",
"Doug",
"Escoce",
"F Wong",
"Harley",
"Joy Vogel",
"Kiyots Meerkat Kiwi",
"Shailendra Rathore",
"TFD",
"Tammy Winn",
"Teresa Still",
"ahsteele",
"ender.qa",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156233",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161798",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68889",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68894",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/809",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
40692 | How much prime rib should I plan per person?
I plan on cooking a prime rib for an upcoming dinner party for eight adults. I would like to have enough beef leftover to make a soup or stew. I plan on cooking the prime rib to medium rare. Is it best to calculate the amount by the number of bones per person or by pounds? How much prime rib should I purchase to feed my guests?
Prime rib is not a good choice for soup or stew. It will dry out, it has no collagen to give unctuousness. Leftover prime rib is great for sandwiches though, or even salads.
@Jolenealaska thank for the tip. I am still interested in leftovers even if I don't make soup. :-)
Prime Rib soup can be very good, especially if prepared with the rib bones that were carved away from a 'bone-in' preparation and then cooked in a pressure cooker to extract the prime rib flavor into a broth.
Prime rib is usually sold two ways, Bone-In or Bone-Out. For a Bone-In prime rib an 8 pound should serve you well, for a Bone-Out, Six will do nicely. I would also highly recommend you refer to the prime rib narrative of "Cooks Illustrated The New Best Recipe Book" to learn how to prepare your roast.
[Edit]
Most restaurants that I have either had or seen Prime Rib served at will offer 10 oz or 12 oz serving size, with some variations in the overall 8-16 oz (225g - 450g) range. Appetites will vary from person to person, and you may wish to not serve the 'heals' as they will be more well done than the center, though some guests may prefer this..so, 'your-mileage-may-vary'. The very size of beef ribs makes serving them 'bone-in' impractical, as it results in a serving that is too thick for a single serving (though some restaurants do this for eye-appeal). For your home dinner party I would not recommend planning based on 'bone count'. Even if you buy and cook your roast "bone-in" your first cut after preparing and resting the meat should be to remove the bones from the roast. Since leftovers are goal you have set for this preparation you may wish to then slice the roast "on the bias" (about a 15°-20° angle from perpendicular to the bone section) as it will produce a larger footprint on the plate. The ends will provide you with good meat to include in a soup or slice up for sandwiches.
Since we are intentionally over buying for leftovers what's the estimate amount per person? That way I can adjust for the next dinner party.
@ahsteele meat portions between 100 g and 200 g pure meat per adult per meal are common, depending on the amount of other food in the same meal, which part of the world you live in, and the projected appetite of your guests (provide more for young males and people with recent physical activity). I normally calculate with 130 g muscle mass per portion.
That thar would be 4-8 oz per adult, with a normal calculation of about 5 oz. :-)
7lb 3ribs roast should make for 6-8 servings.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.834185 | 2013-12-30T06:33:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40692",
"authors": [
"Anh Quý Lê Gia",
"Cos Callis",
"Jolenealaska",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SpinUp __ A Davis",
"ahsteele",
"albcorp",
"andrew micklethwaite",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153157",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94700",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94701",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94702",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94729",
"mogran",
"rumtscho",
"user000001"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
43590 | How do I rapidly soften cream cheese?
I need to soften some cream cheese to room temperature. I forgot to take the cream cheese out of the refrigerator and don't want to offset my bake start time letting it sit. Is there a way to quickly soften the cream cheese that doesn't require just leaving it on the counter?
The time it takes is proportional to the thickness of the item heating or cooling. So, you can make the block of cream cheese (or butter, or anything else) warm up quicker by cutting it into small pieces. You need air circulation around the pieces, so they shouldn't be touching.
Especially since you often already want cream cheese cut into small chunks for mixing.
Seal it in an airtight zip type bag, squeezing out as much air as possible. Submerge the cream cheese under lukewarm water for several minutes, until softened, which you will be able to feel through the plastic.
You can also microwave it on low--but do it slowly, and check it frequently, taking off softened portions so that they don't overheat and melt.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.834475 | 2014-04-20T02:40:29 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43590",
"authors": [
"AML",
"Kaya Howell",
"code_doc",
"djsavvy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102211",
"inurab"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
24671 | How to chill a compote?
Our apricot tree is overloaded with apricots this year so I have been trying out a variety of different apricot recipes. I am particularily enjoying an apricot compote recipe, however I am having trouble interpreting one step in the recipe:
Cook over medium heat, turning occasionally, until apricots are glazed and syrupy, 7-8 minutes.
Transfer to a small bowl and chill.
The chill part has me confused as I am not sure if I should let the syrup chill to room temperature on the counter then cover and store in the refrigerator. Or if I should remove from the heat and immediately store it in the refrigerator. What's the best mechanism for chilling a hot compote?
What jar/container are you storing it in?
@Mien just a Rubbermaid tupperware container. If there's a better a container to store it in let me know.
possible duplicate of Putting warm food in the fridge
For the clarification on the 'chill' ... Typically it would be 'let cool' if they wanted it to come to room temperature, and 'chill' if they expected refrigeration. Of course, going straight to the fridge with hot things has the other implications that Jefromi linked to.
There is nothing especially interesting going on in a hot compote. You can chill it as quickly or slowly as you want to, until it reaches the desired temperature. Food safety requires that you don't keep it for more than 4 hours in the danger zone (between 60°C and 4°C), but if it is in individual serving bowls, on-the-counter chilling should be enough. Also, don't put large amounts of hot liquids in the fridge, you risk raising the entire fridge's temperature to unsafe levels, and the inside of a large container won't cool quickly enough to leave the danger zone. If you made lots of compote at once and want it very cold, chill it in an ice water bath.
The final temperature can be whatever you prefer. I eat my compote slightly colder than room temperature (15°C to 20°C). You can eat it fridge-cold, room temperature, or even hot, if it tastes better to you.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.834607 | 2012-06-24T17:22:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24671",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Joe",
"Mien",
"ahsteele",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/809"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
67160 | Is it okay to marinate brisket for 48 hours?
My wife and I had planned to cook a brisket for dinner tonight. Our plans have changed and we would now like to cook and eat the brisket tomorrow night instead. Yesterday, before we knew our plans would change we put the brisket into a marinade. Currently, our 3 pound brisket is in the refrigerator sitting in a bath of the low sodium version of Claude's BBQ Brisket Marinade Sauce.
Is it okay to continue to let the brisket marinade until we cook it tomorrow? Do we need to cook it today and serve the brisket as leftovers tomorrow? Or do we need to get the brisket out of the marinade, but still cook it tomorrow?
Generally, yes, you can leave a brisket in a marinade for 48 hours or even longer. The exception would be a marinade that is very highly acidic, but not that's not likely to be a problem with a commercial marinade.
This particular product is mostly vinegar and tomato. If 48 hours is okay is there a maximum?
Considering the size of your roast and that the marinade is at least fairly acidic, I'd call 72 hours your max (for quality, not safety). For safety, consider the Use-By date on your label.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.834801 | 2016-03-06T21:32:37 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67160",
"authors": [
"Heng Keng Loy",
"Jason Brannon",
"Jolenealaska",
"Marnia Hardy",
"Morgan Pryde",
"ahsteele",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161140",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/809"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
10294 | Storing hard crusted bread
I'm currently baking a batch of sourdough bread. My last batch turned out perfectly with a hard crust and chewy inside. My problem is how to store the bread such that the crust stays hard. If I put it in a plastic bag the crust goes soft in a matter of hours and I'm afraid that the bread will turn dry if I leave it without some kind of protection. Note that I'm not looking for a long term storage solution.
What is the best way to store my bread, such that the crust stays hard and the inside stays chewy?
I recently read somewhere (I forget where) that if you're only storing it for a day or two, standing the loaf cut-side down on a cutting board worked fine. The crust stays crisp, and the cut edge is protected and doesn't go stale.
Storing it that way much longer than a day or so probably would risk going stale.
Unfortunately, we don't get to do this much as we can't eat one fast enough to get away with unprotected storage like that. So we have to live with increasingly soft crusts in plastic bags.
I will try the "cut-side down" method tomorrow on halt a loaf!
This is what I do with my high-hydration long rise loaves. If for some reason one lasts longer than a few days it will get stale this way. Solve that by baking slightly smaller loaves.
For some kinds of sourdough, cut-side down with a paper bag over the loaf results in palatable bread up to a week later. (Slightly chewy and not as good as fresh, but definitely with a crust and only moderate staling on the cut face.)
For crusty bread, try a paper bag. It'll help keep the bread crusty, and it won't dry out quite as fast as being left on the counter.
Due to lack of paperbags I will store the bread in towels overnight. Tomorrow I'll report on how that turned out!
Towel works fine for storing the bread.
A bread box could be useful. Aside from keeping bread fresh and protected from critters, I would think it could help with crust appeal.
I also wonder if storing in a cloth bag or towel would protect it from drying out, yet allow enough air circulation to prevent the crusts from softening.
Here are quite a selections of bread boxes, who knew they were still so popular:
http://www.amazon.com/b?node=13880451
This may be your perfect solution where you can control amount of air flow:
http://www.amazon.com/Progressive-International-Adjustable-Bread-Keeper/dp/B001BB2LMM/ref=lp_13880451_1_1?s=kitchen&ie=UTF8&qid=1411481319&sr=1-1
I would think a bread box from a bread flour company would be well suited to home-baked bread:
http://www.kingarthurflour.com/shop/items/retro-bread-box?utm_source=Amazon&utm_medium=CPC&utm_campaign=Shopping&utm_keyword=King+Arthur+Flour+Retro+Bread+Box
... aside from the frequents dings that people are finding in the exterior. Just add a couple more and call it patina.
NEW INFO: I asked King Arthur Flour about effectiveness of the bread box on crusts:
It will definitely keep the bread from getting too hard like leaving it out in the open air, and it will keep it from getting too soft like plastic bags do.
The crust on your rustic breads will soften up some though, especially after a day or two and it will vary depending on the weather. So in general, it's better than plastic or nothing at all, but there will be some changes to the crust texture over time.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.834955 | 2010-12-19T10:22:56 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10294",
"authors": [
"András Salamon",
"Arlene Oetterer",
"Carmen Fittro",
"Charles Reust",
"E H",
"Jane Charbonneau",
"Kate Gregory",
"ase",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114298",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21007",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21014",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5041"
],
"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
} |
11840 | If braised meat is cooked at 200 degrees in a perfectly sealed pouch in the oven, does the temperature rise above boiling?
I just tried to answer a question about pot roast and looking at recipes I discover one that cooks the meat at 200 degrees in a sealed pouch for 3 to 3 1/2 hours.
There is a lot of reason to make a roast such as a prime rib at low temperatures since the inside of the meat will cook close to the same speed as the outside making an even color and temperature to the meat.
However, cooking something at 200 degrees for 3 hours will ultimately cook it through and through which is the purpose. But, does it make a difference if the actual temperature of the meat goes past the boiling temperature? Would it be better to cook it in a 170 degree oven since the steam pressure raises the temp to perhaps something just under boil?
Any increased steam pressure would raise the boiling point, not lower it. However, I doubt that you will be able to seal the pouch well enough to withstand any serious pressure.
What may cause boiling though, is the fact that ovens cycle on and off, especially at low temperatures. The amplitude of the cycles depend on how good your oven is. At 200°F, your pouch will probably experience above-boiling ambient temperatures during the on-part of the cycles. Of course, that doesn't mean that the contents of the pouch is above-boiling, but there may be.
However, I don't think that the braising liquid boiling slightly now and again is going to be a big problem. Sometimes when I've braised meat, there's been some boiling, and the results have still both looked and tasted great.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.835217 | 2011-02-06T01:17:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11840",
"authors": [
"Liz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24368",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24372",
"user24372"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
9640 | How do you reduce a cream sauce?
My wife made a cream based sauce last night and the recipe said to "reduce" it.
The cream sauce was comprised of some white wine, couple cups of heavy cream and chicken broth (my wife substituted water for the broth)
I looked up how to reduce a sauce, and it basically said to heat it up til most of the liquid evaporates and the sauce gets thicker. Makes sense, but the website I was on said that the liquid should simmer on low heat while reducing. I was doing this but it was taking forever and was still very thin (~30 minutes). I cranked up the heat to high and that sped things up, but I'm wondering what the proper way to do it is.
Should she not have added water? Was there something else we missed? Or does it really take that long to reduce a cream sauce?
This is a comment because its not really an answer to the question you asked. If the broth was indeed for thickening (I assume so) then you can also use a bit of flour. I know this sounds odd at fist, but if you add it early, it will help things thicken and you won't taste or feel a bit of it. You only need a tablespoon or so. Cheers to your wife for the effort either way. I hope she didn't feel like she did something terrible. I'm teaching my girlfriend to cook, and she feels bad when things don't work exactly to plan. I keep reminding her that the only way to learn is to make mistakes!
The simple answer is: You reduce a cream sauce the same way you reduce any other sauce, by simmering it until a certain amount of liquid is gone, just like the instructions said. You have to be careful about temperature though, because milk (or cream) can burn at high temperatures, and then your sauce is ruined. You should keep it to a low or at most medium simmer.
Cream sauces normally tend to thicken extremely fast, so the long cooking time is almost certainly due to watering it down. I don't think the water was necessary at all; the chicken broth was probably for flavouring, and although "broth" is a somewhat nebulous term, one would normally expect a broth to contain at least some amount of gelatin, which will cause the sauce to thicken substantially when it cools if you reduce it a lot. Water doesn't, so you've added no flavour and thinned out the sauce.
Basically, you (or your wife) added water for no other purpose than to try to evaporate it later. Water generally doesn't go in a cream sauce. If you don't have chicken broth or can't use it, I would either substitute more wine or just leave it out completely. Usually the only time you substitute water for broth is if it's actually the base of your sauce.
lol, that's exactly what I told her about the water after I figured out what "reducing" meant. Can't blame her, I probably would have done similarly...
@OTisler: Indeed, it's an easy mistake for many to make; substitutions have to take into account context, it's often important to understand why the recipe calls for a certain ingredient before you can determine if a substitute is appropriate (or even necessary).
+1: I can't remember where I read it, but in some cookbook long ago, the chef stated categorically that you should never waste an opportunity to add flavor, and therefore water was always a bad idea.
In addition to the effect of gelatin in the stock, there would also be a higher sodium content; which would allow the simmering to take place at a higher temperature without scorching due to salt raising the relative boiling point. Simmering at a higher temperature would cut down your time for reducing.
@mfg: First of all, stock generally isn't salted (although broth is more likely to be). More importantly, while salt (not sodium) does raise the boiling point, the practical effect of that is going to be completely negligible in this case. It's something like 1° C for 100 g of salt for a typical pot size. That's over half a cup of salt for a temperature difference that you wouldn't even notice, and no broth is that salty. Last but not least, it's not the overall temperature of the sauce that matters w/r/t burning, it's the contact temperature at the bottom of the pan, which is much hotter.
Your pan was not very hot when you poured in the cream, and then you kept the temperature low per the low simmer instructions; that's why it took forever.
Bring it to a boil on high heat first, then bring it down, and it will reduce in under ten minutes.
This is certainly a possible reason, although the question did not state how or how quickly it was brought up to simmering temperature. In general, simmer implies heating quickly and then bringing the temperature down; that's true for any recipe, not just cream sauces or reductions.
It dosnt make sense to add water to cream if your purpose it to take the water out of the cream, thats why it took so long .
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.835373 | 2010-12-01T03:22:28 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9640",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Albireo",
"Caroline Barthet",
"Christina P",
"Colin K",
"Michael Prinsloo",
"Ovi Tisler",
"Satanicpuppy",
"donna",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19724",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19726",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19727",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4289",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/555",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69990",
"mfg",
"rao nur"
],
"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
} |
18227 | Is it possible to get vegetarian grana padano cheese?
My wife is vegetarian and, since meeting her, I've come to realise that all Grana Padano seems to be non-vegetarian. Is this really the case, or are my local supermarkets just not stocking the veggie stuff? Would be a shame for her to miss out on so many things (esp. pesto) just because of this.
Thanks.
don't be offended, but realizing that Grana Padano is non vegetarian is like realizing that Champagne contains alcohol... if it is Grana Padano, it is made from cow milk, period. If it is vegetarian, it is not Grana Padano, says the law. For something that can be used to replace grated hard cheese, indeed yeast flakes can help. Although the taste is different, of couse.
I was asking about it being vegetarian, not vegan. It was the rennet I was interested in. Thanks anyway - probably just a language issue. :)
I suggest Pecorino which is similar and the version in ASDA is I think from memory -suitable for vegitarians
You may be able to find vegetarian Grana Padano style cheese, but I don't think you will find the real thing in vegetarian form.
This is because the making of Grana Padano is still a traditional process and true GP cheese is only produced in certain regions of Italy. It in fact has P.D.O. (Protected Designation of Origin) status, which means that only those cheeses produced in certain regions and using certain methods can legally be called Grana Padano. I imagine one of those methods is using animal rennet.
I would be surprised that there isn't some form of substitute available in Italy, as they have the highest proportion of vegetarians in Europe at 10%. I get the feeling, however, that they are perhaps less zealous about it than others if it means giving up good cheese.
The only suggestion I have found as an alternative to GP as something to sprinkle on pasta etc is nutritional yeast powder, which apparently has a similar nutty, creamy taste. Not ideal, but if you make the choice to be veggie you have to take the rough with the smooth!
I see from your profile that you live in the UK; we are lucky in that we have a lot of fantastic small local producers, so it may be worth looking up some local dairies or cheesemakers and seeing if they can offer an alternative.
Yeah, I'll have to check with the Northumberland Cheese Company, as they're just down the road from me and all of theirs is vegetarian. Don't think I've ever seen a proper hard cheese like GP in their shop, mind. Thanks for answering, btw. :)
"I get the feeling, however, that they are perhaps less zealous about it than others if it means giving up good cheese." - absolutely true. I have met vegetarians in Italy who ate rennet-made cheese. And: Good quality hard cheese with bacterial enzymes exists, I have a piece of it in my fridge right now. A cheese producer is maybe not your best bet, go to a cheese monger who imports cheese from different sources, they will probably have something for you.
Very few places outside of Europe accept the p.d.o status of cheeses.
I've also met vegetarians who happily ate various kinds of cheese before fermenatation produced rennet (according to Wikipedia about 80 % of all rennet world wide) and microbial rennet were invented. That being said, the production specifications for Grana Padano (https://www.granapadano.it/public/file/disciplinareen-20029-27920.pdf) say calf rennet. (As a non-vegetarian, I think the animal content in Grana Padano is still less than, say, the worm content in organic cherries)
I Buy kosher Grana Padano:http://www.collaspa.it/en/index.php
Since we can't use animal rennet,it is vegetarian and it says so on their web page.
For those looking to find the exact item/SKU, the vegetarian version is listed as Gran Formaggio Italiano on the target website. See: http://www.collaspa.it/en/mix-formaggi.php?c=6
You can get a cheese named Grandi Pascoli from QuatrtroColli. Its is a grana padano made With vegetable rennet. This is especially made for vegetarian use.
No. Grana Padano's traditional recipe uses animal rennett and because it has DOP protection under EU law, no cheese made to any other recipe can be sold as 'Grana Padano'.
Try Grana Padano Tipo, which contains a modified enzyme. It's used by a leading vegetarian restaurant in Brighton, for its full flavour.
Unless I'm mistaken in my translation (and google translate is backing me up on this one), 'Tipo' means 'Type' ... so I assume it's trying to say it's similar to grana padano, and may not necessarily means it's vegan unless it's got some other qualifiers (to differentiate between other variants). I've found mention of 'Grana Padano Tipo Trentino', which uses calf rennet.
I believe the best vegetarian alternative is Gran Mantovano. It's made in Italy by a reputable maker of Grana Padano and Parmigiano Reggiano and in my opinion is an excellent substitute for Grana Padano. It is made specifically for vegetarians.
There is indeed a fabulous Italian Hard Cheese that is Vegetarian. It's called Quattrocento and is made by Granarolo. You can buy it at Waitrose or from idelionline.com
It's a smoother texture but still packs a punch so cooks and eats the same as a parmesan or PDO product
It is made with microbial rennet and is preservative free so a much cleaner ingredient deck than a few other cheeses of a similar style
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.835788 | 2011-10-06T09:01:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18227",
"authors": [
"Jan07",
"Joe",
"Mal Ross",
"Mars",
"Mizog",
"Neil Meyer",
"Sotrippy",
"Tawatha Agee",
"WFA",
"Walter A. Aprile",
"Willow Anne",
"cbeleites",
"forty",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104195",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39382",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39384",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67088",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81390",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81465",
"meklarian",
"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
} |
54839 | What can I use as a replacement for cumin?
I've just run out of cumin and rather than go to the shops for more I wonder what I could substitute for cumin?
I'm making a lentil soup, which calls for sweating onions and the finishing the onions with cumin before adding the stock.
What can I use instead for variety or desperation?
Interesting question.... could you perhaps post the full recipe because then we'll know which direction this soup is heading? Thanks!
I've had good luck replacing cumin with fresh fine-ground caraway. That's not likely to work in every recipe, but it sounds like it might in yours.
Here's the recipe http://vegangela.com/2013/06/06/easy-lemon-lentil-soup/
Chili powder and things like chili or taco spice mixes will normally have cumin as an ingredient. Of course they have other ingredients as well, but they might work well in a lentil soup.
The problem is that a lot of substitutions are based on what you have on hand.
For instance, I have both liquid smoke and smoked paprika, both of which would add that smoky quality that people associate with cumin.
We also need to consider what other ingredients are going into the dish. I have spice blends that contain cumin in varying degrees (garam masala, taco seasoning, a rub for ribs), and if they contain other ingredients that I might be using anyway, I'd consider replacing all of them with the spice blend.
With the flavorings including cumin, garlic, onion and crushed red pepper ... I'd use taco seasoning first, the lemon, and then the other seasonings to taste.
In India, when we make lentils we finish it by tempering with cumin or black mustard seeds. Infact these two are used interchangeably with many other dishes and gives the right kind of flavour required for any such dishes.
Incase you don't have even that on hand, flavour your dish with othe spices like chilli powder and garam masala and it should turn out just fine. Many spice mixes contains cumin powder so if you could get your hand on any of the mixed spice powders, it should do the trick.
Coriander might give you the right general sort of flavor, but I think it's darker and heavier than cumin (I'm struggling to describe this well, obviously). Perhaps mixed with paprika to brighten it up a little?
If you've got some, give it a sniff and see; it might work for the desperation, if nothing else.
isn't coriander more cilantro flavored? I personally am having a hard time thinking of a replacement for cumin. It is very distinct.
Coriander is the seed of cilantro, but doesn't have the "green" flavor of the herb. (However, it might run into the same "tastes soapy" problem that some people have with cilantro, I don't know.) It's kind of smokey and earthy.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure the soapy flavor is only in the herb. (I love cilantro despite being able to taste that flavor somewhat, and I don't taste it in coriander.)
I have trouble with cilantro. That trouble does not carry over into delicious coriander.
My first instinct was curry powder and perhaps some garam masala.
Not really like cumin, but also a classic combination with lentils and onions - an indian twist, so to speak.
(Amp up the heat with chili and top with a dollop of yoghurt, if you like.)
Hmm, perhaps combine the coriander from my answer and the curry from yours... Getting there!
We could be cooking up something nice, methinks! ^_^
Maybe garam masala plus coriander would be a good option.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.836326 | 2015-02-17T19:00:09 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54839",
"authors": [
"Adam Farrington",
"Ahtsham",
"Alex Sasak",
"Cascabel",
"Chandra Carpenter",
"Elliot Rothschild",
"Erica",
"Escoce",
"Jim Murphy",
"Joe",
"Johnny Maelstrom",
"Mark",
"Preston",
"Robert Page",
"Stephie",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130202",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130205",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/619",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
1485 | What herbs and spices are in "Italian Seasoning"?
I'm beginning to grow my own herbs and would like to put together something similar to the "Italian Seasoning" found in the grocery store spice section. (It's an easy way to add more flavor to pasta sauce.)
Is there a commonly accepted list of ingredients and proportions, or does it vary between the spice companies?
Having taken a look around some recipe sites and taken the intersection of what most of them consider the "core" spices (and leaving out the ones that showed up on too many 'variations' lists), it looks like the canonical ones are:
basil
marjoram
oregano
rosemary
thyme
I agree that this is the core of Italian Seasoning mix. If you're willing to put one together that's a bit more involved (but well worth your time!), check this recipe out: http://www.justrightmenus.com/recipe.php?id=73
@JustRightMenus Are the herbs and garlic in that recipe fresh?
I have used both and it comes out great either way.
I associate marjoram with middle eastern cuisine more so than Italian. I find marjoram to be used far more often in middle eastern cuisine.
I cannot +1 Peter V because of my poor reputation, but he is right: in Italian cooking you don't go for mix, what you look for is a balance between a few ingredients, normally one from different kind of foods: one cereal, one vegetable, one spice for example.
The main spice (or fresh herb) is parsley: it is so common that it is used in figurative language as well, think about a celebrity you see everywhere, just like parsley.
Fresh basil is a must for spaghetti sauce and freshness, as Peter V said, is the only option.
I never heard about red pepper in Italian cooking; I bought mine during a travel in Asia and use it for Asian food. Black pepper is for sauces and meat, white pepper for fish, normally.
Oregano, thyme, marjoram, are common, and they normally don't mix. Oregano is widely used on the top of some pizzas, especially when they have got anchovies, capers and/or olives on top.
Pizza margherita requires fresh basil.
Rosemary, bay leaf and sage are used commonly with meat or beans/lentils: in this case you often prepare a bouquet tying together some small branches from these three herbs with a cooking lace and let the bouquet rest in your preparation for some time.
You should probably add fennel seeds to the most-common-Italian-spices list.
+1 for parsley. I dump load and loads of parsley into my Italian spaghetti sauces. I find sage used mostly in breakfast (morning meal) preparations of meats. Sergio, with all the upvotes you have from this answer, I bet you can vote now.
I applaud your spice growing!
But, I would recommend you not mix your spices into a homemade Italian seasoning mix, for a few reasons.
First, some of the core mix are better dry, like Oregano -- Oregano needs to dry out to attain full flavor. Others, like Basil absolutely suck dried out, and taste way, way better fresh. Most spices taste better fresh.
Second, most legit Italian food doesn't use a big mix-o-spices. Classic Italian spaghetti sauce is actually just: milled tomatoes, olive oil, red pepper, salt. And it's unbelievably good, and indisputably 'Italian' tasting.
If you're going crazy, you can throw some torn up basil leaves into the pasta. Maybe you get where I'm going with this -- usually Italians cook with fresh spices, trying to bring out the individual flavors. Having your own herb garden will get you there fast, so don't worry about making the mix. (But do grow all those spices listed here, you'll use them!)
+1 for the minimalism of Italian cooking (even if you did leave out garlic). Visiting Italy taught me that if your dish has more than 5 ingredients, it's probably not Italian.
I think generally it is basil, marjoram, oregano & sage usually in the ratio 2:2:2:1 although it can differ and sometimes contains rosemary too.
There is rosemary, thyme and oregano in the Italian seasoning.
I would throw in Bay Leaf as well, along with dried red chilies. I think the standards are Basil, Thyme, Oregano and Marjoram... Rosemary is not always considered Italian.
Bay Leaf can be kind of crunchy when used like Italian Seasoning is used. Red Pepper is definitely Italian, but I don't usually see it in those mixes.
Yah, I usually use the whole leaf and remove before serving. I am a hot fan, so any Mexican, Italian, Spanish, Asian foods always have chili in them ;--)
Italian people do use rosemary; we use it together sage for meat roasts, and many other recipes. It's more Italian than chili, which is used more from Spanish people (we don't cook "meat with chili").
We use marjoram, oregano, basil, thyme and bay leaf in Italian. If you can't have fresh then perhaps roast the dry seasonings together in a hot cast iron skillet, dry.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! The part about chili doesn't answer the question, so I'll edit it out of your answer. (See the [tour] page for a quick explanation of how our site works.) I could convert it to a comment on the thing you were replying to, but the only mention of chili was referring to chili peppers, so it doesn't even make sense there.
Also, roasting dry herbs is mostly just going to mess them up - you mainly want to roast whole spices.
basil, oregano, parsley, rosemary,thyme, marjoram,sage, sea salt, black pepper.
Is this the ingredient list from a popular brand? Something from a recipe book?
The main three Seasoning are oregano, parsley, and basil. Other can be used rosemary, thyme, marjoram, sage, sea salt, black pepper, truffle salt.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.836662 | 2010-07-17T17:08:03 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1485",
"authors": [
"Ankit Ganatra",
"April Plyler",
"Carey Gregory",
"Cascabel",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Diane Smith",
"Escoce",
"Fernando N.",
"Guy",
"Jason",
"JimD",
"Jolenealaska",
"JustRightMenus",
"Mary",
"Michelle Love",
"Peter V",
"Raphomet",
"Spammer",
"avpaderno",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107175",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118758",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118769",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118771",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2705",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2706",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2713",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2843",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4368",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77005",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97849",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97872",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/982",
"nicorellius",
"pyfunc",
"slolife",
"waterlogged"
],
"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
} |
43152 | Can I substitute a beef round rump roast for brisket?
I am making a slow cooker recipe that calls for beef brisket. Unfortunately, my grocery store only had obnoxiously large cuts of brisket so I just grabbed a reasonably sized beef round rump roast. In the back of my head I thought I remembered that the two could be substituted for the other, but in trying to confirm that I'm coming up short.
Can I substitute a beef round rump roast for brisket? Do I need to adjust cooking time for the differing cut?
Pretty much no, they are totally non-alike. The beauty of brisket is that it is full of connective tissue and other odd stuff that translates to succulence when cooked low and slow. Round is pretty much the opposite, it has very little in the way of interest.
I agree with @Jolenealaska, one is not a substitute for another. For this recipe I bet you'll get away with it - 7 hours may be overdoing it though. You won't get the same gelling effect from the breakdown of the connective tissue, so you may want to coat the rump in some flour and fry it off to get some thickening action.
Also if you're actually making this for passover as the recipe page implies, the round cannot be kosher.
I accidentally bought a Round Cut corned beef and followed the directions for slow cooker. It was so dry, nasty, and inedible. It had the texture of canned tuna. :(
No. Rump roast is too lean, and does not have enough connective tissue. A Chuck roast would likely work in the recipe you linked in your question, as it bears more similarity to brisket in fat and connective tissue content.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.837376 | 2014-03-29T14:33:03 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43152",
"authors": [
"Caseyst",
"David",
"Didgeridrew",
"FRANK S",
"GdD",
"Kelly Marie Barron",
"Michael Coulter",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100964",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100965",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100966",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100967",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101011",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53156",
"mike"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
40742 | What consistency should flan have when it is removed from the oven?
I am making flan for a dinner party this evening. The recipe indicates the flan should be baked for an hour before chilling. However, having never cooked flan before I am unsure what the flans consistency should be when it comes out of the oven. Is a little runny okay? Will the flan already be "firm," or does that happen during the chilling process?
Flan has more than one meaning. Are you making a fruit tart or a creme caramel?
@Taylor Creme Carmel.
It will firm up a little bit during chilling, but not much. It is certainly supposed to be firm enough to keep its shape on its own when taken out.
If you have baked creme caramel or cheesecake, then try to get it to a similar consistency as these. If you haven't, you may want to use a roast thermometer. The final temperature (assuming a traditional flan without starch or flour) should fall in the 85-90 Celsius range.
I find that the flan doesn’t set in the oven, even if baked for hour and fifteen minutes. However, it has always set when left in fridge overnight.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.837542 | 2013-12-31T17:01:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40742",
"authors": [
"Kirk Andersen",
"Peter Taylor",
"Zayaans food express",
"ahsteele",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94833",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94835",
"zeebeel"
],
"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
} |
40491 | How can I mask the flavor of frozen vegetables in soup?
Sometimes it is nice to just grab ingredients from the pantry / freezer and throw things into a pot for a quick "homemade" soup. Typically quick soups like this utilize a mixed bag of frozen vegetables. Unfortunately, I can often taste that the vegetables were frozen. Is there a way to mask this frozen flavor?
What you are describing is often worst when the vegetables are thrown together without care as to what vegetables will do well stewed for a while, and which vegetables only need to be heated through and will suffer if they are cooked longer.
A great example of that is in the case of typical "frozen mixed vegetables". Carrots are never nicely tender in mixtures like that. Lima beans are downright chalky and peas are total mush. If you want to use frozen vegetables, avoid mixtures.
Pick the vegetables that you actually enjoy, and add them to your soup at a time appropriately distant from the time that you actually want to serve the soup. So bring lima beans to a hard simmer before you add corn, bring that to a hard simmer before you add frozen potatoes, add frozen carrots, bring that to a hard simmer before you finally add peas just before you serve - your soup will be better than emptying a bag of mixed vegetables into broth.
I think you are doing a better job of describing the perceived flavor issue than I did in my question! I like your suggestion of creating my own mixed vegetables.
Thank you! It was realizing that I actually like peas that caused me to see this particular light.
And if you can't avoid mixtures, simmer instead of boiling hard - while some parts of the mixture will still overcook, they will overcook to worse results when boiled.
I realise this is old but I'm surprised no one has said this yet.
Soaking/thawing the vegetables in a salted water solution for 2 hours will remove the freezer taste and ensure the vegetables properly marry with the soup/broth/sauce.
Separating mixed veg as previously stated can help because of different cooking times but the veg is already parboiled to different consistencies to equalise the cooking time of the mix. A premium mix might be better at equalising the cooking time but it is brand specific.
I know exactly what you mean when you say "frozen taste". A good trick to liven up frozen veggies is to roast them before adding them to your soup.
If your frozen veggies taste like they were frozen then that's the issue to solve. Decent frozen vegetables which have been stored properly should not have any off flavors at all. If, on the other hand there are odors in the freezer, or it's not storing things cold enough, or you haven't properly re-sealed the vegetables after you took some out then that could lead to things tasting a bit off. Also, they could just be old, nothing lasts forever.
So, make sure you've got the right storage temp, and maybe clean the freezer out thoroughly. Stick an open box of baking soda in to control odors, seal your vegetables properly, and get rid of them if they are more than 6 months old.
If you still want to use them you'll have to cover it up with strong flavors like a nice hearty stock, garlic, chili, etc.
Using a factory sealed bag. Vegetables are taken directly from the freezer and put into the soup. None of the other foods kept in our freezer home wrapped or factory sealed take on any sort of flavor.
I cannot imagine what the specific taste is that indicates vegetables were frozen, assuming you are using a product with reasonable quality.
You may optionally choose to saute the vegetables before adding them to the soup to get some additional flavor development (this will reduce the total time they need to cook in the soup).
Also, make sure you are seasoning your overall soup sufficiently, as frozen vegetables, much like fresh ones, have no salt.
Maybe it's just a perceived taste based on texture or appearance. We are buying name brand vegetables from the chain super market near our neighborhood.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.837676 | 2013-12-22T19:56:20 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40491",
"authors": [
"Cathy Pilar Mcnamara",
"Cosmik",
"Doris Gaspard",
"Gina",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kris Haamer",
"ahsteele",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94173",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94175",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94186",
"rackandboneman",
"uncannyNebula",
"user1009773"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
30809 | Using noodle cooking water to loosen sauce?
One of my guilty pleasures is perusing my wife's Real Simple magazine for recipe ideas and cooking tips. In the March 2013 issue one of the cooking tips has me a bit confused. In the Three Steps to Knockout Noodles article step 3 recommends:
Reserve ½ cup of the [noodle] cooking water. The starchy, seasoned liquid is great for loosening up cheesy, creamy, or tomato-based sauces.
What is being recommended here:
to use the cooking water in the sauce?
to use the water as a cleaning agent on plates?
See also (possible dupes): Saving pasta water and Why add pasta water to pasta sauce?
I always reserve the pasta water for my dog. He loves it. Alternatively, boil dinner-left-overs soup with pasta water and mix it into his cheap dog food. He begs for more.
I always reserve a bit of pasta water to add it to the pan. The reason is simple: if you drain your pasta and add it to the sauce the pasta will suck up all the sauce and become a bit dry. Adding the pasta water ensures that your pasta will remain moist. Also yes, it helps thickening the sauce (this does not necessarily apply to tomato sauce).
Now, let's be clear: you DO NOT add your pasta water to the sauce when you are preparing the sauce. You only add it when you put your pasta in the sauce. It also helps if you don't drain the pasta, just take it out of the boiling water (using tongs, ofc) and put it in your sauce while still on the stove. A quick 30-50 secs stir and that's it.
Hope this helps.
PS: 1/2 cup seems like a lot to me. For two portions of pasta I usually add around 3 tablespoons.
In addition to the reasons covered in other answers, some pasta dishes with sauces including cheese actually require using some of the cooking water in order to turn out correctly.
In these cases the starch in the water coats the proteins in the cheese and prevents them from binding to the cheese's fat which would otherwise act as a sort of glue as it melts. This is the same reason why, when making Fondue, you typically coat the shredded cheese with a small amount of flour, cornstarch or arrowroot.
An example of a dish where using the pasta water is required for the recipe to turn out correctly is Cacio e Pepe (Spaghetti with Pecorino Romano and Black Pepper)
Based on a bit of goole centric research thekitchn.com: Quick Tip to Thicken Sauces with Pasta Water, Bon Appetit: How to Make Perfect Pasta tip #4, and a few others it looks like a common enough practice to add your starch water to sauce in order to give it a smoother creamier texture thus improving mouthfeel. You'd also be adding flavors from the starch water itself; presumable any salt you would have added to the cooking water. The recommendation seems to be primarily for oil based sauces, but may aid tomato sauces as well.
To me this seems odd, and I personally am not jumping to give it a go. I like my home made pasta sauces just fine thank-you-very-much.
The OP is also implicitly asking why you'd add the water to the sauce - what does it do?
They're recommending using the water in the sauce. It adds flavor, some of that being the salt you presumably added to the water. Also, see the answers to this question.
Yes, step one called for two tablespoons of water.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.838000 | 2013-02-10T16:35:20 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30809",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Angela",
"Cascabel",
"Cassandra Staten",
"Cynthia",
"Doug Brummell",
"John",
"Kwarky",
"Laura Johnson",
"Phylyp",
"Princessdrea",
"Think ",
"ahsteele",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72095",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72097",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72099",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72102",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72104",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72111",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72133",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/809"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
25168 | Can I leave a cake / cupcakes frosted with cream cheese frosting out on the counter?
I need to frost a cake and cupcakes with a cream cheese frosting for a late morning party tomorrow. I do not do a lot of baking so I'm concerned about when I should frost the cakes. For the sake of time tomorrow I'd prefer to frost the cakes this evening, but am worried about overnight storage of a cream cheese frosting.
Can I frost the cakes tonight and leave them frosted on the counter?
If left on the counter do they need to be covered?
Would it be better to place the cakes in the refrigerator?
Is my best bet to wait until tomorrow before frosting?
Because of the dairy products, you shouldn't leave it un-chilled for more than 4 hours.
It's always best to cover your food to prevent dust (or cat fur, for example) from covering it.
Unless the frosting is really wet and gooey (which might run into the cake), it's OK to frost now.
What is it about gooey frosting which would warrant holding off?
@ahsteele - Added more above, thanks. For a really wet frosting, I'd be concerned about it running inti the cake given too much time.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.838301 | 2012-07-21T16:32:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25168",
"authors": [
"David Montijo",
"Jenny Rose",
"Jenny Shull",
"KatieK",
"Thea N.",
"ahsteele",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57542",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57543",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/809",
"user143607",
"user57546"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
7334 | Does honey have a bitter component?
I've heard Jeffrey Steingarten, on Iron Chef America, mention that he finds honey quite bitter. I've never noticed that myself. Maybe if I really try I can notice a slight bitter finish, but for me the sweetness and floral aroma dominates. Is honey actually bitter in some quantifiable sense? Are some particular varieties of honey better known for this characteristic?
Most American Honey is made from clover. I personally do not detect much bitterness, but I have noticed that honey produced locally has more of a body to it than stuff I buy in little plastic bears in the grocery store. Almost a subtle tanginess.
But no, I think calling honey "quite bitter" is overkill.
It depends on what the bees had for lunch :) . Acacia honey is extremely sweet, with no bitter aftertaste. Chestnut honey (easy to find in Italy, don't know about elsewhere) is dark and has a strong bitter note. I personally love how the bittersweet goes with butter and bread, but some people hate it. Generic polyflower honey usually does not have a bitter note.
Very well put. As a general rule, early season honey tends to be lighter and sweeter, and as the year progresses the honey tends to get darker, more complex, and bolder. Think of the difference between table sugar and dark brown sugar. If you aren't used to it, the late season honey certainly could taste bitter.
Interesting about chestnut honey! Buckwheat honey (that's not been heat treated to make it more dark) is naturally dark if I'm right. I mostly remember the taste, nit colour. Is it considered to have a bitter overtone? I don't think I notice bitterness the same as most, or perhaps it's because I appreciate a bitter taste in many foods.
I also notice it myself, and it varies depending on the flowers and region. I read that there is a bitter honey from Sardinia, Miele Amaro.
Honey from chestnut flowers is very bitter.
This may be of interest.
I've just returned from Sardinia and they have a honey there that's described as bitter. The honey is from bees that collect pollen from the Arbutus unedo trees or 'Irish Strawberry Tree' (not actual strawberries but round fruit that look a little like strawberries.
"Arbutus unedo serves as a bee plant for honey production, and the fruits are food for birds. The fruits are also used to make jams, beverages, and liqueurs (such as the Portuguese medronho, a type of strong brandy). Many regions of Albania prepare the traditional drink raki from the fruits of the plant (mare or kocimare in Albanian), hence comes the name of the drink "raki kocimareje". In order to reduce the high content of methanol in the drink, the spirit is distilled twice. Honey produced has a characteristic bitter taste.[7] In Turkey the fruit is called kocayemiş and it is consumed as a fresh fruit, usually sold in the streets in November and December."
The jar I got from Sardinia is shown attached, and in Sardinia it's known as Corbezzolo honey.
The taste certainly is bitter. There's some sweet notes initially but it rapidly turns bitter, though still of honey. Smooth finish. Certainly not to everyone's taste (my wife included) - But I love it.
Interesting! Thanks for the info. I'd love to try it.
I was also surprised to discover a very similar honey in Corsiga, called Miel de maquis d’automne, which translates to something like 'honey from the autumn scrub'. It is very bitter, even unpleasant for some people. I imagine it is close to this sardinian one you mentioned given the aspect and common terroir! Very interesting and worth trying!
There are varieties of honey that have an inherently bitter note. I personally search out sourwood honey for that character. It might be my favorite right after linden (or basswood here in the US) honey, which is not bitter but complex.
Living in the Philippines. Were wild honey is sold by boys walking the streets with a bucket with a comb in it to sell honey. With some bees still in it. Need your own bottle. You first taste it before buying. Some is sweet some is bitter. Even had some that taste of rosemary or we call it seamist. Very good for cooking. Dark honey normally has more pollen in it. Very dark honey has industrial use. Normally you do not see this sold. Strong flavor there. Also type of bee that made the honey. We have about a dozen types of bees some blue some red some like most see. Even the black African stile bee. So taste before you buy. Unless you know the brand name were sameness is important. There bottle not yours.
Over the past year I bought a small plastic bottle with a label that reads Raw Local Honey, Wild Flower. When I first opened the bottle and tasted it, I almost recoiled. I have never tasted honey like it; it is, to me, very bitter. So yes, bitter honey can happen.
Honey is stored in honeycomb which contains wax like components. The taste of honey depends on how effectively these wax components are removed from honey
Honeycomb doesn't just contain waxlike components, it's made of wax. Are you saying beeswax is bitter? It seems pretty tasteless to me. I guess it's possible that propolis is bitter?
The taste of honey has far more to do with the flowers it was made from than with any remaining beeswax.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.838457 | 2010-09-15T17:36:32 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7334",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Jude",
"Matthew",
"Michael Natkin",
"Mr. Proper",
"Preston",
"Silenced Temporarily",
"Sun",
"greedyscholars",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106228",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15028",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15088",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66768",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8339",
"user15036",
"user15088"
],
"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
} |
1614 | What do "virgin" and "extra virgin" mean in regards to olive oil?
I have seen the terms "virgin" and "extra virgin" on bottles of olive oil. What do these terms mean, and how do they affect the flavor and cooking properties of the oil?
A very good question, an answer on Youtube
Related: Whats the difference between olive oil, and extra virgin olive oil, and virgin olive oil? at Yahoo.
In the US, "extra virgin" isn't a legally protected term - some of the stuff sold as EVOO here would never, ever pass as it elsewhere.
From Wikipedia:
Extra-virgin olive oil comes from virgin oil production only, contains no more than 0.8% acidity, and is judged to have a superior taste. Extra Virgin olive oil accounts for less than 10% of oil in many producing countries. It is used on salads, added at the table to soups and stews and for dipping.
Virgin olive oil comes from virgin oil production only, has an acidity less than 2%, and is judged to have a good taste.
Pure olive oil. Oils labeled as Pure olive oil or Olive oil are usually a blend of refined and virgin production oil.
Cooking-wise, the extra virgin stuff is best used in situations where it won't be highly heated. Salad dressings, dipping oils, finishing a dish, etc. are where it shines.
There are typicality four types of olive oil available, with Extra Virgin being at the top of the quality tree:
Extra virgin olive oil is mechanically pressed (you may see the term cold pressed) rather than being produced by chemical means. I has an acidity level of less than 0.8%. It is also tasted for flavour before being certified.
Fine or Virgin Olive Oil has an acidity of less than 2%. It often uses slighter riper olives. Olive oils with the low acidity of extra virgin but which haven’t passed the official taste test also fall into this category.
Ordinary Olive Oil is usually used to produce refined oils with a bland flavour.
Pomace Oil is processed from the paste left after the first pressing. It is generally quite flavourless and of low quality, usually only used for deep frying.
Exceptional quality Extra Virgin olive oil is still made on hand presses and hence the cost can be quite high.
The International Olive Council (IOC) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) have standards for what constitutes "Extra Virgin" olive oil. It's based mostly on measurable chemical properties, but also some more subjective "sensory" criteria.
If you really want to geek out and know the details, there is a recent study by the UC Davis Olive Center that you should read. They tested major North American brands of Extra Virgin olive oil to see whether they meet the criteria to carry the designation. The results were quite poor.
The paper goes into quite a lot of detail about the specific criteria. Get the PDF at http://www.olivecenter.ucdavis.edu/news-events/news/files/olive%20oil%20final%20071410%20.pdf.
Link to PDF is broken.
The PDF now seems to be found at: Report
Olive oil is defined by free fatty acid content. Less than 0.8% acid makes it extra virgin, less than 2% is virgin, 2% to 3% acid content is "pure". Cold pressing is antiquated, slow and messy (i have been involved) Continuous processing with centrifuges is quicker, cleaner and at the same temperature. Look for oil which shows the acid content.
In general, "virgin olive oil" is olive juice that had been mechanically extracted from raw milled olives. To be "extra-virgin" the juice should be from high quality fruit that is handled quickly and carefully at low temperatures.
Unfortunately the terms, "extra virgin olive oil" and "virgin olive oil" usually have very little meaning. The quality of an olive oil is very subjective and a lack of useful quantifiable attributes makes regulation almost impossible.
The flavor and cooking properties of olive oil are factors of the fruit quality and the processing methods.
Depends. Extra virgin could mean first press of the olive. Of good quality. A light pressing. To mash the olives. Next the pits are removed. Then a repress of the meat for oil. Virgin oil. Next the pits are pressed. for dark oil. Next all is thrown together & repressed for the dregs. But today it is done different It has to do with acid content & color, smell. Centrifuges are used today.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.838978 | 2010-07-18T02:57:02 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1614",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Dave Ceddia",
"JavadocMD",
"Macke",
"Sorantis",
"Winston Smith",
"carlosfigueira",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2922",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2928",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35748",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6171",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"kenorb",
"qdjm",
"wumpus D'00m"
],
"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
} |
1661 | What are good techniques for getting gluten free bread to rise?
I make gluten free bread in a bread maker, however I can never get it to rise as much as 'regular' bread and is usually a little heavy. What techniques/recipes/substitutions can I try to get my gluten free bread to rise more?
I currently use a recipe that is similar to this one here, but with a bit of tapioca starch instead of buckwheat flour.
FYI buckwheat flour is gluten free so you dont need to replace its use. Buck wheat confusingly is not actually a wheat.
@Toby Thanks for the tip, however I add tapioca starch for flavor. The gluten free flours appear to taste as though they have less starch than wheat based varieties.
You need something to make the batter a little more sticky so that bubbles from yeast or baking soda stay trapped as the bread bakes.
I generally use a little bit of xantham gum and a couple of tablespoons of arrowroot flour.
To make sure they're fully hydrated (for optimal sliminess) let the wet batter sit for a couple of minutes before adding baking soda. A little lemon juice or vinegar in the wet ingredients will help too.
I have had problems using bread makers myself, and therefor don't use them anymore. I have added my best tip for gluten free yeast baking in the thread Gluten free cooking. At least this works fine for me, and my girlfriend actually envy me for my nice bread, which tastes and looks better then the ones she buy in the store.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.839380 | 2010-07-18T07:04:03 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1661",
"authors": [
"Clinton",
"Marc J",
"Toby Allen",
"fgl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11270",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3011",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/711",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8863",
"maco",
"rlb.usa"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
65983 | What are the best burger buns available in the UK?
In recipes online I see recommendations for buns such as Martin's Potato Rolls. However it doesn't seem like it's possible to get this kind of bun in the UK, or indeed anything other than the basic no frills sesame seed burger bun. What is the best burger bun available? And where should one shop for it?
"Best" is quite subjective. Can you qualify what you look for in a burger bun? I've had sourdough, pretzel, kaiser buns before and each have its own pros and cons.
Go to your local favorite artisan bakery and ask for some burger buns.
Make them yourself. Here in Germany, all bought buns are crap whereas self made buns turn junk food into a truly luxury dish. Sample recipe: https://www.ploetzblog.de/2013/02/09/leserwunsch-hamburgerbroetchen-hotdogbroetchen-nach-peter-reinhart/
After living in the UK for more than a decade I share your pain in finding good burger buns. You can often find burger buns in the store but they are usually pretty bland and artificial. Better quality buns in the right shape or size are usually heavy and chewy.
You could take a cue from the artisan "posh" burger places that are popping up all over London and use brioche buns. These are widely available, and they have many of the right qualities as they are soft but still have structure and flavor. They do have a sweetness which I don't think goes with a burger but that's really minor. Other than that it depends on what supermarket chains are around (Waitrose and coop are the best sources I've found) and what bakeries you have around you. Shop around and pinch some buns till you find what you want.
You could go down the route of making them yourself, the Hawksmoor slider bun recipe is available on-line here, it's pretty simple and reliable.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.839538 | 2016-01-28T16:30:41 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65983",
"authors": [
"Brenda Crenshaw",
"Douglas cozzolino",
"Dulguun Enkhzaya",
"Janet Perry",
"Jay",
"Lee Jordan",
"Max",
"eckes",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157854",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157934",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3772",
"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
} |
58377 | Does it matter what order ingredients are sauteed in?
If I am making a stew say, does it matter if I dump in onions, garlic, bell pepper, tomato all at once or one by one?
My speculated reasons are:
Giving enough space for each ingredient will allow it to dry out and the maillard reaction or caramelization to take place
Ingredients have different 'hardness' so will take shorter or longer to break down. To get a similar consistency, each ingredient needs to be added at the right time
Number 2 is probably the over-riding factor. Your basic mirepoix can be tossed in at once, but if you add the garlic too early, it may over cook and taste bitter. I generally add hard veggies first (aromatics), then add softer ones (mushrooms, peppers, broccoli, etc), and then finish with the garlic and anything that can cook from carryover (spinach, basil, etc.). Bell peppers can go in earlier if using as the base for Cajun cooking.
Your first suggestion is only partially valid. Let's say you add your onions first as many would do. After that your stew as a whole will most likely be too wet to get a maillard reaction going for subsequent additions. For me, the order of additions to a stew is roughly determined as such:
Put the ingredient that you most want to caramelize in first (usually meat or onions, but never garlic)
If you have ingredients that transfer their flavour more easily to fat than water, always put them in early, because once your stew becomes more watery that flavour will no longer be transferred
Put items that rely on their fragrance in late (For instance fresh basil)
Bell peppers always go in late for me, but that is partially because I always peel them
Give everything a cooking time that allows the ingredients to transfer their flavour to the stew while also maintaining some texture (basically your second point)
In the end it all comes down to adjusting your process so that everything you add to your stew is able to do what it's there for, which might be adding flavour, texture, colour, wetness or anything that takes your fancy.
Stewing is not sautéing. Stewing is very forgiving. Brown your meats. Cook your veg, add the meat and stock and simmer slow for 10-12 hours.
Boil and add potatoes at the last hour. Season with salt and pepper at the end so that you get the salt just right. Salt is the most important skill of a cook.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.839728 | 2015-06-19T21:34:29 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58377",
"authors": [
"Gladys White",
"JSM",
"Kevin Haugen",
"Michael Anding",
"Padma L",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139111",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139113",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139395",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25100",
"lisa hayes"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
59182 | What is the function of oil in baking/roasting?
Oil is almost always used when cooking vegetables or meat at high temperatures in the oven, but I'm not sure what it actually does - it obviously provides flavour, but there seem to be other purposes.
Surface water prevents the maillard reaction from occurring because the temperature cannot exceed 100C. I presume that oil does not have this same property? How does oil aid in crisping the surface? Does it do anything else? Does it affect the form or speed of heat transfer?
(Liquid) water cannot exceed 100°C because that it's boiling point, and any additional heat applied goes toward the latent heat of evaporation needed to turn it into a gas (steam, which can then be higher than 100°C).
Oils have a boiling point much higher than water, and a point lower than that (but still much higher than water's boiling point) called the smoke point which you do not want to reach (as it causes dangerous break downs of the oil).
Oils aid in crisping by facilitating heat transfer. They are liquid so they have good coverage, and they sort of "stick" to the surface of the pan and the food. Excess drips off, but there's still a layer.
This layer has good coverage so it provides more contact between the food and pan, facilitating heat transfer.
Does oil only facilitate conductive heat transfer?
I'm not certain but I think the answer is yes. It might facilitate the transfer of heat from conduction or radiation once it reaches the oil (which then becomes conductive heat transfer into the food), but I don't think it helps the heat reach in other ways.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.839957 | 2015-07-19T11:27:05 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59182",
"authors": [
"Cynthia Ouy",
"Dana Roy",
"Evangela Myrick",
"Tom",
"briantist",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141352",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141353",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141354",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141362",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/759",
"thomas montell"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
62702 | When should I add meat/vegetables when cooking congee?
Congee is cooked for a long time, at least an hour or so. Most recipes I've seen simply recommend dumping all the ingredients in at the beginning and then letting it cook until the rice has broken down.
But if I do this then surely the meat and vegetables will be completely flavourless and mushy by the time the congee has finished cooking?
The process of cooking congee is similar to the process of making broth, but with rice added. I am not sure why one would want to use boneless chicken breasts in congee because this will impart minimal flavor (I would guess this is a Westerner trying to reduce fat). I am more familiar with using poultry or fish carcasses and aromatic vegetables to make a broth, and then straining and using this broth to cook the rice. For a faster way, you can add rice into the stock while the broth is cooking, but then you have the bones to pick through.
Traditionally, congee is often used as a dish for leftovers. You throw things in that you have on hand and often already cooked from the night before. Many of these are simply added when served. For example: leftover stir fried meat, cooked vegetables, hard boiled eggs, preserved eggs, fresh green onion, fresh cilantro, or fried dough.
To summarize, if you're using the ingredients to flavour the broth, then add at the beginning. If not, then add when serving.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.840126 | 2015-10-21T16:31:35 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62702",
"authors": [
"Allen Lewis",
"Amy Sims",
"Gail Harris",
"Mary Luz Ramos",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149130",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149132",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151587",
"salem edoo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
63010 | Mashed potato: start with hot water or cold water?
I've always been told to start root vegetables in cold water to ensure that the dense structure heats evenly and you don't end up with a mushy exterior. With mashed potato I'm going to tear it apart anyway, so is it worth starting it from cold instead of using water from the kettle?
see http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/6453/67
I just cut up my potatos into smaller chunks, steam them and then put them into my KitchenAid and mash them with the flat mixer tool. If you mix them long enough, they get so much air, it's like foam. Amazing.
TL;DR
Start with cold water if you boil potatoes. Peel and chunk medium starch potatoes or use whole unpeeled starchy potatoes.
Start with boiling water if you steam potato chunks, rinse with cold water halfway through cooking (starchy or medium starch potatoes).
If you submerge the potatoes, start them with cold water with salt, bring just to a boil and simmer until done. This method works best with russet potatoes whole and unpeeled, or preferably less starchy potatoes like Yukon Gold, which are fine peeled and chunked.
From America's Test Kitchen (Sorry, Paywalled, but they do offer a 14 day free trial)
For our mashed potato recipe, we quickly found that russet potatoes produced too much amylose because they are so high in starch. One solution was to boil the russets in their jackets. This inhibited water absorption, and without water absorption, the starch granules didn’t swell, burst, and release their sticky amylose. However, this technique requires you to peel hot potatoes just before serving⎯hardly an easy task.
If you have a less starchy, more waxy potato like Yukon Gold, peel and chunk them. Then one option is to simmer them as in ATK's Buttermilk Ranch Mashed Potatoes
Place potatoes in large saucepan; add cold water to cover by 1 inch and 1 tablespoon salt. Bring to boil over high heat, then reduce heat to medium and simmer until potatoes break apart when paring knife is inserted, about 18 minutes. Drain potatoes and return to saucepan set on still-hot burner.
ATK's other favorite method, which works for high or medium starch potatoes is steaming, rinsing them in cold water halfway through cooking.
(from the first link above)
We found that boiling them still introduced too much water into the starch granules. Instead we tried steaming. The hot water vapor efficiently cooks the spuds, but doesn’t allow them to soak up water the way boiling would.
We also rinsed the steamed potatoes halfway through cooking, taking advantage of another bit of chemistry. By rinsing, we allowed the potatoes to cool halfway through cooking. And by cooling off, some of the amylose still inside the starch granules formed insoluble crystals. Those insoluble amylose crystals stay trapped inside the granules and therefore can’t escape and turn the potatoes gluey. Better still, any amylose that did escape during the first half of cooking was simply washed away.
ATK's Fluffy Mashed Potatoes
Place metal colander or steamer insert in large pot or Dutch oven. Add enough [salted] water for it to barely reach bottom of colander. Turn heat to high and bring water to boil. Add potatoes, cover, and reduce heat to medium-high. Cook potatoes 10 minutes. Transfer colander to sink and rinse potatoes under cold water until no longer hot, 1 to 2 minutes. Return colander and potatoes to pot, cover, and continue to cook until potatoes are soft and tip of paring knife inserted into potato meets no resistance, 10 to 15 minutes longer.
Leave it to ATK to make mashed potatoes fussy, but I tried the steaming/rinsing/steaming method as above, and it really did work great.
I have never had a problem boiling potatoes regardless of what temp the water is in the beginning. Usually it's cold as when making mashers but like for stew, its already hot when adding potatoes and they're also fine in the end. Potatoes are generally very forgiving.
Some people advocate boiling, but I prefer to steam vegetables, including potatoes. They cook faster and using less energy. Cut into inch-or-so sized cubes before putting them in the steamer. Different varieties may cook quicker than others, so start checking after steaming 10 minutes or so, and stop cooking when the potatoes are fork-tender.
I love to toss a few peeled garlic cloves into the steamer along with the potatoes. They'll turn buttery soft and will mash into a paste — add some salt, pepper, olive oil (or butter), and maybe a little milk. You'll have super delicious garlic mashed potatoes!
The rule of thumb I was thought is...
Above ground start hot, below ground start cold.
Having said that I hate mushy carrots... They always just get cut and blanched in water at a rolling boil.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.840288 | 2015-10-31T17:25:37 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63010",
"authors": [
"Cole Whittenburg",
"Daniel Perkins",
"Joe",
"Micky Baines",
"Paula Hudson",
"Pete",
"Ricky Dias",
"Smileygirl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149947",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150042",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152947",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152951",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"user152947",
"zedoo"
],
"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
} |
62790 | What happens chemically when flavours 'mingle'?
When I make a stew and cook it for hours, the flavours combine to make a better combination than if I cooked them for a short time. The same thing happens when I leave a sauce like a ragu in the fridge overnight.
People talk about flavours mingling, but what is actually going on here? When the cells of foods break down and are released, what happens when they meet?
I assume some kind of molecular diffusion takes place to even out the flavours and build new ones, but I have no proof at all.
This question is related to, and a potential duplicate of, this other question: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4157/why-do-some-foods-taste-better-the-next-day
I would also look at dilution - something that is concentrated in an ingredient, and masks other flavors, can get washed into the cooking liquid and diluted to insignificance ... once made a braised dish with tempeh (that i probably undercooked, or that might have been too ripe), which was unpleasantly bitter (in the tempeh) served after cooking... but leftovers of that dish that had been in the fridge for a day or two tasted awesome!
There are two different processes.
Amino and glutamine acids break down into smaller components, γ-glutamylpeptides due to long cooking. These proteins create the "complete, rounded taste", kokumi, similar to the umami taste, which is more a feeling than a flavor.
The second process are enzymes breaking down fat into other components that we recognize as flavor, f.e. pentylfuran or heptenal. This process takes time and is independent from temperature and happens f.e. in the fridge overnight. It is similar to the process of aging meat.
Flavor pairing is a different process that is not related to this.
Reference:
Aroma - Die Kunst des Würzens / Flavor - The art of seasoning
http://www.amazon.com/Aroma-Thomas-Vilgis-Vierich/dp/3868510729
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.840684 | 2015-10-24T22:56:38 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62790",
"authors": [
"Christine Mulholland",
"Conor O'Riordan",
"David McClinsey",
"ESultanik",
"James McLeod",
"Joanne Valerio",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149399",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149400",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
66336 | How to properly measure the temperature of meat with a meat thermometer
I have a Thermapen meat thermometer that I use for precise temperature measurement. Although it's easy to read and fast, I'm not exactly sure how to take readings.
With a large piece of meat with consistent temperature throughout its quite easy, like a braise or meat in a stew. I am having trouble with burgers though, they are much thinner, and the temperature is very inconsistent, so it's difficult to know whether it has reached medium rare or medium or whatever.
See here - the accepted answer uses a burger as a specific example. http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7040/how-do-you-correctly-use-a-meat-thermometer?rq=1
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.840989 | 2016-02-08T20:42:31 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66336",
"authors": [
"Helen Fielden",
"Minger Bropleh",
"Steve Newton",
"Teresa Morgan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158829",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158831",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158847",
"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
} |
1930 | Reusing coffee grounds
Besides using it as a fertilizer, how else can I reuse my coffee grounds?
cooking wise, they're so bitter/burnt. The water already took the good flavor out of them and left the crap behind.
From the previous answers, it seems that using coffee as an abrasive or any other way will require a clean up after using the grinds, which in my opinion makes them useless.
An actual culinary application for used grounds:
http://www.instructables.com/id/Gourmet-mushrooms-in-an-old-coffee-cup/
Grow mushrooms in them.
Kills ants...dump them on the ant colony and they will die.
My understanding is that coffee grounds are a natural ant repellent, not a pesticide.
Repellent as pesticide, that made me laugh.
Well it does not kill them, so no +1 for you, but otherwise that's what my mother did.
Great body scrub!)
And your geek husband/wife will think you are SO sexy. No, really, they will.
You can put it in a small dish inside your refrigerator. It will kill bad smalls and leaves a nice coffee smell.
Note: Baking powder also works fine but without leaving any smell.
Put it in your ashtray and it will eliminate the smell.
For those who collect kitchen scraps for composting, used coffee grounds are a great deodorizer for your compost pail, especially in large quantities (like if you do a batch of cold brew).
A friend of mine (who lived in a van) always used it as a replacement for soap when washing hands. Seemed to work quite well :)
a homebrewed GoJoJoe?
It's supposed to keep cats from crapping in your yard. Just toss it on the ground and apparantly they'll take their business elsewhere.
My cat seems to like the smell of coffee. He hasn't attempted to do his business in it, mind you, but I'm skeptical of it working as a repellent.
Well, it could simply be one of those old wives' tales, I guess. My mother in law was the one suggesting this, so who knows... :P
One thing you could reuse coffee grinds is as a roach deterrent, Roaches hate coffee grinds and if you take your coffee grinds and place them in areas you see roaches congregate..they will find another place, It even can get rid of them all together. Reason I know this is I am anti pesticide and herbicide. There are so many natural alternatives to bug spray..and coffee grinds is one of them !!
I think re-brewing coffee grinds is not a good idea, as the coffee produced will be of very poor quality
It's an abrasive. As long as you don't mind the coffee smell/stain, you can use it to clean and polish surfaces.
That's a bit of a paradox surely? "you don't mind the coffee smell/stain, you can use it to clean"
You can use it e.g. to remove crud and irregularities from stainless steel surfaces. The coffee can then be washed off with some water.
I myself use it as a universal scrub. Coffee grounds are much softer than the mineral abrasive or crushed apricot seed scrubs, and (unlike the latter two) it does not cause skin irritation, at least for me.
I typically wash it to remove tiny particles (so that it does not stain the tub so much) and then soak it in diluted hydrogen peroxide in a refrigerator until I need it.
A friend flushed them in the sink, he said that it cleans the pipes. But then I don't really know if it's true except his sink never got stuck. But that's not a proof!
My apartment lease has a clause warning that against dumping coffee grounds down the drain and that they will charge us if our coffee grounds plug anything up.
@Shannon, well I don't know what list is shortest, all the things you can dump in the drain, or all the things you can't dump. In both cases I wouldn't sign the lease :)
Coffee grounds clogged up a sink at work, so I'd say its probably a bad idea.
It's a very, very bad idea to flush them down the sink. If you do that or try to get yam skins trough the food disposal, get a wet / dry vac, open the drain below the sink and use duct tape to connect the vacuum to the drain pipe and suck it out. I know from personal experience -- both the yam peals and the coffee grinds.
Seriously, DO NOT DO THIS. I worked in a grocery store with a little coffee shop right next to it. The teen workers there would dump the coffee grounds down the sink, and the result was sewage backing up into the grocery store after they clogged the pipes.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.841127 | 2010-07-19T08:18:27 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1930",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Adam S",
"Allison C",
"Camilo Martin",
"DevelopingChris",
"HeDinges",
"Jeffrey04",
"JustRightMenus",
"Lagerbaer",
"Nick",
"QueueHammer",
"Reno",
"Rowland Shaw",
"Ruben Steins",
"Seth",
"Shannon Severance",
"Stephen",
"derobert",
"drxzcl",
"grenade",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2153",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3536",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3560",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3593",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4039",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4151",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54803",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54829",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/771",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8658",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/876",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/949",
"jwir3",
"kaychaks",
"kzh",
"mfg",
"snth"
],
"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
} |
1598 | Adding fresh herbs in no-knead Bread
I am experimenting with the no Knead bread recipe and want to add herbs to the recipe. I have added fresh rosemary (great) and fresh oregano (not so) to the recipe.
What other herbs would you suggest?
Try using some sage
I like to choose spices in bread to match or complement the spices in the main dish. For example, garlic salt and parsley to go with a spaghetti/lasagna.
I love a bit of thyme in bread. Pairs well with the rosemary, too.
I've tried dill and dill seeds and loved the flavour
Basil and pine nuts could be added for a "pesto" version.
While not a herb, you could add chopped olives (and sun dried tomatoes).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.841576 | 2010-07-18T02:16:31 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1598",
"authors": [
"Bobbie Brannon",
"Marty Young",
"Nick Hawes",
"Xodarap",
"handsofaten",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153668",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153716",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2894",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2895",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2902",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6306",
"johnc",
"mraaroncruz"
],
"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
} |
2319 | Is it safe to eat mouldy bread?
Is it safe to eat mouldy bread, even after cutting away the moulded parts?
And how can you tell if the mould is harmless or toxic?
In short, the answer is no, it is NOT safe.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/08/11/food.safety/index.html
It's tempting to lop off the fuzzy
patch, but the mold could have spread
already.
"Once you're able to see mold on
bread, it means there's quite a lot of
mold," said Nelken, a food consultant
in Woodland Hills, California. "It's
indicative that there's mold on other
slices, just not at the level you can
see it. Why jeopardize your health on
a slice of bread?"
Nelken likened mold to jellyfish.
"Even though you scrape off the head
of the jellyfish, the tentacles are
still in the food product."
Eating moldy bread could cause an
upset stomach. Although most molds are
innocuous, it's probably not going to
taste good, food experts said. The
U.S. Department of Agriculture Food
Safety and Inspection Service
recommends discarding moldy bread and
baked goods, because of their porous
texture.
Yeah, the answer is no. Bread mold has lots of toxins in it. One of the most effective toxins in penicillin, made from bread mold. Rye mold can be ergot, which is hallucinogenic or worse! Cheese mold is typically nontoxic, even tasty, but bread mold is bad news.
Very unsafe.
Molds produce a range of toxins with a variety of harmful effects, from mild nausea and diarrhea to mind alteration (ergot). This paper claims that mycotoxins can be cumulative, which means that if you eat N loaves of moldy bread within, say, 1 month, it is almost as dangerous as if you eat them in one go.
As ceejayoz has noted, visible mold is merely the «fruit bodies» part which appears only when the bread substrate has been infected at sufficient depth (much like you only get surface mushrooms with caps only when there is enough mycelium mass underground to switch to the spreading phase).
This website states that mycotoxins are very heat-stable, which means that you cannot use moldy bread for croutons, French toast, or even re-baked rusks, as mold poison is unlikely to thermally decompose during cooking.
So this sort of bad food is only suited for a garbage bag due to poisoning potential and unsalveagebility. It is preferable to wrap it in a paper bag or something similar beforehand to prevent further spreading of airborne spores.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.841698 | 2010-07-20T12:44:47 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2319",
"authors": [
"Harlan",
"Sang",
"Viet",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62149"
],
"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
} |
1677 | Using skim or low-fat milk in recipes
When a recipe calls for milk, does using skim or low-fat milk over whole milk matter?
Even though the difference between whole and skim milk is about 2 percent fat, will it affect the result?
Is this more important in baked goods (like muffins and cakes) or in cooking?
Is the purpose of the substitution for convenience or health? If only convenience, you could replace the fat content with similar amount of oil or butter.
There is less of a difference than you might think. Heck, with the addition of a little calcium chloride (to help bind the milk particles), you can even make cheese with skim milk. I flipped through Harold McGee's section on low-fat milk, and he doesn't give any warnings about using it in cooking.
Of course, keep in mind that your result won't have quite the same texture. I doubt you'll notice unless the milk is the primary ingredient in the sauce (and there's no other thickening agent) or primary liquid in the dough. If I was forced to come up with a way to adjust to using low-fat, I'd probably add a little more milk if I was going for flavor, or a little less if I was going for texture.
Yes there will be a slight difference in texture but ultimately it is a acceptable substitution. Just make sure to look at the recipe. It depends on how much fat and moisture that milk is contributing to the overall batter or dough. If is is a high percentage of either content then it may make the final product less moist, less rich, and have a dryer texture.
I don't think there is too much of a difference, i believe there is just a slight difference in texture but unless catering for people with certain dietary or recipes with a certain requirements i prefer to use whole milk. I always feel whole milk gives a better taste.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.841944 | 2010-07-18T07:57:40 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1677",
"authors": [
"Daenyth",
"Nichole",
"Ocaasi",
"Saar",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3037",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67993",
"marenostrum",
"user1072692"
],
"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
} |
10438 | Can I brine a self-basting turkey?
I was planning to brine my turkey but I realise that I bought a self-basting turkey.
According to most websites, brining a self-basting turkey is a big "no".
But has anyone brine a self-basting turkey before?
What were your results?
Did you decrease the salt in the brine to accommodate the existing salt in the turkey?
Short answer, if you trust the brining job of the manufacturer, you won't gain much by rebrining.
In brining you're looking to get a certain amount of moisture "trapped" by the salt in the turkey, which they have, in essence, done for you already with the brining solution. However, that brining solution is usually injected rather than soaked in, so I wonder about the dispersion. Add to that that I actually throw a little sugar into my brining solution (not a lot) and some pickling spice and you can see why you'd want to brine it, but without getting it too salty.
The answer is to go with a longer soak (12 hour or overnight) versus a 4 hour brine, with the lower salt content that you'd use for a long soak. That will balance out the salt levels as the solution's osmotic pressure equalizes. I use 1/2 Cup of table salt per gallon of water. You can leave a turkey in that solution for...a long, long time and it won't be too salty. It's all about equalizing the salt/liquid level inside the turkey.
If you are REALLY concerned about it and have the time, you could soak your turkey in plain water overnight, which would pull out some/most of the brining solution, then brine normally the next day, to put your salt and spices back in. However, I would be concerned about losing some flavor from the turkey that way.
Very thoughtful commentary, Doug! I'd be interested in running some experiments on your hypotheses, particularly the plain water soak. Though if I had a self-basting bird, I don't know that I'd mess with it. Too much fear of a super salty turkey.
Agreed...I would probably just cook it and make sure I didn't get a self-basting one next time.
I brined a self basting turkey just last year and I think there was a big (good) difference between that one and other self basting turkeys I have had before. My wife is terrified of food born illness and insists that the thing is cooked way longer than needed and to a higher temp than required. There where two turkeys (same brand bought at the same store and of almost exactly the same size) for the large family gathering cooked on the same day for the same time at the same temperature. Everybody agreed that the brined one was better.
I look at like this. If I where to brine for a few hours, take it out then brine it for another 4 hours what harm could I do?
Like Doug said just go long. I did mine for just over 12 hours using the same brine (the one by Alton Brown) as I always do.
I brine a self basted turkey every year-better flavor, not too salty and very crispy skin. I don't see any reason to pay 2-3 times as much for a fresh or un-basted turkey. You can achieve the same results with the frozen self basted variety. Just be sure to allow enough time to thoroughly defrost your turkey, cut back some on the salt to water ratio, and go with the 'slow' brining method, allowing 8-12 hours for brining. Happy cooking!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.842127 | 2010-12-22T22:08:03 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10438",
"authors": [
"Dan Wilkinson",
"Doug Johnson-Cookloose",
"JDC",
"Kevin Clifton",
"Matthew Rankin",
"Sean Hart",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21315",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21316",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21327",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3479"
],
"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
} |
2323 | Substituting butter for oil: Does it matter for baked goods?
When a recipe (like for muffins) calls for vegetable oil, does it matter if I substitute the oil for butter because I want that buttery taste in the muffins?
Do I need to compensate for the difference by adding/subtracting the amount of butter added?
Butter is at most 82% oil and the rest is water. So, you're going to need to add more butter for the same amount of oil. Besides, you need to adjust the liquid content accordingly since you are going to have more water than you planned.
If you are going to use the same amount of oil, then it will not make any difference other than the taste. Just make sure they are of same state (i.e. melted butter instead of vegetable oil or vice versa)
In practice, for most recipes, the water content in butter is small enough that the variance is well within the tolerance of the recipe; in practice, oil and butter can be substituted 1:1 in quick breads like muffins.
82% oil or 82% fat???
Also, mind that butter/shortening/margarine, unless thorougly emulsified, will re-solidify at room temperature wherever it is in the finished food while oil won't. Also, dough consistency during early stages of baking can be different enough to matter, esp if the dough is allowed to chill before baking.
If you're making something like muffins, then in my experience the water content is a non-issue. Yes, there's some water. But muffin batter has such a broad range of tolerance that as long as you're basically familiar with the target consistency it'll be fine.
That said, the amount of oil or butter that goes into a batch of muffins is not really enough to impart much butter flavor.
You'd be better off using clarified butter than melted butter, as butter is about 15% water, and could affect the texture if not compensated for properly.
+1 The small amount of water in the butter makes a difference in many recipes, especially cookies.
If I am substituting butter for oil, I like to do a mixture of 1/2 butter and half shortening, this allows the richness of the butter as well as keeping the consistency of the recipe. I also add clear butter extract (flavoring) to the recipe. I use about 1/2 tsp butter extract per 1/2c of shortening and cream the butter/shortening mixture with eggs, sugar and vanilla first before I add any other ingredients. I also substitute shortening for butter sometimes, only I also add 1tbs of water per 1/2c shortening along with the extract. Hope this helps!
two options spring to mind:
1) consider either adding butter flavoring (I have only seen the imitation version int eh extract flavoring options at the stores)
2) or just adding a little butter to the batter (substituting part or even just throwing in the leftovers of a stick)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.842414 | 2010-07-20T12:58:11 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2323",
"authors": [
"Bob Mc",
"Caleb Nelson",
"CookingNewbie",
"Kortuk",
"Matthew Read",
"Philip Passes",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"hattenn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149456",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4140",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4152",
"papin",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
10806 | Is there a measurable difference between fresh and dried minced garlic?
For example, I just tried a recipe for Rosemary Potatoes last night that called for a tablespoon of minced garlic. I believe the recipe may have referred to it being freshly minced, but I have some dried minced garlic on hand (in a little shaker, like from the isle at Walmart, etc) and used that instead.
The next day, my kitchen still smells of garlic, and the potatoes taste like it.
If I don't have 'fresh' on hand, is there an approximate ratio I should have used?
A standard ratio of dried seasoning to fresh is 1 part dried to 3 parts fresh.
For garlic specifically the ratios are slightly different:
1/2 teaspoon minced garlic 1/4 teaspoon dried garlic
1 clove garlic 1/8 teaspoon garlic powder
Thanks! I'll probably try this again soon, and adjust accordingly.
There are considerations of texture and how long it takes to fully release the flavors as well. The guidelines given are good, but you also need to experiment and see where you can use dried when needed.
Fresh garlic, like other fresh ingredients, will release its flavor more quickly than the dried counterparts. They will also be 'brighter' and in many applications the difference is very noticeable.
If you used the full Tablespoon, yeah, you probably over-did it, but a lingering aroma of garlic is not necessarily a bad thing, nor is having the leftovers taste like garlic, they should!
Thanks for the information and feedback! (And of course they tasted of garlic... but that's all I could taste... =)
Fresh garlic and dried garlic aren't the same thing (culinarily).
The 3 to 1 ratio often works with dried strong smelling herbs - like thyme and rosemary.
Dried garlic is certainly convenient, but has a one dimensional quality to it.
Fresh garlic is... Reactive.
It changes by the way you prepare it: minced tastes/smells different from sliced or mashed in a mortar & pestle
It changes by the way you cook it: roast, fry, steam, sauté, boil in milk, boil in water
It changes with time: used a la minute, an hour from now, in the fridge after a week, covered in oil after a month.
A lot of this has to do with oxidation, the interaction with cut garlic and oxygen.
Dried garlic has none of these nuances, they've all been stripped from the production process.
But it certainly is convenient.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.842672 | 2011-01-06T15:07:29 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10806",
"authors": [
"Colin",
"Jane",
"RJHunter",
"anonymous coward",
"datawookie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22144",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22150",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57548",
"mildmay"
],
"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
} |
29772 | how to make soup less 'meaty'?
Salut!
Using a hambone left over from the holidays, I made some split pea soup. The problem is that, deviating from the recipe, I added ham as well as the hambone.
Now, the soup is so meaty it is quite overwhelming- at room temperature the liquid turns into jelly.
I tried adding a few glugs of lemon juice but that doesn't seem to have helped. Does anyone have any suggestions?
It sounds like you rendered too much gelatin into the soup, a couple easy fixes are to either:
prepare another batch of the soup omitting the ham and bone and then marry the two over a medium/high heat
thin with a low fat/nonfat liquid like milk or water (unfortunately a side effect will be of increased separation in the soup as it cools) the lower the fat content of what you add the more it will separate. ie adding 2% milk will cause less separating than skim milk
I agree that the only solution is dilution- however, it isn't fat. If it were fat the solution would be simple- skim the fat off the top. The gel is the gelatin from the meat and bones and the overwhelming flavor is just because the meat was packed with so much salt and flavorings.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.842892 | 2013-01-05T22:32:03 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29772",
"authors": [
"Dewy D... camper guy",
"Janna Schroeder",
"SirLeto",
"Sobachatina",
"Tdawgg",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69284",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69386",
"user21894"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
96857 | what weight to use when weighing pasta for dieting purposes?
I presume that, ceteris paribus, the same amount of pasta cooked is significantly heavier than the same amount uncooked.
So what is the standard?
Related: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42484/how-much-water-does-pasta-absorb-when-it-is-cooked and https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65969/how-to-maintain-the-calories-in-rice-which-were-present-in-it-in-its-raw-form
@SZCZERZOKŁY no answers in comments, please!
See the questions stephie linked to ... but in general 1lb dry = 1kg cooked.
There is no standard. (Btw. this also applies to rice)
Any source (calorie table, diet plan, recipe..) should specify what they are talking about when giving values.
That said, for recipes, the context should clarify. If it includes a full cooking step, assume dried. If it calls for precooked, is usually mentioned.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.843042 | 2019-03-11T08:21:57 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96857",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
15223 | Do honing steels wear out?
We have a knife set that's approximately 15 years old, and as we were honing a knife tonight, a question arose. Do honing steels get worn down over the years? Should they be replaced? If so, how often?
They are either made of surface hardened steel, which can't be realistically sharpened, or bonded with tungsten or diamond grit, again which can't be realistically replaced
Most steels just need a good clean; soak the steel in warm soapy water for a while, and then give it an aggressive scrub with a nylon bristle brush. Dry thoroughly
If it still does not hone well, then maybe it's time to buy a new one?
I am using a full size silver handled surface hardened steel that is 70+ years old and still works fine. It looks quite beaten up, has had surface rust, but always brings a knife back to life
I have a short portable diamond grit steel for camping that is less than 5 years old, and is nearly useless already
There doesn't seem to be consensus on what exactly a honing steel does to a knifes edge. But to me it's a very fine file, so it will wear out over time. Considering the normal usage in a domestic situation that could be a very long time
Agreed that they can wear out, but it's not likely if you're using them appropriately to train the edge of a nearly sharp knife rather than stropping away trying to sharpen a dull knife.
Also, I do not consider the diamond/tungsten grit ones to be true steels, as they are designed to remove material rather than true the edge. If you put them in the same class with a traditional steel, you get that lack of consensus on what a "steel" does. But if you separate hones from steels, I doubt there's much confusion about what each does.
@bikeboy389 What do you mean by "separate hones from steels", the terms is "honing steel". The diamond steel is claimed to work as a hone and the fine diamond dust should grab the damaged edge and re-align it. But is appears to just file it away, while losing it diamonds!
What you just said is what I meant--the diamond dealies tend to remove metal, which is not what the "normal" steel is meant to do. If you don't include what I've called diamond hones in with traditional steels, I don't think there's much controversy about how the traditional steels work. The diamond ones do something different, as you say.
What do you mean by "diamond dealies"?
I'm not a metallurgist, but when I received my knife sharpening training, it was explained to me that the steel was used to align the microscopic raggedy edge of the knife after sharpening into a "foil", like a fine fin along the tip of the edge of the knife. Depending on what I'm cutting, the fin works like a scalpel. If I'm making fine cuts to meat, I want a foil. If I'm chopping carrots, I prefer a rough edge.
I was given a training steel, which has been used many times daily for over a decade. It was a rough steel but the knurling has been worn smooth so it doesn't tear at a blade the way a "sharp" steel does. It does however put an edge on a sharp knife, you just have to strop a bit more.
Could you please define what you mean by "putting an edge" on a blade?
I have a good quality steel, made circa 1910 or a little earlier, by my Granddad whilst working for Wolstenholme's in Sheffield. Previously he'd had his own knife-making company, again in Sheffield, for many years. I still regularly use this steel and, apart from occasional soap & water cleaning, it still works as well as when my Dad passed it to me in the early 1970s.
Steels are coated in like a enamel tipe of coating and wears off over time and then it's time for a replacement.... so yea probably time for a replacement if it's that old but Iv had mine for 5 years and the coating has just worn off from to much time in a steriliser .
Maybe SOME steels are made that way but certainly not all.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.843165 | 2011-06-03T22:48:19 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15223",
"authors": [
"Mads Skjern",
"Philip Thorne",
"Rob",
"TFD",
"bikeboy389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68091"
],
"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
} |
2370 | Is there a secret to flavouring with herbs
I am a strictly amateur cook. Most of my output is OK, certainly edible, but I seem to lack the ability to impart flavour through herbs.
I can throw in an inordinate amount, but still no flavour (not even an overpowering one).
Yet, I have a simple recipe for a vegetable stew in which the listed seasoning mix works beautifully.
Do you have a guide for the best way to deal with herbs ?
If you're adding inordinate amounts of herbs with no effect, then that sounds to me like a problem with the herbs themselves. If you're using dried herbs, they could just be too old.
To me, dried basil and oregano and marjoram just never taste like much. Fresh, however, they're quite strong. Tarragon, chervil, and dill, on the other hand, do "work" in dried form, and in fact you have to be careful with tarragon. I guess I'd put rosemary in that category too but thanks to some out-of-control plants I've got more fresh rosemary than I could ever possibly use cooking for an army.
I'll add thyme and parsley to the "works well dried" list.
For herbs that are a bit old but not completely without flavor, I find that grinding them a bit helps (using mortar & pestle).
For tender herbs, keep them fresh, use them at the last minute and use plenty of them. For the woodier herbs like Rosemary, you can use them at the start of the cooking process but you will probably need to be more restrained with the quantities.
For non-leafy herbs, you might try toasting them a little first. Some herbs (looking at you paprika), don't taste like anything if they're not toasted a little first.
I have generally found that herbs (i.e. dried bits of leaves, such as oregano or thyme) impart their flavour best into a water-based solution. Hence I tend to use them in sauces and casseroles based on something like tomatoes, or things that have water in them anyway, like a casserole.
I also find that a little acid, lemon juice or balsamic are my favourites, helps bring out the herbs' flavour.
On the other hand, spices (ground powders of seeds and roots and such, like paprika or nutmeg or cumin) release flavour best into fat.
Therefore, when I'm making a tomato sauce for my pasta, I add the nutmeg to the sauteeing onions at the start. I only add the oregano near the end, after the tomatoes are in and releasing their juice.
as mentioned if theyre old, then they wont have much flavor. as hard as it seems throw them out every so many months.
i find the best technique in cooking for getting the most out of dried herbs is to use them at the start. since almost everything i cook begins with a base of heating olive oil, then adding fresh [minced/diced/grated/pasted] garlic, and then adding 1/2-1 onion i typically add dried herbs at the point where the onion is half softened. this keeps the scent there so i can continue to add them as needed to balance out their lack of flavor. of course this doesnt work with every recipe but it will help for many.
more important than that, when you add dried herbs crush them in your hands as you are doing so.
The best way I'd say to learn with herbs is to isolate them - only use one at a time to get an idea of the different notes that they can add. Also try to add them at different points. For example, parsley is only added at the end where rosemary tends to work well added near the end. Similarly some herbs work better when boiled with other ingredients where others are more suitable for frying. Trial and error is the best way to really get a handle on how to add them properly.
Also, on the whole dried herbs are a waste of time with a few exceptions. Dried oregano or tarragon are OK for example - although different in taste to the fresh ones. Use fresh ones if you can ideally.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.843935 | 2010-07-20T15:56:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2370",
"authors": [
"Alex Rozanski",
"Anders Arpi",
"Cookhacker",
"Cylindric",
"JustRightMenus",
"Kerrick",
"caseyamcl",
"ceejayoz",
"erickson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4222",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4233",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4261",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4302"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
16681 | How do you clean or gut fish
I'm lucky enough to have been gifted two Trout by a neighbour... and have not had the pleasure of preparing fresh fish before (or at least not unprepared fish).
I've attempted an internet search but haven't found a source that looks reliable to me.
Not proposing this as a definitive answer, but the following article gave me the confidence to try cleaning them http://www.fishingkites.co.nz/articles/baked_fish_recipes.htm
This great NZ site also has picture for the general filleting technique http://www.fishingkites.co.nz/cleaning-fish/fishindex.htm
Here is a a basic video tutorial so you can see the basic steps.
The biggest traps when cleaning fish is failing to remove all the guts, leaving bones in the filet, and not removing all the scales from the fish. You can, if you choose, just gut the fish and cook whole stuffed with some aromatics, which can be really good. This guy will show you how. This works very well with smaller fish like trout assuming your guests are used to it.
So to avoid the pitfalls mentioned above, you need to make sure that the cavity of the fish is
fully empty before you start the filet. You also want to run your hand over the outside of the fish after your rinse of the cavity to make sure that all scales are gone. The best way to keep bones out is start at the spine and let the fishes rib cage guide your knife down and out. If you want to remove the skin (not recommended for trout but other fish have much tougher skins), just put the filet skin-side down and slide your knife along at a ten degree angle.
Oh, and the most important thing? Use a filet knife that is super sharp, you definately don't want to tackle cleaning with out a sharp knife.
If filleting, why would you bother gutting it? Just cut around the rib cage and leave the guts in with the frame, a lot less messy!
To tell you the truth, It's just the way I have always done it... I normally gut the fish at the shore and finish at the house. I do find that it easier to make the required cuts if you start with a gutted fish, but I don't have any reasoning other than that. Plus, once you are used to it, gutting a fish is a few seconds at most.
Check that the fish is clean, and looks healthy. You should not need to clean the fish. If the fish is contaminated with something other than it's natural environment you may no want to eat it?
You generally need to fillet the fish to check it is clean and healthy (no parasites or worm trails). Leaving the fish whole and just gutting is OK, but generally the results are better when filleted
It is hard to describe the process. But consider that most fish have two fillets going from the tail, down the spine to the skull. Some fish anatomy pictures will help you understand what you are cutting over
Use a thin semi-flexible knife to separate the flesh from the frame (bones connected to spine). Start at the tail end (you hold the tail down on the cutting board), you can get your knife in from the top or bottom edge all the way in too touch the spine, and then smoothly run the knife along the top or bottom edge to the skull. The knife will always be just touching the spine
On the bottom edge stop just before the anus and divert over the rib cage (gut cavity)
To release the fillet, slice right behind the skull from top edge to bottom rib cage and the fillet should be detached from frame. Repeat for other side
You should now have two clean fillets, and a complete frame in one piece including tail, rib cage, guts, and head. This can be used as desired, or discarded
If the fish is releasing a lot of blood you are cutting to hard and have got into the spine or gut cavity. Go softly
To remove the skin find the weak spot of the flesh/skin connection on the corner that was over the rib cage. On some fish you should be able to grasp the skin with clean fingers and pull the skin back down the fillet to remove it. On other fish place the fillet skin side down on the board and run a thin sharp knife gently along the flesh/skin connection. Leaving a thin sliver of skin on is fine, as long as the outer layer of skin with the scales is removed
This takes plenty of practise to perfect. Watch a professional at the local fish shop to see how it is done. Or pay them to do it for you?
Removing the scales separately with a tool a is a old joke fishermen play on non-fishermen
I do not understand your last sentence about the scales... can you expand on that?
Fish scales don't need to be removed, as you should remove the skin of the fish anyway. The scales come away with the skin. Using a fish scaling tool is hard work, makes a mess, and serves no real purpose.... hence the joke
There are many fish preparations that serve fish with skin on, in which case removing the scales is definitely not a joke.
Rinse the outside of the fish.
While the fish is uncut, remove the scales. If you have a scaler you can use that, or you can go lightly with a grater or knife against the scales; or your fingernails in the direction of the scales (so you don't hurt yourself, but it'll take a while). Don't forget to scale the top and bottom (especially the stomach area- because that is the beginning point of the fillet) edges of the fish.
Then, slice from the fish's anus (a small hole right below the bottom fin) to the chin (up to the gills, bellyside of the fish) to create a fish pocket. Pull out ALL of the guts with your hands. The fish's meat is all stuck to the bones so you don't need to keep anything inside the fish. Some people use the guts, but most throw them out.
I prefer to keep the head on the fish (the eyes are delicious). Also I eat the fins and tail after frying, not sure if it's good for you or not but it tastes good (haha). Wash the fish off, rinsing it inside and out. Get rid of all the blood. You fillet it now, or just get cooking.
YouTube is a pretty good place to search for tutorial videos as well.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.844313 | 2011-08-06T14:41:09 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16681",
"authors": [
"CyberLingo",
"George",
"Max Desiatov",
"Rich Bradshaw",
"Shashank",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35592",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35625",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35726",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37621",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"itj",
"jmuller",
"mattm",
"nico",
"sarge_smith"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
9461 | My stock is too sweet
As part of my Thanksgiving preparation, I made a chicken and turkey stock by first roasting the bones and then cooking them very low for a few hours. About an hour or so before the end of their cooking, I added roasted vegetables -- a combination of onion, carrot, celery, parsnip, turnip, and parsley root. I didn't add any other flavoring other than a touch of salt. (I know most people don't salt their stocks, but I tend to undersalt everything, so adding it at every step will help.)
My stock is tasty, but rather sweet. Is this a factor of too many sweet vegetables (or not enough celery)? Or is there something else I'm missing?
(I compensated in my gravy by adding a touch of soy sauce and fish sauce to add more umami flavoring. But I'd like to understand why it happened.)
Roasted onions and carrots are usually very sweet! It depends upon the quantity you used ...
It's the parsnips. I chop them small and add them to the soup as vegetables near the end rather than adding them as aromatics to the stock.
I really recommend not salting stock. It is so easy to add later if you're making soup or sauce, but impossible to remove if you're making a risotto or anything that doesn't need salt.
I don't think I ever want to eat risotto cooked with unsalted stock.
@vwiggins: Is that supposed to be a joke? No risotto recipe I have ever seen calls for salt during the cooking process, just as a seasoning later, and the ones that include broth as a liquid ingredient (as opposed to stock or water or wine) usually make a point of mentioning the low-salt type.
@Aaronut While I agree with checking the seasoning later I've found when you know some salt needs adding you're best getting it in as early in the cooking process as possible as then you need less over all. A "touch of salt" in the stock means you can get a full profile of the stock's flavour before adding it to the risotto. Completely unsalted chicken stock for instance tastes of nothing. The exception might be if the sheer quantity of salt in the risotto's additions (like a greater than usual proportion of cheese) would bring the salt levels too high.
@vwiggins: Completely unsalted chicken stock does not "tastes of nothing". If yours is tasteless then you're making it wrong. Adding salt early is a good idea in many cases, but stock is not one of them. There is no appreciable difference in flavour if you add the salt to the stock while you're making it or add it just before you use it in some other dish. If you can find one prominent expert who says to salt stock, I will eat my hat.
Veggies don't need to be roasted for making stock. What's happening is that you are drawing out and caramelizing the sugars in the onions and carrots, especially, when you roast them. Try to just add the raw vegetables, at the very start, and you should be fine.
Some vegetables are aromatics for infusing flavor without changing the underlying base, and certain combinations become known for cuisines. Onion, celery and carrots make mire-poix. Onions, garlic and tomato make sofrito.
Turnips and parsnips are not those kinds of vegetables, usually. Parsnips get very sweet (a good thing usually) as do onions and carrots. You just combined a lot of the ones that get sweet and intensified it by roasting.
If you are looking for a more neutral broth, stay with onions, celery and carrots and simmer, don't roast.
Anytime you roast your veggies they will get sweeter. So if you want to keep your stock less sweet, use raw veggies.
Ah, that makes sense. I added turnips and parsnips because I like them. Same with the parsley root. :-) But maybe next time I should not roast the parsnips.
@Martha: Don't roast any of the vegetables, otherwise you don't have a true mirepoix. In addition you should use a 2:1:1 ratio (50% onion, 25% carrot and 25% celery). If you up the carrots too much, it'll be too sweet even without roasting.
@Aaronaut - I think you're on to something with the carrots. They were actually pretty huge, I had to chop them in half lengthwise, so they'd fit in the oven. (Yes, I helped Martha make the stock.)
@Aaronaut -- is it important to have a true mirepoix? I'm not trying to make a traditional stock, necessarily. Just one that tastes good.
@Martha: Well, not necessarily, I guess, but mirepoix is to stock as roux is to white sauce. It's kind of fundamental (along with the bouquet garni), and generally you don't mess with it unless you have a lot of experience and know exactly what you're trying to do. And even then, people typically just add to it, and you have to be careful what you add (as Doug has pointed out, parsnips aren't really appropriate for most stocks). So while there's always more than one way to skin a cat in cooking, you should probably stick with the "standard" for stock unless you have a good reason not to.
P.S. @Martha, there's no "A" in the middle of my name; I won't get your comment replies if it's spelled wrong. ;)
@Aaronut -- Ah, okay. Thanks for the explanation! (And all I need to remember is that you're a nut, not a space case. ;-)
The size, or surface area, of the vegetables makes a difference as well. Carrots chopped too small will make a stock overly sweet. And as others have said, use raw vegetables.
That certainly can happen, although they have to be really finely chopped for it to be a problem; fine enough to actually break down and dissolve during the simmering, almost a minced consistency. The standard 1/2" cube works well.
@Aaronut True, should have specified a size in my comment.
Makes sense, but this wasn't the problem in this case. I had quite large pieces.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.844901 | 2010-11-25T16:25:37 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9461",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Chris Cudmore",
"Dr. belisarius",
"FoodTasted",
"Goodbye Stack Exchange",
"John Gowers",
"Martha F.",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Ryan Anderson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"sgmoye",
"vwiggins"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
7757 | Chili powder substitutions
I'm having trouble converting the chili recipes I find to use something other than of-the-shelf chili-powder. Thanks to a simply wonderful local spice shop, we have several different kind of chili-flakes. We've already learned that grinding them and substituting 1:2 with powder is ("$@$^@ ow, pass the milk") not correct. What is the ratio-neighborhood we should be exploring for this substitution?
Chili powder is typically a blend of ground chilies and other spices (and maybe even herbs).
I'd go with a blend of:
paprika (smoked if you can find it)
cayenne
cumin
oregano
garlic powder
You can also try mixing in onion powder, other chilie powders, and black pepper. Some pre-mixed blends also include salt. If you have access to other dried chilie powders, you might consider using ancho or new mexico chilies for a 'dark' chili powder, as opposed to the more red powder you'll get from the cayenne. (but cayenne's more available)
Search online for recipes -- you'll find lots of variation out there.
It is a lot better to use Mexican oregano rather than traditional Mediterranean oregano. See http://www.thekitchn.com/thekitchn/whats-the-difference-mediterranean-and-mexican-oregano-093923 for the difference.
So that's why "chilli powder" is never spicy!
@Arafangion: It depends - you can get powders based on different ground chilies, and some are hotter than others. But yes, in general, it's about flavor, so it's not just heat like red pepper flakes.
I don't know how likely it is, but you might be able to find dried whole peppers, and grind them yourself to get some more good flavor in there.
I believe I've seen ancho powder at Target. @Jefromi, Whole Foods (in Louisiana) has had whole dried chiles in the past, although I haven't seen them in a while.
The main chile in chili powder is likely to be ancho chile powder, not just paprika.
Coriander, cilantro, and sage are more standby's for a good chili powder as well. Nanami-togarashi is an asian chili powder with a citrusy flavor from lime [peel?]. Also, dont be afraid to get some sinusy piquant goodness in there with a little ginger or mustard or turmeric (only a pinch or it may get closer to curry).
You may also like to source the chiles you are using. You may find that getting a dried tien tsin (the hot peppers from asian cooking) and a dried bell pepper, and milling these with a mortar and pestle is a good way to play with the spectrum of spice in your powder.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.845414 | 2010-10-02T01:37:42 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7757",
"authors": [
"Amorn Narula",
"Arafangion",
"Cascabel",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"ThinkingCook",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17193",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2645",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2699",
"rcollyer"
],
"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
} |
7782 | Food Timing: Keeping Bacon Warm While Cooking With Bacon Fat Made from Said Bacon
The Situation:
Guy decides he wants to make bacon and potato cubes (I can't think of a better term) for breakfast.
Guy wants to cook potatoes in bacon fat
Guy cooks bacon and places bacon on paper towels to dry off
Guy cooks potatoes in left over bacon fat
By the time potatoes are done (20 mins or so), the bacon is cold :(
What can be done to remedy this? Should I just wrap the bacon in tin-foil? I've yet to fully master "timing" when it comes to cooking two different parts of a meal at the same time
I render off the necessary fat over low heat, then remove the bacon strips, increase the heat, and fry using the rendered fat. When nearly done, I return the bacon to the pan to crisp it before serving.
Of course, you could also just save the grease from one batch to use with the next, thereby ensuring you always have both fresh-cooked bacon and (reasonably-fresh) grease to use without having to produce the former before the latter.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.845659 | 2010-10-02T23:46:07 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7782",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
4052 | When a Recipe Calls for Expensive Liquor, What's the Purpose and What Are the Substitutes?
As I begin cooking more advanced recipes, I've stumbled across a few that required small amounts (tablespoons) of (expensive) spirits such as Cognac, vodka, etc. The problem is that I don't keep that kind of stuff lying around (Oh God, that would end SO badly). My question is this: When a recipe calls for small amounts of something expensive (like Cognac), what does it (generally) add to the dish? Also, what non-spirit related food items are good substitutes?
The primary purpose is for flavor. If it's the expense of a large bottle for a few tablespoons here and there you should be able to buy the mini bottles (as are served on airplanes) from a local liquor store.
If you don't want to use or have it around due to issues with alcohol then look for other items that have as similar flavor to substitute. Sherry has a sweet nutty flavor to it and apple juice can often work suitably well. Keep in mind you'll probably not find an exact flavor match but it can be close. A small amount of orange extract could be used in place of grand marnier. Depending on the item, you might also try flavored syrups that are used for coffee drinks. Remember that these have a lot of sugar in them so you'll need to compensate by cutting back on sugar elsewhere in the recipe and obviously don't use them where the sweet flavor wouldn't be welcome.
I disagree with the first sentence as written. If you meant the primary purpose for expensive liquor vs cheap, it makes sense, but I don't think things like vodka are added for flavoring.
@Tim Gilbert: It depends. I agree that vodka does not add flavor, but try a table spoon of Cognac in a light broth and taste before and after. It's a world of difference.
@Tim Gilbert: Vodka is only one of many liquors out there. I agree...I've never really understood Vodka & Tomato sauce myself but in the case of brandy, vermouth, amaretto, chambord, rum, kahlua, etc. they are flavoring elements. I wasn't even addressing "expense" side other than the size of the bottle vs. what is used. The amount of alcohol used is in most recipes so so slight that the choice of a more expensive brand over a cheaper one is never going to be noticed.
Mini bottle availablity will vary by jurisdiction, but even places that ban them will often sell pints.
@TimGilbert Vodka is used in cooking not for its innate flavor but for the flavors released due to chemical reactions when its added. Alcohol in food, in low quantities creates and releases fruit esters, aldehydes and other aroma molecules into the air. Since our eating experience is a composite of smell, taste and feel, we get an enhanced dish when we add a dash of alcohol, even vodka.
My guess is that most of those type of recipes get born out of someone experimenting with whatever is in their pantry.
For relatively small amounts compared to the whole recipe, substituting it with a cheaper liquor, vinegar, juice, stocks, syrup or extract probably won't have a large impact.
However, for best results, you need to be familiar with the type of liquor, and why it is a part of the recipe, in order to know what's is the best replacement for it. Is it included for the acidity, for the sweetness, for the boiling point, etc.
Here is a page that has some recommendations for substitutions. http://ezinearticles.com/?Clever-Substitutions-For-Alcohol-in-Recipes&id=3923408
You asked what does it [alchohol] add?
Vodka has good rep when using it in batter, I figure it's mostly because of it's neutral flavour and high alcohol content. See:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/food_and_drink/heston_blumenthal/article631377.ece
And:
http://mysocialchef.com/2010/04/vodka-fish-and-chips/
The good news is that you probably don't have to buy a premium vodka to get the same effects. Also the Heston Blumenthhal recipe mentions that the Lager beer is pretty effective (because of the bubbles), so perhaps you can just get away with just the lager.
It's mentioned in the first link, but so it's recorded here in case of link rot -- one of the advantages to vodka in batters is that it won't develop gluten the same way that water would, so you'll end up with a more tender crust.
Cognac --> Brandy
Sherry and Port, I generally find a decent inexpensive one - Emu Sherry, Kopke port.
As far as vodka goes, I don't bother. Vodka is typically added to batters so that the alcohol evaporating drinks some of the oil out of the batter.
A much better option is to use 150 proof Alcool or Grain Spirits. It's cheap, and works better. (Usually sold as a home-made liqueur base)
I recently made several batches of fig bread that called for soaking the cut up fresh figs in sherry, and I still had a little on hand. The leavening was baking soda. I found with just that as leavening the breads didn't seem to rise as nicely as with b. powder so I did some reading up on leavening. This said leavenings need an acid and this is more complicated than I can explain because apparently the fruit itself plays a role too, but my point is that in some recipes that are leavened if you substitute I would think you need an equally acidic substitute. In general cooking, sherry etc I don't doubt adds flavor.
As for vodka, I don't remember what cooking expert said this, but using it in making pie crust instead of water results in a superior pastry.
I don't think these things go bad so if you cook a lot they should keep. I have had this bottle of sherry for cooking for years.
The booze in pie crust thing is probably most famously attributed to Alton Brown (although he certainly didn't come up with it). It's all about gluten, and how alcohol doesn't make it when combined with flour. Good Eats Transcript
Ethanol is also frequently included in commercially made chilled puff pastry - and interestingly, these often taste strongly (unpleasantly) alcoholic to me when baked too thick, probably some of the alcohol vapor gets trapped...
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.845802 | 2010-08-03T02:22:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4052",
"authors": [
"Avien",
"Darin Sehnert",
"Joe",
"Joe Krill",
"Jolenealaska",
"LaDerdre Hinton",
"Mark",
"Mohgeroth",
"Tim Gilbert",
"dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110774",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1377",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51945",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7597",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7598",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7611",
"nalply",
"neslekkiM",
"rackandboneman",
"savardc"
],
"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
} |
11031 | Chocolate Shot Glasses
I know, right? Sounds awesome. Here's what's up:
For Christmas I got one of those do-it-yourself molds for making ice shot glasses.
My idea is pretty simple: Melt chocolate and pour it into the molds and make chocolate shot glasses. I'm thinking maybe try doing some sort of fruit-flavored liquor (as the shot) with it as well.
Any suggestions on how to get started? My instincts tell me that straight melted chocolate that is then frozen / chilled wouldn't set well and the fats would their separate ways and not be good. Should I cut it with cream or milk? I'm most certain a double-boiler for melting is the best way to go and I was considering using semi-sweet baker's chocolate.
There are chocolate shot glass molds that work much better than the ice molds. I have the same mold you link to and it makes the shot glasses way to thick. It is like taking a shot and then eating a bar of chocolate. I would recommend trying to find another mold.
What also works is to take actual shot glasses and chill them. Take them out of the freezer and use a small paint brush to brush the inside edges with melted chocolate and put back in the freezer. This doesn't work as well as a plastic mold because it is hard to unstick chocolate from glass as opposed to plastic.
In order to get the chocolate to harden correctly, still look shiny, and have that nice snap when it is broken, you need to temper your chocolate. There are many methods for doing this, but the seeding method on this site is most people's preference:
http://www.cookingforengineers.com/article/155/Tempering-Chocolate
After that you tempered chocolate, follow this process:
Ensure molds are 100% dry
Fill molds completely with melted chocolate.
Tap the molds on the table or tap them with a spoon for a few seconds to get rid of the air bubbles.
Invert the molds over your bowl of chocolate and let them drain out, leaving a chocolate coating in the mold.
Place the molds face down over a sheet of parchment paper (or something like that) to let them drain out a little more.
Put them right side up again and let them dry for 20-30 minutes.
(optional) place the molds in the fridge for 10 minutes (will make demolding eaiser)
Invert the molds over a sheet of parchment paper. If necessary, tap gently or carefully twist the mold to get the pieces to release.
EDIT: First, if you are going with this technique, use real chocolate (the only fat should be cocoa butter). Second, if you can, use a high cocoa butter chocolate.
Straight baker's chocolate should harden just fine I'd think. We make almond bark and it hardens right back to it's original hardness. Melt your chocolate in a double boiler, then pour into the molds (I'm guessing you're okay, but you might need to cover with cooking spray), then I'd probably just pop it right into the freezer. Remove when fully hardened and enjoy...
I agree that this should work just fine. If you want to get fancy, you might also want to try tempering your chocolate. Tempering will give a nice shine to your shot glasses, and the melting point will be higher. Thus, they can be held for longer without your hands getting sticky with chocolate. If you search for "tempering chocolate" on this site you will find lots of information.
I don't agree with this. Yes, it will harden in the fridge/freezer, but it will melt again at room temperature and that is kind of the point here. Tempering it will raise the melting point and prevent it from collapsing on the tray.
Actually, this could work. If you melt the chocolate very carefully to 88 F for dark chocolate and don't let it get any hotter, then the chocolate will still be in temper. This technique is called incomplete melting and is sometimes used when only a tiny amount of chocolate is needed. But please don't use a cooking spray on the molds. Polish them with cotton and/or buy a real chocolate mold if it doesn't release properly.
You might look for 'chocolate coating'. It has other fats in it (typically cooconut oil) so it'll set up at warmer temperatures. It won't have the same mouthfeel as real chocolate, though, because it doesn't melt at body temperature, so you'll have to decide if it's worth the trade-off.
It's often found in cake decorating stores, or some craft stores that have candy-making supplies.
(note -- it's not the same as 'coating chocolate', aka 'couverture', which is a high cocoa butter chocolate)
I would really discourage anyone from using coating chocolate. It isn't real chocolate and your guests will be able to tell that they are eating something cheap even if they have no idea what coating chocolate is. Just my opinion, though.
Agreed, it's not ideal ... but I suck at tempering, so it'll make shot glasses that won't melt as you hold them.
I don't like the flavour of this stuff, but FYI, it's usually sold here under the name "compound chocolate".
And also under the name "Chocolate Candy Coating". Just look for the Wilton logo and throw it in the trash. :-P
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.846458 | 2011-01-14T02:54:34 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11031",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Computerish",
"Costa Rican Store",
"Dr Douglas GhD",
"Furious",
"Henrik Söderlund",
"Jenny Hatton",
"Joe",
"Rebecca Cunningham",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22612",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22658",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"kayla"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
125777 | What Advantage Does a Meat Press Give You When Making Your Own Deli Meat?
This is the device in question:
I've seen multiple videos online of people using this to make deli meat out of leaner cuts like chicken breast. They grind up the breast, season it, compress into this thing, and cook it in a water bath until it comes to temp.
I do like the idea of making my own deli-style meat at home. I don't like the idea of buying another gadget. My questions are:
What benefits does this device actually bring when making your own deli meats?
Can the result/benefits be replicated using more common kitchen tools?
Has anyone used a device like this? Is it worth it?
What I'm trying to achieve: A highly compressed, round, chicken loaf (tube?) that I can thinly slice for sandwiches.
My first thought when I saw this thing was "couldn't you just gently simmer ground chicken in a faux-casing made of plastic wrap?" But there's a ton of talk online about how boiling plastic wrap in water is not good for you.
You wouldn’t be boiling the plastic wrap… you would be simmering it. Some plastics are more heat stable than others, so there may be something that would work as a sausage casing type thing. (Possibly a specific type of plastic wrap)
Could I give a slightly cynical response?…
What it gives you is evenness of texture & quality at the expense of actual quality.
You get a more homogenous product, perfect for an industrial slicer, and extremely convenient when you're making 50 sandwich rounds an hour - all can be almost exactly the same quality & quantity.
You can also sneak in a few more of the bits you wouldn't get away with serving if it could actually be seen as you prepare it for a customer.
Aside from that - I see no gain at all over actual freshly-prepared meats.
There are a few benefits.
Most important is control over ingredients quality and recipes.
You can probably use a mold use to make pâtés or terrines.
Prepare your mixture and put in the mold and put some weight on the mixture (you'll probably need to find something that fits )
Obviously, you'll not get a nice cylinder shaped end product, but it should work.
I love mine in fact I have 3 and use them quite a bit. Doesn't take long to prepare the meat to put in the press. I do not use the plastic bags (don't like cooking in plastic) I just spray oil in the press works great. I like controlling the ingredients. The only thing I had a problem with was finding recipes other than ham and chicken/turkey.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.846890 | 2023-11-10T16:13:40 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125777",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"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.