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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
22529 | When to use chicken thigh versus breast?
The America's Test Kitchen recipe for Chinese Orange Chicken calls for chicken thigh, explaining that it has a better taste and texture for the recipe. It does not explain why, however.
So that has me wondering: how do chicken thigh and breast differ in taste and texture and how do you decide which to use in a particular recipe?
Well, as to the difference in taste, I suggest the best way to find out is to try both (cooked, of course). If you have access to Cooks Illustrated (as opposed to just watching the TV show on PBS), they have recipes for both roast chicken breast and roast thighs—make both, and the flavor differences should be readily apparent.
As far as cooking goes, chicken breast has very little fat and very little collagen. Typically, chicken breast is cooked to 165°F/74°C (USDA recommendation for food safety), which is actually a little on the overdone side taste-wise. So various tricks like brining are needed to keep it juicy.
Chicken thigh has more of both fat and collagen, which allows it to take a higher temperature without drying out. Cooking chicken thigh to 175°F/80°C is fairly common. It also is much more suited to slow cooking, which allows the collagen to convert to gelatin (which gives a moist feel to the meat and also a nice flavor).
In this particular case, checking two Cooks Illustrated recipes for orange-flavored chicken (one deep-fried, one baked) they both note boneless, skinless breast may be substituted, but they prefer the flavor of thigh.
So you can use either. Use whichever one you think tastes better.
@derobert posts an excellent, accurate answer. +1
For me it depends on the dish being made, generally determined by two attributes: how long is the chicken being cooked for and does the dish require the chicken to be in a certain shape?
I cook a few Chinese recipes using chicken and I prefer to use breast meat for those. The chicken is marinated then cooked for barely any time (usually around 2 minutes total in a ridiculously hot wok). It tastes tender and flavourful.
If I'm looking at breadcrumbed chicken, I use breast, purely because the shape is better suited to the task and somewhat more aesthetically pleasing.
On the other hand, if I'm cooking a paella, I use thigh meat - breast meat seems to dry out much quicker than thigh when it's being cooked over a period of time. This appears to be alleviated when cooking in a pie or something which surrounds the meat with liquid.
As a sidenote, in the UK, the only edible piece of KFC (in my humble opinion!) is the deep-fried thigh joints; even the drumsticks taste awfully dry.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.847119 | 2012-03-23T17:20:10 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22529",
"authors": [
"David",
"Marty",
"flair with flare",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50695",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50806"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
8953 | Any way to soften gummy candy?
Sometimes when I buy (cheap) gummy candy, it's a little too hard to enjoy. Is there a way to soften them? Preferably something that lasts, as opposed to perhaps heating them and eating them while they're warm.
Not quite what you asked, but if you don't mind changing them to a slightly more adult treat, you can put them in a bowl and add just enough vodka to cover them. Let them sit in the fridge for about 48 hours. The vodka will be absorbed, they will swell and be significantly softer. They'll also have a slight alcoholic kick that goes away over the next day or two as they cure.
Microwave them for a couple of seconds. Works wonders
Gummy candy is essentially just water, sugar, gelatin, and a few other additives like food colouring.
Gelatin's gel strength1 is partially dependent on its concentration. The more concentrated, the harder it gets. Gummy candies left sitting around will lose water due to evaporation, which makes the gelatin more concentrated and thus harder, and if you watch carefully you'll notice that the moisture loss also makes the gummies shrink.
To soften them, you need to rehydrate them. Toss them in a bowl of hot or warm water (don't use cold water - gelatin is only soluble in warmer water) until they reach the desired consistency - usually around 20 minutes or so. The longer you leave them in the water, the more water they'll absorb, the more they'll grow and the softer they'll get.
I've done what Aaronut suggests in the past, the only thing I'll add is that if you aren't going to eat them then, toss them on a drying rack for a little while so the outer surface dries before packing them back into a bag. Otherwise they'll stick to each other and turn into a congealed concrete like mass. This is especially true with gummy worms. They were almost impossible to get apart.
depending on who is consuming you can use rum instead of water, that is the only experience i have with hydrating gummies. They do stick terribly if you don't let them dry before re-packing.
How warm should the water be? I tried it but my gummy bears melted and ended up half the size and they were only slightly softer.
@Brian: I think you made it too warm. :P I guess this partly depends on the actual gummies, but try starting with a temperature just above tepid and try just a few gummies as a test. It is possible, though unlikely, that your gummies weren't made with very much gelatin to begin with, so it might not take much to dissolve them outright.
While gelatin melts in warm water, it actually hydrates just fine in cold. You actually bloom gelatin in cold water to hydrate it fully so it can melt more evenly in hot water. So I'd thing cool water would work too, just more slowly.
Put the gummies in a microwave for 5 to 10 seconds, but since microwave ovens vary by manufacturer keep an eye on them.
Works like a charm!
Put a piece of bread in the bag with the gummies, clip the bag, and put it somewhere warm. It will take a day, but will come back just like new.
Put em in your pocket! They get warm and squishy after five minutes or so.
This would be a temporary warming solution, which the question specifically avoids.
Submerge them in vegetable glycerin and Seth them in top of your gaming PC while playing a demanding game for an hour. They become so soft that they nearly melt in your mouth. The vg also makes them slightly sweeter.
What is vegetable glycerin and where can you buy it?
I think it takes approximately three hours for chewy candy to become a soluble in water
Yes you can very easily soften gummy candy. I have to do this with Swedish Fish because lately regardless of where I purchase them, they are quite hard straight out of the bag. I would say every 4 out of 5 bags are dry and hard and that 1 good bag is getting harder to find. It may be a recipe change, or just bad luck. I’ve experimented with different methods of making them softer and most of the advice offered is spot on. There are many ways of making them softer. Basically you need the addition of a liquid. Water, vodka, juice, rum, any liquid will work. Next you need to increase the temperature of the gummy candy. The warmer they are, the faster they will start softening. My go to method is to place my gummies in an ziplock bag, add just enough water to coat the gummies (1 or 2 tbsp). Shake to coat and then place in microwave for 10 seconds. Take out, shake again. I do this for about 60 seconds. You can eat them at this point. To store for later, I put the gummies in a dish lined with parchment paper and let them dry up overnight before storing. You can experiment with different liquids and different ways to heat until you find your ideal method.
I put mine on the dash of my car on a warm sunny day. You have to keep an eye on them but they regain softness. I have even used the heat from my blow dryer!
Try stick a piece of bread in the bag, I use this to soften my cookies
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.847399 | 2010-11-08T20:07:32 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8953",
"authors": [
"138 Aspen",
"Aaronut",
"Brian Ortiz",
"Elisabeth Shevtsova",
"Jon Carter",
"MV Servicing Company Ltd",
"Manako",
"Matthew",
"Rainah Ness",
"Ray G.",
"SourDoh",
"Tammy",
"Tatjana Heuser",
"cabbey",
"farmersteve",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104094",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119104",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18306",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18308",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18323",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55005",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73113",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96892",
"kitukwfyer"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
7466 | What precautions should I take when preparing food while I have a cold?
If I have a cold, what precautions should I take while preparing food to make sure that I don't transmit germs?
Wash your hands thoroughly and frequently. See Clean Hands Save Lives.
Do not at any point cough into your hands. Coughing into a sleeve is considered less likely to transmit germs.
To really prevent breathing on your food and potentially transmitting germs that way, you could consider wearing a mask.
Personally I'd consider the last step optional (and the other two not).
You should also not touch your face.
Have your spouse prepare your foods, you are sick and need rest. :-)
@Chris - Shh! Don't give her ideas. :)
-1 A recent study in our country on virus particles from sneezing and coughing noted that they survive in the air and on hard surfaces in good quantities for at least an hour and up to 18 hours. Using your sleeve etc doesn't help. It's not the food that will get contaminated, it the pots, bowls, serving spoons etc. Chris's suggestion is they way to go, get someone else to do it
Wear latex food prep gloves, especially when handling anything that won't receive further cooking.
What purpose does this serve? The surface of latex gloves isn't going to be any cleaner than freshly washed hands. Plus, if you sneeze or cough into your gloves, they're just as dirty as hands.
If you sneeze or cough into your hands, or find yourself touching your nose, etc, you just change the gloves. In all restaurant kitchens they are health-code mandated when touching food that won't be further cooked.
Gloves are generally a hygiene illusion unless put on in hospital conditions, and replaced after touching anything other than the food at hand
Wash your hands!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.847886 | 2010-09-20T17:38:58 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7466",
"authors": [
"Chris",
"Connie",
"Funnyboyz Cfc",
"Goodbye Stack Exchange",
"Michael Natkin",
"TFD",
"abnry",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15332",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15333",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15337",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15338",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62346",
"user62346",
"willow"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
7859 | How can I make a foam without an immersion blender?
I want to try some experiments with molecular gastronomy foams, but all the recipes I've seen involve using an immersion blender to create the foam. Can I use a whisk to make the foam? What about my Vita-mix? Are there any changes I would need to make to the process based on the change in methodology?
A vita mix should work pretty well; maybe you could carefully drag a spatula in the top of the vortex (nowhere near the blade!) to introduce more air. A whisk will be pretty slow going. And then there is a whole other category of foams made in a whipped cream canister. Here is a link to get you started: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9lJMGImGKE
Good idea with the whisk. Mine actually came with a muddler type thing that won't hit the blades that will probably work great.
I just thought of one more way that may work. The whole trick is to introduce air, so try using very little liquid in the vita mix, maybe just enough to half cover the blades. That will produce approximately the same scenario as people use with their immersion blender to make foam, where the blade is skimmed along the top of the liquid surface.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.848089 | 2010-10-05T17:39:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7859",
"authors": [
"Michael Natkin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
107287 | Can I substitute corn syrup for honey in bread?
I have a white bread recipe I use frequently I'm pretty happy with. It calls for 3tbsp (64g) of honey. I have a bottle of karo light corn syrup "with real vanilla" that I would like to use up, instead.
From the label, honey and corn syrup have the same calories per tbsp. Searching the web, they seem to be 1:1 substitutes for one another. But bread is a bit special, right? The sweetness isn't just for flavor—it also has to feed the yeast so the dough rises.
Is a 1:1 substitution (by weight, if it matters) appropriate here, or should I add more corn syrup than I would have honey?
Yes, I would do a 1:1 substitution. I think your recipe will work fine and should taste good, but the flavor profile will be different (obviously honey has a very different taste from corn syrup).
Second, there will be different proportions of sugars between the two, so even with the same number of calories the sweetness will be different (honey is sweeter than most corn syrups). Fructose, for example, is much sweeter than glucose, which in turn is sweeter than maltose.
Honey has about the same sweetness as sucrose (table sugar), but acids, enzymes, heat, and other processes can convert sugars into other sugars. Sucrose, for example, can be broken down into glucose and fructose, making it sweeter.
You may also want to try the recipe with dark corn syrup which has added molasses and a deeper flavor. You can add some vanilla to your recipe if you want that as well.
Retrospective answer from OP: Mechanically, a 1:1 substitution worked fine -- the dough rose, the loaf shape was perfect, and the bread had a good texture and mouth feel.
Taste-wise, the honey has a sweeter and subtly nicer flavor. If I were making bread to eat unadorned, I'd certainly prefer the honey. But for sandwiches and jams the nuance is lost, and the corn syrup is fine.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.848290 | 2020-04-04T18:16:33 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107287",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
13500 | Making bread dough in the bread maker and baking it in the oven
I am in the process of making bread in the bread maker, but I want to try to bake it in the oven. I am just making white bread. What temp and how long would you recommend baking the bread?
How big of a loaf (in cups of flour)?
2 lb. I'll break it into two 9x6 pans
Sorry. 4 cups of flour
Do you by any chance have a stand mixer? It'll do most of the same work as your bread machine and you can use a standard recipe.
Yes I do. I ordered "Artisan Bread in Five Minutes a Day: The Discovery That Revolutionizes Home Baking" so I can experiment more.
@Mike - the Artisan Bread book should get you a long way.
For a 2lb loaf (or 2 x 1lb loaves) I'd recommend about 22-25 minutes at 350F.
I did 350F for 40 minutes and it came out good.
General answer: for bread in a bread pan, 350°F until 195°–205°F in the center. That'll probably be around 40 minutes, I'd guess (and it seems you found) but a thermometer will let you be sure (and then you'll know how long it takes for next time).
15 minutes at 230C, then another 15-20 at 200C, until it's risen and sounds hollow when you tap the bottom.
Baking time depends on a lot of factors:
loaf size
oven temperature
baking with or without tin
dough type (wheat/rye/mix/...)
Safest choice would be to use an oven thermometer.
The loaf is done at 97 or 98°C core temperature.
Another indicator is the sound of your loaf: if you knock on its bottom and it sounds hollow, it's done.
Also important: experience. Bake the same recipe until you're used to it and the result satisfies you. If the result isn't perfect: don't worry. You'll end up with something edible in every case and don't need to starve.
For a nice crust, start with 250°C and turn the oven down to about 220°C when you put the bread in.
For an even nicer crust, you'll need steam. Not only humid air but STEAM. This question covers this topic: How can I create steam in a normal oven to promote bread oven spring?
For the best result you can achieve at home with a simple oven use a pizza stone. Heat it up to 250°C for 1 hour. Then put in the loaf and produce some steam.
Your bread machine recipe might be different from a regular bread recipe.
When baking, I usually preheat my oven to 250C with a deep pan at the bottom rack with a few cups of water. This is important to keep the dough moist but give a good crust. When it comes time to bake, I pop mu loaf in and drop the temp to 200C. I usually stop when I achieve a golden colour. But you can go darker if you want.
I'll try the water next time, that sounds like a good idea.
Put hot water in a square baking pan on the bottom oven rack.
Bake bread at 350 degrees for 25 minutes for a light crust.
The hot water is crucial for keeping the bread moist.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.848482 | 2011-03-27T19:18:29 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13500",
"authors": [
"Mike Wills",
"Yosef",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5425",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/955",
"justkt"
],
"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
} |
24396 | Making Malt-Free Bread
The bread I make has been inconsistent in how it turns out each time. I follow the "Artisan Bread in 5 Minutes a Day" method for making bread. Sometimes it rises really nice, other times it barely rises at all. I know their methodology uses regular all purpose flour, however due to a food allergy, I can't have any malt. So I usually use Gold Medal Organic All Purpose flour that does not have malt listed as an ingredient. Somehow I think these are related, though I don't know for sure.
I realize malt is a sugar that the yeast feeds on. Could this be why I have inconsistent bread from time to time? What can I add to make up for the lack of malt in the bread?
So... do you want to know why you have inconsistent bread, or are you wanting to make bread with no malt? I was also not aware that it's part of normal processes to put malt sugar into flour.
Two part question. Is my theory right: "Could this be why I have inconsistent bread from time to time?" and is what is the fix if I am "What can I add to make up for the lack of malt in the bread?"
I could also be totally wrong and am looking for suggestions if I am.
I'd suspect temperature and relative humidity of the kitchen and possibly yeast health before I'd suspect an issue with sugars in the flour, but I know nothing about your process.
Added malt is not necessary for yeast action.
The starches in flour are huge sugar molecules. They are too big for our tongue which is why we can't taste them. They are also too big for yeast to break down.
Given some time amylase enzymes in the flour will break some of those starches down into natural malt. This gives dough more complex flavors as well as a considerable amount of sugar for us and for our belching yeasty slaves. For this reason it is added to some flours by millers. Peter Reinhardt has made a career talking about this.
However, this malt, while delicious, is not always necessary. The flour milling process produces plenty of damaged starches that the yeast will happily munch on. For many breads this is entirely sufficient for proofing.
If your flour does not have much amylase and no added malt (which can also add enzymes) then your dough won't be breaking down any of your starches into new sugar. If you age your dough for a long time your yeast could simply be starving to death. You monster.
If you consider your constant quest for convenience to be corrupting the quality of your carbohydrate-consuming companions and curtailing the quantity of carbon-dioxide- an easy way to test this theory would be to mix in a little sucrose (table sugar). Your indentured yeast will love you and will honor your reign with gassy uprisings.
The amylase enzymes don't do a whole lot of work until they're in the ~130-165 degree range, though (http://www.howtobrew.com/section3/chapter14-1.html). Could the malt be the vehicle for the enriching process?
@baka- it's true that amylase is most effective at those temperatures but it is still active at much lower temperatures. It takes a good day for enough activity to be useful in bread- which is still much less than is required for beer. The artisan bread recipes referenced by the OP can go for days in the fridge.
I wish I could give +10 just for "You monster." :)
I use the same recipe. I find as the dough gets older, it rises less. Maybe some of the gasses have already been created and gone away. But it tastes nicer when it's had some time in the fridge, probably because wild yeasts are growing. My solution is fourfold:
use a little more yeast (2 tsp instead of 1.5)
slash the dough more than in the pictures, to make sure I don't prevent any rise
skip the steam generating step (the tossing a cup of water onto a preheated pan)
use a heavier piece of dough, so you can get the same size even if it's denser
The result is a slight less crunchy crust, but a slightly large loaf. It's delicious so I also don't get too worked up about some loaves rising more than others.
The only reason I really ask is when I make bread for sandwiches. For the standard boule it isn't as much of a problem.
you reminded me of the other thing I do when I want to have a loaf that's at least a minimum size... use more dough.
I make 2 lb loaves. The American Bread recipie then creates 2 loaves.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.848891 | 2012-06-12T18:21:31 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24396",
"authors": [
"Jossef Harush Kadouri",
"Kate Gregory",
"Marti",
"Mike Wills",
"Poonam",
"Ron",
"Sobachatina",
"Xen2050",
"baka",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55550",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55553",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/955",
"ninadk",
"rob mayoff"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
5031 | Should one always use the whole garlic clove?
When using garlic cloves for pretty much anything, is it ever necessary to cut the slightly brown end off (that which connects to the head), or the middle out? Often times when I peel a garlic clove and cut into it I'll notice that the middle portion is slightly to moderately green and I'm always wondering if this should be discarded along with the brown end(s). If there are obvious blemishes in the garlic I'll remove those, but other than that is there a general rule of thumb?
The green in the center can have a bitter taste, and many chefs prefer to remove them. If the taste and color don't bother you, it will not cause problems for the dish.
The brown end tends to a have a harder consistency than the rest of the clove, so may cause a problem depending on how you cook the garlic. If you're cooking it in a manner that leads to a very soft and mushy piece of garlic, you'd be better off discarding it. (Boiling in soup, for example.) It probably would not make much of a difference if you were browning the garlic for a topping.
That summarizes my understanding as well. In practice I never remove the green sprout unless it is so big that it practically falls out anyhow.
I only ever use the white parts of the clove; the hardened brown bit doesn't taste good, and the green bit is the sprout, which I don't think tastes good, either.
If you can get hold of fresh garlic bulbs with tender skins, the green sprout will not have had chance to grow, neither will the end of the clove be hard and brown. I suspect you could even mince the skin of a fresh garlic clove and get away with it.
Actually, the skin of fresh garlic, I've found, doesn't have the right texture to cook properly in sautes. I haven't tried it in other dishes.
Travelling through Europe I came across a few cultures that believed that lingering garlic breath is caused solely by the centre sprout, hence they remove it.
I am told that cutting garlic releases a bitter taste; therefore best to use whole.
Why is that bitter taste? Isn't any way to avoid it other than not cutting it?
There may be a grain of truth in this answer. Checkout this experiment with crushed, minced and micro-planed garlic. Also see papin's answer to this question . However, I don't think it follows that you should always use whole cloves.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.849297 | 2010-08-12T17:46:02 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5031",
"authors": [
"Beeflover",
"Ben Lee",
"Chris Steinbach",
"CuriousBear",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Joe Kington",
"Martha F.",
"Michael Natkin",
"boonchew",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65368",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9731",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9733",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9735",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9736",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9765",
"please delete me"
],
"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
} |
12075 | Making Raclette without special equipment or specific type of cheese
I have a sizable chunk of emmenthal cheese taking up valuable space in my fridge, and I was looking for a recipe to use it in. Drilling down into Swiss cuisine at wikipedia, I encountered an intriguing mention of Raclette, an apparently simple meal of 'scraped' hot cheese with various accompaniments.
My questions are:
1. Is emmenthal an acceptable alternative to true raclette cheese?
2. I have no intention of going out and buying a specific 'raclette' gadget, so is there some sort of workaround using ordinary kitchen utensils that will allow me to recreate the traditional ralette experience (ie. scraping the edge of the cheese with a knife)?
Speaking as somebody who grew up in and lives close to the Emmental region: No. Raclette is a very specific type of cheese particularly suited for frying. It is produced mainly in the Valais region and is an AOC.
If you try a raclette type dish with Emmental, you'll end up with a stringy mess of questionable culinary value. About the only thing I can think of doing with Emmental (apart from eating it on bread or with baked potatoes) is cubing it into vegetable soup.
I would recommend inviting your friends and family over for a cheese fondue party. Fondue requires a large amount of Emmental, so this should take care of your space issue. Also, Emmental is the perfect fondue cheese with its distinctly nutty flavor that complements the addition of dry white wine and Kirsch liqueur.
http://RacletteChalet.com
To answer the other half of your question, if you did want to do a raclette without any special equipment, I guess you could do something equivalent using the grill in your oven, but you'd have to be eating in the kitchen. You'd need to stand the cheese on something, with one side close to the grill, then whip it out and scrape of the melted bit every so often. (Note: that this would actually be easier with (rectangular) Emmental than real (semi-circular) Raclette cheese)
I would image that in "the old days", the cheese was just laid flat on a surface and placed near any source of heat (open fire), though this would be complicated by the cheese 'running' on its own.
Just for culture's sake, here is what a traditional raclette gadget (four à raclette) looks like:
And here is what a modern one looks like: the best are combined with an invertible top which allows you to do pancakes on one side, and table-fried meat on the other (not typically all in the same meal, I hasten to add!)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.849562 | 2011-02-12T04:48:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12075",
"authors": [
"Britt",
"Chief",
"Daniel Vartanov",
"basil",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24876",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24877",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24878",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24985",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25155",
"user242007",
"user3293082"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
19470 | Why does fresh coriander deteriorate so quickly?
I realize that, as I live in a northerly climate, I cannot expect to have fresh herbs like coriander always available at my beck and call.
Yet, yesterday I bought a lovely, thick bunch of coriander at the cheapo-supermarket closest to my home and it was fantastic: profuse, aromatic, and fully tumescent.
Now, 24 hours later, even though I refrigerated it in an vase with water (it has the roots still attached) it is looking like sh*t.
I know that greens deteriorate over time but the turn around time in this case seems ridiculous to me. Italian parsley, AFAIK, is also imported yet it lasts for weeks in the crisper.
Is the only reason coriander looks good on the shelf is that it is spritzed every 90 seconds?
It should store better in a nearly closed plastic bag, no excess water etc.
"Tumescent"? What ARE you doing with your unsuspecting cilantro? Clearly you're not cooking with it!
I often buy coriander in the little plant pots rather than precut - it's not much more expensive and lasts longer.
@BobMcGee you are incorrect sir. Everything is above board in the Doug household. And, just as I feared, within a day the cilantro has once again become flaccid and drooping, the opposite of tumescent.
Today I learned cilantro is coriander! Try this for cilantro - it's processed and lasts much, much longer: http://www.peapod.com/itemDetailView.jhtml?productId=186338&NUM=1420253691269
Theory 1: moisture
Were the leaves wet at all? I worked in a restaurant before, tending to the fridge. I had to make sure the salads were washed and thoroughly spun. Wet greens wilted and rotted faster and we had to toss them. The roots can be wet and exposed to water, but make sure the leaves stay dry.
Theory 2: freezer burn
This link mentions that cilantro can be damaged by freezing temperatures, which could be an explanation for what you're seeing? Is it so cold in your area that your refrigerator actually dips into freezing temps because the air around it does?
Meats can get freezer burn or taste off after freezing. One explanation I've read is that water freezes as sharp crystals in and around the cells. Upon defrosting, these sharp crystals can cut through cell membranes, causing cell contents to leak out and alter the meat structure. In theory the same could apply to anything organic.
Theory 3: dehydration
The link above and others I've read suggest storing cilantro as you do in the fridge, but covered with a plastic bag. Some wrap their cilantro in a paper towel. Either way, this creates an enclosed or somewhat-enclosed space that slows down moisture escaping from the leaves. The air in the fridge is generally dry and can suck moisture out of the leaves. I know this sounds like the opposite of too much moisture, but there's a window for how much moisture plants want--neither too little nor too much is desired.
I'd try to resolve this in the order above. If you left the leaves wet, I'd say that's a very likely culprit. I'd check your fridge temperature next: you could put an ice tray near where you put the cilantro to see if it freezes or starts freezing overnight. If it's still wilting fast, try doing what you did with a plastic or paper bag over the leaves--making sure the bag isn't crushing them.
+1 for the plastic bag. I place mine in a fold of paper towel and put it in plastic bag. I get a week or so out of them.
the leaves were definitely wet, but are not showing the physical signs of moisture or freezer burn. Perhaps dehydration is the problem as suggested.I will give the plastic bag a go.
Make sure the leaves are dry before going into storage. For some reason, wet greens will wilt. If you don't have a salad spinner, a few shakes and patting dry with paper towels should mostly do the job
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.849806 | 2011-12-07T05:22:34 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19470",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Chloe",
"Doug",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Eric Hu",
"Mori",
"Sobachatina",
"TFD",
"Tasha McDuffey-Townsend",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42368",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9679"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
10693 | Why does whip cream dispenser sometimes produce "ragged" cream?
Sometimes I make whipped cream in my ISI cream whipper and it comes out beautifully fluffy and smooth, and other times when I dispense it, the cream looks "ragged" for lack of a better description. Any ideas what factor accounts for the difference?
Are you being consistent in the amount of shaking? I got an iSi for Christmas and haven't used it yet, but was surprised that the instructions explicitly stated how many times it should be shaken based on the fat content of your cream.
When I first got my iSi I had wildly inconsistent results, including exactly what you're describing. I'm not sure if you're just whipping cream or if you're whipping other cream-based preparations, but the most common reason for this happening is that the liquid going in isn't quite, er, liquid. Any solid particles of any kind will almost assuredly cause sputtering, which is why they recommend that you strain everything through a fine sieve.
Other things I've learned about the iSi whippers to help prevent these inconsistent results:
Ignore everything the instructions tell you about how to charge it. They're somewhere between very misleading and complete nonsense. What I actually do is this:
Screw on a charger as described.
Shake it vigorously, as if it were a cocktail shaker.
Let it rest for a moment, then shake again. Repeat the shaking 4-5 times.
Finally, remove the charger and screw the cap back on.
The instructions are full of ominous warnings about not being able to discharge it properly if you shake it too much because the nozzle will get blocked or something. Never happened. What's far more likely is that the cream doesn't actually whip fully or there are large air pockets. Do not err on the side of caution here; many "external" iSi recipes such as those you find in the HRC actually tell you to shake frequently as the dispenser chills. I'm not sure if I'd do this with cream (as opposed to a water-based foam) but I can't stress this enough, don't skimp on the shaking.
If you need to chill it some more after charging, make sure to chill it on its side. The instructions are quite explicit about this and in this case they're actually correct.
Shake it again after you chill it and before you dispense any. This is very important and conspicuously absent from the instructions. You shouldn't need to shake as much as the first pass, but some of the gas does seem to separate over time.
Start by dispensing the cream very, very slowly, until you actually see some come out, then you can apply more pressure as needed. If you squeeze the trigger as hard as you can right off the bat, you'll just end up depressurizing the thing before any cream has a chance to come out. Every single time I've pulled too hard, I've ended up with spatters.
Finally, make sure that you actually thoroughly clean it all between uses, including the tiny horizontal hole in the metal tube that you screw the tips onto (I forget what it's called) as well as the socket that piece goes into. Any blockages whatsoever, no matter how small, can cause at least minor sputtering.
Hope some of that helps. If you do all of that, you shouldn't have any sputtering issues. Last 7 or 8 times I've used mine, I haven't had any.
@daniel: You may be thinking of the 1 L food-service whippers they sell; I myself have a 500 mL whipper and it's possible that Michael even has one of the 250 mL models (in which case there might be an entirely different problem - that of over-filling). 1.5 cups is a somewhat odd amount either way, but whether or not it's too little would depend on the size of the dispenser.
If you're whipping cream, make sure you don't shake it so much that you make butter. Other than that, Aaronut is correct: if it sputters, shake some more.
@daniel: I had no idea that any local stores here even sold iSi products; I ordered mine online...
@daniel: Going way off topic here, but do they also sell higher-end appliances (Vitamix, Waring, etc.)?
Great answer, very helpful. My whipper is the 500ml. I used 1.5 cups because I had a pint but needed to reserve 1/2 cup for a sauce :).
Four things:
(1) You are definitely over whipping the cream. Please read the instructions - these are tested in the iSi lab to ensure your best results.And they do give you the correct amount of shakes per the fat content of the cream. You describe what we call "choppy" cream.
(2) Hold the whipper upside down in your hands. This means that your little finger is on the lever - not your index finger. This can position is very important because you need to have the gas behind the cream when it's dispensed. this will ensure that the gas is working with gravity and going through the cream and will result in less sputtering, and a full dispensing of your cream.
(3) Make sure you are using iSi branded chargers. Not all chargers are the same, and while the less expensive chargers will fit onto the charging mechanism, it can damage the pin of your iSi whipper and will VOID your warranty. The off brand chargers will provide an inconsistent amount of gas in use, and contain a high amount of oils from manufacturing that will be injected into your foods, this can change the recipe outcome.
(4) Carefully measure your contents, and don't over fill; The head room is very important for the best use of the mixing between the cream and the n20 gas. There is a pour line indicated; make sure your liquid + solid ingredients do not exceed that level (10-x sugar and cream)
Please use capital letters, paragraph breaks, and periods where appropriate. I've copy-edited this post to make it more readable for you
I was taught how to whip cream with a handheld mixer and there are a few things to consider
Is the whipped cream being over whipped? When you beat it too hard with a handheld it starts to form ragged peaks
Is the cannister almost empty? Gas charged cannisters often 'sputter' a little bit when over-charged or almost empty.
I don't think it was over-charged; just 1 charge and 1.5 cups of cream, and it definitely wasn't almost empty. One theory I had was temperature. I had left it in the coldest part of my fridge. I moved it to a less frigid spot, so I'll see if that made a diff in the morning.
I don't suppose that it could be a little clogged and just need a cleaning in addition to the possibility of the temperature needing to change? If you happen to have another dispenser, you could always fill and use both the same way to make sure one isn't faulty.
Whilst resolve whipped cream dispenser is important, it is more important to give the liquid time to dissolve the nitrous oxide into the fatty components. If it doesn't have time to dissolve, it will force them liquid out, bit it won't expand evenly as it leaves the nozzle.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.850165 | 2011-01-03T06:33:10 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10693",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Ali Asad",
"George Robinson",
"Hippyrich",
"Janet Michel",
"Marti",
"Michael Natkin",
"Munna Singh",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21914",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21915",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21940",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21954",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87733",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87737",
"user192362127",
"yossarian"
],
"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
} |
6334 | What islands use a cooking technique that starts with sugar and hot sauce in the pan?
I had a roommate many years ago that was from a Caribbean island, but I don't remember which one. His general technique for cooking almost anything was to start with a hot saute pan, add oil, a good amount of sugar, and a homemade hot sauce that had lots of mustard as well as chili heat in it. Almost similar to the Vietnamese caramel chicken. Can anyone identify which island(s) this technique might be from? Is there a name for it? Niceties to the technique?
Sounds like the technique for Pelau, from Trinidad, only with hot sauce added. I don't think it has a name other than "pan fry/sear in caramelized sugar"
That sounds similar!
According to Food Culture in the Caribbean, the technique has no name and is common in several islands. The author attributes the technique as an adaptation from Chinese or Indian cooking. Tracking down the origins of things in the Caribbean is hard, as it gets traffic from many seafaring nations and is such a melting pot.
Stews are the most common dishes employing the technique.
Makes a ton of sense. It does remind me of the Vietnamese caramel cooking technique.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.850756 | 2010-08-30T04:40:52 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6334",
"authors": [
"Eric",
"Graham Borland",
"Michael Natkin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12612",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14566",
"morris295"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
32552 | Is ice-encrusted frozen shrimp ok to eat?
I bought some frozen shrimp on sale but didn't notice that there was a lot of ice build-up on the shrimp (and in the bottom of the package) until I got home.
Does this indicate that the shrimp has thawed and been refrozen, or is this build-up just an indicator that the food has been in a freezer for a long time?
This is how shrimp is frozen for transit and sale. The packaging should have a weight that includes the ice aswell as the shrimp, and a weight that is shrimp only weight: The weight after they have completely thawed.
There will also be a size grading. No of shrimp per lb or per KG based on whether they are
HOSO Head On Shell On
HLSO Headless Shell On or
Peeled
Break down here
The ice coating prevents freezer burn to the shrimp, so they'll be juicy when you defrost them rather than dry and hard! If the have freezer burn they'll be a opaque white discolouration on the surface. They're still OK eat like this - they're desecated / dried - they're just really tough.
Having said all this I am assuming that the packaging they're in in undamaged, before I say that they should be fine!
This is OK to eat. Ice buildup on frozen food happens through a normal process. It is not a sign of bad handling. The food has probably spent longish time in cold storage, but out is still safe. The taste should also be ok or only minimally changed, but certainly worth eating.
I found a bag of frozen shrimp which were hiding in the back of the freezer and the bag was full of frost. When I defrosted the shrimp, they're a little tough, but still tasty and good to eat. Probably will add them to soup or a cooked dish where they're not the only ingredient.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.851168 | 2013-03-09T18:32:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32552",
"authors": [],
"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
} |
58880 | How to grill polenta?
The first time I tried to grill polenta on a barbecue, I brushed both sides with olive oil and it came out perfectly with a crisp exterior and a creamy interior.
The next time I tried it, on a different barbecue and with the slices a bit thinner, it was a disaster with the polenta refusing to separate from the grill when I attempted to flip it. This made me very sad.
To avoid having the polenta weld itself to the grill in future, should the grill be hotter? Colder? Should I use a different fat than olive oil? Is there anything else I should consider?
Inquiring minds need to know!
Your polenta was probably sticking because you didn't use enough oil or your barbecue was too cool.
Olive oil on a barbecue is a bad idea as it flares up and burns easily, you're better off with a more standard vegetable oil. The choice of oil is not as important as the quantity in keeping things from sticking, you need to use a lot of it. I use a high temperature silicone to baste the barbecue surface with a lot of oil when I need things not to stick, some use a halved onion dipped in oil to apply it to the grill. Also oil your food.
Your barbecue surface could also be too cool. If it's too cool the surface of the polenta block won't form a crust quickly enough and will adhere to the grill. It should be hot enough that you can't hold the back of your hand over it for more than 2-3 seconds.
Other factors in frying or grilling polenta are the thickness of the polenta, the temperature of the polenta, and the thickness of the mix. You want to be grilling thick slabs of still fridge-temperature polenta that was on the gloopy side when cooked.
You're right @Stephie, I always manage to get that backwards. Really any olive oil is bad for barbecuing, I'll edit as such.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.851362 | 2015-07-08T00:45:02 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58880",
"authors": [
"Dianne Childs",
"Elisha Suzanne",
"GdD",
"Laura Edgington",
"Michael Rifinski",
"Shelley Ulrickson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140506",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140523",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
16234 | How do you remove the stickiness from reusable plastic container or lid?
I have a blue plastic lid for my glass Anchor container. I noticed that the lid is very sticky to the touch from both sides. I've cleaned it thoroughly with soap but the stickiness is still there. This lid is supposed to be microwave safe but I never used it while heating up food.
I also noticed a similar texture with with my semi-transparent Tupperware plastic container. For this one, the lid is fine but the container itself is sticky on the inside.
Has anyone experienced that before with plastic lids or containers? The stickiness is the same all year long. Is there a way to clean it or has the product reached its end of life?
How do you know it is grease? I have a tv remote and the whole back of the remote is sticky from being stored in a south TX RV.
When I get this, it's almost always old grease that didn't get washed off properly in the first place. We have some newer storage containers that are, for some reason, really strongly attractive to grease and have to be washed very carefully with lots of detergent or they're sticky next time we go to use them.
My usual solution is to rub the whole thing with undiluted dishwashing liquid and let it sit a minute or two. Then I rub/rinse with the hottest water I can stand until it's all squeaky clean. This usually works.
If your grease is several layers deep or really old, you might have to resort to a grease cutter like Formula 409 or one of the citrus-based degreasers, followed up with plenty of detergent. I would not use solvent any stronger than a commercial cleaning spray because of the risk of damaging the plastic. I also would not scour the plastic. The scratching will make it exponentially harder to get all the way clean, and the deepest scratches can harbor bacteria (ask any home brewer who scoured his brew bucket how much it increases the risk of infection).
I think the question was regarding the spontaneous stickiness that soft or soft-touch plastic surfaces develop over time. As I understand it, the finish or the soft plastic itself contain constituents called plasticizers, the chemicals that imbue the material with the desired feel. I have a couple pairs of rubberized-grip binoculars from different manufacturers and they've both eventually become disgustingly tacky even though lightly used and kept in their cases. The airbag passive restraint covers in my Odyssey have become constantly tacky and nothing seems to remove the film. The barrels of my favorite click ballpoint pens get so bad you can actually push the sticky slimy plasticizer residue around but it won't wipe off. It's chemistry, and we need professional advice.
If the plastic is actually decomposing, as opposed to being soaked with edible oils, there is my amateur advice: toss it out!
I've noticed it, and I guess it is grease. Use hot water, soap, and leave the tupper soaking for a couple of hours; use elbow grease too.
Goo-Gone works really well for me; it has never failed me, yet.
I was looking for my 409 bottle and saw Windex...remembering the movie about the Greek wedding and the father, I decided to try it....It worked quite well to remove the tackiness.
Soak the sticky containers in a 50-50 blend of warm water and ammonia. Follow that up by washing them in the sink or dishwasher and the stickiness will be gone!
Do not use Goo Gone on anything you'll be eating from - it's okay to use it on the outside of a food container to remove label residue, but many plastics absorb chemicals, so I'd be careful using it to "clean" an entire Tupperware container. Even if you wash the container thoroughly with soap and water afterward, it will likely still smell like Goo Gone.
Soaking in a hot water + grease-cutting detergent is your best best. Products with citrus in them will work best, but still require a decent amount of scrubbing.
For the outside of containers, bicarbonate of soda paste left on overnight may help. I have used it on decades-old tins covered with baked-on grease. After leaving it on overnight, the bicarbonate paste was the color of the grease and after washing, the tins were very clean.
On plastic, stickiness that won't go away is usually adhesive residue from a label that was run through the dishwasher. It may not even have been a label on the same container. This residue bonds strongly to plastic, I think due to their chemical affinities. Rubbbing alcohol and boiling-hot water may help soften or dissolve it. Acetone will also help, but may discolor or dissolve some common plastics, particularly polystyrene (recycling code 6).
If these solvents fail, resort to intensive scrubbing using scouring pads or steel wool. It'll scratch the living crap out of the plastic, but you'll see little shreds of the residue coming off. This method works best when combined with hot water or a solvent.
Note that acetone is highly destructive of acrylic, though a lid is unlikely to be made of the stuff as it is too rigid.
The question mentions that it's sticky on both sides of the lid - I doubt there were stickers on both sides.
Per Tupperware Customer Care - To remove stickiness: Ø Rub the surface with a baking soda and water paste on a damp cloth or sponge Ø Repeat if necessary. To prevent stickiness: Ø Each time you empty a Tupperware container, rinse it in cold water before its usual cleaning in warm suds. Ø Store containers without seals when not in use to allow fresh air to circulate.
If the stickyness is due to food residues oily or greasy, it should come off with dish soap. If not, it is probably due to chemical degradation of plastic, probably a defective container or exposure to some solvent or chemical (it can be even vapors from some other degraded plastic).
In this case, it can release chemicals into food or skin. If it is a cheap container, it is not worth to try to recover it, better to trash it and buy a new one.
In any case, I wouldn't advice messing up with solvents on a plastic food containers, it can only do worse.
Try soaking in oxiclean (percarbonate cleaner) dissolved in hot water (140-160 degrees). For homebrewing I use PBW which is like extra strength oxiclean. It's pricey but it works very well for cleaning sticky wort-covered brewing equipment and I use it to dissolve the glue on beer bottle labels when reusing bottles. Percarbonate cleaners are fine for washing food-safe plastic, just give a good rinse with hot water.
Goo gone is ok as well, but I find it often still requires a significant amount of elbow grease.
I suspect that the stuff on your brewing equipment is carbohydrate based, not grease. Although the oxiclean could work on grease too, I won't automatically assume that it helps.
That's true, I could have also mentioned that I also use it on oil residue from frying, but the poster did not mention what the food causing the residue was. I make popcorn on the stove with oil and it leaves extremely sticky residue on my the pot, and soaking in hot water with oxiclean does a very good job at getting it off with minimal elbow grease needed. Just remembered another trick -- steaming with a clothing steamer also works well on sticky grease on my cabinets above the stove -- might work on this too.
409 works every time, just spray and wash.
Formula 409 is a commercial all-purpose cleaner brand in the US. It is not intended for food surfaces, I don't think. Active ingredients: Alkyl (C12 [40%], C14 [50%], C16 [10%]), Dimethyl Benzyl Ammonium Chloride (0.3%).
I know that soaking in mixture of dish detergent and ammonia is the most effective method, but I cannot stand the noxious (carcinogenic?) fumes. Especially in the office kitchenette, when you have but two plastic lunch boxes (and a couple of plastic cutlery you conscientiously reuse) to wash.
I use a mixture of baking soda and dish detergent.
My other alternative is laundry detergent with baking soda.
I realise that baking soda is not readily available in many countries (e.g. Israel or southeast Asia), where they sell a tiny sachet for like US$1, while we could get a whole quart for $0.50 in the US. In such times, I had used the cheapest white toothpaste in place of baking soda, unadulterated with gels or substances used to smoothen the texture of the connoisseur brands toothpaste.
Then rinse on a slow trickle of hot water from the faucet. A rushing gush of water would simply wash away the mixture. (I am adamantly annoyed at people who turn the hot water full blast not knowing that such an environmentally harmful method is less effective than a slow trickle).
Did I write something wrong? Whoever voted me down obviously hasn't tried using mixture of baking soda and detergent and then a slow trickle of hot water. It works for me. And is it wrong to say that my office colleagues would kick me out of the office if I ever introduced noxious ammonia into the kitchenette?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.851681 | 2011-07-18T02:05:19 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16234",
"authors": [
"Anthony Nicolino",
"Cascabel",
"CheeseFerret",
"Cynthia",
"Elizabeth Dornan",
"Eric Kittell",
"Greg Woods",
"Helen",
"Jan",
"Katja Skafar",
"Lisa",
"Lizzy",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sharon Reid",
"Stats Cruncher",
"Sudharsan Madhavan",
"dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten",
"fisher",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34567",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34585",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51173",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85111",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89298",
"mckenzm",
"paul",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho",
"user3002189"
],
"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
} |
11230 | How the heck did people in the olden' days learn to beat eggs and other laborious tasks?
Did they have whipped cream in the olden days before electricity? I think that they might have. I'm sure I've seen a portrait of Henry VIII munching some of that creamy goodness before.
But what on earth caused someone to whisk cream for hours to see what would happen? Is there any scientific basis to it? For example, "Well I know if I whisk this cream, theoretically it should thicken up." Or was it just some super bored peasant folk who discovered it? Perhaps an argument between a peasant wife and a peasant worker, "I am going to take this fork to this cream and stir it for ages to make an annoying noise!"
Another example is beating eggs - why bother when intuition would probably tell us we are wasting our time?
Though this is an interesting question, I've always wondered how they actually decided to cook something in the fire (burn the food at that time) without being aware of all the benefits it brings.
So many things we eat as a species defy believe as to how they ever got on to our palate. My personal example of choice is isenglass. How in the name of Neptune's Beard someone found out that a substance from dried fish swim bladders, particularly from the Sturgeon originally, could be used as a very effective fining, I'll never know.
It's not an answer, but I would like to point out that you don't have to beat heavy cream for hours to make whipped cream. I've done it by hand a number of times, and it takes approximately 10-20 minutes. Which is a much more reasonable thing to do. In addition, when heavy cream is stored for any length of time, it tends to form clumps of stuff very much like whipped cream, so it might be reasonable to say "Hey, this stuff is good. Can we get it on purpose?"
Accident and/or trial and error, with a bit of 'evolution'. Someone notices that cream gets a bit thicker when it's been stirred a while, they put two and two together and beat it. Then someone has the bright idea to use a whisk to get more air into it and make it even thicker, etc etc.
Though actually I imagine that whipped cream was actually discovered during the process of making butter (keep whipping cream and butter is what you get).
Then how was butter discovered?
But I second the first sentence: a lot of people have lived, and if you remember all stupid things people try even today, it doesn't seem so crazy that someone tried stirring cream for hours once.
probably it was the other way around and they discovered butter after stirring cream too long.
Perhaps the original "experiment" was an accident. Someone carried some cream in a cart a long distance over a bumpy road, and what arrived was butter and buttermilk.
Happens even today. I heard a story about that once.
ElendilTheTall addressed some of the technical questions of "Why would some one think to do that?" So after that why take the time to do the exparament?
I would suggest taking a different frame of reference. Imagine your the cook to a lord and you have kitchen servants (typically the children of other house hold servants) under you. There is no real cost to you to have a servant beat eggs or cream for hours on end on the off chance it might turn out well. And if it doesn't your lord never needs to know. On the other hand if your lord gets bored with your cooking you can find your self out of a job, without a home, money, or marketable skills.
So an abundance of near free labor and a real reason to try new things is usually a good recipe for innovation.
Some cooking was a form of entertainment for the nobility. If you're really interested in this sort of thing, find an SCA chapter near you and attend one of their feasts. Some go for accuracy, while others take the 'medieval times' approach.
i wondered this myself recently, except for cheese. i've been learning to make my own, and the conditions seem so specific for even the most basic cheese to happen that i marveled that humans ever discovered how to make it in the first place. my answer is: we are a hungry and curious species. : )
The first person who ate blue cheese was either very brave, or very, very hungry.
Goat/calf's stomachs used to be a handy way to store milk, and they are a natural source of renet which makes milk turn into cheese. When you've got no refrigeration and you store things in leftover animal bits, cheese just kind of happens.
@Marti: I still maintain people who eat blue cheese are nuts!
@Orbling: that's OK, just leaves more for me. :D
@Marti: LOL, quite welcome!
I bet that blue cheese is a treat compared to cheese made from milk stored in animal stomachs...
@mouviciel: I doubt it.
@Orbling that's funny. I love blue cheese, but gag on red cheese (Limburger).
OK, gross alert. Apparently the Romans liked to eat veal that had only consumed milk, and poach and eat the intestines with the partly digested milk in them. It was a delicacy. Eventually someone figured out how to put the milk in the stomach directly and make as much cheese as people wanted. That makes more sense to me than the "storing it in an empty stomach" theory.
@Kate Gregory why? I think I've read the "empty stomach" theory in McGee for the first time. It was about times older than the Romans. It happened with nomadic tribes on the Asian steppes who used everything produced by their animals much like native Americans used every part of the buffalo. They didn't have permanent settlements with pottery industries or other convenient way to make storage containers, and a shrinking container was comfortable when carrying everything on a horse. They also consumed more dairy than agrarian tribes. I don't see why storage in a stomach is improbable.
@rumtscho it's quite possible for the same thing to be invented different ways. I never liked the "nomad/goatherder/etc travelling around all day with milk in a stomach" theory because the cultures it's ascribed to generally don't drink fluid milk, much less carry it around with them while doing something active. But anyway I'm just telling you another origin story I've heard that might (also?) be true. The intestines-with-the-milk-still-in-them dish is called pajata, btw.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.852459 | 2011-01-19T12:25:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11230",
"authors": [
"Arlen Beiler",
"BaffledCook",
"Cascabel",
"Jbug6",
"Joe",
"John Grøtting",
"Kate Gregory",
"Maria J. Belmonte",
"Martha F.",
"Marti",
"MilkyTech",
"Orbling",
"Trufa",
"cHao",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23024",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23033",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23052",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23091",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2402",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/962",
"mouviciel",
"rumtscho",
"susan",
"yacomink"
],
"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
} |
18147 | Which cooking apparatus is best to make Croque Monsieur?
I'm looking for a small cooking apparatus that I can use to make Croque Monsieur. I've used this kind of device before but I don't know which words to use to google for it. Here's how I made a Croque Monsieur from the past:
Place a slice of cheese and ham between two bread slices
The sandwich is placed in between two grills which press against it like a jaw
After a few minutes, parallel grilled marks are left on both sides of the sandwich
Think of the above machine as a closed book engulfing a sandwich. What's the English name of that machine and is it available in small size(my kitchen has limited space).
You could just pop it under the grill in your oven. Of course, true Croque Monsiuer is dipped in egg and fried in a pan with butter.
The device is called a "panini press" and they're available fairly small. I've seen ones which aren't much larger than a toaster.
I think you're looking for a "sandwich press", does it look like this: http://www.amazon.com/Cuisinart-GR-1-Griddler-Panini-Sandwich/dp/B000CPZXGO ? Or perhaps like this.
While as BobMcGee says a panini press gives you the apparatus you were thinking of, I would like to add that there is an apparatus especially for making croques. An old one looks like this, a newer version like this.
I googled 'croque monsieur machine' to get the results, it's the term we use here (Belgium). It's fairly cheap and is about as large as a waffle iron.
My only comment on this is that I've never had a croque in france cooked on a panini press.
The authentic ones are always sautéed. Personally I make them by buttering the outside of the bread, and shoving the sandwich into a cast-iron skillet. Don't need to press on the top either - that leads to it being more like a panini which I find is compressed - the french croque isn't.
Basically, it's a fried cheese and ham sarni - not a grilled panini.
Nitpicking maybe, but you don't sautee a sandwich. It would involve chopping it and keeping the pieces in motion in the pan.
I do chop up a loaf (slice the bread) and then keep it in motion in the pan. That results in an even brown toasting of the bread rather than hotspots, etc. :)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.853039 | 2011-10-03T01:31:34 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18147",
"authors": [
"Alex",
"Amy",
"C.CN",
"Cephalopod",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Natasha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1761",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39195",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39196",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39202",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52112",
"rumtscho",
"slashdottir"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
17651 | Is a stainless steel french press good to make coffee?
My less than 1 year old glass French Press broke down today. There's a small circular piece of the glass which came off at the bottom. After doing some research, it looks like glass French Press breaks regularly. I've seen some stainless steel version, are those more solid and make good coffee? If not, should I keep buying glass versions every year?
The glass ones are a scam. They are so thin, they just break on the first decent knock, even the big brand ones. It's like trying to make soup in champagne flute, stupid!
We recently got a stainless steel french press and I'm a convert.
Thierry,
Stainless steel French presses work fine. In fact, you can construct a French press out of any chemically inert material: stainless steel, class, ceramic, high-temperature plastic, enameled copper, even marble, and it will make perfectly good coffee. I myself have a collection of porcelain and stoneware presses. What material you choose is really a matter of aesthetics and how you use the press.
All of that being said, my experience is that high-quality glass carafes do not break regularly unless you drop them (which is, admittedly, an issue). I'm wondering if you bought a cheaper carafe with inferior glass, like one from Ikea. I have a Bodum which is at least 8 years old.
Also, for brand name presses, you can usually buy replacement carafes, since breakage (due to dropping) is a frequent issue. Sometimes the replacements cost as much as a whole new press, but you should at least check it out.
Stainless steel is great. Better yeat get the double walled vacuum ("Thermos") flask type. They work great and keep your coffee hot for longer. And the don't break when you knock them
@user7378: True. The only problem is that you can't look through stainless steel to see how the color and strength of the brew are developing. BUT, if you're clumsy or prone to breaking things, stainless is a wonderful thing.
BobMcGee have a valid point. I have a Bodum that is broken on several places now, but it won't discourage me from buying a new one.
@FuzzyChef Is marble really a good idea? Coffee is acidic, and marble is known to deteriorate from acids. Won't that affect the flavour?
Hmmm, I picked marble as an example offbeat chemically inert material. I'll admit to not being an expert on stone; if it's chemically reactive then using it would be a bad idea. Although I suspect that it would not actually react to the weak acids in coffee.
@FuzzyChef: marble is porous which is why marble countertops may stain.
There are also "unbreakable" poly-carbonate beakers that you can get for french presses. I'd also agree with FuzzyChef that the quality glass beakers don't break very often - I carried mine around in a backpack for 5 years of school, and it lasted 5 more years after that. It was only after dropping it on a tile floor that it finally broke.
The plastic replacement beaker has so far lived up to its shatterproof claim, but even with a silicon plunger, it does accumulate scratches that the glass version didn't suffer from.
The stainless steel ones would last a lifetime. I must say and the design itself supports the double wall feature which is a very essential if you have several members in your family and don't want the coffee to go cold within minutes. I purchased a sterling pro after seeing an in-depth review about the device here which suggest to go with the sterling pro french press.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.853277 | 2011-09-11T15:36:51 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17651",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Daniel Li",
"FuzzyChef",
"Shirley W.",
"TFD",
"Von Holey",
"daramarak",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160119",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4631",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"mghicks",
"user39817",
"user5835"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
12082 | What are some best practices to cook salmon on a cedar plank in an oven?
I know that cedar plank cooking is normally done on a grill but I want to see what I can do with it indoors.
What are some ways to get more of the wood flavor when cooking salmon with a cedar plank in the oven?
The big key is just to soak the plank before using it, that way it won't burn while it's in the oven. The amount of time needed to soak seems to differ among experts, but soaking for an hour should be long enough to cook the salmon without the wood burning.
The experts at Outdoor Gourmet suggest:
Soak the grilling plank for 1-2 hrs.
Preheat the oven to 350°-400°.
Place food on grilling plank; place the grilling plank in oven. Put a baking dish under it to catch the drips.
Bake according to recipe until done.
Reserve grilling plank to use again in the oven or on the grill.
An edit from craig fixed the URL but added something better as a separate comment : One note about cooking on planks is that you don't need to flip your salmon. Place it skin side down and it will cook completely through.
Also worth mentioning is to be careful about the wood you choose. If you want to be spendy and buy actual grilling planks that's fine, but if you try to be clever and cut down wood planks on your own then make sure you avoid pressure-treated lumber. It contains some rather nasty poisonous chemicals that will evaporate at oven and grill temperatures.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.853592 | 2011-02-12T15:34:14 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12082",
"authors": [
"Adam K Dean",
"Daniel Serodio",
"Joe",
"Neerav",
"Rich Turner",
"dimo414",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24891",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"user25626"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
8193 | What spice rub would be typically Thai?
I'm trying to recreate a dish I had at Alinea a while ago. Their forum actually had a good start for this dish:
The garnishes on the surface are
Hawaiian volcanic salt, cucumber,
garlic chips, fresh banana, young
coconut, red onion, lime segments with
zest, toasted cashews, and red chili
pudding. The glass circle contains a
basil seed-lime vinaigrette.
We press the herbs in between two
pieces of rice paper to form the
centerpiece. Once the frame is
assembled the server drapes the flag
over the frame. We cure the pork belly
with salt, sugar and aromatics. It is
cooked sous vide until tender, seared
and shredded. We make a curry sauce
from coconut, ginger, mint,
lemongrass, thai chilis, kaffir lime,
cardamom, coriander, and lime juice.
We mix the curry with the shredded
pork belly to make the ragu spooned
over tableside by the service staff.
My question is, what would be a typical set of Thai aromatics for the pork prior to putting it in the sous vide?
I think of the typical Thai flavor profile as garlic, ginger, lemongrass, some kind of spicy pepper, and Thai basil.
You actually have a good "list" already in your question... the spices in the "curry sauce" minus the coconut and lime juice would make a nice Thai dry spice rub. You could add a little salt and a couple whole green peppercorns or cracked black peppercorn as well.
ginger, mint, lemongrass, thai chilis,
kaffir lime, cardamom, coriander
The basic set of definitevely Thai flavours goes more or less like this:
Lemongrass
Galangal
Kaffir lime leaves (use like bay leaves)
Fish sauce
Hot pepper
Garlic
Coriander seed (ground)
Cardamom and Cinnamon as finishings
The above is basically my recipe for Thai curry paste, which I use for making noodles with or without coconut milk.
You can generally use ginger as a substitute for Galangal and soy sauce as a substitute for fish sauce, but that loses the Thai distinction and beocmes generally southeast-asian.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.853755 | 2010-10-16T16:18:56 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8193",
"authors": [
"Kara D.",
"dnozay",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25487",
"sjakobi"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
17993 | Why did my ginger simple syrup develop such a disgusting consistency?
I made a ginger simple syrup. I took a large amount of ginger, simmered it in water to cover for an hour, drained it (reserving the water), and repeated the process with fresh water. I did this three times. I took the reserved ginger water added a bit of sugar and reduced to maybe 1/3rd. Let it cool and stuck it in the fridge. It was cloudy and clearly had some fine ginger particulate floating around in it. It was very strong and tasted great.
I used it for a couple of weeks to make ginger based drinks, and then it got stuck behind something in the fridge to be rediscovered this morning. I made it 43 days ago, and it's probably been untouched in the fridge for 28 days. I checked to see if it was still good and it smelled ok, however, it had the consistency of mucus. It was really, really disgusting. I did not taste it. My wife tried to throw it out but started gagging as it oozed out of the jar. Naturally, I got a camera (unfortunately it's acting up and I can't upload the photos, hopefully they'll follow).
What on earth caused this to happen?
Hopefully you'll be able to get the pictures. I have had something similar (based on description) happen with a syrup, would be great to compare to the pic. I would be interested in the answer to this as well.
My guess is that:
1) The syrup wasn't acdic enough
and
2) The sugar concentration wasn't high enough.
If the sugar concentration is high enough, the sugar so-to-speak draws the water out of bacteria by osmosis thus killing them. If you don't like the syrup to be too sweet, try adding lemon juice.
So you're saying that bacteria grew because the solution wasn't acidic or sweet enough and that caused the change in texture?
Yes. (@yossarian : I had to wait for my reputation to exceed 200 before I could make this comment :-) )
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.854048 | 2011-09-25T14:44:39 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17993",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6755",
"jeffwllms",
"soegaard",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
15255 | What happens when butter stops foaming?
Recipes using butter as a fat to sauté sometimes call for you to wait until the foaming has subsided. What causes the foaming? Why do you wait for it to subside? What's the difference if you don't wait, but just melt the butter and press forward?
The foaming is caused by the water in the butter boiling away. The main reason you wait for it to subside is simply because that means the butter has had long enough to reach a proper temperature for cooking: too cold and the food will absorb the butter rather than fry in it. However, this usually applies more to recipes that require relatively fast cooking. You'd sweat onions or scramble eggs when the foaming starts, for example.
That's what I figured. Any idea what the temperature swing is pre / post water boiling out?
Well, the water obviously boils at 100C. The fat starts to brown at 150C. I'd imagine there's a fairly smooth gradient between the two.
While the water is boiling off, the energy (from the burner) is going to that, so the temperature is fairly constant. Once the water is gone, the temperature quickly rises. Similar to what happens if you boil a pan dry; as long as there is water, it'll be at ≈100°C, but once that water is gone, the pan will fairly quickly heat up. In other words, keep an eye on the butter!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.854223 | 2011-06-05T19:33:47 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15255",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
14499 | Why did my reverse spherification method fail to produce proper spheres?
After much experimentation with reverse spherification this weekend, I completely failed to get an acceptable product. Caviar didn't form properly. In particular, when dropped from an eye dropper, the drops would not penetrate the bath and so did not form proper spheres. The height I dropped from made no difference on the effect. I also had issues with my spheres glomming together in to a single mass if they touched.
I used a 0.5% sodium alginate bath with room temperature Dasani bottled water (which makes no mention of any sort of calcium on the label).
I did a 2.5% Calcium Lactate Gluconate in to Peach Looza.
I also tried a 0.5% Calcium Chloride solution with the Peach Looza.
I tried thickening the peach juice with 0.5% Xanthan gum, but that didn't seem to make a difference.
The gelling process was working, and was fine if I placed the peach in the bath slowly, but I found it impossible to make small caviar with an eye dropper as the peach just sat at the surface. Once they did eventually sink, if there were multiple spheres, they would form a single mass as soon as they touched.
Any suggestions to fix these issues? I wanted to make a large amount and then hold for service, but I was unable to make any at all, really.
I know little about this kind of thing, but as it happens I saw someone doing this on TV not long ago - I believe they simply put the dropper into the bath itself, rather than dropping it from above.
@Elendil, I did that and it worked, but was way too slow to do the volume that I need. And then they stuck together if two touched...
What you need is the kind of thing they have in DNA labs, one of those syringes with one plunger but multiple nozzles. You might be able to get one from a medical supply company.
Apparently there is calcium in Dasani: http://urparamount.com/articles/DasaniRecall/coca-cola-recalls-dasani-bottled-water.html . That easily could be your problem.
@Michael, they only do that in the UK. They do not add it in the US (where I am).
Ah, interesting. Hmm, maybe you have a lot of air in the caviar solution, making them buoyant? If you have a vacuum sealer you could use it to evacuate bubbles before making the drops.
@Michael, because the calcium is so soluble, I had no trouble mixing it in with a fork. There was little aeration of the caviar solution. I also tried the experiment over the course of two days, so it had at least 24 hours to rest as well.
Well, as a last resort, try adding some Plutonium (or anything from the lanthanide series). That will make it a lot denser and it should sink.
@michael, added bonus, it will glow for some cool presentation options!
I don't have direct experience of this concept, but I do have a couple of comments that might help.
A general comment about your choice of calcium salt:
Gluconates have a side effect - they numb mouth tissue (like taste buds). It is not a drastic effect, but that is why gluconates are the salts of choice for that stuff you put on mouth ulcers ...
I just don't like the idea of eating calcium chloride - I think I would prefer calcium acetate, if you can get it.
About the alginate bath - if the globules eventually sank to the bottom, you are fighting a surface effect, rather than having a density problem.
When I thought of ways to reduce the surface tension, I kept coming back to the idea of adding a little disodium phosphate to the alginate solution. That would also contribute to formation of globules, because it would form an insoluble complex phosphate with the calcium.
WTH, knowing my luck, adding disodium phosphate to the alginate solution could make the effect worse. I'm guessing ...
There is the consideration that, if there is calcium in your water, adding a little disodium phosphate the night before you use it will cause the calcium to precipitate and drop out of the water - then you can pour off the supernatant water, confident that the calcium is staying in the bottle.
If the liquid is not sinking try adding something to make it heavier. Sugar should work. just like trying to get drinks with layers they need to be of different densities.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.854368 | 2011-05-03T17:59:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14499",
"authors": [
"Annie",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Helene Mermelstein",
"Michael Natkin",
"Pedro Diniz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31162",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
15766 | What is the difference between liquid and powdered pectin?
We have powdered pectin and have a recipe that calls for liquid. What are the differences between the two? How are they made? How do their uses differ? How do you substitute one for the other? what changes to a recipe will it require?
This seems like it should be fairly straight forward, but the Internet is being no help.
I found the following on the internet
Use only the type of pectin called for in your recipe. Powdered pectin and liquid pectin are not interchangeable in recipes. The preserving books seem to confirm that the reason liquid and powdered pectin may not be interchangeable is that the liquid version is always added after boiling but most types of powdered are added to the raw fruit or juice.
Source
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.854676 | 2011-06-25T17:52:00 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15766",
"authors": [
"brad",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34114"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
32142 | Does water boil faster with the lid on?
When bringing water to a boil from cold water, what effect does a lid have on the time to boil? Does it increase or decrease the time? How much? Why?
Use an electric kettle, it is generally much faster and more efficient to bring water to the boil
Whether it's "more efficient" depends on the relative price of natural gas, given a gas flame being the implied alternative.
How about efficiency from a time perspective? Is it generally faster to boil using an electric kettle?
Yes, water does boiler measurably faster with the lid on.
The reason is simple: in order to boil, water must be heated to the boiling point (okay, that was obvious). However, while heat is being introduced at the bottom of the pot, heat is also being lost at the top of the pot, through three means: evaporative cooling, and air convection of heat away from the surface of the water, and radiation from the surface (this last is probably the least significant).
Its like going outside with your hat off--you need to work harder to stay warm, because you are loosing heat faster. Similarly, the flame has to introduce energy to make up for the cooling at the top of the pot.
With the lid on the pot, convective cooling will be substantially curtailed, as cool air will not be able to circulate directly onto the surface of the water to cool it; radiative cooling will be slightly reduced, because heat will have to radiate or convect to the lid, to then radiate from there.
Additionally, with the lid on the pot, the evaporated water cannot diffuse or convect into the room. It will soon reach vapor pressure equilibrium and begin condensing almost as fast as it evaporates, returning much of the latent heat of evaporation as almost as fast as it is lost (it is not a total recovery, because the pot with lid is not air tight).
So the largest of the cooling effects will be curtailed.
The hat is on the pot, as it were :-)
This article at Mind Your Decisions shows actual home experimental measurements. Boiling 16 ounces of water:
The covered pot boiled quicker at 4 minutes and 15 seconds. The
uncovered pot took an extra 30 seconds to boil at 4 minutes and 45
seconds.
You will have to decide if the time difference matters to you. It certainly will cut your electric or gas bill a small amount.
It is the reduced cooling--essentially--insulation like a hat, that is the true effect of the lid.
Do not attempt to use hats as alternatives to pot lids. #badchoices
Water evaporates at the top of the pan, taking some of the heat out of the pan. Putting a lid on reduces the amount of evaporation.
For a similar reason, you should put salt into the water when it's already boiling. Salt increases the density of the water, therefore increasing the boiling point (it starts to boil at a higher temperature).
At culinary concentrations, the effect of the salt on the boiling point is negligible.
@SAJ14SAJ, you're absolutely right, but it's something 'they' say; Add salt after the water starts boiling.
Actually, the reason to add salt after the water's come to a boil is because salt can do some nasty things to pots.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.854776 | 2013-02-23T03:08:31 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32142",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"BobbieAnn",
"Cesar M",
"Garnett Poole",
"JDługosz",
"Joe",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Stuart Young",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73971",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96782",
"imagineerThat",
"logophobe",
"يوسف عبدالنبي"
],
"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
} |
24419 | How can I infuse alcohol with 'fragile' herbs?
I would like to infuse alcohol (gin specifically) with basil, but basil is quite a fragile plant and doesn't seem to react well to sitting in booze for a few days. I tried muddling basil and putting it in an air tight container with my gin. I stored it at room temperature in a dark cabinet and tasted it daily. After one day it was starting to get a hint of basil, but the taste was not strong enough. The color was a pleasant light green. After two days, the color had gone greenish brown and the flavor had gone south. It's hard to explain, but it was not good. I assume you'd have the same issues with mint, parsley, cilantro, etc.
How can I get a better basil flavor in my infusion? Should I just use a ton of basil and infuse for a day? Should I not muddle the basil? Should I blanch the basil?
Refrain from muddling, use more (fresh) basil, (try agitating,) and infuse for a longer duration; I quickly found one recipe for basil-infused vodka requiring a four day sit and two "fists" of basil. Vanilla and ginger can take a week, cucumber vodkas can entail a fourteen day sit.
Some constituents will infuse quickly (habanero, strong flavor), some will not (cucumber, subtle flavor)
Some should be processed whole to avoid "off-flavors" or other reactions like browning (basil), while others should be crushed (garlic, promoting allicin production), shredded (carrots, increasing surface to area to increase extraction), or chopped (pears).
Many variables play into how various ingredients will infuse various liquors, and I don't feel it would be fair to really say there is a general rule to follow. To begin, though, I would identify your main variables with respect to solute (look for basil recipes, if none then other leafy herbs), solvent (look at the pH of the alcohol in addition to the type and proof), and method (duration, preparation of solute, agitations, single v. multiple/compound macerations), and look to similar approaches.
Hands-on Patience is the real virtue here though; vis-a-vis frequent sampling. From everything I have read and seen in both my limited experience and another friend's, even returning to what you thought was a 'tried-and-true' can yield very different results.
With respect to discussions on vodka & gin VS. Everclear extractions, there is a Chow thread of interest
With respect to the industrial processing of macerations and compound distillates, I found an interesting article on ICS
If the browning continues, you might consider adding a citrus like lime or lemon to see if that stems the browning as the added acid may inhibit this (Gordon's has a pH of 6.9, others, particularly cheaper gins, range down to 3.8). That said, in my limited explorations with infused vodkas I have not run into a browning issue so it may simply result from muddling (bruising).
Good answer. Do you have any guidelines for when you should use different techniques or length of sit?
@Yoss I don't have any hard-fast rules of my own, and I tried to mine some up to no avail. For me the main issue is to do with how concentrated the oils already are in the item, and how accessible they are (or can be made) without causing side-effects (i.e. mottling leading browning in mint/cilatro/basil). The main rule would be: drink gin every day until it tastes good.
If you have access to an iSi or other whipped cream charger, you can use it to infuse very quickly, eliminating any off-colours or off-flavours that would develop from steeping. There are several posts on this process, including one at Cooking Issues and another at Playing with Fire and Water.
It's really very simple, just add your flavouring agents to room-temperature liquid, charge up, swirl for 30 seconds, let stand for 30 seconds, vent and strain.
The working theory seems to be that the high pressure forces tiny bubbles into the flavouring items, which then escape back into the liquid after releasing the pressure. Whatever the scientific explanation is, it works brilliantly.
Don't crush or muddle them first. That leads to rapid enzymatic browning, even when preserved in alcohol.
This is actually what I've been doing to great success. I wanted to create much larger batches of this particular flavor (gin + basil + lemon zest) without having to spend $1 / 2 drinks, which is how the N2O shakes out.
@yossarian: What if you made a highly-concentrated batch in the iSi, and then diluted it with the rest of the liquor?
In the off chance you have access to a rotary evaporator (or you are willing and able to build one), it does seem to be possible to infuse vodka with delicate herbs like cilantro and thai basil.
:D Definitely not. Although, I've found N2O infusion to work really well for basil. What I want to do is a much larger quantity since I like the drink so much. Maybe I'm stuck with the more expensive N2O process.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.855075 | 2012-06-13T15:48:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24419",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"MetalMikester",
"Milad Abooali",
"Richie",
"Ryan Cavanaugh",
"Sesame 69",
"VegasDude",
"agralph",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55595",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55597",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55603",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55605",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55624",
"jazzjackrabbit",
"mfg",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
23955 | How much time do I need to achieve a smokey flavor in bbq?
What is the minimum amount of time that I need to smoke food (in particular meat) in a smoker to achieve a noticeable smokey taste (assuming I have plenty of smoke)?
Is there a maximum time after which smoking will not appreciably add to the smokey taste? If so, does this imply that I can switch cooking methods without adversely affecting flavor (for instance transition from wood to charcoal, smoker to oven, or wrap in foil)?
Is smoking more effective for flavor transfer at the beginning of cooking rather than the end?
Do these answers vary based on what type of meat is being smoked?
Interestingly, smoke capture is higher for cold, moist meats. See Greg Blonder's fascinating site. Some people also argue that soaking wood has little impact on smoke quality.
Smoking time depends very much on what you are smoking and the size if it.
It is possible to smoke meat too much, it is important not to strangle the original flavor of what you are smoking.
Mussels for example, should only have a couple of minutes, since they have a very delicate flavor. Fillet of trout should have some 20 minutes, sausages a couple of hours depending on the stuffing and a whole ham even longer, maybe a day or two.
Smoke is not necessarily most effective at the beginning of the cooking process. Some meats may benefit from being cooked first, followed by smoking for flavor.
When I make spare ribs for a lot of people it can be cumbersome to do it on the barbecue. Instead I divide the process up.
Boil the meat
Smoke the meat (to give it the taste of barbecue)
Marinate the meat
Finish under the broiler
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.855448 | 2012-05-23T19:50:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23955",
"authors": [
"Melissa Inglefield",
"Norman Dale",
"Sheena",
"Tom Sawyer",
"Yaniv",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54349",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54350",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59090",
"mienaikoe",
"user54348"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
19624 | Does shape affect pasteurization time when cooking sous vide?
Looking at Douglas Baldwin's charts for time to heat a piece of meat sous vide (table 2.2), a cylinder with diameter X heats through much faster than a slab with thickness X. This makes sense to me. The change in time needed can be quite drastic when you get to a larger X, though.
However, when looking at pasteurization times for beef (table 5.1), the shape of the meat doesn't seem to be taken in to account. I don't understand why not. Surely if the meat gets to temperature faster, it must pasteurize faster as well.
From the above tables, a 50mm (thickness) steak takes 3 1/4 hours to pasteurize at 134.5F. If it's a slab, it takes 3 1/2 hours to get to 133.5F through out. If it's a cylinder, it only takes 2 hours. Do I really need that additional 1 1/4 hours for pasteurization?
Can I adjust the pasteurization times for a different shape of meat? If so, how can I calculate what that change is and how much time I really need for pasteurization?
It depends on what is to be pasteurized. If one aims for pasteurizing the surface only, then the shape is more or less unimportant. If however one wants to pasteurize the core, then the shape will affect the times.
To be on the safe size, measure the thickness where the meat is thickest.
Myhrwold writes in http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?/topic/116617-sous-vide-recipes-techniques-equipment-2004-2010/page_st_120_p_982720#entry982720 about cooking times (not pasteurization times):
This is true for any kind of cooking actually. Most of what we are
taught about cooking is actually wrong. For example, anytime somebody
tells you it is “10 minutes per pound” they are saying something that
cannot possibly be accurate, because this would imply that cooking
time is proportional to the weight. If you take something like a whole
bird and scale it up you will find that cooking time is actually
proportional to something like (weight)^(2/3) – weight to the 2/3
power. This is because increasing the weight scales up the thickness
by the cube root. Since most people are not accustomed to taking
things to fractional powers, people substitute a linear relationship.
That might work out OK in practice over a small range, but it can’t be
accurate over a large range. For example, if you double the weight,
the linear relationship would tell you that you double the cooking
time. The 2/3 power would tell you to increase it by 59% - that is a
pretty big difference.
As a general rule of thumb heat diffusion times go as the square of
the thickness increase. So, doubling the thickness results in FOUR
TIMES the cooking time. That is a rough general rule of thumb, which
is not perfect but it illustrates the nonlinearity of the system. I
don’t know why this isn’t taught to chefs more often because it is a
fairly easy thing to grasp and use.
A side note:
If you have an iPad or iPhone then I can recommend SousVideDash. One must enter meat type, shape and size, initial and final temparature. Then graphs are drawn that shows pasteurization times for both surface and core (or more precisely graphs of the reduction of salmonella and listeria).
See the website:
http://www.sousvidedash.com/
I always figured everyone's turkey-roasting rules were wrong!
I hate answering food health questions, but for non-ground meats, I have heard that all of the risk of bacterial infection is occurs on the surface of the meat, making shape irrelevant. This is because the infection risk comes not from the handling of the meat, not the meat itself. (There's an exception for Kreuzfeld-Jacob disease, which you can get from non-ground roasts served on the bone, since that's where the prions concentrate.) For sous-viding ground meats (sous-vide and blowtorched burgers, yum!), you should be careful to cook for the full time, as ground meats can have bacterial issues (e. coli especially) all the way through.
While I agree with what you're saying, in this particular case, my metric is "pasteurized" because my wife is pregnant and that's what the Dr said.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.855631 | 2011-12-13T15:52:16 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19624",
"authors": [
"Adrienne",
"Cascabel",
"Chinelo",
"Chris",
"Psychonaut",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42749",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42750",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42751",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42757",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
20672 | How to determine if canning is safe?
How can I tell if it is safe to can a particular homemade sauce? Is it just a function of pH and technique (pressure vs boiling water) or are there any other factors in play?
Specifically, I would like to can a tomato sauce that I use as a base for pasta dishes. I do not have an exact recipe but it's basically:
cook down loads of tomatoes until there's very little liquid left
whisk olive oil in to tomatoes
saute some garlic, anchovies, and red pepper flake
stir in to tomatoes
The tomatoes are obviously acidic, and I assume this intensifies as they cook down. Does adding the olive oil, garlic, or fish create issues though?
In regards to your particular tomato sauce. I don't think its acidic enough (a pH of 4.6 that is), and according to this page - the answer is no. Even when canning fresh tomatoes or other tomato sauces you need to add some lemon juice. Now you could try lowering the ph, but it would drastically change your recipe probably - whether or not you want to do this is up to you.
If you have a pressure canner, you likely can do it.
Generally, yes - it is a function of temperature and acidity. You need to either sterilize the food through temperature, or create an environment in which the bacteria won't grow - normally a higher acidity. Pressure canners work by sterilizing, so recipes that are low in acid can still be canned.
Specifically, foods with a pH of higher than 4.6 are considered "low acid" and either need acidification or sterilization (e.g. through pressure canning). That's the magic number, and cooked tomatoes are usually above it.
AFAIK 4.5 is the magic number?
@TFD: It's 4.6 according to the FDA and various other sites; there are also requirements around temperature, oxygen, etc. but those are generally met by any canning method. 4.5 may sound familiar because it's commonly stated as the approximate pH of tomatoes; because there's so little margin of error, acid is normally added.
Most preserved tomato sauce recipes have apple in them, not just as for flavour, but for increased acid level
If adding oil to a sauce for preservation, make sure it is well emulsified, either before adding to the sauce with a carrier acid (e.g. lemon juice), or in in sauce (not so easy). This ensures you do not have low acid separation of some of the contents
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.855959 | 2012-01-22T03:00:02 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20672",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Bald Bantha",
"BansheeCZ",
"Frank LaPlante",
"Matt C",
"Nicht Verstehen",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45430",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45433",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45434",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45445",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45473",
"user3711502"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
13233 | How to polish wine glasses if my hand cannot reach in?
Washing leaves some stains, which I want to get rid of.
It's easy to do with paper towel on the outside, but inside the glass it's a problem.
I remember once when I was shopping for some glasses, and I tested 'em all by shoving my hand inside. I was getting the strangest look from one of the employees ... and when I told them I didn't have a dishwasher, they still looked clueless ... I had to explain specifically that if I can't fit my hand inside the glass, it really sucked to clean. I'm still not sure they understood.
Wine Enthusiast (and probably many other places) sells a couple of sizes of very soft brush for cleaning wine glasses.
I'd say your best bet is a soft brush or maybe just a piece of soft foam glued to a stick. Nothing very abrasive, and squishy enough that you can reach any small nooks inside if there are any.
Thank you for idea - got such brush from a local chef's store.
This is a great question. I have several techniques I use for this exact problem.
1) Try a wooden spoon with the paper towel wrapped around it. This works if you can reach most of it by hand and just need that little extra.
2) Bunch the paper towel in your hand so as to get extra length. Then use your fingers, extended, to move the bunch around the bottom of the glass. If this doesn't work, try number 3.
3) As your wife, girlfriend, son, daughter or other smaller person to help you, as they most likely have smaller hands ;--)
You can lose weight so your hand will fit in!
If your wine glasses are particularly stained trying soaking them in white vinegar for an hour or so before cleaning.
Clean the glass with warm water and a cloth (try bunching the cloth up in order to clean the hard to reach places, the vinegar should have loosened the stains). Another suggestion it to use a small scrubbing brush with a handle.
For a really good clean try boiling some water and putting it in a bowl. Hold the glass over the steam and use a cloth to clean/polish. I wouldn't recommend this for very thin glasses and you definitely shouldn't use extremely hot steam.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.856286 | 2011-03-17T14:27:29 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13233",
"authors": [
"Amy",
"Dissenter",
"Joe",
"Matt Taylor",
"Mien",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27445",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27448",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27456",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"user27445",
"z-boss"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
13772 | Cleaning a food processor
A family member of mine passed away many years ago (15-16 years) and had a lot of cooking gadgets. Well, recently I've been becoming more interested in cooking and have acquired a few of these tools. This weekend I found a food processor in the box wrapped up. I asked my parents about it and they said that after this family member passed away and the stuff was boxed up it was put away in storage (where I got it this weekend).
Anyway, this thing hasn't been used since the family member passed away. Is it going to be OK to use? Is there anything special I need to do to clean it and get it operational? It looks like it's clean but sitting around that long, you never know, right?
If it looks clean and it's been sitting in a box I would just run it through my regular washing routine. Unless it was stored dirty or with some hazardous materials there is no reason to do anything more.
On a usage note, I've found that they are much easier to clean if you do so immediately after use than if you wait until later.
After 15 years of non use cleaning is not your problem. Depending on what model it is the gears, bearings and bushings will be packed with grease (often silicone based) and these will have most likely dried out to some degree
Using it without checking these could cause mechanical failure
Pull the covers off and have a look. Often the grease is OK, but has retracted from the gear surface, just re-spread it around. If not confident with doing this send it to a service centre
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.856504 | 2011-04-05T18:53:51 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13772",
"authors": [
"Georgia",
"Micky",
"allen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28836",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28837",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28842",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28849",
"random"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
106037 | Any tips/resources/guidelines for making homemade pasta with other flours/grains?
I've made homemade pasta with AP, 00, semolina, and durham flour. Now, I'm interested in experimenting with incorporating farro (because I had a great farro pasta dish at a local restaurant) or rice flour (because I have some gluten free friends). How should this be done? What are the rules?
You should have no trouble making egg pasta with farro. There are a million different recipes for egg pasta, and as I'm sure you've discovered. It's all about developing the gluten and having a good water content. I like to use two cups flour to two whole eggs plus four yolks, a tablespoon of olive oil, and a pinch of salt. The mistakes I made early on were usually around not kneading enough or using too much flour.
Rice flour, on the other hand, is another story. It is a lot harder using a pasta machine to roll out flour that has no gluten, so you may want to roll by hand and use for recipes that are more forgiving of the thickness of the dough.
Your go-to recipe reminds me of the ravioli dough recipe at Flour and Water in San Francisco. I recommend it very highly to any pasta enthusiasts who are there. The tasting menu is especially life changing.
From the pasta grannies, it looks to be the same as regular flour; most recipes I've seen, add a little bit of regular flour.
(anecdotal) I've taken a pasta class a few months ago in Rome and we used farro flour and the ratios were more or less the same as regular flour.
I liked the pasta grannie video. She used 400g farro flour, 100g 00 flour, and 5 eggs.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.856669 | 2020-03-25T19:49:37 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/106037",
"authors": [
"Rick",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/855"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
14318 | Does a liquid need to cool under pressure in a whipped cream charger prior to serving or just be cold?
I have an iSi whipped cream charger. The directions for recipes almost universally call for you to put your liquid in the charger, charge with nitrous, and then let chill for 1 - 12 hours (depending on the recipe). I am interested in using the charger for a large amount of plates, and it won't be big enough for the full service.
Is the charge and then cool order important? Can I cool the liquid for the necessary time, put it in the cannister, charge, and then serve immediately? Does this change based on the type of foam you're making (i.e. whipped cream vs savory foam vs gelatin based foam)?
I'm guessing that part of the issue is chilling the whole canister ... but you might be able to give it a faster re-chill in a ice & salt water bath. The only issue I could think that might make a difference would be if there were an advantage to adding the nitrous to a not-as-chilled cream.
It depends on the preparation.
I have the Creative Whip which comes with a little recipe book and not all of the recipes demand that you chill after charging. For example the "instant chocolate mousse" is really instant. The only liquid ingredient is the cream itself which is already chilled, and the gas expansion inside the canister chills it even further, so it's ready right away.
On the other hand, if you're making something with gelatin, carrageenan, or any other gelling agent which needs to set, then you'll obviously need to fill the canister while it's still a liquid (otherwise it's going to be rather hard to whip, not to mention hard to get into the canister itself!) and then chill to set it.
Basically it's simply a question of how cold your liquid is before it goes into the canister vs. how cold you want it to be when you serve it. If you can chill it to the correct temperature beforehand, and that won't prevent you from whipping it (as it would with an actual gel), then by all means chill first.
In the specific case when you're using creams and/or cheeses to make a mousse or espuma, you almost never need to chill it in the whipper itself - although it won't hurt either.
By the way, if you're making a gel or anything else that needs to set, it's best to chill it gradually in an ice water bath and shake it frequently as it chills, in order to keep the gas dispersed. If you just charge it and stick it in the fridge, you may find it very hard to dispense afterward.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.856821 | 2011-04-25T15:07:59 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14318",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
11448 | What does a healthy cast iron skillet look like?
I've read plenty about how to restore and season cast iron, but I have no clue whether any of the old cast iron I've inherited could benefit from this.
Is healthy cast iron black? or should it be somewhat metallic looking (ie. a bit silvery, like steel). Does the black color come from even one seasoning process, or will it develop over time?
Is is smooth? or is it alright if there are some lumps in it's surface texture?
and finally: after seasoning, is the surface supposed to have a slight oily appearance or should it be totally dry? and will healthy cast iron leave a residue on a rag if I wipe it? Some of mine do, and I'm not sure if that is good or bad.
Ideally it should be matte to just-slightly-shiny black and very smooth. This article has some terrific information on the ideal oil to use (flaxseed) and method for seasoning, with actual scientific grounding.
That is an absolutely spectacular reference! Thank you very much. I'm going to give other people an opportunity to answer, but I will accept your answer in a day if I don't get anything better.
That is article is way over the top and incorrect. Yes linseed or flaxseed oil is a great oil for cast iron (and Jade), but it just needs a quick high heat on the stove top. Not six, hour long session in the oven! Also cast iron has "pores" but they do not open when heated, in fact that's the beauty of cast iron, it does not change much when heated and cooled, hence it's ability to hold a undulating semi-matte surface and therefore be non stick! Cast iron has one of the lowest thermal expansion ratings for a kitchen safe metal, half that of stainless or aluminium
@TFD The article you dismiss tries to back its arguments with some science. You, on the other hand, say it's incorrect and that a quick heat on the oven is enough. It would be nice if you were to elaborate if you want us to give your comment some weight.
@Michael well TFD is actually partly correct. You don't need to go through all that work, and you can just season the pan on the hob, and that will probably be just fine. If you want a rock solid seasoning, one that will stand a good test of time, the several super thin layers of seasoning will produce a very nice and uniform protective shell that you can now start "just cleaning out, and heating on the hob before storage." Starting right gives you a better product in the long run.
Michael's answer is fabulous, but one other note: as long as the seasoning works and achieves the desired effect, it is good seasoning. I have a variety of shapes/sizes of cast iron that I love, and few of them have the delightful smooth seasoning that it is POSSIBLE to get.
I have seasoned pans with a variety of oils, both n the range and in the oven. The ones that work well: nice non-stick properties are generally smooth and semi-matte, but it varies.
The article reference had some great stuff in it, and the Chemistry involved is complex, but to have a good, useful pan is fairly straightforward.
I guess the point here for me is: tinker with it if you have the time/inclination, but if you have a decent seasoning, there is no need to undo it just for the sake of the 'right' technique...
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.857050 | 2011-01-25T05:44:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11448",
"authors": [
"Aniqa Arif",
"Colin K",
"Escoce",
"Michael",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23520",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4289",
"irene"
],
"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
} |
11780 | Rinse the salt off a steak before cooking?
I've been trying to perfect my technique for cooking a steak indoors.
It was recommended to salt the steak about 30 minutes before cooking. I used kosher salt, and cooked the steak on cast iron. Everything came out spectacularly, in fact it was the best steak I've ever made myself. However, the outer layer of the steak was significantly saltier than I think is normal. It didn't ruin the steak, but it was more than I would have liked. I would simply assume that I over-salted, but given the language people use when they recommend the technique, and the amount I actually applied, I am unsure. I fear that if I use less salt next time I will lose the perfect sear/crust and the incredible flavor of the interior meat that I achieved.
So, given the similarity to brining poultry (in which case the meat is rinsed before cooking), I wonder if the salt should be rinsed off before cooking? I didn't get this impression from any of the recommendations, but now I am not so sure.
So whats wrong with the steak without the salt?
Nothing was wrong per se, but I'm not aiming for "nothing wrong" I'm aiming for perfect.
+1 … I made the same discovery yesterday, after having read (on this site?) that you cannot over-salt your steaks since the excess salt will stick to the pan, not the meat. Wrong, as it turned out.
The ideal amount of salt is going to be determined by the volume of the salt; if you see mention of an amount of salt 'per side' of the meat without taking into consideraton the area of each side, or the thickness of the steak, it's not a very consistent measurement.
I was watching the NHK (Japanese TV) cooking show “Dining With the Chef”, and the chef recommended you use 1% of the meat’s weight worth of salt. That might give you a guideline if you’re heavily over-salting
Definitely don't rinse the salt off. One of the nice things the salt does is pull juices to the surface of the meat--not enough to dry things out, but enough so that when the steak hits the hot pan you have a nice protein-laden coating (it's called a pellicle when talking about smoked fish--not sure about steaks) on the outside to caramelize. If you rinse it, you're rinsing that right off.
If your steak was too salty, then just salt more lightly. You don't need a ton, as what you get on there will melt some and mix with the juices and spread out. I think I probably use 1/4 tsp or less per side, and some of that bounces off/misses. And you won't lose the crust with less salt--you won't even lose it with NO salt. It's just easier to get if you use the salt to pull some juices to the surface.
If you have trouble getting good salt distribution, use your fingers and sprinkle it from a little farther up--like 8 inches from the steak. That'll make it easier to get an even sprinkle without dousing it.
1/4 tsp? It turns out I was over-salting it indeed. Thanks for the good answer :)
It's worth noting that I'm also working with steaks that are bordering on 2 inches thick--so it's really not a huge amount of salt compared to the amount of meat. And if your steaks are more than an inch thick, try sear roasting: http://www.finecooking.com/articles/how-to/sear-roasting.aspx
Obviously, there are many opinions on how to cook a steak, but the method Colin is using requires a ton of salt. Some people even submerge the steak in a salt bath. This gives a different result than just lightly salting the steak. When you do this, yes, wash the salt off, and then thoroughly dry the steak before cooking it.
Try this: instead of salt, get a good beef stock cube, one of the paste ones, not powder. Mix half the cube with a little oil to form a brushable paste. Brush this onto the steak instead of salt. It gives a fantastic crust with a really beefy kick.
If your steaks are 2 inches thick, 30 minutes will not be enough for the salt to penetrate the meat. I would try giving it a couple of hours or even more. Thomas Keller, in the French Laundry Cookbook, recommends salting steak the day before cooking them.
I'm going to try bikeboy's advice first, as it fits with what my last experience told me. But, since it was advice like michael's that lead me down this path in the first place, I'll give that a shot as well.
@henrik: I agree that the salt won't penetrate much. In my case, I'm not looking for the salt to get deep into the meat. I'm only trying to form a pellicle by drawing some juices to the surface.
Are there any references for this "pellicle" idea? I've seen it referenced for some things but never for steak or grilling. I'm not sure if that's actually how "crust" is formed.
I'll try to remember where I got the concept. Probably from TV, though, so that might not help. You know how it goes anyway--you do something using a certain mental model of how it works. Then if it works out well, that validates the mental model for you...even if it's wrong.
The idea of salting from higher up has confirmation from Cook's Illustrated -- you'll be able to get a more even spread. They actually recommend doing it from a foot or more away.
I think the type of salt matters as well. Regular table salt tends to make things taste saltier due to it's fine grain (more surface area and more salt by weight for a given volume). Since I started using kosher or coarse sea salt, I can get a good coating on steaks without over salting.
I'm going to present a slightly opposing viewpoint. My guess is that you (or some other people reading this) might be following or at least somewhat influenced by an article that was fairly popular in some circles a while back - How to turn cheap choice steaks in to Gucci prime steaks.
In this particular method you drastically over salt the steak, practically coating the thing in salt an hour or more before cooking. The salt starts to dissolve and through osmosis starts to get pulled in to the steak while less salty water gets pulled to the surface. The incoming salt helps relax the protein in the meat leading down the line to a more tender steak. You have to rinse all this salt and excess water off. One it's way too much salt, and two all that water will serve to steam the meat. It's not pulling juices out - it's pulling water out. This also helps give the steak a slightly "beefier" taste - similar to dry aging but not quite as pronounced because the ratio of water to beef is now lower. I'm not aware of the salt actually pulling protein out of the steak in the water. It's my understanding that it's mostly just water, so rinsing it off should be no big deal.
I've used this technique before to great results although I didn't do an experiment with it (ie, no control to see what it would have tasted like without the technique).
This is a very different technique than simply salting and throwing on the grill. In that case salt will not penetrate the meat but simply cover the surface and you obviously don't want to rinse it off as then you may as well not have salted it at all.
This is intriguing enough that I might give it a shot. I dispute the article's implicit claim that all that's wrong with lower grade beef is that it's not salty or dry enough, however. Often lower grade beef suffers from lack of fat marbling, which no amount of drying or saltiness will overcome, in my book.
Interesting idea. The process you describe and its supposed benefits reminds me of brining.
If you salt steak for two hours in coarse salt it is cured. This is basically how biltong is made minus the three weeks of hanging.
Do not "rinse" the salt off! If you want to brush excess salt off, that's fine, but by rinsing off using water (which is what I think you are talking about), you will essentially end up steaming your steak, which is disgusting.
Even if you pat dry with a paper towel, the surface will still be damp after rinsing. This will prevent the Maillard reaction from taking place, which is what produces the delicious steak flavor on the surface. (I'm not going to get into the chemistry, but the short version is that the temperature difference on the surface to the interior causes the proteins to combine with the sugars producing that delicious brown coloring).
Other tips:
You safely can dry-age beef at home!
Take steaks out of the fridge 30-60 minutes (depending on thickness) before cooking in order to allow them come to room temperature.
Always use at least a little bit of Kosher salt or sea salt.
Never add pepper before cooking (it burns too easily).
Make sure your broiler or grill is very well preheated. Professional kitchens cook their steaks under broilers that reach well over 1000 degrees. You can't really do this at home other than on a charcoal grill.
There's no such thing as "sealing in the juices" by searing first. Searing can help as far as browning, but you're not holding onto any "juice".
With larger steaks, allow them to rest 3-5 minutes loosely covered in tin foil before serving or cutting. (Be aware if you do this you may need to take them out of the oven sooner since they will continue to cook.)
I will freely admit this last one is a matter of taste: Learn to eat your steaks medium rare or even (gasp!) rare. If you're cooking them right, you'll get an excellent flavor on the inside and out; and I'm not talking about 'black and blue', which I dislike. I think you get a much better flavor out of the steak when enjoyed rare!
If you do salt your steak the way you're trying to do then, yes, rinse the salt and water that is pulled from the steak; completely dry the steak, pepper and grill!
I noticed that most responding people do not fully understand what you're trying to accomplish. You're not just seasoning the steak with this method; you're pulling out the water and the salt (including any seasonings you add) that is absorbed back into the steak. The salt breaks down the fat and protein, giving you a tender flavorful steak. If you're starting with a perfectly marbled expensive steak, you don't have to salt as long, but typically salt for 1 hour per inch of steak thickness.
Salt needs management. Please do not rinse or brush it. Use less salt next time.
We are breeders of Blonde d' Aquitaine, a French beef that produces less fatty and "fine-fibred" beef. When we grill our meat, we only use salt as spice. And it is amazing!
I only salt my steaks if they are typically less tender cuts.
When salting, either do so for at least 40 minutes or directly prior to cooking.
I have always washed the salt off, then dried the steaks out with a paper towel.
While cooking I use a little bit of olive oil instead of butter to raise the burn temp so I can get a better crust.
Once cooking, I then flip my steaks every 3 minutes. This produces a very consistently cooked cut as well as a very good maillard reaction crust.
Sounds gross to me.
Here's the best way to cook a steak that I've found:
Heat your oven as high as it will go. Stick your cast iron skillet in there for a good half hour under that heat. Turn your burner on high and pull out the cast iron. Toss on your steak and sear it on each side for 1 minute. Salt, pepper, garlic...that's all a steak needs. Put it on an this time. When your second minute is up put the whole thing back into the oven and cook at that hotternhell setting for 4-9 minutes depending on thickness and desired doneness level.
I was skeptical about it first I heard, but by Zeus it's the best way to do it. Make sure you have a plate with some good, high edges because it's damn juicy. I put oil on the outside of my steak first just to keep it from sticking to the pan but it's not strictly necessary of course.
Of course, you want to start with a nice, choice piece of meat like prime rib or something. You'll also want to open all the doors and windows because it's damn smokey.
As a second benefit, it does wonders for your pan's seasoning.
If juice is running everywhere that is due to you not letting the steak rest before cutting in to it - see http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/623/why-should-i-rest-meat-after-cooking
@Ryan Elkins: Back when I ate steak, I always liked the juice to go everywhere.
No Ryan, it isn't.
I rinsed mine and steak was perfect!!!
Have you tried it without rinsing, to see if that's even better?
I followed the advice of not rinsing but my steak was way too salty after it was cooked so I end up having to rinse it after the fact Just to get a steak that was worth eating.
My steak as only about an inch thick though. I really wish the videos instead of just sprinkling kosher salt would actually measure it and give me some better indicator of how much salt to use
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.857376 | 2011-02-03T02:33:08 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11780",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Colin K",
"Edward Strange",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Erik P.",
"Fred Moudy",
"Grace Huang",
"Henrik Söderlund",
"JSM",
"Jama",
"Joe",
"Konrad Rudolph",
"Linda P",
"Martha F.",
"Mathieu Guindon",
"Ming",
"Neil Meyer",
"Orbling",
"Priya",
"Ryan Elkins",
"Summer Dawn",
"TFD",
"Thilina Sampath",
"bikeboy389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138845",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24227",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3750",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41726",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41806",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4289",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"lujop",
"michael",
"user24227",
"user263264"
],
"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
} |
18120 | What side dish goes well with Peanut Chicken?
I am making dinner for my in-laws this weekend. I plan on making a Peanut chicken and pasta meal. The meal includes fettuccine, chicken strips, and pea pods in a peanut sauce. Do I need a side dish? If so, what would go along well with this meal?
You've got some nice crunch and texture profiles in there already, but I tend towards always making a side dish to try to cover my bases in terms of getting plenty of options for people who might not like (or feel like eating) the main dish. My go to is a nice crusty bread with an unusual spread, but since you are going Asian-inspired here I would recommend something like rice paper spring rolls or to like an Indian-style samosa with a complimentary flavored potato filling.
I think of Peanut Chicken as a Thai recipe, as such a light crispy salad as an appetizer and curry and rice side dish with mango and sticky rice as a desert would create a nice theme for the evening.
Remember, behind every successful man is a surprised mother-in-law.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.858750 | 2011-09-30T17:19:14 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18120",
"authors": [
"Gabe",
"Guus van Raaphorst",
"Spammer",
"duzzy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96603",
"senfo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
18177 | Is refreezing a meal safe?
I know there have been questions on refreezing meat, which apparently is not safe to do. My understanding from those posts was that it was referring to raw meat. My question is slightly different.
I made a casserole with pasta, cheese, cooked ground turkey, and some veggies a few weeks ago. I had the leftovers in the fridge for about a day or 2 and then froze the leftovers. First, was it okay to freeze it at that point?
Second, I put the casserole in the fridge to thaw yesterday, but ended up having something else to eat for dinner. Based on other plans, I won't be able to eat it for another 2 days. I am not sure if t will be safe in the fridge for that long. If won't be safe for that long, would it be safe to refreeze?
possible duplicate of How dangerous is it to refreeze meat that has been thawed?
I voted to close because the previous questions are not about raw meat. The "danger zone" counter for meat restarts after the meat has been cooked, but it just gives you a slightly longer time. If you are serious about food safety, don't refreeze neither raw nor cooked food.
In between freezings it is wisest to cook it. So if you take out raw meat, and then cook it, you can freeze it again. If you take out cooked stuff, you should get it piping hot throughout, cool it quickly, and then freeze it again. It may not have a super pleasant texture - if you don't ave an emotional attachment to it, you might want to just toss it.
Freezing ... well, basically freezes the growth of bacteria inside your food. Thus, if you heat it up quick enough later, it will not have significantly more bacteria or mold (spores) and related poisons than in the moment it got to the save temperature (remember that this moment is not exacly at the point you put it in the freezer but later.)
If you would eat it tomorrow though than you can as well freeze it today, as long as you make sure you don't keep it for days after defrosting again.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.858995 | 2011-10-04T15:50:28 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18177",
"authors": [
"Maja Piechotka",
"Melynda fox",
"Stacy",
"Vandermonde",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39269",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39270",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39275",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
12219 | Is it bad to leave the crock pot on "warm" (not low) all day?
I just bought all the ingredients to make a soup in the crock pot. I was planning on having it cook all day, but I just realized the recipe only calls for it to cook on low for 3-4 hours. If I cook it on low for 3-4 hours, and then put it on warm before I leave for work, will it be a bacteria minefield or will it be warm enough to keep the food safe from bacteria?
What is the temperature of the "warm" setting?
I know it's the dregs of the internet, but I found a Yahoo Answer that says: "The answer [regarding the "warm" setting] is 150 degrees for my Rival 3 qt. Crock pot. Yours may vary depending the brand & size etc. I filled 1/2 the pot w/water & put in a meat thermometer. After about 1-2 hours=110 degrees . After 8 hours=150 degrees." It might be worth replicating this experiment with your specific model.
Besides safety, water loss could conceivably be an issue. I'm guessing your soup has plenty of leeway there, and you could just dilute it later, but depending on how well the lid seals, some dishes might dry out more than you'd like over the course of a day.
You should also be aware that some of the new digital slow cookers will shut off if left alone for too long. Read the reviews online, because it'll affect if it's safe for Kosher cooking. (as you can't turn things on during the sabbath, so you start something in the crock pot the night before, and leave it going for 24 hrs)
Generally crockpots, at least modern crockpots, are setup to never be in the danger zone when on. This is why they can't be used for any level of sous vide. They overcompensate for safety. Expirementing with a thermometer to know your actual temp is THE best way to know though.
I suspect "warm" is meant to maintain temperature, rather than raise it. My crock pots are too ancient to have anything other than "high" and "low", so I can't assert any real authority. However, if you reach 145F within the first hour at the highest setting, then keep it at "warm", and test the temperature after about 30 minutes with an instant-read thermometer and it stays around 140-160F, you'll probably be fine. Personally, I'd test the temperature first by cooking water.
If the temperature stays above 140F at low, the worst risk you'll have is overcooking. Beans and vegetables like carrots and celery can overcook fairly easily in a crock pot, but higher collagen meats meant for stews tend to be fine when cooked for extended periods. Most crock pot recipes for stews and soups usually hold fine when at low for a full workday, although that's presuming a somewhat 70s-era soup aesthetic, which is probable for a crockpot recipe.
However, I would be inclined to attempt the recipe using the low setting rather than reducing it to warm, if you're not going to test the temperature first. If it turns out to be overcooked, you can always puree the ingredients with a blender...
I also doubt that switching to "warm" would be dramatically less likely to overcook the food than "low", unless it holds at a pretty stable 140F, and low ends up somewhere around 160F.
will it be a bacteria minefield or will it be warm enough to keep the food safe from bacteria?
I can't really stress how important it is to have and use thermometers no matter your experience level. And especially if you are unsure if what you are cooking is safe. I prefer a non electric (less parts, requires no batteries, unlikely to break) meat thermometer.
I completely agree. I actually have a thermometer and an infrared temperature gun and they're my two best friends in the kitchen (after my hands).
According to one of the Rival Crock-Pot manuals, it should not be left on all day. I have no intuition as to why though, other than they offer this advice so consumers don't expect it to bring all foods to a safe temperature.
HOW TO USE YOUR SLOW COOKER
Place the stoneware into the heating base, add your ingredients to the stoneware, and cover with the lid .
Plug in your Crock-Pot® slow cooker and select the temperature setting from the three setting options. Low is recommended for slow
"all-day" cooking. One hour on High is equivalent to approximately 1½
to 2 hours on Low. Refer to your specific recipe for more precise cook
times. Warm is ONLY for keeping already cooked food at the perfect
serving temperature until you are ready to eat. DO NOT cook on the
Warm setting. NOTE: We do not recommend using the Warm setting for
more than 4 hours.
When cooking is done, unplug your slow cooker and allow it to cool before cleaning.
For more manuals (and recipes and such): Crock-Pot.com Customer Service
I don't think the 4 hours is a coincidence - it probably produces temperatures in the danger zone (<140F) and so leaving it for longer than that is unsafe.
Last night I accidentally left dinner on "warm" overnight and when I woke up it was at 147F (still with a fair amount of moisture). That was with a 6.5qt "SmartPot" model. Mushy but safe, IMHO.
Thanks for the info. We should warn people that they should still check their situation, as It's quite likely that the equilibrium temperature is a function of the crockpot (amount of power it puts into the circuit on 'warm' and the surface area), the ambient air temperature, and the food being cooked (evaporative cooking), and how well the lid's sealed (also affecting evaporative cooling))
will it be a bacteria minefield or will it be warm enough to keep the food safe from bacteria
The FSIS (food safety inspection service) has released time-temperature graphs. At 130F you not only deactivate bacteria like salmonella, you have a 7 log10 reduction in bacteria after 131 minutes (chicken), which is their "safe" limit.
They don't really advertise that you don't have to cook to 165F if you hold the temperature over a period of time. The USDA public temperatures are the instantaneous meat temperatures.
@JasonTrue's reply is the answer. Below emphasis is mine:
However, if you reach 145F within the first hour at the highest setting, then keep it at "warm", and test the temperature after about 30 minutes with an instant-read thermometer and it stays around 140-160F, you'll probably be fine.
That first hour is key. You want to get food temp raised out of the low temp danger range as quickly as possible. So high heat for an hour, then low or warm heat for the day.
You might notice many crock pot recipes follow this model.
If you depend on warm to raise the temp, your dish will very slowly raise in temp. That's a risk.
My routine:
wake up, go straight to kitchen and start the dish on high
get ready for work (about an hour)
put the pot on low (or warm), then go to work
Cheap crock pots that have the Warm-Low-High option don't have temperature sensors or thermostats to reach a specific temperature. The switch controls which of the cooker's heating coils are on. In my cooker with a three position knob, the settings on are:
Warm
Low
High
75W
175W
250W
small coil
large coil
small+large coil
They do this by energizing either the 75W heater coil, the 175W heater coil, or both together for 75+175=250W.
The actual temperature depends on how the heaters come to equilibrium with the temperature in your kitchen. If you are concerned about whether "Warm" is above 140°F or not, you should measure the temperature with a thermometer.
If your cooker is below boiling, you can control the temperature by changing the environment around the slow cooker: draping a towel over the slow cooker will trap heat and increase the temperature, circulating air over the slow cooker will remove heat and reduce the temperature.
here is the latest that I just got from a live chat with CrockPot:
Ashly: On your Crock-Pot, both the low and high settings will reach a maximum temperature of approximately 215 degrees Fahrenheit, but they cycle differently in that the low setting cycles off of that temperature more frequently. Therefore, the High setting will still cook the food in a shorter period of time than the Low setting will. On the warm setting, your Crock-Pot will be between 165 degrees and 175 degrees Fahrenheit. Please remember that these are all approximate temperatures and they can vary depending on what you are cooking. The Crock-Pot can also boil on High and Low. We do recommend that you always fill your slow cooker at least 2/3 - 3/4 of the way full, including at least one cup of liquid or sauce. You may have to adjust your cook times accordingly, especially if you are using older Crock-Pot recipes, or adapting regular recipes for Crock-Pot use. This will prevent the food from drying out and burning.
I have the Crock-Pot brand 7 quart manual crock pot. Looking on their website (crock-pot.com) I was able to find the following...
Both the low and high settings will reach a maximum temperature of approximately 215 degrees Fahrenheit, but they cycle differently in that the low setting cycles off of that temperature more frequently. Therefore, the high setting will still cook the food in a shorter period of time than the Low setting will. On the warm setting, your Crock-Pot™ slow cooker will be between 165 degrees and 175 degrees Fahrenheit. Please remember that these are all approximate temperatures and they can vary depending on what you are cooking.
So, if the safe temp for food is between 140 and 165 (depending on meat) then this should keep your food warm enough not to grow any bacteria and probably cook it if left on long enough.
I have a Hamilton Beach Stay or Go. It boils on low setting. I don't know what the high setting is, except that it is hotter than low. It doesn't boil on warm, so warm is probably 145-160˚F. The best way is to check the meat with an instant digital thermometer. Foods cooked to 180 should be safe for any kind of meat.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.859232 | 2011-02-16T02:33:32 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12219",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"David Chu",
"Donald Rose",
"Donna Aulenback",
"Graham Cole",
"J. Win.",
"Jadwiga Wirkus",
"Jake",
"Joe",
"MWM",
"SutharMonil",
"adinani",
"cindy",
"emesser03",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25176",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25189",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25190",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25235",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71389",
"mc-lunar",
"stephennmcdonald",
"tilthouse",
"user25235"
],
"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
} |
15849 | Is salt caking really a big problem, or are anti-caking agents just cheaper than salt?
Moving back to the US from Europe after 8 years, my wife and I thought we were going crazy when salt seemed ... less salty here. Taking a look, almost all salt has anti-caking agent mixed in with it. Morton Sea Salt was the only one we could find without it, and indeed it's just as salty as salt oughta be.
So what's the deal? You know how often I had a problem with salt caking during my 8 years of using normal salt abroad? Zero. Is this really a problem, or is anti-caking agent cheaper than salt and they're just saving a buck by diluting it?
I believe caking is a bigger problem in finer salts. Do you have a preference toward larger crystals (which tend to be more common in Europe, anyway)? The texture of salt also has a profound impact on taste.
If you really want the biggest bang for your salt buck then use coarse salt and a salt mill; our taste buds can only taste what's on the surface, so the finer and "rougher" the crystals, the more salty the taste. As a bonus, as @ESultanik says, coarser salts are less prone to caking and are unlikely to have anti-caking agents (if that's really a concern).
At the time of writing, sodium aluminosilicate (AKA sodium silicoaluminate, E-554, or just "anti-caking agent" - by far the most common in salt and probably the least expensive) costs about $35/kg. Here is one source.
You can easily find sea salt or table salt for $1/lb ($2.20/kg) or even as low as $1/kg if you buy in bulk. And this is retail, not wholesale.
So, using anti-caking agents as "filler" - not a very shrewd business move.
Even if a distributor wanted to waste enormous amounts of cash putting unnecessary amounts of anti-caking agent in salt, regulations don't allow it. The FDA, and most other international food agencies, limit the amount of anti-caking agent to 2% by weight (except in baking powder).
2% - trust me, that's not going to make it taste any different. It's all in your head.
I can personally attest to the effectiveness of anti-caking agents in salt because I have purchased sea salt in the past without it - fine sea salt in one of those cardboard boxes with a tiny metal spout. I could never get it out of the box; I had to jam a knife inside to break it apart first, and even then it was difficult. And this is in Ontario, in the wintertime, when it's dry enough to get painful shocks from petting the cat.
Most likely, the reason you never had a problem with salt caking is that you were using salt with anti-caking agent. Maybe you didn't happen to look at the ingredients (it is salt, after all) or maybe they didn't list it - not every jurisdiction requires it as long as it's under the regulated limit.
+1 for shocks while petting the cat. Happens to me with my mom's dog too.
I'd be really worried if someone put a generous amount of ferrocyanides, also used as anti caking agents, in my salt :) While they may be harmless as is, there could be surprising results if combined with acids (maybe not food grade acids, but cleaners...)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.860024 | 2011-06-30T00:08:56 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15849",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"ESultanik",
"Hypnoesther",
"Jean Valjean",
"Mr. Shiny and New 安宇",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33697",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33698",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33703",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"nissa_loves_cats",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
16971 | What's the purpose of clarifying butter?
Seriously, if it's just an ingredient in something larger, is it going to make a difference if the butter's been clarified or not?
You can heat clarified butter to a higher temperature for two reasons -- you remove the milk solids, which can burn, and you remove the water, which will boil at 100°C and cause spattering.
In baking, clarified butter's lack of water means that it can't develop gluten as you would with simple melted butter. It's actually more similar to other oils than it is to melted butter when baking.
In the case of ghee, my understanding is that because it's from a warm country, part of the reason for making it was as a preservative, as the ghee would have a longer shelf-life (months) than standard butter in the local climate.
Raising the smoke point is the first reason.
The second is that you remove most of the milk solids when clarifying, so people who are lactose intolerant can usually eat clarified butter.
And third, clarified butter can be kept at room temperature without spoiling. I keep mine in a french butter keeper on the counter for up to a week.
The main purpose that I am aware of is to raise the smoke point while retaining the buttery flavor.
A sauce made with clarified butter may have a more subtle and, some say, refined taste
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.860312 | 2011-08-18T22:40:24 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16971",
"authors": [
"AleX_",
"ShivRaj",
"User",
"amy phillips",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36362",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36363",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36366",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36727",
"reagan bella"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
37389 | How far will my summer truffle and water go?
As a gift, I received a summer truffle preserved in water. It is in a glass jar. Net weight of the truffle is 13 g. There's 7 g of water in there too. I plan to serve it for two. I'm going to make a simple olive oil and Parmesan pasta with an egg on top.
How much should I plan to use in the dish? Should I use the water?
I was planning on shaving the truffle thin and then adding it to the warm pasta and olive oil. Is that the best way to handle this?
Of interest, maybe: http://www.gourmetfoodstore.com/truffles/preserved-truffles.asp They suggest patting the truffle dry, slicing it thinly, and sauteeing in truffle oil or butter.
13 grams to serve pasta for two is generous, but not extremely so. I think you're smart to keep the dish simple, you don't want to complicate things with extraneous flavors to muddle the taste of a star ingredient so special. Despite the very topical and interesting link provided by SAJ14SAJ, I'd be wary of sauteing the truffle in anything truffle flavored, even if it was 100% genuine (which most truffle products are not). If I was using truffle for the first time, I would want to be sure that I was actually tasting the truffle, not an additive designed to taste like truffle. I do like the idea of giving the truffle a light saute though, I'd just use butter or olive oil. If you do saute, you don't want to waste a molecule. Give the pasta a bit of a swirl in the pan used for the truffle to wipe up any of the precious oil left in the pan. Save a bit of the truffle raw to give the final dish a garnish of truffle shaving, if even just to taste it both ways.
As far as the water, it's worth a shot. How about making mushroom risotto the next day using the water (or more likely, brine) in the broth component of the risotto? Not knowing exactly what it's going to taste like, I wouldn't use it for your special dish. If it negatively affects risotto, at least you haven't lost much in the way of expensive ingredients.
EDIT: Oh, I'm jumping to the assumption that your truffle is black and will therefore stand up to sauteing. If it's white, don't cook it, just shave it over the dish.
It is a black summer truffle.
Then I recommended that you saute it.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.860456 | 2013-10-07T01:45:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37389",
"authors": [
"Aquarius24",
"Deva Nathan",
"Jolenealaska",
"Rex CT-7567",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"gigi rossi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87914",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87915",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87916",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87921",
"soclikes",
"yossarian"
],
"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
} |
70985 | Appropriate process for bulk sauteing onions?
In doing some bulk cooking for a vacation, I needed to cook 12 sliced onions and later 6 minced onions for two different dishes; both as a first step in a sauce. In both cases, I used a large Le Creuset dutch oven. I found that the evaporation of the liquids shed from the onions couldn't keep up with the volume of liquids and I seemed to be boiling the onions rather than sauteing.
For the sliced onions, I ended up removing half the volume, draining off the liquid, cooking the onions, and boiling down the liquid to add back to the sauce at a later step. The onions boiled / simmered for 30 mins before I took that action. The dish was fine, but was a curry, so had lots of other flavor. It was also distinctly better after I added the boiled down liquid.
With the minced onion, the liquid eventually boiled off and I continued to cook them. It felt like it took a long time to get to that stage though. The dish was fine, but the texture of the onions was different than how I normally prepare them.
Are there appropriate steps to take when cooking mass quantities of onions as a first step in a dish? Is it ok for them to go through the boil / simmer phase? Should they be cooked in batches? What recipe adjustments should be made?
I think my question is sufficiently different from: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11529/saut%C3%A9ing-big-batch-of-onions?rq=1, but maybe not. Not sure how a search for "onions bulk" didn't turn that up...
You simply need to ensure sufficient area/a max thickness of the onion layer. You can let them simmer first in their own juices, but I have never had good results that way. You really need them spread out for sauteing.
In practical terms for a home kitchen, this means cooking in batches. Of course, nothing stops you from using multiple burners at once, and maybe even some kind of external burner if you have one, like a paella cooker going off its own gas canister. As far as I know, there is no other way around it.
If you don't need them sauteed but are OK with merely softened onions (no caramelization, no residual firmness), filling a pot with them and keeping them on low flame for a long time is a good option which frees your attention for other tasks. Don't forget to add sufficient fat on the bottom against burning, butter makes them especially tasty.
Sautéing shouldn't take much time, as it needs to be done over fairly high heat.
You want to make sure that you're not crowding the pan, and that the pan's sides are low enough to make sure the evaporated moisture doesn't get stuck in the pan. ... in other words, do it in batches.
As the amount of heat a given burner can put out is fixed, once you get past a certain point, the cooking time scales at best linearly. (ie, doubling the recipe requires 2x the time).
The only problem that I see is that the 'jumping' process of a true sauté can end up cooling down the pan some, so you might be able to speed up the process some by stirring more and flipping the food less -- but you'll want to keep a close eye on things, and if you see signs of burning, start tossing the food to cool it down some.
The only other process that I might suggest is stir-frying. If you have a good set up for a wok (proper heat for it), you might want to stir fry your onions in batches, and then set them aside to get a little more cooking from carry-over. And, when you're dealing with this sort of volume, it doesn't hurt to use two pans on two different burners -- you can always recombine them to a single pot when it comes time to simmer the curry to free up the other burner. (but be aware that this also means you're reducing how much liquid will evaporate)
I figure that the boiling is inherently a stage in the sautéing of onions - Perhaps it's not "a true Sauté." You could partially dry them (perhaps in the oven) if you think otherwise? I recently made a ~6 lb to start with - not much by the end - batch of caramelized onion which spent quite a while boiling it's way down before it got to caramelizing. Tastes fine to me...
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.860674 | 2016-06-27T17:18:54 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/70985",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
62969 | I accidentally froze a carton of Half and Half. Is it ruined?
My fridge got set a wee bit colder than it should've and most of my liquid stuff has frozen. Fortunately all I had in there at the moment was some bottled water, some fruit juice, and a carton of half and half.
I'm not worried about the drinks, but I know freezing can do odd things to milk and cream. Is my half and half ruined? I mainly just use it in my morning coffee, if that matters.
I store frozen milk for emergencies all the time... Once defrosted in the fridge, I shake it for a couple of minutes and it returns to normal. It even taste the same. Australian carton and bottled milk is slightly richer than half and half; and the water to fat ratios are lower... This doesn't seem to split badly after it is frozen. As I said, defrost for 24 hours in the fridge, shake and serve.
I have had limited success with freezing 18% coffee creamer even when heated it still doesnt5come back together very well. Freezing 10% seems to work a bit better though but not every time either.
I froze some 10% BF cream (coffee cream) that was on sale, thinking I could stock up a bit and freeze it and that I would be saving some $, thawed it for 24 hours and tried it in my coffee and it curdled....lesson learned.
I had the same issue with half and half after freezing and have found that microwaving it for about 20 seconds and then stirring and using it, the problem is gone! The fat cream has just separated. The microwave seems to help it melt down enough to reincorporate back in to liquid form!
It tastes like normal!
I had the same issue with 18% MF coffee cream where I had bought multiple cartons and froze them. The first one I opened was so badly separated still tasted fine but was horrible texture in my coffee lol. The next one I thawed halfway on the counter and then opened the carton and poured it in a pot on medium and heat it to steaming but not boiling, let it cool down a little, put it back in the carton and in the fridge and works just perfect.
Think about it just put it in the food processor or blender or ninja it's back to normal make sure it's thawed out completely.
The fat in milk and cream is not "mixed in" in a way a mixer can replicate. If you mix cream in a food processor or blender, first you'll have whipped cream, and later you'll have butter.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.861049 | 2015-10-30T04:30:36 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62969",
"authors": [
"Charlotte Turton",
"Duane Bradshaw",
"Justin Clark",
"Kameron Wolfe",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149840",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150043",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067"
],
"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
} |
23485 | Does salt-seasoned pasta and starchy water in my sauce have to yield a salty sauce?
When cooking pasta, there are a couple of techniques that I like to follow--individually they yield great results, but when combined they interfere with one another to produce an inferior product.
Salting the pasta water. I've learned this trick some time ago and it has been critical to producing the best-tasting pasta. I really want the pasta to be the point of the dish, with the sauce an accompaniment, and the getting salt in the water from the start is the way I get the best flavor in my pasta. In fact, I find that salting the water quite generously works very well as long as I am fulling draining the pasta after boiling.
Adding starchy pasta water to my sauce. The starchy water really brings everything together. You could say it thickens it, but not like a roux, as some have speculated--rather, the starch emulsifies the fats into the sauce (consider if I have, say, tomato sauce, cheese, and olive oil) and it also adds a rich mouthfeel. I've really had great success adding some of the starchy pasta water to the sauce and don't want to give that up.
The problem is that when I've salted the pasta water, it means adding it to my sauce brings along all that salt--to the point where it can be unpalatable.
So to my question: Are these two techniques mutually exclusive? Or is there a way to get the salt into the pasta without getting it into the sauce?
To prime the pump, I've considered a couple of options:
Brine the pasta prior to boiling
Start the pasta in boiling salt-water, then move to fresh water (use the latter in the sauce)
Start the pasta in fresh water, then move to salt water (use the former in the sauce)
Boil a whole bunch of pasta (say, ditalini, for the large surface area) without salt for an extra-starchy water. Jar it, and use it in future sauces.
Forget the starchy water, and just use, say, cornstarch.
Since cooking the pasta in salted water is essential, and switching to fresh water or whatever is a PITA, I'd just use less water and thicken with something else. The standard ratio for salting pasta water is 1:10:100 - 1 litre of water for 10g salt and 100g pasta - perhaps you're over-salting the water?
Very well could be... I'm using 2-3 times that pasta, but probably 4-6 times that salt (it's right from the box into the water, so hard to tell). It never seems overly salty when omitting the water from the sauce, so I assumed the salinity was correct
Wowza - that's a lot of salt.
Since cooking the pasta in salted water is essential, and switching to fresh water or whatever is a PITA, I'd just use less water and thicken with something else.
The standard ratio for salting pasta water is 1:10:100 - 1 litre of water for 10g salt and 100g pasta - perhaps you're over-salting the water?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.861284 | 2012-04-30T23:23:35 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23485",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"Ray",
"Robert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53154",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53155",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53156",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53194",
"mike",
"skii",
"user53155"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
23443 | Instant espresso powder substitutions?
Many recipes for chocolate baked goods call for instant espresso powder. I rarely bake, but I always have coffee in the house. What might I use as a rule of thumb for substituting for instant espresso powder?
I know I could substitute regular coffee for any liquids, but that could add too much liquid to some recipes. Would double or triple strength brewed (or French Press) coffee work? Is the flavor significantly different in the instant powder than in brewed coffee? Or is it simply the quick dissolve and the lack of liquid that makes the powder appealing in baking?
I've struggled with this issue as well because I live in a moist climate and instant espresso powder cakes up on me between uses.
Generally recipes which use instant espresso power are trying to add a kick of bitter and roasted flavors to deepen chocolate flavors and make them richer. You can try substituting instant coffee 1:1, but the flavor of the baked good will certainly suffer a loss of richness. Increasing the amount of instant coffee, however, would likely add more bitter or acidic flavors -- and caffeine -- to the cookie or cake than you want. Also, instant coffee takes longer to dissolve, so it needs to be added straight to a liquid.
There's no real way to substitute liquid coffee in most recipes, such as chocolate cookie or brownie recipes, because the recipe has no water in it in the first place. In the rare recipes where there is water, you could substitute strong-brewed coffee for an equal quantity of water+espresso powder, and this would likely work fairly well.
So, summing up: there's no really good substitute for instant espresso powder in recipes which call for it that I've found with some significant experimentation. Hopefully someone else has had better ideas than me.
Wait, there is a difference between "instant coffee" and "instant espresso" powders? As a non-coffee-drinker, I didn't know that. I don't even know where I can get espresso powder.
The instant expresso powder I have (which is horrible) is 1-cup sachets, so avoids the caking problem.
rumtscho, yes, they're different. Instant espresso has a more intense, richer flavor, which is why it's used as an intensifier for chocolate. Regular instant coffee has a less intense flavor and more caffeine. And I personally wouldn't recommend drinking either; they're pretty vile compared to the read thing.
Pete, do you have a brand name for that?
Hacendado, which is the own brand of local supermarket chain Mercadona. I don't know whether they have any stores outside Spain.
I know this is old, but it came up as related, so a note on no real way to substitute liquid coffee ... because the recipe has no water in it in the first place. If the recipe has milk in it, you can brew ridicously strong coffee directly in milk and filter through a filter paper. Roughly: heat ~1.5 time the amount of milk the recipe calls for. Mix with a similar volume of ground coffee. Wait 5 mins. Filter (I just prop a filter paper in a glass). Use required quantity (which will be cool by now). Worked well for a latte buttercream which used espresso powder in 1tbsp milk.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.861643 | 2012-04-28T17:14:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23443",
"authors": [
"Broots Waymb",
"Chris H",
"FuzzyChef",
"Hugh",
"Peter Taylor",
"Vic",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53043",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53044",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53116",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"jase",
"rumtscho",
"user53043"
],
"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
} |
23900 | How do I avoid hot fudge turning my ice cream into a soupy mess?
My pregnant wife's cravings have recently turned towards sweets, and this week it is banana splits, with a very specific formula: chocolate ice cream, banana, whipped cream, and hot fudge.
It's not such an extraordinary recipe, I suppose, but the hot fudge is simply not a topping we keep in our house or really have a lot of experience with. So after picking up a jar of hot fudge topping, and zapping it in the microwave, per the instructions, I experienced the obvious result that has presumably been experienced by millions before: hot fudge melts cold ice cream.
Rather quickly, the sundae disintegrated into a soupy mess at the bottom of the bowl, with a rapidly decreasing scoop of ice cream bathing in the pool, and banana bits swimming about. It was not a pretty sight.
What means could I take to mitigate the fudge's effect on the ice cream, or are my wife's hopes and expectations just a dream in the shadow of this bleak reality?
Personally, I always thought this was the goal of hot fudge on ice cream: a delicious, soupy mess.
I think isolating the fudge could be a good way to fix this. It might complicate your dish, but it might add both to the presentation as well as to the texture of the ice cream.
Try getting hold of or make your own biscuit rolls (I don't know the name). Fill these up with hot fudge. The biscuit will act as isolation keep the texture of both the ice cream and the fudge. In this way the only time the two will get in contact with each other is when one breaks up the biscuit to eat it.
If biscuits doesn't cut it, chocolate tubes or similar could do the same trick.
They are known as hippen, sometimes also as tuiles, see http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16110/what-is-the-name-of-this-batter
I wonder if I could use the banana as a dam between the ice cream and the fudge to help keep the isolated as you suggest.
@Ray- and bananadam is fun to say. Kind of like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8N_tupPBtWQ
@Ray, that is an excellent suggestion, and so remarkable simple.
My solution was a combination of your answer and those of Galapagos Jim, and Sobachatina. For one, the week's first Sundae was made with ice cream straight from the store--a bit mushy still as it was. A couple days in the freezer really helped push that into "deep freeze". But the essence of idea that really made this work was your phrase "isolating the fudge". I didn't use biscuit rolls, but rather used the banana as a barrier between a hot fudge pool on one side of the plate, and the especially cold ice cream on the other side. This had the additional advantage of presentation.
I don't have any direct experience to share, but it seems a little logic may be applicable. I suggest that your hot fudge is too hot and your ice cream is not icy (cold) enough.
Rather than microwaving the fudge, try a hot water bath on the stove. Yeah, it's slower, but you also won't burn the bejeezus out of the sugar at the edges. Taste occasionally while stirring until you get that pleasingly warm mouthfeel. Stirring frequently* will help distribute the heat.
Alternately, microwave in small bursts, stirring* as you stop and taste.
*Sanitary practice compels me to advise you to use a fresh spoon every time you stir and taste in order to avoid contamination. But it's your house.
The hot part being taken care of, make sure your freezer is actually freezing cold. Don't take the ice cream out ahead of serving so it doesn't soften. Best way to scoop hard ice cream is to use a metal scoop dipped in very hot water. Cuts through like buttah.
You can also use a thermometer to avoid any sanitary concerns. (At least once you determine what temperature you like your fudge at)
Eat it faster.
Seriously. I am a huge fan of homemade hot fudge and much of the appeal is the contrast between the cold and the hot. Freezing your ice cream more solid will help but insufficiently heating the chocolate won't. If the fudge gets too cool it sets up into one solid chewy chunk.
Perhaps your best solution would be to serve smaller portions that can be consumed before the fudge and the ice cream reach equilibrium and the magic is lost.
+1 because the whole point is the contrast between hot and cold...
Which makes me think: get a bowl of ice cream and a dish of hot fudge... Possible kept in hot water or over a heat source of some kind... Mix them one spoonful at a time, like fondue.
@philo- Like ice cream and banana filled cream puffs, frozen solid, and dipped in chocolate fondue. I am totally going to do this.
When I was a teen in a rollerskating ice cream parlour, we had to get sundaes out quick with hot fudge.
Most of the fudge was swirled around the glass container (somehow colder than porcelain) and only a bit on top before a blast of cream and a shower of nuts.
It's a simple matter of thermodynamics. Consider the variables:
temperature of ice cream, Tic
temperature of fudge, Tf
heat transfer coefficient, h
heat transfer surface area, A
I'll leave the derivation of the heat transfer equation as it pertains to sundaes as an exercise for the reader, but it's intuitive that you have a number of options, including:
colder ice cream
not quite so hot fudge
modifying the heat transfer coefficient, such as by adding insulating materials or using an ice cream with lower thermal conductivity (it'd be interesting to study the effect of overage on heat transfer)
decrease the area of contact between fudge and ice cream; it's a good be that sundaes are traditionally served in tall, narrow glasses for just this reason
My parents always enjoyed making hot fudge but had similar issues to you. So they found very small bowls and now serve the ice cream in normal sized dishes (with any additional non-melting toppings) and provide a small side dish of fudge.
Two great benefits with this method.
Ice cream doesn't melt/Fudge doesn't cool off as quickly.
Every person gets to enjoy as much or as little fudge as they like.
Hope you can find a way that works for you.
I’d say scoop the ice cream and then lay it on a sheet pan (cookie sheet if you prefer that name lol) scooped out for like ten mins or so then melt the fudge let it sit for a min or two assemble the sundae and let her pour it on
Letting the eater pour the fudge is a good idea ... but I don't understand why to let the ice cream sit out for 10 minutes
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.861958 | 2012-05-21T23:12:58 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23900",
"authors": [
"Cynda L Rash",
"Dennis King",
"Eleanor Zimmermann",
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe",
"L Holland",
"Mr. C",
"New Baker",
"Pamala",
"Ray",
"Silky",
"Sobachatina",
"Ward - Trying Codidact",
"daramarak",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54232",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54261",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"marianne salvatore",
"philosodad",
"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
} |
19023 | How do I safely deep fry a turkey?
I've seen all the videos of deep fried turkey fireballs. but I've also heard deep fried turkey is really great. How do I safely deep fry a turkey? What causes the explosions?
The other answers touch on the fact that its the release of water from the turkey that interacts with the oil, causes the oil to overflow, and then ignite the burner.
Generally, this happens pretty shortly after you put the turkey in (due do any moisture on the outside of the bird).
To do it safely don't bank on the fact that you've removed all the water - do two additional things:
Do it outside. In the event something bad happens, better to lose some grass on the lawn than your house. If you don't have space outside, you can always go to a public park or such. It may seem like a pain but turkey frying should not be done inside.
There's one absolutely surefire way to ensure than you don't catch the burner on fire by accident. Don't have it on!
Prep your turkey. Have it dry on the outside and completely thawed.
Heat your oil outside.
Turn the burner off
Lower the turkey into the hot oil
Wait 1-2 minutes or so, most of the initial contact between water and oil should over by now.
Turn the burner back on and cook the turkey.
Also make sure the burner is off while taking the turkey out, just to prevent any spills from becoming terrible.
@ChrisWalker, below in the comments, also provides a method for making sure you don't put too much oil in the pot and thus cause a spill over.
Nice addition to 'Turn the burner off' while merging the turkey into the oil. +1
The day before or the morning of, I put the turkey in a clean plastic bag to keep it dry. Fill the pot with enough water to cover the turkey plus a little extra to fill the cavities (once the turkey is out of the bag). Remove and dry the turkey. Mark the pot on the outside. Dump and dry the pot. Fill the pot to the mark with the oil. This makes sure you do not have too much oil in the pot which can also lead to boil over.
Check your local by-laws before trying to do this in a public park - it's definitely not allowed in many/most cities.
@Aaronut - We have many parks that are setup for outdoor cooking - do they specifically disallow frying in regards to where you're talking about?
Make sure the turkey is completely thawed.
Make sure the outside of the skin is dry.
Make sure there is room for the turkey and all of the oil in the kettle.
The explosion is caused by steam causing the oil to boil over, which then ignites when it reaches the burner.
Alton Brown has a show on it:
Fry Turkey Fry (1/3), Fry Turkey Fry (2/3), Fry Turkey Fry (3/3)
Ice or water meets 400-degree oil and voila, explosion. Once again I will direct attention to Alton Brown's Good Eats episode "Fry Turkey Fry," in which you can learn all you need to know about how to fry a turkey SAFELY and TASTILY.
I particularly like the stepladder and pulley lowering mechanism.
The best way to deep fry a turkey is, to first buy some quality peanut oil. Using the wrong type of oil can cause a fire/explosion or cause your turkey to taste burnt. You should brine your turkey as well, helps out a lot. Make sure you dry your turkey out and off as much as possible, this step is important! Water and oil can also cause over boiling of your oil and cause a fire. You can use a dry rub, which I love, to season the bird safely for frying. If you do use a dry rub, a very light coating of olive oil will help your seasoning stick to the bird. Get everything you will need to cook, heat source and a 30 quart pot is best, and take it outside away from children pets and any structures. After you have the peanut oil and a great cooker ready, you should bring the oil to 325 degrees Fahrenheit, then turn off your heat source and lower the bird in. After about five minutes of safe cooking, turn your heat source back on. Keep your oil from 325 to 350 degrees Fahrenheit. It will take at least an hour for most turkeys to cook. Happy Turkey Day!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.862573 | 2011-11-20T11:37:45 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19023",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Az-",
"Chris Cudmore",
"Cos Callis",
"Doc Walker",
"Emily Mulroney",
"Jeanette",
"Maureen Miller -welters",
"Yves Klett",
"ch1m3ra",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41281",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41384",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"nitish712",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
5841 | How to keep my stainless steel skillet clean
I have a KitchenAid skillet that I love. But I can't seem to get it cleaned easily.
It has a brushed exterior and the bottom of the interior is grooved or ribbed.
For now, I run cold water on it when hot but I still end up needing light use of a ScotchBrite pad. I'm concerned I'm ruining the pan by doing so.
Be careful with cold water in a hot pan - since the pan is metal, you shouldn't have to worry about cracking, but you will get a nice burst of steam in your face!
Your best bet is to deglaze the pan immediately while it's still hot, or heat it back up and deglaze it. There are some tips in this thread. As a bonus you're going to get a delicious pan sauce as part of the deal.
You're never going to get it store-bought perfect, but I've had a lot of luck cleaning stains that seemed permanent by using Bar Keepers Friend, which in my opinion is one of the best commercial cleaners available.
Cold water on a hot pan can crack pans. This happens more often in brittle materials (especially glass, but also cast iron and other metals to a lesser extent). Pans should be cooled at least a bit before they contact water or cold surfaces.
@Adam: Thanks for the info - I was always told that was the case (even with metal), and I avoid cold water with hot pans as a general rule in my house. I know I would never do it with cast iron as it's a relatively brittle metal, but for some reason assumed stainless steel was safer - then again, I know people who have some warped stainless steel pans and I can only imagine that's how they warped them. Still, I was afraid to say that with certainty because I wasn't 100% sure. Always good to get clarification!
Thanks a bunch. I'll try that Bar Keepers stuff to clean up what's in there now.
Bear in mind, I wasn't dunking the pan in water, but while still somewhat hot, swishing a few tablespoons of water around.
Thumbs up for Barkeepers Friend, that stuff is excellent.
First, you shouldn't be trying to clean it to a mirror finish like it was when you first bought it.
It's quite simple to keep them clean as long as you clean them promptly after use. Deglaze them while the pan is still hot using water, wine, or vinegar. This can be used as the base of a pan sauce.
If you're trying to clean the brown stains of burnt oil off, that is answered here:
How can brown stains be removed from pots and pans?
Deglazing with water while the pan is hot is the best way to get rid of large stuck-on/burnt debris.
Once the pan cools down, spray the enterior with a nice even layer of aerosol oven cleaner/degreaser and set aside for about 10 minutes. Then use your scotch brite or stainless steel scrubber on it and it should come clean of debris and good as new.
As suggested, deglaze with water to soften any residue and then let it soak. Then scrape with a plastic scraper (e.g., the plastic spatula) and then clean with a dishwashing brush or nylon scrubber. Use a blue 3-M (non-scratching) sponge for stubborn spots (but not green, which will scratch the pan.) Then polish with copper cleaner (I use Wright's, but Twinkle works well, too) to remove heat discoloration and hard water deposits, and polish the surface. Cooked-on spots can be softened with a paper towel saturated with ammonia, leave the soaked towel on the spot for 10-15 minutes. To avoid scratching the pan, I try to avoid using any pumice-based cleaners like Bar Helpers, Bon Ami or Ajax. (I just tried using bathroom tile cleaner, and it also worked to remove hard water deposits.) If your pans have an anodized aluminum exterior, try to avoid using oven cleaner or anything with lye in it.
If you pan has an aluminum core, don't leave the lid on when you are soaking the pan or soak cooking utensils or flatware in the pan overnight, since it will cause the aluminum edge to oxidize. If the aluminum edge is getting discolored, you can polish it with a tiny piece of SOS pad, being careful to avoid scratching the exterior surface of the pan.
Whenever possible, I try to avoid using metal utensils in our SS pans (exception: the balloon whisk I use for making sauces.)
Most of our All-Clad still looks almost like new after 25 years of regular use.
I'm a bit low-tech about these things.
My trick was always to pour a shot or two of ouzo, vodka or other strong licquor into the pan after it's cooled off. After about 10 minutes, it'll be much easier to clean.
The advice isn't much different than with commercial cleaning products, but it is definitely less toxic.
I use the Lagostina stainless steel cleaner and a scrubbie (kind used to clean glass top stoves). get it wet, get the sponge wet and squeeze out a bit, sprinkle about 1 t cleaner and scrub away. You don't want it to be too watery, a thin paste works best. TTFN
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.862932 | 2010-08-23T18:16:33 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5841",
"authors": [
"Adam Shiemke",
"JoeNola",
"Kathy Eldredge",
"Michael Natkin",
"hometoast",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11547",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1155",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134406",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624",
"skriatok",
"src",
"stephennmcdonald",
"sterz"
],
"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
} |
3291 | How to make mint sauce
I seem to have the basic ingredients. Mint (from the garden), sugar, vinegar. However I seem to end up with vinegary mint, or minty vinegar depending on the relative quantities.
From a jar, it seems a lot richer in flavour and more sauce like. Any idea what I am doing wrong?
Never heard of making a mint sauce with mint, sugar and vinegar. I usually just use mint and yogurt when I want a mint sauce. I take my fresh mint and chop it very finely. Then I whip it in a bowl with fresh whole milk yogurt. I spend a solid several minutes whipping it. Works very well for me.
Is there a specific vinegar and mint recipe you're working from?
It is a British accompaniment to lamb, goes very well. I didn’t realise it was a local thing.
You seem to be saying you have two issues: weak flavor, and watery sauce. There can be many separate causes for each, but one problem that causes both issues is a lack of reduction.
What are you doing to reduce the sauce down and concentrate it?
Are those the only 3 ingredients you are using?
I think you have hit the nail on the head. I was just mushing it together, I didn't realise it needed reducing. I'll try next time.
You could try using honey instead of sugar. It is obviously more congealed and might hold the ingredients together well. I'd try that before reducing, although the honey mixture might be best warmed.
Sounds to me like your trying to make a mint jelly, not a sauce, only your missing one of the main ingredients and that is pectin......I like to make the jalapeno mint jelly :)
Grandma Abby
If the OP says they want sauce, I doubt that they want jelly.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.863403 | 2010-07-26T13:22:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3291",
"authors": [
"ChefRobaire",
"Daniel Bingham",
"Jeremy French",
"Joleeeene",
"Paul",
"Wyatt Mann",
"homaxto",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5962",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5964",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5981",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6473",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87089",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
15054 | Factory brine vs home brine
I frequently make use of brining as a tool to help yield juicy (and well-seasoned) meat--especially on pork and poultry. I am usually pretty successful with this technique and get compliments from guests.
On the other hand, I have in the past purchased factory-brined poultry and found it nearly unpalatable. These will sometimes say things like "up to 12% retained water"--sometimes even 16% or 20%.
What is the difference here? My hypothesis is that one of more of these factors are a detriment to the factory-brined birds
Concentration (e.g. 5% vs 15%)
Chemicals (e.g. salt vs sodium phosphate)
Delivery method (soaking vs injecting)
Age (freshly brined vs sitting for who-knows-how-long)
It seems to me that something about the factory brine is irreparably damaging the muscle fibers. In part, I'm interested so I know what to avoid in my own brines (e.g., for #4--do I need to be sure to cook my beast promptly after brining), and in part I am just intrigued by the difference.
Can you explain what you mean by unpalatable?
Great question. As an example, I was served a pre-brined turkey on Easter, and the texture was almost like that of a cured meat, like ham or corned beef. The bird was almost completely devoid of any turkey flavor, and had to be drowned in gravy.
You brine for X amount of time, and the physical and chemical effects are very good. Leave it too long, too salty. The solution added in stores is to add moisture and tenderness to the final cooked product, but it has to remain for an undetermined amount of time. So, really, we're not talking about a "factory brine" as much as a chemical treatment. Also, they get to add 15% water weight and charge you the per pound cost of the meat. I never buy meats that have "up to x% of a solution." Never.
I think (as is so often the case with preprocessed meat) it will often depend on who you buy it from. I often buy kosher prepared birds (which are always pre-brined salted) and I've never had any complaints. The nice thing about kosher preparation, is that it is done according to very specific rules, under strict supervision. It's not a factory process.
On the other hand, I cannot abide the brined birds from major poultry companies. Their primary goal is to increase the weight of the bird, not the flavor.
Factory prep seeks to minimize time and cost. They will use cheap ingredients (largely just water and salt, with no added herbs) and they will use whatever process takes the least time, most likely injection, which has the added benefit that they can force more liquid (and therefore weight) into the meat than would normally come from absorption. They'll likely insta-freeze it, so wait time is probably not an issue, but freezing causes its own issues.
I would say, for best results, take your time. A nice leisurely soak, real salt, and no pressure on the meat. For best results (talking turkey here) look for "Natural" or "Minimally Processed": if it says that, you shouldn't have to worry about competing additives.
Kashering isn't the same thing as brining. There's no liquid involved, just salt.
@aaronut: Eh. Salt, wash, salt, wash. It's briny enough.
Well, it's salty, yeah; generally kashering removes moisture though, compared to brining which introduces more.
And yet, the Empire (Kosher brand in US) chickens are usually much better than factory-injected competitors. I suspect that although there is some moisture lost in the process, the salt helps the birds retain water during cooking.
@Ray: I haven't tried non-kosher factory-brined birds, but if what you're saying is true then it sounds like the injection method is precisely the problem, since kashering involves little more than dumping a lot of kosher salt on the surface and waiting for it to draw out the surface blood and other moisture.
Re: dryness due to salting: It depends on how long the salt is left on the surface of the meat. At first, the salt will adsorb moisture which, if washed too early, will be lost. If left long enough, though, the moisture (along with some of the salt) will absorb back into the meat.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.863616 | 2011-05-25T23:22:18 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15054",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"ESultanik",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Ray",
"Satanicpuppy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"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
} |
14970 | Meat juice reabsorption sous vide
I frequently cook sous vide at home--primarily for the sake of convenience. I have been generally satisfied with the results, and normally get tender and juicy meat.
One thing that bothers me, however, is the amount of liquid left in the bag when it's done. Even when adding nothing but, say, a steak, or a pork chop, patted dry, it is disheartening to see all the juiciness I could have had getting left behind.
A few weeks ago I saw notes from a class on khymos.org, where, in the context of a cook-chill-reheat scenario, Mr. Lersch relayed Bruno Goussalt's advice to cool in stages in order to maximize reabsorption. The reasoning seemed sound: "If plunged directly into ice water fat and gelatin can cause the juices to gel, thereby effectively preventing a readsorption of the liquid."
What I would like to know is how the same idea can be applied to the scenario in which the food is cooked and then eaten, without the chilling step. One idea I've toyed with is cooking to a target temperature (say, 155), then chilling to an acceptable serving temp (say, 130)
Sounds like it warrants a rather interesting experiment...
Nitpick: Adsorption is not the same as absorption.
What I meant was juicinessification, but spell check picked that nit :)
Haha - it's actually more than just a subtle difference though. The juices really cannot get reabsorbed in the sense of going back into the meat; the "readsorption" is depositing those juices onto the surface only. So even if we just call it juiciness, it is a different kind of juiciness.
Interesting--so is this to say, that any liquid that is resorbed would only be clinging to the outside of the meat, and not actually make the inside any more moist? In layman's (my) terms, I guess that means that once the proteins squeeze out the liquid, they'll never unsqueeze to let any back in--is that right?
This article (http://www.seriouseats.com/2009/12/how-to-have-juicy-meats-steaks-the-food-lab-the-importance-of-resting-grilling.html) mentions that in resting, the muscle fibers do relax somewhat, allowing the meat to retain more liquid. Is this a contested point?
It retains more of the liquid it already has as opposed to sopping up the surrounding liquid like a sponge.
After reviewing a few sources, it looks like the key is getting the temp down to a spot where:
It is hot enough for service
Resorption is maximized
Looking a the graphs in this article on resting meat, it seems that after about 120°F (49°C), we get diminishing returns on the resorption, and it's still just hot enough. Down to 110°F (43°C), hardly any more liquid gets back into the meat, and it's starting to get a little cooler than I think I'd prefer.
In a sous vide situation, we can get the temp to right where we want in a faster and more controlled way that simply resting. The straightforward approach would be to drop it in a 120°F (49°C) water bath for a few minutes after cooking and before serving.
After forming my hypothesis, I took it to a non-scientific test with a chicken breast cooked to 155°F (68°C). I visibly noted the amount of liquid in the bag, then let it "rest" in a 120°F (49°C) water bath for about 10 minutes while preparing the vegetables. After all else was plated, I again inspected the amount of liquid in the bag and found it appeared to be noticeably less.
It's not clear to me how to evaluate the results in a more concrete rigorous way without the test itself interfering. So, all I can say is that there is at least anecdotal evidence in support of this technique.
Further point to note. This started from a two-pack of pre-marinated individually sealed chicken breasts. One I cooked sous vide on Saturday, and served without resting. My wife noted it was tender, but slightly dry (I must have her spoiled, but that's another story). The second one I cooked and rested today, and she was oohing and aahing at how moist this one was. Personally, I found it to be quite a bit more flavorful as well, though that's a bit harder to tell two days apart. Numbers and charts are useful, but those are the kind of results I am primary interested in.
Cook 10 breasts in separate bags. For five of them, pull from 155°F water, and weigh liquids immediately (e.g., dump liquids out of bag). For the other five, cool in 120°F bath, then weigh liquids. That's how you'd test it, I think.
I've seen the same thing, and mostly just take it as an excellent excuse to improve my game with respect to gravies, au jus, and reductions.
Gravy made out of the juices is awesome.
Is it possible that your sous vide cooking temps are too high to begin with? Most meat starts to lose a significant amount of moisture at about 60°C (140°F) (according to Modernist Cuisine, Heston Blumenthal, etc.) so keeping temperatures below this to begin with may help.
For example, I cook chicken breast at 58°C (136°F) for 2.5-3 hours which is sufficient to pasteurise them. While there usually is liquid in the bag, the meat isn't dry or unpleasant at all.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.864113 | 2011-05-22T12:31:27 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14970",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Brendan",
"Mark",
"Ray",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68793",
"user999684",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
15794 | Are 'premium' spices worth the expense?
I have done some calculation. And I think that if I buy a jar of spice from the supermarket, it is about 25 times more expensive (it costs more and you get a fraction of the amount) that getting a bag from my local Asian store.
I am perfectly happy with the cheaper alternatives. But I find it hard to believe that there could be this much markup without some benefits. What are they?
I am going to slightly disagree with the other two answers. First, here is an excerpt summarizing Alton Brown's opinion:
The first step in learning how to cook with spices is learning where to find spices. Now here in America, we do have some indigenous spices: allspice, vanilla, chili peppers, all from here. But by and large, most of your culinary spices come from the other side of the planet. And in their journey from there to here, a lot of things can happen. Not all of them good. They pass through a lot of hands, and all those palms, you know, want to be greased a little bit, quality can go down. So, if you're going to be a world-class spice cooker, you really should try to find yourself a world-class spice merchant. … I sure hope we've inspired you to set up a little spice trade of your own. Just remember: purchase whole spices, whenever you can, from a reliable purveyor—Internet or mail order are fine—and store those spices in a cool, dry, dark, airtight place. And don't keep them around too long. Two years tops for whole spices, and no more than six months for ground.
So, to summarize, the most important thing about buying spices is making sure they are fresh and have been stored properly during their transport. That means buying from a purveyor whom you trust has properly sourced and handled the spices. If you go to a specialty spice merchant, chances are they care enough to ensure the quality of their product, and they charge you more for the convenience of that guarantee. If you shop at an ethnic market that buys imports its spices in bulk, that is okay, as long as the store has enough turnover to ensure that the spices are always fresh, however, you don't necessarily have the guarantee of freshness unless you trust the store owner. Supermarket spices can be okay, as long as they are stored and dated properly. These generally cost more not so much due to the willingness of buyers to pay more, but more due to the fact that there is a longer chain of wholesalers and middle men who all also want to make a profit.
Agreed: there are certainly quality differences between spices, namely in freshness and source quality (as in different plant breeds). Sometimes the differences are reflected in the cost. Buy based on what tastes great and what fits your budget, knowing that price isn't always a good indicator.
Prices are determined not by the cost of the raw materials of anything, but by what the consumer is willing to pay.
Anything that must be sold at a loss because of this is simply not sold/manufactured.
In my experience, the specialty Asian stores (in the UK), or the spice shops and market stalls in other parts of the world usually have better tasting (and more "authentic", if that means anything) spices than supermarkets.
Markup is usually due to things like convenience, brand (people buy Ferarri because it's expensive) and packaging, rather than actual costs.
+1, "Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it." (Publilius Syrus); all too often, the difference between one thing and another is packaging and marketing. I recently found a well-packaged version of essentially "cream of wheat", marked up at 4x the cost-per-oz... the packaging claimed you can "see the quality...". If you see more marketing claims than real information about the product, this should be throwing flags in your mind that you may be paying too much.
I think Ferrari is a bad example, because their cars are much more labor intensive to produce than common commuter vehicles, and they serve a purpose (speed) that cannot be achieved for a much lower price. This might be a better example ;-)
"Anything that must be sold at a loss because of this is simply not sold/manufactured." I think this is generally true, but there's also a marketing strategy which involves selling loss leaders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_leader). Temporarily selling some products lower than the cost of production can encourage more people to come to your store and buy things. And here in the US, nearly all corn, wheat, and soy products are subsidized by the government so they can be sold below the cost of production.
@Mike Pennington: regarding packaging, there's a great excerpt here (http://bookoutlines.pbworks.com/w/page/14422685/Predictably-Irrational): Savador Assael created the market for black pearls, which were unknown in the industry before 1973. His first attempt to market the pearls was an utter failure; he didn't sell a single pearl. So he went to his friend had him put them in the window of his 5th Avenue store with an outrageous price tag attached. He ran full page ads in glossy magazines with black pearls next to diamonds, rubies, and emeralds. Soon, black pearls were considered precious.
Agree. You pay for convenience, brand and the 'possible' better handling of the ingredient by expensive brand. But that would be just an assumption, no one knows what is the story of the ingredients.
@Ashley, et al, many of the smaller or ethnic brands I see in the U.S. are still owned by big corporations. One such example is the Mexican spice label brand "Mojave" owned by McCormick. The Mojave brand distributes bulk containers at the 1qt volume for many spices at the same price or even less than the 4 fl. oz. volume size of a McCormick "premium" branded spice. It should be a crime, imho. Many other similar subsidiaries and branding gimmicks exist. There are claims of improved quality control and raw food source differences, but mostly retail prices are aimed as high as customers will pay.
At some point on here someone has to mention Veblen goods, and the impact high prices and perceived scarcity have on the market. That something can have demand increase as price does - that is, something can be desired based on high price alone. By marking up the price of otherwise identical spices, you'll see a greater demand.
Ferrari is a bad example. They are awesome machines anyway you slice it. You don't buy a Ferrari for the logo.
I am perfectly happy with the cheaper
alternatives. But I find it hard to
believe that there could be this much
markup without some benefits. What are
they?
If you are the target audience for your cooking, then to YOU the more expensive spices are decidedly "NOT" worth the extra expense. After all "You are perfectly happy..."
If you are not the target audience then the estimation of worth changes.
I can't answer your question, but I can offer an analogy:
Here in Australia mangoes cost $2 to $3 per piece at the bigger supermarkets during mango season. At the markets you'd pay 60c to $1. The commercially grown mangoes all come from the same region (Northern Queensland). This is similar for other fruits and vegetables.
I guess, you pay for convenience.
Another aspect to quality that is difficult to measure and that is the authenticity of the spice itself. Take saffron threads for example. The yellow threads lack the coveted flavor of saffron that the red threads deliver. Here we enter the gray area of preference but paying less for saffron cut with too many yellow threads will affect the taste of the dish. With cinnamon there are price differences between Ceylon (true) cinnamon and cassia. Vanilla is another complex spice where price usually reflects quality. Inexpensive vanilla may not be an authentic vanilla bean extract (Here's more on what to watch for in vanilla: http://bit.ly/b2uTYj ).
In the U.S. you may also be paying for convenience. For example, when you purchase pumpkin pie spice off the shelf the spices are pre-ground and pre-mixed. In the short-term that little jar may seem less expensive than purchasing the individual spices. But if you factor in, (as Rincewind wisely pointed out), freshness, then in the long run it is more cost effective to purchase the whole form and grind as necessary (except I always purchase cinnamon in a ground form...that question has been discussed here before.)
Whew...great topic, hope my .02 was helpful.
Living in China, I see the same brands of spices as I did back home. Also they come in the same bottles or jars. I can also find the same brand in small packets. The price difference can be ten or twenty times just cause you buy a jar rather than a packet. They must be the same thing inside.
There are two factors that I think make a difference to a spice. The fist is it's freshness. How long and how carefully has it been transported and stored and how far it has travelled. If you grow your own herbs then you'll know that this makes a big difference.
The second factor is whither the spice is ground or whole. Once a spice is ground, it looses it's favours much more rapidly. If you want the best flavours, buy your spices as whole pods and grind what you need as you go. I find that many spice can be simply popped into a pepper grinder or ground in a pestle as and when you need them. In China, they actually use most spice whole or simply cracked rather than ground.
bags are easier to ship than jars (lighter for one, less packaging needed to prevent them from hitting together and cracking) ... but the jars are less permeable and so will retain some flavors better. So the container can make a difference. (so I buy bagged from places w/ a high turnover, and then transfer them to jars)
You shouldn't pay ridiculous prices for spice. But you shouldn't buy dirt cheap spices either.
I've had the best experience with Bulk stores - you can smell what you're buying.
I recently had a bad experience with Suraj brand spices, I bought 200g bags of paprika, turmeric and "hot chili" ($4 for 200g bags). They each smelled like a disgusting mixture of feet and paint - and they did not smell very much like they were supposed to. I also got a 200g package of ginger from them. The powdered ginger did not smell bad at all (it smelled like ginger).
The color of these spices was good but the bag was sealed. I'm not putting it past them to have put some kind of dye in there, and it's also possible they used a small amount of a toxic dye (all 3 packages really did smell weakly of paint).
Of course, I threw them away immediately (it was too late to return them - I had bought them several weeks earlier and don't have the receipt). So there's $12 for crummy spices I didn't even enjoy.
Save money and buy good spices!
A lot of grocery stores (in the US) now have spices in the bulk aisle. One brand of spices that you'll commonly see this way is Frontier. That is a highly regarded, almost "premier" brand. If the spice I need is available that way, I will always go that route. You know that the turn around on these spices is going to be fast, they're always just as fresh as can be and the price difference is remarkable. Once, I needed bay leaves and I had found myself in a store that didn't have bulk spices. In the spice aisle the only container of bay leaves was $11! I drove a few miles to Fred Meyer (Kroger), and carefully selected 20 or so big, perfectly shaped, unbroken bay leaves from Frontier. I paid less than $1.
Also check the ethnic sections in many grocery stores -- I can get bags of cinnamon or ground chilies near the latin food for much less than the jar from McCormick. (and McCormick's a local brand for me). One of the grovery stores near my work has a decent middle eastern selection, and I can get large bags (4 to 8 oz) of cumin, mustard seed, tumeric, and such.
Personally I'll pay the premium as long as I'm buying from small family owned sources. Maybe its a waste of money but I've been happy with the quality and the exchange of uses and recipes I get while buying is worth the premium.
I can answer for certain with Chili powder, and from that I can make some suggestions. When I bought Gebhardt chili powder and compared it to the bargain basement powder that was in our pantry by taking a taste of each, I was astonished at the dramatic difference. Frankly whatever was in our pantry had a mildly rotten taste, along with a lot of heat. The Gebhardt, on the other hand, was a distinct flavor, with a lot less heat. There are other ways to add heat, so I thought that was well worth the price difference. (I'm sure chili experts who make their own powder can do much better, but I'm very much a novice).
In general, I would recommend that you double costs now in order to make good economic decisions later. We bought two kinds of chili powder, cheap and expensive, and from that could tell one made a huge difference. We will probably continue to go with expensive chili powder. For other spices, maybe less so, or maybe some cheap brands do better than others (target's house brand is one my wife finds to be reasonable quality / price compromise for us).
Pay a bit more now, and buy both for a few spices you care about. Taste them both. Over the rest of your life you will then know the answer and know what is a good compromise. It is a small cost for what amounts to a lot of future purchases.
If you go expensive, maybe also proceed with caution. Buy both of some other spice. You may find that some spices are easier to "get right" and a cheap seller will do. Please repost anything you learn here for the rest of us.
How old was the one that had been in your cabinet? Although some heat will be lost over time, chili powder is a blend of herbs and ground chilies, and if it were old it might have lost some of the more subtle flavors, and taken on off flavors.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.864576 | 2011-06-27T09:28:36 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15794",
"authors": [
"Alex",
"Anthony Pham",
"Bruce Alderson",
"ESultanik",
"Elke",
"Emma Reardon",
"JDong",
"Jillian Oakley",
"Joe",
"Juliet",
"Mike Pennington",
"Ross Patterson",
"appl3r",
"bobobobo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1761",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33567",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33574",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33607",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45308",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6606",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91742",
"lamwaiman1988",
"paul c",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
8937 | How to roast chestnuts on an open fire?
I have never managed to successfully roast chestnuts on an open fire. I tend to end up with charred chestnuts, which are inedible.
Is there a good technique for this?
You can also refer to http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5590/is-there-a-good-technique-for-cooking-chestnuts for more chestnut cooking techniques.
It's good to soak them in water for a couple hours before actually roasting.
In Spain, the traditional way is using something like this:
Or a pan with holes. The big day to do it is called Magosto and it's celebrated on 11/11, but it varies from town to town. It's one of the closest things to a barbecue, you first roast chorizos, then you roast chestnuts.
If you don't have access to those tools, your best option is to put them close to the fire. Make a small cut in almost each chestnut (to release moisture). The ones without the cut will pop and tell you when they start to be done. Start checking for doneness at that point.
Maybe you already knew about the cut, but I know some people don't roast at home because they don't know it can be done in a regular oven if the cuts are in place to avoid the chestnuts popping wildly.
we typically do X shaped cuts, I have heard soaking them in water makes them easier to cut. I have cooked them in the oven, my family had a "chestnut roaster" pan for the fire, but never actually used it.
As was suggested in one of the comments by 'It Grunt', you can soak them in water for a few hours before the roast.
Place a metal plate or barbecue grid above the fire (preferably charcoal fire - without too much flames especially if you use a grid.) And warm it up.
While it is being warmed, make a puncture or a incision on every chestnut before placing it on the fire, or else you will get crackers.
People do it in two ways mainly:
or
I prefer the first one (one slice down the middle), as it is less work and for some reason I think it is easier to peel off afterwords.
Place them on the metal plate or grid for 20-40 mins occasionally turning them and moving them around (if the fire is not the same everywhere). Depending on the fire and the temperature the time might vary alot... but when they are done they will look like this:
Btw, this kind of surface (as in the picture above) works best. But they could be done even on a metal plate without holes. (With holes is preferable as they actually get 'touched' by the fire... which enhances the taste.)
Then simply peel them off (both outer and inner layer) and enjoy.
Similar preparation could be used for conventional cooker roasting. But everything on fire always tasted better!
Some might call this cheating, but I've found that boiling chestnuts tends to make them easier to eat. Roasting them can sometimes dry them out. I also find they keep their natural sugars intact better so they taste sweeter!
That is interesting. I tried them both ways but seem to like the taste of the roasted ones better. I guess it is a matter of taste, or maybe I didn't boil them properly.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.866020 | 2010-11-08T08:25:59 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8937",
"authors": [
"Cavity Wall Insulation LTD",
"G.Rassovsky",
"It Grunt",
"M1919",
"Manako",
"Martha F.",
"Michael Nielsen",
"Slothman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18265",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29546"
],
"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
} |
15531 | What are the differences between types of soy sauce?
I recently started using Tamari over whatever the standard US form of soy sauce is. The difference was something of a revelation. The depth and complexity of flavor is an order of magnitude more interesting than what I had been throwing around in the kitchen. Marinating some shrimp in it for 20 minutes was incredible. I'm wondering if there's more that I'm missing.
Wikipedia has a load of info on Soy Sauce varieties, but it doesn't really answer the question of what they taste like or if there are certain uses they lend themselves to.
I have 8+ types of vinegar in my kitchen. Is soy sauce a similar exploration? What are the common types of soy sauce? What is the difference in flavor profile? Is the usage different? Have I discovered a new kitchen addiction to drive my wife nuts?
I don't know enough to answer this one, but I will say that Dark soy sauce is sweeter and (I think) has a more complex flavor than light. Also, Pearl River Bridge Superior Dark soy sauce is really something wonderful.
I also don't know enough to answer. However, mushroom soy sauces are usually darker, and a lot heavier (earthier) in taste than say a Japanese soy sauce. Also, if you don't already have some Kecap Manis (Indonesian sweet soy) in your pantry you are missing out. It is a thing of beauty! But prepare yourself for addiction :) That stuff goes with everything.
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12748/whats-the-difference-between-tamari-and-soy-sauce
Bountying this because it's a really good question and deserves an equally good answer, andI'm dang curious too. If nobody can do better, it'll be time to hit the web and books and put a few hours into a response.
Thanks, @BobMcGee, I was going to do the same, but you beat me to it.
I was brought a "gluten free" soy sauce by the guy at PF Chang's the other night, I didn't even know that regular soy sauce had gluten in it.
This is a complex question, because there are several different ways to categorize soy sauces:
COUNTRY OF ORIGIN (Chinese and Japanese are the ones most commonly contrasted --but as you saw in Wikipedia, there are many more),
COLOR (light, dark, white),
VISCOSITY (thin, thick, jam), and
MANUFACTURING PROCESS (This has the most name variation, but there are just two options: fermented or chemical. Fermented is the "real thing" and also is called naturally brewed, or slow-aged. Chemical is the quick and, as usual, inferior-tasting alternative that abbreviates a months-long process into several short, chemically-laden days. Additional names for this unfortunate approach are non-brewed, non-fermented, and artificial. To avoid this type, study the label and avoid anything containing those non-savory corrective ingredients like corn syrup and caramel coloring.)
To muddy the waters further, add into the mix the fact that flavor is most deeply influenced by the proportion of soybeans to grains -- yet this crucial factor is not typically used directly as a categorization tool.
To focus my research, I tried to find a site that felt as though the writer was speaking directly to you: one that would encourage, and not overwhelm or confuse, as you decide whether to become a soy sauce affectionado. Specifically, I wanted a resource that clearly addressed FLAVOR PROFILE and USAGE. Surprisingly, a blogger named Barbara came to rest as my #1 recommendation: Tigers and Strawberries. I like the simplicity and clarity of her writing style, as well as her experiential platform (complete with honest explanation of her biases). The endless comments after her post provide additional insights that might be helpful, as well.
Of course, Harold McGee always provides wonderful more scientifically-based, yet still somehow understandable, explanations. He takes 5 full pages (496-500) in his book On Food and Cooking to discuss soy sauce in all its layered glory.
I'd add 'ingredients' ... soy sauce always contains wheat, while tamari might not. Kecap manis has lots of sugar in it (which helps with the thickness) and spices. Etc.
I like this answer because it provides some information, and lists a lot of sources, but is there any way it could incorporate some of the Tigers and Strawberries info on the different kinds? I still feel like the question needs some information about the specific kinds, not just the traits they can possess.
Let me share what I know about Japanese shoyu (Japanese soy sauces), from the viewpoint of someone who grew up in Hawaii (where we put it on everything) and is now living in Japan (where shoyu is on the same level as wines and whiskey)...
Koi-kuchi Shoyu (Rich-flavor):
This is the most commonly used shoyu in Japan, accounting for about 82% of all shoyu consumed. It imparts a deep body, a smooth sweetness, a light acidity, and of course, saltiness. Koi-kuchi shoyu is used in both cooking and as a table condiment. Japanese people will use Koi-kuchi shoyu in practically any recipe, and on any food.
Usu-kuchi Shoyu (Light-flavor):
Usu-kuchi shoyu originates from the Kansai region of Japan (south of Tokyo), and boasts a lighter color and more delicate flavor that is representative of the Kansai cuisine. About 15% of all shoyu consumed in Japan is this type. Usu-kuchi uses about 10% less salt than Koi-kuchi, due to its unique methods of fermentation and aging. As this is more subtle than Koi-kuchi, Usu-kuchi is used in dishes where you want the color and flavor of the main ingredients to shine through.
Tamari Shoyu (Puddle):
Primarily brewed in the Chubu region in the southwest of the Honshu island, Tamari shoyu is more viscous, with a deeper flavor and a distinctive aroma. Traditionally, this is used when enjoying sushi and sashimi (raw fish). Since this imparts a lovely reddish hue when exposed to heat, this is often used in stews and glazes.
Saishikomi Shoyu (Twice-processed):
Saishikomi is brewed in the San'in region of Japan, from the southern tip of Honshu in the Yamaguchi Prefecture and extending further south to the island of Kyushu. While the other shoyu types use a salt-water solution on rice malt, Saishikomi shoyu has an extra processing step that uses shoyu itself, hence the naming. Saishikomi shoyu has a lighter color, aroma and subtly sweet flavor, and is also known as "Kanro" (honeydew) shoyu. This is used more as a table condiment on sushi, sashimi, and cold tofu dishes, and is not really used in cooking per se.
Shiro Shoyu (White):
Hailing from the Hekinan region of Aichi prefecture in the center of the Honshu island, Shiro shoyu is even lighter than Usu-kuchi, with a very pale amber color. While definitely not strong in saltiness, it does impart a sweetness and distinctive aroma. This is used in cooking where the color of the ingredients might be comparatively pale and you wish to preserve or enhance that characteristic. The same applies for preserving the aroma or fragrance of the original ingredients. Hence, Shiro shoyu is used in dishes such as savory boiled custards and clear broths, as well as glaze on rice crackers or in pickling.
From the Soysauce Information Center (Japanese web site)
Beyond the 5 main types above, there are further variations that are brewed with konbu kelp and dried bonito, or mixed with ponzu vinegar. There are also reduced salt shoyu types, too.
And if you really want to take it up a notch, you can even try to blend some of the shoyu types to come up with your own variations.
Personally, I tend to be very conservative and use:
Koi-kuchi for nearly everything, including on my sunny-side up eggs in the morning
Usu-kuchi for soba or udon sauces
Ponzu-shoyu for dipping sauce when enjoying hot pot dishes
Konbu-shoyu if I am making any stewed seafood dishes
I think the wikipedia is pretty clear on the difference of the soy sauce, but I will give you little hints about Chinese and Japanese soy sauce. I am a Chinese.
I think you can categorize the soy sauce from the 2 countries by their eating habits.
Usually Chinese eats saltier cuisine, so their soy sauce is usually saltier, for example: frying, deep-frying, roast. The most common one is fresh soy sauce (生抽), which is saltier. And there are premium version for fresh soy sauce, for example, tóuchōu (simplified Chinese: 头抽; traditional Chinese: 頭抽) which claims to be richer in taste. Actually I think they are very similar in taste because the salty favour dominates your taste buds. Another kind of commonly used soy sauce is old soy sauce (老抽), which is less salty, sweeter in taste. Usually we use old soy sauce to give dark colour to cuisine so that it looks better. A Chinese old enough to cook will use these 2 kinds of soy sauce to combine the salty and sweet favour, of course, with the help of other things such as sugar.
As for Japanese soy sauce, I am not so sure about differences between all kinds of soy sauce. As far as I know, and from the Japanese cuisine I've eaten, the soy sauce they use is usually sweeter in taste. (of course not as sweet as candy) You can figure out the reason behind their sweeter soy sauce from their eating habits. Japan is surrounded by the sea which is a very good source of fish, shrimp and other seafood which is sweeter and fresher in taste than pork/beef. Japanese consume the most salmon in the world. In order to have a better taste of the seafood, some of their soy sauce may also contain fish and Kombu for sweeter and fresher taste. Yes, Japanese soy sauce is good with seafood.
By the way, tamari is a by-product of the fermentation of miso, which is an everyday cuisine for typical Japanese. The ingredient may vary in different manufacturers. You might want to check the label of your soy sauce for them. I think this conclude the rich in taste.
I've spent the last 5 years living in China. There is a huge variety of soy sauces available here. Each has it's own particular use. Some go well with fish or shrimp while others match up with dumplings. Since I don't read Chinese very well, I usually match up the pictures on the bottle with what I wont to cook.
For dumplings I use a delicate soy sauce with a light flavour. This I usually mix with a dark coloured rice vinegar and some crushed fresh garlic.
When doing fried rice, I use the Maggi brand sauce. It has a strong, rich flavour.
With Japanese food such as sushi and salmon I use a Japanese brand. As the above poster noted, Japanese soy sauce tends to be sweeter. These can also be nice with fried dumpings. For sashimi fish and sushi, I mix the soy sauce with a little wasabi - a very hot kind of horseradish from Japan.
Extra: Just went to the super market and grabbed a shot of the soy sauce isle which will give you a hint as to the variety available here.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.866339 | 2011-06-16T15:57:30 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15531",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Brian Knoblauch",
"Bruce Fanning",
"Bryson",
"Carrie B",
"Chandler",
"Darita",
"Ember",
"Jessica Gale",
"Joe",
"KimbaF",
"Maria A",
"Steven J Owens",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32911",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33003",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33603",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33702",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
15678 | How can I keep my blueberry pie firm without the flavor of corn starch?
In the summer, I often make a refrigerated blueberry pie. The recipe calls for a graham cracker crust, and you make the filling by cooking one pint of blueberries with one cup of sugar and 3 tablespoons on cornstarch on the stove until the mixture becomes thick. It's then poured into the crust, and topped with another pint of fresh blueberries, and chilled until it's firm.
The flavor of the blueberries is delicious, but I always find that there's a pronounced corn starch flavor that detracts from the simplicity of the pie. How could I change the recipe or the technique to decrease that flavor while maintaining the firmness of the filling?
I'll try one or more of these suggestions next time I make the pie, and I'll let y'all know what works. Until then, I'm not going to accept an answer, since we don't yet have instructions for a good solution.
you could try some other thickeners, like xanthan gum, tapioca starch, arrowroot, or the like. not certain of the proportions, though, but i'm betting google knows.
The standard resource for these proportions would be http://blog.khymos.org/recipe-collection/. For example, the chapter on guar gum says it has almost 8 times the thickening power of corn starch (but I think using 3/8 of a tablespoon might bring the weight ratio of guar gum to total mass over 0.5%, which they don't recommend, so it's just an example).
Pectin (used for jelly & jam making) is another good one to try.
Other than the thickeners mentioned above, sometimes I prefer the taste of cooked flour or oats to corn starch. Oats will leave everything moderately translucent if you use whole uncooked oats or will cloud the pie like flour (but solidify more) if you use quick oats.
Another touchy option that won't effect flavor: pectin. Pectin is naturally contained in blueberries, strawberries, etc. You could add some pectin for jam-making or you could precook a bunch of berries and slowly reduce them way down before adding them to more fresh berries (for texture) and baking your pie. I have done this for moderately firm jam-like sauces so it might work for pies as well. Experiment without shells so as not to waste your time. At worst you'll have a delicious ice cream topping.
I like the pectin idea.
I would try agar. Agar is tasteless and easy to use and as far as I know it does not contain starch. It also keeps the filling clear.
You could also try other starchy things as sago which does not have much flavor at all.
Maybe this is why blueberry pie recipes usually call for lemon juice and lemon zest? To cut the cornstarch flavor? The lemon also compliments the blueberries, but I wonder if there are any other flavorings that would have the same effect.
Use arrowroot instead. Corn starch is usually GMO.
Whether or not it's GMO will depend on what cornstarch you're using and where in the world you are. And many people don't care whether their food is GMO or not, anyway.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.867316 | 2011-06-21T19:00:47 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15678",
"authors": [
"David Richerby",
"Erik P.",
"Martha F.",
"Sobachatina",
"Tyler",
"chopper draw lion4",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33329",
"user33237",
"user33238",
"user33329"
],
"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
} |
10536 | Do onion savers differ from other storage methods?
Santa got me an onion saver this year. It's essentially just a plastic container for a cut onion. Does this differ in any meaningful way from a plastic bag or Tupperware container? It seems a little unnecessary...
Santa also got one for me. It went straight in the trash, along with my new "perfect brownie pan" and several other as-seen-on-TV pieces of junk...
It's the exact same as a Tupperware, and totally unnecessary... Unless you need the visual key of an onion shaped tupperware to remind you that onion is inside.
I'll agree it's unnecessary in general, but if you don't use hard clear containers, and only have tupperware and the like, it's useful so you don't use other containers and impart onion flavors on the next thing to go in it. (and, if you have one obvious container that's for onion, when it's not in the cupboard or dishrack/dishwasher, it's a good sign that there's some already cut onion to use that might be hidden in the back of the fridge)
@Joe: So essentially you're saying it's useful as an organizational tool. Not that I disagree, but wouldn't a piece of masking tape and some magic marker accomplish the same task?
@Aaronut no, because then you'd have a container that actually stacks well, as opposed to the half-sphere 'onion savers' you typically see in the store (that don't even fit larger sized onions)
@Joe: Just an observation--we use any old reusable container for half-onions, sometimes it's a hard container, sometimes it's worn, scored-up old Tupperware, and in no cases have we had a problem with the onion flavor/smell carrying over to the next thing we put in the container. I suppose there might be some risk if you were to follow an onion with leftover creme caramel or something, but for most cases I think the risk of flavor contamination is minimal at most.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.867624 | 2010-12-27T17:12:11 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10536",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Beth",
"Bob",
"Joe",
"Leon van der Walt",
"bikeboy389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21605",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21606",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21609",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"user21605"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
4770 | What is the chemical process behind the way you cook a risotto?
Cooking risotto seems to differ from regular rice in two important ways:
you stir the risotto regularly
you only introduce liquid a little bit at a time
What is the effect of these two steps chemically on the rice that yields such a different product than just throwing it in boiling water and covering?
"differ from regular rice" - well, it's also a starchier rice.
Just a note - risotto is a technique not a type of rice, you could risotto long grain rice if you wanted to, it just wouldn't be as creamy as short grains.
I always thought, and one of my molecular cooking books indicates that, smaller batches kept the heat higher (less temperature shock), and the scraping released starch. The article Key success factor for tasty and creamy risotto on ideas-smart.com indicates something slightly different:
Note that the instructions normally
suggest that each batch of the stock
needs to be absorbed by rice. In
reality, something else is happening.
Most of the water actually evaporates.
The remaining “mash” gets warmer than
boiling point. This speeds up the
chemical processes, which create the
intense taste of the risotto. These
chemical processes are essentially the
same as when browning meat.
Other reason for pouring the stock in
small batches and stirring constantly
is to let loose starch from the rice
kernels. Starch makes the mixture
creamy. So the tedious process of
adding stock in small batches and
stirring constantly is the key to
having tasty and creamy risotto. Only
the reason for doing this, which most
recipes give, is often misleading.
This matches personal experience and some (other) of my cook books.
Most recipes do say to keep the stock heated, so keeping the temperature right would seem to be important - unless it's like the pasta water thing, where common knowledge is a bit misguided.
Agreed. Keep the liquid hot. You don't want the temp to drop every time you add it.
Amplifying that answer, I think the main thing is simply friction. If you dump the rice in all the stock at once, the grains don't rub up against each other and release starch. You want a thick mass that when stirred creates friction and loosens the surface starch of each grain to produce the creamy texture.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.867835 | 2010-08-10T13:26:25 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4770",
"authors": [
"CampSoup1988",
"Cascabel",
"Derrick",
"DitherSky",
"HappyCodeMonkey",
"Mononess",
"Rake36",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9153",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9154",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9155",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9165",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9207",
"huzemin",
"kotekzot",
"sarge_smith"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
13424 | Effect of pineapple
I was considering slow-cooking pork with pineapple, but was concerned on the effect the pineapple might have on the texture of the meat. I understand that both bromelain and acid can deteriorate the texture of meat. Is the concern legit in this case?
The pineapple could probably go in quite late to a slow cook, it would not need anywhere near the same duration as the pork. That should reduce any effect.
Bromelain, at least, won't be a problem, for two reasons. First, although bromelain exists in all parts of the plant, the enzyme exists in larger quantities in the stem. This, plus the fact that the stems are left over after harvest, are why the enzyme is typically extracted from the stem for meat tenderizers.
Second, bromelain is heat labile, which means that heat will denature (deform) the protein and reduce or eliminate is enzymatic activity. Slow cooking should take care of that.
So that leaves the acids. Acids, in general, also denature the proteins of the meat, which is why they are frequently used in marinades, though some contend how useful they are in that respect. Pineapple pH is 3.3-5.2, which isn't too bad. For comparison, lemons are pH 2.2-2.4, and since that's a logarithmic scale, it means that lemon juice is at least ten times as acidic. Since you're also slow-cooking, all things considered, I don't think it is going to have much effect.
I'm not sure if it adds much to your answer, since I only have an appeal to authority to back it up (not experience), but here goes. These guys claim that if you use pineapple in a marinade it may turn the meat into mush. Since marinading happens at low temperatures, this is consistent with your claim that bromelain denatures under heat. (This is corroborated by this wikipedia page which claims that cooked or canned pineapple does not tenderize meat.)
Thanks for the great info. I ended up using canned pineapple so the enzyme was already de-activated.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.868092 | 2011-03-24T22:03:18 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13424",
"authors": [
"Erik P.",
"Orbling",
"Ray",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
13483 | Why isn't my homemade pepperoni orange?
I bought a large pork shoulder, broke it down into manageable pieces (it's just myself and my wife), and with one piece I decided to make pepperoni. I followed what seemed to be a pretty standard recipe:
Grind
Add spices (fennel, red pepper, garlic) and tender quick
Dry in fridge
Slow-roast to 160°F
If I close my eyes, it tastes like pepperoni, but it looks nothing like it. Much more red--almost purplish red, but by no means the greasy orange slice I'd expect on a pizza. I guess it could do fine in a stromboli, but I'd like to know what I did wrong, or what I'd need to do to get what I was looking for.
From Wikipedia:
Sodium nitrite, used as a curing agent, is what gives pepperoni the pink part of its distinct orange-pink color, while paprika or other capsicum provides the orange part.
It cites a food science blog article as the source.
Yes, it's added to help kill bacteria during the curing process. It's the same stuff that makes pastrami red.
Fair enough, however, as noted, I did use tender quick (you might be aware that this contains sodium nitrite). The cure did cause the meat to turn red, just not the orange color I was expecting.
@Ray: Well, before I posted that article, my first thought was "Paprika?" - which you'll note from what was written causes the orange colour.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.868294 | 2011-03-27T02:33:35 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13483",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"Orbling",
"Ray",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
13831 | Corned Beef vs Pastrami
My impression has been that pastrami and corned beef have a cure in common, but corned beef is simmered whereas pastrami is spice-crusted and smoked.
This seems reasonable, but recently I've been hearing of both foodstuffs cooked entirely sous vide.
Without the cooking method distinction, the only remaining difference is that pastrami now has the crust and liquid smoke. Is liquid smoke sufficient to move into the realm of pastrami? Or is this just pastrami-flavored corned beef?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.868427 | 2011-04-07T11:18:42 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13831",
"authors": [
"Eric",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28980"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
11934 | Should beef jerky be cut with or across the grain?
Recipes seem to be split down the middle of whether or not meat to make jerky should be cut with the grain or across it. What is the difference in the final product when cutting with vs across the grain?
For me it very much depends on what meat I am making jerky out of.
With the grain is much more solid than against. Just as you might expect.
If you are using relatively tender meat then cutting across the grain will result in a batch of jerky crumbs. Cutting with the grain will be good.
If you are using very tough meat then cutting with the grain will be absolutely impossible to chew.
I often make jerky out of brisket which is very tough. I compromise and cut at a 45deg angle. This results in very tough, jerky but it separates into smaller, more manageable chunks when it is chewed.
I do it both ways in a single batch. If you cut across the grain you end up with a more crumbly product. It's easier to bite off say a quarter of a stick of it and chew it. If you cut with the grain, it's chewier. It may be harder to bite a piece off neatly. It tends to take longer to eat it, which for me is a feature, not a bug. (When canoeing, I like to put a piece of jerky in my mouth, half sticking out, and as I work through it, it all gets eaten. The crumbly pieces sometimes break and half ends up at the bottom of the canoe, which is a shame.)
Rather than get all worked up about it, cut roughly half each way, according to the shape of the meat etc. Then people can choose a piece that they like. (For the same reason, I cut pieces of varying lengths, too. Even the thickness of each piece doesn't have to be identical - thinner pieces will be more brittle when you're done.)
After you've done your first batch, if you find you strongly prefer one kind to the other, you can do them all the same from now on. The differences are more pronounced in a really grainy cut like flank, btw - the only cut I use for jerky, ever.
Good advice so far but for a new person into jerky making I assure you that no written answer will totally satisfy you. You must learn by trial and error yourself. Written answers are great guidelines and tips but which meat and directional cut is a personal preference. I prefer Top Round Steak myself and I cut it each way (With/Cross/45 Degree). Cross grain is cut the thickest (1/4 - 5/16) and the thinest being with the grain (1/8). Different thickness means different drying times. The thinest might only take 4 hours in dehydrator and thickest might take 10-14 hours. Many factors determine how long it takes. The main thing is be safe by temp and a minimal time for the jerky and after that try anything you want. You will probably be very satisfied with all 3 cuts to some extent. The biggest worry would be cutting too thick which makes the outside like boot leather even when the inside is the right consistency. I hope this helps.
I found the best meat to use is top or bottom round. It is very tender and easy to eat. Always cut this meat cross grain about 1/4” thickness. Dehydrate 4 hours at 165 degrees. You will not be disappointed!!
Always cut your meat for beef jerky across the grain. If you end up with crumbly meat doing it this way, you are simply doing it wrong or using a poor choice of meat. Your meat will always be more tender cutting it across the grain. If you like your jerky to be extremely tough, then go ahead and cut it with the grain.
I have made jerky a lot and I shoot for 1/8" thick with a meat slicer, obviously that would be difficult with a knife and a 1/4" with a knife would probably be OK. I cook mine at 160d for 4-1/2 hours at 1/8" thick cut across the grain and it turns out great every time.
I prefer the eye of round roast and purchase at Costco for around $25-$26 for between 4 and 5 lb roasts. This makes about 1-1/2 pounds of jerky. I was paying a guy $40 per pound for the jerky he was making; although his was good, that is pretty pricey. Just like buying it in the store. So for $17 per pound, I will make my own and it's exactly the way I like it!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.868506 | 2011-02-08T20:40:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11934",
"authors": [
"Anastasia",
"Anne Arndt Boulley",
"Matthew R. Helt",
"Michal",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24583",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24585",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24586",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70526",
"mirinade"
],
"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
} |
4721 | Cause of watermelon rind rotting (at room temperature)
I bought a large seedless watermelon 2 days ago, and I made sure to check for the following:
Yellow underbelly
Hollow sound
Solid rind
When I got home I left on the kitchen table. The room temperature was around 25-27 degrees C. Today, I touched the rind and it felt soft! I cut it open and I saw that the white pith had rotted.
Can anyone explain what the possible cause of this is?
(I've left watermelon out on the dining table for days at room temperature before, and nothing like this has ever happened. I should also mention that:
The watermelon was whole and unblemished.
There were no fruits around it and it wasn't in a bag, so the ethylene explanation is out.
How thick was the rind?
Without forensics it's hard to tell exactly what happened.
However, one possible explanation is sunlight. If the watermelon was in the sun at all, even just a little part of it, that tends to accelerate the growth of all sorts of things.
Another possibility is that it was just past its date. There isn't really a way to tell if this is near or not without chemical analysis.
In watermelon country (I live near an ancient greek watermelon port) watermelon is generally refrigerated. This is partially because we find it tastier when it's cold, and partially because room temperature easily goes above 30, and even above 34-5 on certain days.
As Carmi said, it may have been older when you got it.
Also, the variety of watermelon matters. Some watermelons will keep for about three or four months, or more (unrefrigerated). These are sometimes known as winter watermelons. Varieties include such as Red-seeded Citron (not really like you'd expect a watermelon to be, per se), Navajo Winter, Santo Domingo Winter, King Winter and Wintermelon, among others.
Some watermelons need to be used as soon as they're ripe, practically.
The kinds you find in a regular grocery store are usually considered shipping melons (they have tough rinds). These normally keep longer than those with thin or fragile rinds.
Some possible reasons that a shipping melon would go bad fast include these:
It may have been diseased.
It may have been deficient in calcium, silica, potassium or other stuff.
It may have been exposed to something before or after you got it (including fungus).
It may have had perforations that were difficult to detect.
If the fruit was unwashed, it may have had surface fungi on the rind that made it spoil faster. For at least one watermelon variety (Wintermelon), you're encouraged to wipe it down before storage. I don't know if that applies to all watermelons.
The rind may have been unnaturally thin on that specific fruit (atypical for its variety).
I've had watermelons I've bought from the store before (for 9 cents a pound—just thought I'd throw that in there) keep for several weeks unattended, under a table (in a college apartment). I'm guessing they were just fresh, healthy watermelons. It's not always easy to tell how long they'll last by looking at them, or feeling them.
If you can find the variety of the watermelon and where it was grown (Sangria might be a good guess), you might be able to find out more information about its susceptibilities.
Anyway, even though some melons can last a long time unrefrigerated, most of them probably last longer in the refrigerator, as Carmi said (particularly if they wouldn't last long outside of it; I'm not sure how winter watermelons do in the refrigerator by comparison).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.868866 | 2010-08-10T01:49:33 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4721",
"authors": [
"Anthony S",
"Brōtsyorfuzthrāx",
"Hieronymous Coward",
"Inca Dunphy",
"Jason Williams",
"Nicholas J. Arnold",
"Rasmi Ranjan Nayak",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148620",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148621",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9043",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9044",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9065"
],
"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
} |
7707 | How long should I keep a cut onion?
Since I only cook for one or two, I will tend to buy an onion and only use part of it, and then keep the rest in the fridge. Sometimes it will be a while before I use the rest. Is there any guidance on when I should finally just throw it out? What are the signs to look for? What degradations should I expect to trade off against constantly throwing out half an onion (decreased flavor, increased bitterness)?
When I use fresh onions, we store the unused parts for up to a week in our fridge in either a ziploc or a sealable rubbermaid-style container. For particularly pungent onions they go in the crisper drawer to keep the smell from being too strong in the rest of the fridge, but usually they're just on one of the shelves. Stilltasty says 2-3 days but my personal experience says otherwise.
Generally in our house, they don't last long enough for the flavor to degrade too much, but they will get a little dried and the smell will get stronger over time. After a week, they shouldn't be bad in the sense that you'll get sick - but you'll want to use them in a meal where the onion is the star, as the aroma will take over the dish.
Another option that I'm a big fan of is to dice or strip the leftovers (or, a 5 lb bag at once!) and freeze them on a cookie sheet (instead of in a bag, where they'll turn into a giant clump). Once fully frozen, dump them into a plastic freezer bag, and store in the freezer for easy access to a handful at a time. For most applications, you can defrost them right in the pan/pot/casserole as you cook, so they're very handy and accessible. We do the same with peppers in our house for convenience.
+1 for alt suggestion: do you notice any kind of over heating of the onions due to the freezer-sautee pan? I.E. if I wanted to carmelize them, would I run into a difficulty due to them transitioning from cold to hot so quickly?
@mfg - so far so good with the freezer-to-pan transition. the only difference so far is a slight texture difference (a little less crispy) if i'm sauteeing them fast for something like a stir fry. sometimes to be safe i add them to a cold pan with the oil and let it all heat up together, but i've gone from freezer to a hot oiled pan with no problem as well. for caramelizing low and slow, they seem to do great, and even get softer a little faster!
Freezing would actually be helpful for caramelizing onions. Part of the work that needs to be done is to collapse the cell walls; the freezer will have done that for you.
I've had good luck with sealed glass containers ... including when storing sliced or diced onions. I find that plastic containers can start to pick up the onion smell if you leave onion in there for too long.
I've kept a halved, but otherwise in one piece, onion for over a week. If it dries out a little, you can always just take a slice off the cut side.
Cut up onion can keep for about a week, but it helps to have used a sharp knife -- a dull knive damages more cells and it'll start to break down faster. (and if it's sharp enough, you can slice it up, but keep the shape, so there's no extra exposed cut surface to lose moisture from). The more damage you do to the cells, the stronger the 'oniony' smells will get.
My judge on if it's still okay to use is to look at it -- if it's gone translucent, smells funny or looks funny (including dried out), I pitch it.
Great advice on the sharp knife, I've noticed that's made a significant difference in how long it lasts without stinking up the fridge. I'd +2 if I could, as the glass container advice is spot on - I used a plastic container once, and had to make that the "onion container" until the end of its life. My only addition to that: If your glass container has a plastic lid, consider lining it with foil or plastic wrap before sealing so the lid doesn't pick up the smell. I learned that the hard way storing garlic; my one blue Pyrex lid still smells like garlic 3 months later.
@stephen : I haven't had a problem with the pyrex lids and onion, but I also tend to buy mild onions (red, sweet, etc.) unless they're for a specific purpose, and when I'm storing a 1/2 onion, store it cut-side down (against the glass).
Another thing to note is that the less cut it is, the longer it will stay fresh. A half onion with the root-end still attached will stay fresher than a tupperware full of pre-diced onion.
Another option is to caramelize one or two onions in a frying pan, and then freeze the pre-cooked onions in smaller portions. (I tend not to like cooking with frozen onions, since the extra water will steam the onions rather than allow them to cook at the higher temperature you could achieve without the extra water.
I just wrap it up in foil. It will start to smell when it's going bad. You're not supposed to save onions, since they are so cheap. You can also buy already diced onions at Walmart. I believe they stay good for at least two weeks.
Cut onion can be stored 7-10 days in a sealed container in the refrigerator. I've not experimented specifically with glass or plastic, but I can understand how glass would be better. I'll have to give that a try. Sharp knives are key, that was a spot on tip!
With regard to the comment about cut onion absorbing bacteria, that is false. Anyone interested in more on that can click here: http://onions-usa.org/faqs/onion-flu-cut-myths
A couple of years ago I found a container designed to store cut onions. It looks like a plastic bowl with a rubber and metal lid. The smell is kept inside the container and the onion lasts several weeks.
I don't know how it works, but it most certainly does! Before I had it, I would wrap an onion in plastic and it wouldn't last quite a week.
I tend to put them in a sealed container with just a small splash of vinegar or lemon juice.... Seems to help them to not dry out.. :-)
http://onions-usa.org/all-about-onions/how-to-select-cut-prepare-store-onions
straight from those who know what we are crying about..
Summarizing the information would add value.
I like to store them in a bottle, they will last at least a week.
In a bottle alone? With some sort of liquid? What kind of bottle? In the fridge or on the counter?
I also used to save unused onions for another day, until I read that a cut onion should not be reused in cooking as the peeled surface drinks up all the toxins and bacteria out of the atmosphere and into the onion.
One remedy for flu symptoms is to place a cut onion on the bedside table before sleeping. In the morning the onion will be black in colour having drawn up all the bacteria etc in the room. And the flu symptoms will have disappeared.
I would rather chuck out a half-used onion (after leaving on the kitchen surface overnight) knowing it had worked as a kind of disinfectant.
"the peeled surface drinks up all the toxins and bacteria out of the atmosphere and into the onion" is the most ridiculous superstition I have heard of lately.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.869326 | 2010-09-30T12:30:37 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7707",
"authors": [
"Ageis",
"Craftylady",
"Joe",
"Kel",
"Laura",
"Lawrence Salemme",
"Ray",
"Rick",
"Robbie Goodwin",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Thoth",
"heathenJesus",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55380",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9344",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93719",
"mfg",
"rumtscho",
"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
} |
15317 | Effect of rice cooking techniques
I rarely ate rice growing up, and only recently started cooking it. I started with basmati, and seemed to do alright with that, but my wife (who used to live in Korea) said she preferred rice to clump together, as opposed to the perfect individual grains of a nicely cooked basmati.
Well, as embarrassed as I am to say so, I've been struggling with this two-ingredient dish. I've tried using short-grain rice, which helped somewhat, but using my basmati technique on it is not yielding the desired result.
After doing some research, I've found a slew of conflicting advice, on nearly every point, including:
Wash / don't wash
Soak / don't soak
Use less / more water
Boil hard / steam on lowest setting
What I would love to know is, what do each of these factors really do?
FYI, I wash the (long grain or basmati) rice about 5 or 6 times, soak it for 20 minutes, use enough water for it to come up about 7-8mm above the surface of the rice, boil it hard with the lid off until the water has boiled away from the surface, then turn the heat off and put a tight lid (with foil) on it for at least 15 minutes - clumpy rice every time.
Maybe you can add 'Salt/no salt' and 'Rince/don't rince' to your list.
I like calrose rice. It's a medium grain rice that's cheap, tasty, and relatively easy to find where I live. I dump it in the rice cooker without rinsing or soaking. I add water per the instructions on the rice package. Then I turn it on and wait until it says it's done. Perfect sticky rice every time!
Rice is mostly made of starch. Starch is, in itself, a molecule made up of glucose components attached to each other. There are two types of starch: Amylose - it is a long straight chain of glucose - and amylopectin, which has a branchy and fuzzy structure. When you cook a rice which is rich in amylose, the grains stay separate. When you cook rice which is high in amylopectin, its starch molecules catch on each other and cause clumping. So the main factor is indeed the type of rice. While the amylopectin rich varieties in general are short grained and amylose rich ones are long grained, it can be that you accidentally picked a non-sticky short-grained rice.
Washing will cause less sticking. Normally, the starch in rice has to be released from the cells before it can stick. In a bag of rice, there are many cells which are broken mechanically during handling/transport, and their starch is free, clinging to the surface. If you wash it away first, you have less sticky grain so less clumping.
Now for soaking. Starches are packed very close in a grain. For gelation (that's when they cook and swell) you need both enough water and the right temp (70 degr. C). As heating is quicker than water penetration, presoaking makes things quicker. I guess soaking will help stickiness a bit, because there will be more molcules ready to swell in a short time. Plus, some of these will come undone from the grains and start swimming free around. This turns the water itself into a weak glue (so don' discard).
Using less water will help with stickiness. This will result in a bigger concentration of free starches in the water.
A slow simmering should also promote clumping slightly, as the starches will have more time to swell, move around, and hook to new starches.
All arguments above are the theoretical explanation for the direction in which the factors you mention are likely to influence clumping, given that the rice is always the same. In practice, their effect should be much smaller than choosing the correct type of rice. In fact, amylopectin rich rice types aren't soaked as often, because they don't need it - amylose is packed tighter. I don't know about washing habits, but it is cooked with less water, because it needs less. And any rice should be cooked slowly, a hot boil overcooks the outside and leaves the inside hard.
In the end, if your wife wants the rice she is familiar with, you must buy short-grain japonica rice. Else ask for a "sticky" indica, that's better than just eyeballing grain length.
There are a number of things that effect the resulting product when cooking rice. It comes down to two factors. The length of the grain and the way it is prepared. The shorter the grain, the more starch is released. A short grain rice, will tend to clump together as their will be a lot of starch released to the surface and all around it. Longer grains will not release as much starch, so you get individual clean grains.
Brown rice is rice, that hasn't had the bran removed. White, polished rice, is simply the same grain, with the bran taken off. The bran contains lots of nutrients and adds a new level to the flavour, but also significantly slows down the cooking time.
So... regarding some of your discrepancies:
I generally wash my rice. There is usually enough starch in whichever rice I pick for the application. If I want clumpy rice, I use a short grain. If I want individual grains, I go for a long grain.
Soaking is a way to cut down on cooking time, as it can be done before hand. A soaked rice grain, will absorb some of the water, so it will cook faster. This is useful, for brown rice which takes much longer to cook.
Less/more water... I find that usually it's pretty exact. A cooked grain will take the same amount of water to cook. I'm not sure why you'd want extra water other than being unable to measure in the first place... I use what my mom/grandmother taught me. Touch the top of the rice with your pointer finger, add water to the first knuckle. Works every time.
Alton Brown has some really good explanations of different grains and cooking methods in a few Good Eats episodes:
From Season 1, Power to the Pilaf: About half way in he describes all of the different rice characteristics and how it affects cooking.
From Season 8, Do The Rice Thing
ok sorry if i'm being too technical here, but i am curious why it is that the shorter grains release more starch? (i can ask this in the food science section if need be)
cancel that request! just read rumstscho's answer about the glucose chains. makes sense. thanks to you both.
There's a website that says that soaking also helps remove a lot of arsenic. Is that true? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/08/cooking-rice-incorrectly-could-endangering-health/
Get a rice cooker, first of all. Perfect rice every time with no effort. Secondly if you want rice that sticks together well, use nishiki white rice and do 1.5 to 2 parts water to rice in your cooker. Don't use oil. When your cooker flips from "cook" to "warm" let it sit at warm for 30 minutes.
If you want rice that doesn't stick, use 1:1 ratio with a little sesame oil and take it off the heat after the original cook time is up.
No need to wash or soak with either.
To avoid the water issue I just add far more water than required and then use a strainer to get the rice as soon as it's done.
The thing I heard about washing it first is that there can be grains in the rice that don't become soft when cooked and this can give you the feeling of having very very fine sand in the rice. I never had this issue so I don't wash my rice.
Soaking, as talon8 pointed out is only really a thing for brown rice for reducing the time to prepare the rice immensly.
When it comes to water temperature, I boil it so that there are bubbles but not too strong so there is no foan boiling over. The bubbles keep the grains moving and I assume that this reduces the cooking speed slightly.
I think that there aren't any differences when it comes to taste, at least I didn't notice any. Just figure out what works for you :)
The real steam method as follows might work for you:
Wash the rice as usual.
Soak for 30 minutes if desired. (For people preferring a firmer texture, skip this)
Pour in hot water (same amount as the rice, i.e. 1 cup rice to 1 cup of water). Again, adjust to taste. Less water for firmer texture. More for softer.
Put the bowl into a steam pot (the kind that you use to steam dim-sum, or just a larger regular pot with enough water and a small rack at the bottom to hold up the bowl). Steam for 40 minutes.
I wash my rice Everytime. This allows me to more likely get rid of any foreign particles. When rice is washed you can see the some of the starch washing away. I usually wash mine 3 times. The more water in the pot, the less stickier it Cooks. If there is too much water then it turns into rice porridge.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.869939 | 2011-06-08T11:29:41 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15317",
"authors": [
"DEANNE",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Kati",
"Mien",
"Nav",
"Tania Kelly",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96446",
"mrog"
],
"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
} |
23808 | Are strawberries really dyed?
I stopped by a farm stand last weekend, and found the strawberries were rather pale looking. I commented on this, and the farmer assured me that this was no worry, and that furthermore I should be wary of bright red strawberries. His claim was that bright red strawberries at the supermarket are in fact dyed that color.
Is it common practice to dye berries? Is it even legal? Is this something one would normally expect to find at a grocery store, or is a technique used elsewhere (say, commercially, or in restaurants?) Or is this guy just trying to convince me to buy his product?
I don't know if they are dyed or not, but I can assure you that it is perfectly possible to grow strawberries the same color as in the supermarket. My grandparents grew different sorts of strawberries and each of them had its own color, many of them bright red.
Indeed, I've grown bright red strawberries as well... but then I'm not industrial berry grower. I think the claim was not that all red berries are dyed, but rather that you can't assume that red berries are naturally so. My apologies if I was unclear or misrepresented his assertions.
This sounds like a question for Skeptics to investigate.
I suppose it could be posted there as well but it's not exactly off topic for SA
I am aware that the question still stands, this is why I posted it as a comment and not as an answer. I wanted to point out that if the farmer told you "It is impossible to grow such bright berries, they are all dyed", he was a liar for sure. If not, it remains to find out if there really is evidence for the industry dyeing pale berries.
No, it's not off-topic here... but depending on the type of answer you seek, you might get a more thorough answer at Skeptics. Although you're less likely to win a cookbook there :)
Oh, I'm not so concerned about a prize.. just looking to participate in the group effort with the community here :)
@Flimzy: Skeptics.SE is for discussing notable claims. A question citing something heard from a friend (or farmer) that's not mentioned in any literature or popular media would almost certainly be closed there.
@Aaronut: Claims from professionals in an appropriate field are often considered notable enough. But this is getting really off-topic for SA :)
@Flimzy, a farmer is not a professional in the realm of food service or supermarket operations. It's not a notable claim.
Strawberries turn a natural red color in their ripening process. This is usually a very strong, ruby-red color. Rest assured, strawberries in the US are not dyed. FDA clearly lists all adulteration done to fruits (oranges can be dyed), but strawberries only has a regulation of when the product is considered moldy, etc. Note that even though dyed strawberries may not be sold in US, they may be exported in countries that permit it ( fruit intended for export is exempt).
Rest of the world is a different story. It wouldn't be uncommon for you to find strawberries that are picked too early in the process, or are just grown in poor conditions that are dyed red to give it the luscious red appearance. There have been anecdotal reports of this in China - this color comes right off when washed, showing a white strawberry. Strawberries do leech a red fluid when washed, but that shouldn't result in a white strawberry.
I wonder why strawberries from California are so tasteless. Perhaps lack of alteration?
You obviously haven't had good strawberries from California :) There are many different varieties. For example, I find the Ontario variety to be extra-juicy (its literally dripping) and extra-sweet. They are also much much smaller than other varieties!
Strawberries are notoriously perishable. Around here, the ones from CA must be a variety tough enough to survive a multi-day trip over the mountains. Shipability and flavor are negatively related for many fruits abd veggies.
I just purchased some bright red strawberries from an indigenous seller in southern Mexico. After buying the strawberries I became suspicious of their bright colour and the red moisture. They are really ruby red and almost 'unreal' looking - perhaps too perfect.
I washed the strawberries, and the colour did not change. Upon eating the berries they are bright red throughout, and soft and sweet. I believe they are natural and actually surprisingly the best strawberries I have ever eaten.
I found a patent titled “Method for dyeing strawberry.” That such patents exist doesn't mean it's legal to apply the techniques they describe in food sold for consumption though. It's easy enough to find out that the FDA has regulations for dyed oranges. But I haven't found any page on their site about regulations for dyes applied to strawberries. I'm going to assume that unless someone can dig up such a page, the FDA hasn't approved any strawberry dyeing practices. So to (tentatively) answer your question, oranges might be dyed with “Citrus Red No. 2”, but strawberries aren't dyed (at least in the US).
I think it's safe to say that most strawberries sold commercially in the US are not dyed, and that this would be an uncommon practice. The label on most boxes just says "strawberries", doesn't it?
I can't comment on the legality of dying fruit to produce a more attractive color.
The lack of dye in an ingredients list does not mean it wasn't dyed. Meat is commonly dyed at super markets (at least according to my supermarket-butcher friend) and majority of fruits are coated in fruit wax, but I can't recall ever seeing either on the packaging.
I have heard that oranges and grapefruits are regularly dyed as well, but I don't have a source for this.
@Wulfhart: do you have non-anecdotal evidence for meat being dyed? Also, I am not sure about the legislation where you live, but in Europe if you put a dye in foodstuff you need by law to write it in the ingredient list (Directive 2003/89/EC).
@nico I can't find non anecdotal evidence for actual dye. There is the chance I misunderstood my friend or it was just his supermarket. On a similiar note, they do use carbon monoxide to keep meat from oxidizing. Not exactly dye, but still changes the color of meat. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/19/AR2006021901101.html
@Wulfhart: interesting, I didn't know about CO
For personal reasons, I have to wash carefully with baking soda fruits and vegetables for more than 10 minutes, in immersion. So, it is a bad experience every time I deal with strawberries: they are dyed for sure, revealing -after my treatment- all the imperfections hidden with a layer of color.
How do you know you're not just removing natural color? They don't really have a protective skin to hold it in.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.870669 | 2012-05-17T15:33:03 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23808",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Blair Azzopardi",
"Cascabel",
"Deborah Henderson",
"Doug",
"Flimzy",
"Gray",
"JanieCircle",
"Ray",
"Raze",
"Swati",
"Taiidan1",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"Wulfhart",
"awayokuba",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147553",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1798",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4343",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54012",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54072",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"nico",
"rumtscho",
"user5561"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
26147 | How can I prevent tea stored in a thermos from oversteeping?
I would like to brew a pot of tea and store in it a thermos to keep it hot overnight so I can drink it before getting out of bed.
I've tried this approach and found that although the tea tasted fine freshly brewed, by morning the tea is extremely astringent, as though it had been boiling with the leaves the whole time.
My assumption is that, although I had made some attempt to strain the tea before adding to the thermos, enough of the tea dust became suspended that it continued brewing, releasing tannins, and turning the drink very dry.
What are some ways I can cut down on this effect? I've thought of brewing loose leaves instead of bags, although I know there will be dust there too. Perhaps I could strain through a more effective means than the tea bags or tea strainer? Or maybe I should cool the tea somewhat before adding to the thermos?
What kind of tea are you brewing? I've had black tea (Earl Grey) in a thermos for up to 6–8 hours and it tasted fine. Was brewed with loose leaves. If you buy good quality tea, you won't have much tea dust. And the small amount there is, is large enough to sink to the bottom very quickly, so if you poor the tea slowly into your thermos, you can discard it.
This isn't really an answer, but if you had an electric kettle bedside, you could brew fresh tea without leaving your bed - press button, wait for ding, pour, go back to sleep, wake up to snooze alarm, grumble about morning, drink tea.
Good tips, @citizen. This was just P.G. Tips in diamond bags, as I was thinking less about the flavor and more about having something hot the instant I wake up. I'm not sure Earl Grey would be what I'd want first thing in the morning, but I have some loose Assam, and English Breakfast, and other teas on hand that I can give it a shot with. Perhaps I should even rinse with cold water first to help expel any excess dust.
If you're just using tea bags, why not just keep the thermos bedside and then toss the tea bag in in the morning? Otherwise, a rinse with water isn't a bad idea anyway: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18486/why-is-there-a-party-in-my-tea
@talon8 Because I was not so clever as to think of that :) It sounds look a good idea to me!
@ray- you sounded like a super hero when you said that. "Good tips, citizen!" http://trollable.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Random-Citizen.jpg
@Sobachatina, "sounded like"? You must not know me
Why don't you use cold-infusion to make your tea and then give it a blast in the microwave in the morning? Or, if you don't have a microwave, heat the cold-infused and strained tea in the evening before you put it into the thermos?
I'm really hoping to have my tea before getting out of bed. Ideally it would be at hand as soon as I wake up. I don't have a microwave within reach, so I don't think that would make that goal.
Most tea available in the US is nasty astringent stuff that can't handle steeping all night, or even 3 minutes. I think you need to start with really good tea, the kind that tea drinking countries have available.
Okay, who wants to turn comments into answers? I have upvotes for citizen, Yamikuronue, and talon8, and an "accept" for one of you.
To all that's giving good advice here: why don't you post as answers instead?
As posted in comments by members of the community (and adding my own), several tips can help you get good warm tea in your thermos at wake-up:
Choose loose leaves instead of tea bags to avoid tea dust that would overinfuse your tea in the thermos. The small amount there is in tea bags, is heavy enough to sink to the bottom very quickly, so if you pour the tea slowly into your thermos, you can discard it. You can also rinse the tea before brewing with cold water to help expel any excess dust, or (as done in many tea-drinking countries) throw out the first cup of tea made with new tea leaves.
If you're just using tea bags, why not just keep the thermos bedside and then toss the tea bag in in the morning?
You could try heating cold-infused and strained tea in the evening and put it into the thermos; it has a brewing time of 8 to 12 hours, so you'd have to start this around noon. If you have a microwave close enough to your bed, you could also use cold infusion to make your tea during the night and then give it a blast in the microwave in the morning.
Don't use boiling water to make your tea. Use hot water instead.
Could you be more specific about the temperature you are recommending. "Hot water" covers pretty much any temperature from tap-water-hot to just-below-boiling.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.871257 | 2012-09-13T08:04:58 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/26147",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Chris Steinbach",
"David",
"Ray",
"Sobachatina",
"Yamikuronue",
"awe",
"citizen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5878",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6512",
"manjiki",
"talon8",
"thursdaysgeek"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
25567 | What would be an appropriate gluten-free substitute for breadcrumbs?
I would like to make a gluten-free eggplant parmigiana, and there are a couple of ingredients that I realize I will need to substitute.
The basic idea is eggplant sliced, dredged in flour, dipped in egg, coated with breadcrumbs, and fried, then layered with sauce and cheese and baked. It's the flour and breadcrumbs that I'm going to need to cope with here. I recognize that there's not necessarily one universal GF substitute for flour, but it doesn't strike me that this is so highly featured in this case that it will make a huge difference. I could probably omit it altogether, or use an on-hand substitute, like cornstarch.
The breadcrumbs, on the other hand, are quite a vital part of this dish. I use panko breadcrumbs to give my eggplant an extra-crispy crunch. I've seen "breadcrumbs" make from corn tortillas used as a GF substitute, but the corn strikes me as stylistically opposed to my intent here. I've also heard of "thinner" coatings, like cornstarch or rice flour, but this again fails to capture the nature of a breadcrumb.
Gluten does not strike me as a particularly vital element of a breadcrumb. It is quite unlike, say, a bagel, which is founded on the properties of gluten. But theoretically, I suppose you could make a breadcrumb out of gluten-free ingredients. So what are my options?
If you just want crunchy, have you considered nut flours? Maybe mixed with cornstarch, to soak up some of the egg. Oh, and you can't omit the first layer, else the moisture of the egg plant will prevent the egg from sticking. Cornstarch should be good enough there. Also, why would tortilla crumbs be "stylistically opposed"?
Regarding tortilla crumbs, I find the corny taste to be very out of place in an eggplant parm, as with most of Italian cuisine. I could conceive of a nut flour working.
Corn taste is used in Italian cuisine. It is usually present as polenta, but this wouldn't stop me from experimenting.
Ah, but polenta is not nixtamalized
Related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17074/how-can-i-make-breadcrumbs-without-a-full-yeast-leavened-loaf-of-bread (you could perhaps make your own quick bread with a different flour?)
As a side note, parmigiana is still great without dredging/dipping/coating the eggplants, and many people prefer it that way. If you've never tried, it might be worth a shot!
@Agos, great point. I understand this is actually the more traditional sicilian method!
There are a number of rice-based bread crumb replacements, but my experience with them is that they are more like rice sand than bread crumbs. You can try making you own from other gluten free products like waffles or maybe puffed rice cereal.
I like that the "making your own" idea is in the spirit of a bread crumb. At its heart, a breadcrumb is just pulverized and toasted bread
I've used other crushed up puffed cereals before, either rice or corn. (and crushed up corn flakes or corn chex isn't going to be as heavy as crushed up tortillas)
This perhaps depends on where you live, but normally, you can buy gluten-free breadcrumbs in some stores.
You can also bake or buy gluten-free bread and make real bread crumbs from that.
+1 Buy a cheap gluten-free bread, toast it, put it in a food processor.
I'm not the best cook to be answering these type of questions, but I have come up with a "breadcrumb" substitute that my family is quite happy with. I take the frozen udi"s sandwich bread and toast it, then crumble. I guess any prepared bread with brown rice flour would give the same result!
Gram flour (Chickpea/Garbanzo/Besan) contains no gluten, and can easily be cooked into light, fluffy pancakes/tortillas.
Let the cakes dry, crumble them, and you have perfectly serviceable, gluten free, crumbs.
Indian markets usually carry bags of besan for a reasonable price.
The Wikipedia page notwithstanding, besan is not made from garbanzo beans, but from Bengal gram, i.e., the Indian chickpea. As the talk page linked to the Wikipedia entry demonstrates, these are related but distinct varieties of chickpea: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-chick-peas-and-chana-dal/answer/Surajit-Bose-1. Substituting garbanzo bean flour for besan would yield unfortunate results. The former is less dense and somewhat sweeter than besan. It also cooks more quickly, which would cause recipes calling for besan to burn.
I've made pancakes with flour made from home-ground Canadian Garbanzos, as well as what the local Indian grocer calls Besan flour. You put either in a frypan and cook until done. Works well regardless of source of garbanzos. I can't speak regarding differences in cook rate. I never had the two flours at the same time. Both cook til done, and yield useable crumbs after drying.
Finely crushed pork rinds (yes, the bag from the snack aisle) make an excellent coating for pan-fried fish and chicken, and a decent substitute for bread crumbs in meatloaf. I haven't specifically tried them on eggplant, though.
It is not easy to find, but chestnut flour can be used for most gluten free purposes without messing around with mixtures of several flours.
Chestnuts are a very traditional crop in Sardinia, and they are used to make bread there, so using chestnut flour is in keeping with the Italian spirit of the dish.
Sorry, another answer where you have to start from scratch to make everything.
Is the idea that you would coat the eggplant with chestnut flour, or make breadcrumbs from a bread made from chestnut flour? Your last sentence makes me suspect the latter...
You could do either or both - it is a truly versatile substitute, but you need care with bread recipes or the bread comes out dense.
In the future try crushing cornflakes; they make a fab substitute, even better if mixed with Parmesan.
Be careful here--most brands of corn flakes are not gluten-free unless they specifically say so. This includes Kellog's
I don't actually know, but my gluten sensitive relatives baked cookies made from white beans. They really tasted like "real" cookies.
I guess you could use those cookie crumbs.
I use a pre-cooked white corn meal product by PAN but other brands will work too. This must be pre-cooked cornmeal which comes in yellow or while and has a fine texture unlike regular cornmeal. Being pre-cooked is has almost no corn taste unlike regular corn meal and is more tender when cooked with as well.
This product is also know as "Harina De Maiz Blanco Precocida" in mexican stores and is commonly used to make Arepas that are a light, moist biscuit type of mexican bread when mixed with water and cooked.
The P.A.N. product does give a statement that there may be "traces" of wheat and/or oat in their product most likely from processing wheat before switching to corn but a trace should not hurt anyone that is gluten intolerant.
So far I have had no complaints from anyone that I have used this for as a flour replacement.
The quantity as a replacement for a coating would be the same as a flour getting as much to stick as possible. I use a 2nd coat in place of bread crumbs before frying and it is crispy and golden.
It is simple to use polenta as a substitute for breadcrumbs, it makes a lovely parmigiana or schnitzel.
Can you explain how to get polenta into a nice light, crumbly form like breadcrumbs?
You can use polenta, but there is a lot of confusion over what polenta actually is, or means in a given context. In this case I am not referring to the solid block of ready cooked stuff that you slice up and fry, but loose grains that you would use to make a thick porridge to cool into a solid block. Sometimes it is sold as cornmeal, I think polenta is the Italian name more commonly used in Europe.
You will need more seasoning than breadcrumbs as polenta does not have any added salt.
If you have rolled oats in the house, blend them dry on a pulse to make a coarse flour. Don’t blend too fine. Try to get the Same texture of breadcrumbs and that could be a good substitute.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.872118 | 2012-08-09T14:30:13 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25567",
"authors": [
"0xFEE1DEAD",
"Agos",
"Cascabel",
"Doris",
"Gnudiff",
"J. Robinson",
"JCOGS Design",
"Joe",
"JoeFish",
"Jon DeMersseman",
"Ray",
"Sree",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"ahmed_khan_89",
"dathpo",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58566",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58567",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58800",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62726",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62754",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67883",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68693",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81085",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98536",
"jmbejara",
"joe",
"kazarey",
"klypos",
"matramos",
"rumtscho",
"user1172454",
"user58800",
"verbose"
],
"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
} |
45584 | Does glutinous rice contain gluten?
My sister-in-law is an American living in China, and while visiting the US, learned that reducing certain foods, including gluten, seems to have an improvement in her health.
She is trying to figure out what her diet in China should look like, and noted some confusion about glutinous rice. She said that rice is on her list of gluten-free foods, but since glutinous is in the name, she assumes that gluten is added to it.
Does glutinous rice actually have gluten in it, or is something lost in translation?
No, it doesn't. Rice is always gluten free*.
It just so happens that words like "gluten", "glutinous" and "glue" are words which have a common root, meaning "sticky". Glutinous rice is sticky due to a high proportion of bushy starches in the rice grain. It has nothing to do with gluten, which is a complex formed by wheat proteins, and not contained in any type of rice.
See also our list of gluten-free grains, which also notes the gluten-glutinous distinction.
* This statement is about gluten produced by the rice plant itself. Since writing this answer, I have seen reports of gluten-free grains being contaminated with gluten, presumably during storage and processing, because large mills use the same equipment for different grains, including wheat. I don't remember having seen it for rice specifically, but apparently there is no 100% guarantee, neither for rice nor for any other grain.
Glutinous rice doesn't contain gluten, the term just relates to its sticky texture when cooked. From Glutinous rice on Wikipedia:
Like all types of rice, glutinous rice does not contain dietary gluten (i.e. does not contain glutenin and gliadin), and should be safe for gluten-free diets.
While that is marked citation needed doing a search on around 20 Celiac related pages all seem to give advice it is safe for people with Celiac disease, which is probably a good way to search for gluten free foods.
Glutinous rice, also known as sticky or sweet rice, does not contain gluten. The term "glutinous" refers to its sticky texture when cooked, not to the presence of gluten proteins found in rice. Hence it's safe for those with gluten sensitivities. However make sure there’s no cross-contamination during processing.
Yes and no, depending on one's definition of gluten.
I don't have all the proper references on hand right now, so please forgive me if the explanation is missing the full chemical explanation (references to peptides and such). I'm recalling all of this from memory from a presentation given by an all-types-of-gluten celiac I met several years ago.
All grains contain "gluten," but there is more than one type of gluten. When one commonly refers to a gluten, that person is referring to the type of gluten found in wheat, barley, and rye. (Oats are often in contact with wheat. As a result, oats may contain enough gluten to set off a celiac and are often included on the list of banned grains.) Rice contains its own "glue-like" properties and proteins, but it is not the same as in wheat, barely, or rye. Rice can contain both starch and protein, same as wheat. 'Glutinous' refers to starch, not protein.
So your sister-in-law is safe to eat rice, so long as she only reacts to the generic "gluten." In which case, tell her to watch out for soy sauce, as that often has added wheat.
The OP mentioned that his sister-in-law's health improved by removing certain foods, such as gluten. The gluten she needs to avoid depends on her level and type of intolerance. In rare occasions, one will not have a textbook case of gluten-intolerance or celiac. My sister is a textbook celiac; I have a nonstandard gluten-intolerance. She can eat rice; I cannot. In short, if the gluten sensitivity is standard, consider all rice to be gluten-free. 'Glutinous' merely describes the amount of sticky starch in the grain (and possibly its fattening potential ;) ), not gluten.
I don't think you need to vacillate here - this comes down pretty firmly on the side of "no gluten", even if there are similar proteins present in rice.
-1: rice contains starch, which is a chemically completely different thing (carbohydrate vs protein).
This is factually incorrect. Gluten is a protein combination of Glutennin and Gliadin that only occurs in cereal grains closely related to wheat. The Gliadin is what causes reactions in the case of Celiac disease. A "nonstandard gluten-intolerance" that reacts to non-wheat related products has nothing to do with gluten and is a reaction to an entirely different protein. Blaming that on gluten is akin to blaming a milk protein intolerance on some mysterious "milk-gluten".
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.872805 | 2014-07-15T12:12:44 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45584",
"authors": [
"Tremmors",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6563",
"logophobe",
"nico"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
23629 | How can I get the most smoke flavor from Lapsang Souchong tea?
When I open a bag of Lapsang Souchong tea, it has an overpowering aroma of pine smoke. After brewing, there is still a smokiness in my drink but it is far more subtle, and in particular seems to vary fairly widely from cup to cup.
I wonder what factors would cause this inconsistent extraction, and, more to the point, how I could focus my efforts to tweak the final product. For example, if I steep hotter, or cooler, or longer, or shorter, or covered, or stirred, etc.
How are you currently steeping it? Personally, I steep Lapsang in boiled water for 5min.
Wiki says Formosan (Taiwanese) lapsang has the smokiest flavour, perhaps you could find some?
@ElendilTheTall, that is good to know, but I am interested from a process perspective.
Perhaps the best thing would be an experiment or two. Use the same amount of tea and water and steep three cups for three different times etc
For overall full-flavor, these instructions produce the best cup:
Use a teapot and cup made from glass, or other material like
porcelain. Use soft water for preparation of tea. This is suitable to
effectively extract most of the substances from the tea leaves. Hard
water is not suitable because it contains higher levels of mineral
ions which suppress extraction of substances from leaves,
subsequently, the taste become very flat and thin. Besides, mineral
ions react with polyphenols substances which will give a dark brown
color. Use fresh water which has not boiled before. Bring the cold
water to boil, and then pour in boiling water that has been freshly
drawn which the temperature is > 95˚C.=Boiling Temparature. Warm the
teapot and cups well by rinsing it out with boiling water. This should
be done just before adding the tea leaves, so that the leaves benefit
from a gentle humid heat. For black tea, the main component is tannin
which required high temperature for efficacious extraction. It is
necessary to keep container warm in order to maintain* adequate
temperature in brewing water.
Got that off this site promoting their LS tea from the Wuyi Mountain area of Fujian where I have toured and sampled: http://hojotea.com/item_e/b02e.htm
The part about only boiling once should not be underestimated: tea needs the oxygen to react and release those magical substances.
Have you experimented with second brewing? Drink the first cuppa after a short brew and cover with water again and see if that is indeed smokier.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.873180 | 2012-05-07T19:45:06 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23629",
"authors": [
"BMO",
"Bemisawa",
"ElendilTheTall",
"James",
"Kathleen",
"Ray",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53543",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53617"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
25300 | What turned my garlic purple?
I commonly use a technique when caramelizing onions, in which I add the sliced onions to a pan with salt, oil, and water. The water softens the onions and helps cook them evenly such that by the time it all boils away, they caramelize quickly and evenly.
I decided to use this technique on garlic the other day, when making a garlic and oil sauce for pasta, and was surprised to find that the garlic turned a fairly vivid shade of purple!
What happened? Was it some reaction the garlic had to the boiling? Or could it have been a reaction with the cast iron pan I was using?
Big anthocyanin post: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40616/what-causes-changing-blue-and-purple-pigments-in-food
My guess was angry kitchen gnomes with purple food coloring, but it looks like there might be something to this whole "anthocyanin" theory.
From UC Davis:
Question: Why did my garlic turn blue?
Answer: Garlic contains anthocyanins, water-soluble pigments that can turn blue or purple under acidic conditions. This is a variable phenomenon that is more pronounced for immature garlic but can differ among cloves within a single head of garlic. If you grow your own garlic, be sure to mature it at room temperature for a couple of weeks before using it.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.873414 | 2012-07-27T16:42:53 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25300",
"authors": [
"Abdullah Mamun-Ur- Rashid",
"Jason Schock",
"SourDoh",
"david jensen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32604",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57869",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57871",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57872",
"luator",
"robin"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
19398 | Does a lid on a pot safely "seal" soup?
My in-laws have a practice in which they make soup with the lid on the pot, turn off the heat, and leave the pot on the stove without lifting the lid until the next day when they eat it.
Their claim is the heat destroys any existing pathogens, and the lid prevents outside contamination, and that the contents are thus safe to consume.
I found this all a bit dubious. It seems to me that if the lid did have such a good seal, there would be a pressure differential giving significant resistance when trying to remove it.
Is this a safe means of short-term room-temperature preservation?
This seems to be close enough to http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19183/ to consider it a dupe.
There definitely would be a pressure differential, and it'd be in the several PSI range. -2 PSIg on a 10-inch lid gives ~160lbs (assuming I'm doing my math right). You'd need to pry the lid off to break the seal. Look also at @PeterTaylor's link.
The seal, the pot, none of it really matters.
You don't sterilize food when you cook it, you pasteurize.
Even if it was perfectly sealed, there's still baddies that didn't get killed. Pasteurization brings food bateria to a safe level, not a 0 level. Once food gets back in the 'danger zone', it can start growing pretty quick again.
This is the same reason you can't cook a sous vide meal and then leave it on the counter forever.
The reason you find it dubious is because you're right.
The lid will not keep pathogens from entering the system. And even if it did, cooking the soup is not sterilizing the system, but just killing enough pathogens in it for it to be safe for consumption. There will be bacteria in the pot that survived the cooking, and once the temperature drops into the danger zone, they will begin multiplying in earnest.
Sure, there are factors that may make this scenario safer than, say, leaving a roast on the counter overnight. It's obvious that having a lid on the pot will mean fewer organizms are circulated over the soup. And the soup is presumably a high-salt environment, which will inhibit bacterial growth. Perhaps those factors conspire to make it safe to eat, or at least extend the "danger zone window" a bit, but I wouldn't recommend putting any faith in it.
I'll +1 anybody that says I'm right ;)
The quick answer is: No, the lid doesn't seal the pot.
With a pressure cooker, there is a seal, and as mentioned, there would be a pressure difference between the pot and the air outside it.
Normal pots have no such seal. Therefore, the soup isn't sealed off from the outside world.
It is true, though, that the heat of cooking should destroy any pathogens that were in the soup's ingredients before cooking. This means that anything to spoil the soup needs to come in from the air, which takes a relatively long time, as there is no pre-existing culture.
In my experience, a soup left out at night after being prepared in the evening is fine in the morning, which is when I usually put it in the fridge.
It may be worth a note that the government (FDA, I think) would like any foodstuff to be kept at above 60 degrees or below 4 degrees Centigrade, which is outside of what they call the danger zone. In my opinion, the government is a bit on the panicky side of these matters.
"the heat of cooking should destroy any pathogens that were in the soup's ingredients before cooking. This means that anything to spoil the soup needs to come in from the air." This is NOT true. You'll destroy active bacteria by thorough cooking, but there are quite a few nasty things that leave behind spores that can survive even boiling. Those can reactivate in the "danger zone," even in a sealed pot. Bacillus cereus, for example, is one of the most common causes of food poisoning, where its spores survive in things like cooked rice (common cause of illness from leftover Chinese food).
You could ask your in-laws to keep the lid on for a few more days and see if they still want to eat it :D
Actually, leaving the pot on the stove top instead of putting in the fridge when it has cooled enough will give the bacteria/mold perfect growth conditions. It is a humid and warm environment. After a couple of days you wont be able to recognize the food.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.873572 | 2011-12-05T15:11:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19398",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Censi LI",
"Herman Lopez",
"John",
"Peter Taylor",
"Ray",
"cavalier123",
"derobert",
"familybliss",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42232",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53604",
"soychicka"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
19563 | How can I substitute Tender Quick® for pink salt + kosher salt?
I have a recipe for pastrami that calls for 1 T of pink salt + 3/4 cup of kosher salt. I don't have access to pink salt or saltpeter, but I do have Morton® Tender Quick®. I imagine that I can use the Tender Quick® in place of the pink salt and reduce the kosher salt, but I don't know how much to use or how much to reduce the salt. Is there a standard conversion?
Maybe you should just find a recipe for pastrami that uses Tender Quick instead? You could incorporate other parts of your recipe if there are differences besides the curing agent.
My understanding is that TQ is just salt+saltpeter; I'm just not sure of the proportion or how to substitute. It seems like it should be a simple conversion...
I'm essentially suggesting deducing the conversion by comparing your recipe and one using TQ. Also, I don't have a box in front of me, but Morton's website says it also contains sugar.
Please list how much and what kind of sugars are in your recipe as a conversion will entail those numbers
This question is almost entirely a duplicate of this one on corned beef, sodium nitrite and Tender Quick.. Please see the answers for that question.
The only thing not covered in that question are the proportions of salt, sodium nitrite and sodium nitrate in Tender Quick. You would need to calculate those ratios, and compare them with the ratios in pink salt + kosher salt called for in the recipe. This information is not available on the Morton's web site; you will have to call them to get those proportions.
1 tbs. TQ per pound of meat but you must eliminate any other salt called for in the recipe. Personally I quit using TQ and exclusively use pink salt as it produces a much nicer color to the finished product.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.873964 | 2011-12-10T19:32:08 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19563",
"authors": [
"Aganju",
"Cascabel",
"Gina Hammer",
"Peanuts",
"Ray",
"Richard Chambers",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42583",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42900",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43484",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93777",
"mfg",
"user42583",
"user43050"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
15590 | Cooling off a kettle-style grill
I'm trying to slow-cook using indirect heat on my kettle-style grill, and having some temperature issues.
Most of my experience with my grill follows one of two patterns:
First cook the food item (almost always meat) sous vide. Dump an inordinate amount of white-hot coals from the chimney into the kettle. Sear the meat for about 30 seconds for a quick crust without affecting the perfectly-done interior. Rest and serve
Sear first (following method above), then cook indoors.
But, as much as I like the consistent results I get from cooking sous vide without having to pay attention, I am trying to improve my BBQ game.
So, I tried using fewer coals, preheating them a bit less, and reducing the air flow. Even still, low and behold, I got a fairly hot fire going that I really didn't want this time.
So, how do I cool it down? I'm trying to get from over 300 down to under 200. I think water will do the trick, but I worry it will put out the fire. I already have the airflow restricted--again, I'd be afraid of closing it off too much and killing the coals. What tricks are available to drop the temperature to a range I can start maintaining.
Simple answer: fewer briquettes. Space them out a bit. You can make fine adjustments by raising the cooking surface or lowering the briquettes. I know my kettle has a lower briquette grill, if you take out the main one. I've also seen briquette grills with sunken channels to create small pockets of heat. I also have a couple of trapezoidal briquette holders, which I can use to position briquettes and create warmer or cooler spots.
Charcoal briquettes are designed to be a consistent temperature. Of course, poorer quality briquettes will be less consistent or burn for less time, but in general any single briquette will burn as long and as hot as any other.
Trying to douse or smother the briquettes may cause smoke or steam, but it's not going to have a good, consistent effect.
Interesting comparison info from Dutch Oven cooking: with a standard 12" Dutch Oven, 12 briquettes in a ring under the oven and 12 spaced around the edge of the lid will give you approximately a 350 degree oven for about an hour. Temperature is adjusted by adding or removing briquettes. This means, in a grill, 24 briquettes could give you a grill temp near 350, if the food is about 2-3 inches away. (The linked chart has a slightly different arrangement; 12/12 is what I learned as a simple rule of thumb, but everyone has different practices... or may desire top browning or bottom boiling.)
Both of the answers provided were good suggestions for making and maintaining a cooler fire, but neither addressed the issue of cooling off an already-hot fire.
I doused it bit-by-bit until I hit the temp range I wanted, but I killed the fire in the process. There was plenty of smoke flavor in the meat by that point, so I finished it indoors.
Sorry about that; I had misunderstood the nature of the question. In the future, if you shut down all your vents the temperatures should drop pretty quickly. The fire will almost be out, in fact. Then you can allow some oxygen back into the chamber to get up to your desired temperature. If I close both the top and bottom vents on my Weber, my cooking chamber drops to below 200f within 15-20 minutes. Then I take the lid off to let the coals ignite a bit, replace it, and control my temps from there.
Using a smaller amount of coals, you should have no problem getting your cooker to a low and slow temperature. I target between 225f and 250f most of the time, and have no problem doing so in my kettle.
When I do BBQ in my kettle, I use the Minion Method -- to summarize, I put a bunch of unlit coals to one side of the grill, holding them in place with either 1-2 charcoal baskets or a couple of firebricks, putting my smoke wood into this mix as well. I then dump about 15-30 lit coals, the number of coals determined by whether I want to target a higher or lower temperature. The coals on top will slowly ignite the ones beneath it, so you'll get a long, consistent burn if you keep the supply of oxygen to your fuel limited.
Once you have your fire going, let the cooker heat up and put your food on the grill so that it is opposite the fire. The vent on the grill cover should go over the top of your food, and you should use the bottom vents to control heat.
Using this method, I can get 6-8 hours of cooking time at a low temperature. More than enough for ribs or Chuck roast, and almost enough time for a sizable pork butt.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.874157 | 2011-06-18T21:47:51 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15590",
"authors": [
"Alex Palcuie",
"Elijah Lynn",
"Ilya Snowdon",
"Sean Hart",
"dougpyke",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33058",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33816"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
124318 | Does the dum cooking process truly impact taste and texture, or is it merely a longstanding tradition?
While making biryani I find a lot of hype surrounding the "dum" cooking process. This involves:
Pre-cooking the meat and rice separately.
Mixing them together at the last minute into a container
Sealing the container with dough or some other way to set a "dum".
Basially putting the rice + meat in a sealed container over low heat. This restricts and concentrates the steam within the container which is supposed to "enhance" the taste.
While this technique has been practiced for centuries in Biryani making, I find myself wondering if it truly makes a significant difference in the final outcome or if it is merely a tradition upheld without any questioning.
To delve deeper into this topic, I would appreciate insights into the following aspects:
Taste: Are there any discernible differences in the taste of dum-cooked dishes compared to using conventional methods? If so, what contributes to these flavor variations? Are there specific ingredients or cooking conditions that interact uniquely in the dum process, resulting in distinct flavors?
Texture: Does the dum cooking process have a noticeable impact on the texture of the prepared food? Are the textures altered in a way that cannot be replicated through alternative cooking methods? How do factors such as heat, pressure, and moisture play a role in determining the final texture?
Scientific rationale: Are there any scientific explanations for the success and prevalence of the dum cooking method? Can the slow, sealed cooking process be justified in terms of its effects on taste, texture, or other culinary aspects? Alternatively, is it possible that the dum method has persisted primarily due to cultural or historical reasons, without any inherent benefits?
I am eager to learn whether the dum cooking process is supported by empirical evidence or if it falls under the realm of culinary traditions that continue despite a lack of scientific justification. Please provide any relevant observations, experiments, or explanations to shed light on this intriguing cooking technique.
Why not test this yourself? It feels like a fun weekend experiment.
@FuzzyChef I don't think there's anything wrong if I try to collaborate with other chefs and post a question here. Do you have a problem if I post a question here?
I'm pointing out that you're more likely to find the answer you want by experimenting yourself. The lack of answers to this question kinda bear that out.
@Mugen dang bro they're not telling you off for posting lol, plus it is fun to cook and find out
I don’t have exact experience with this, but low and slow protein cooking is common in lots of cultures for really tender meat (hence the prevalence of slow cookers and stewing in general) Giving rice a chance to finish by steaming is also common in japanese cooking. Even if it does improve taste or texture, that may be a secondary consideration; it’s original intent may have been to save fuel, reduce the risk of ruining (burning or overcooking) the food, or simply to shift time (do more of the work earlier, then have time to make fresh roti as you get near the meal time)
I can’t say with any certainty, but similar aspects of the cooking techniques exist in other cultures.
Packing stews or braises into pots sealed with dough is also practiced in Alpine regions. Wives would then drop the pots off at the town baker so the meal would cook in the cooling ovens while they did their washing or other tasks that would keep them from being able to tend to a cooking fire.
Some regions of Italy will finish cooking pasta in the sauce to let it take on more flavor; many places cook rice with other stuff to let the flavors permeate (pilaf/plov/pilau/paella), but those typically start with uncooked rice.
Starting starches at high heat then finishing by steaming is typical with Japanese rice, and with some cultures that eat couscous.
It’s honestly difficult to say if the technique was originally to improve texture or taste; this technique may have done that, or it may be that after the technique was developed, ingredients were altered to stuff that particularly took well to this treatment (or didn’t work so well with others). It’s also important to note that meat varies by animal breed and method raised, so today’s meat might be more tender than what the recipe was original developed with.
So the question comes— is the extra work worth it to you? And for that, you’ll have to try cooking it with shortcuts, and decide if the time savings result in an acceptable dish. I personally make lots of non-traditional variations of food that I grew up with, because I know that much of the food that I grew up with expected there to be someone home all day to do the cooking, and it’s a choice between not having it or having a shortcut version.
And there may have been other aspects of the technique that weren’t specifically taste or texture… if you didn’t know when the whole family would get home, switching to slow cooking allowed you to hold the meal to serve as soon as everyone returned. It also freed up your time to work on other accompanying dishes that needed to be prepared at the last minute.
Rice 1/4 cooked and meat 3/4 cooked before starting the dum process. Dum completes the cooking process by steaming which makes rice and meat melt in mouth and keeping it from drying out.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.874649 | 2023-05-28T12:14:19 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124318",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"H. sapiens rex",
"Joe",
"Mugen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
105925 | How can I make onion tomato paste taste more punchy?
I batch pan-fried a paste of onions and tomatoes for using them in future dishes.
I love the flavour of garlicy onions and tomatoes! How can I make their flavour stronger?
I believe restaurants for all kinds of cuisines make use of it.
This is how I make them right now:
I semi-grind onions, garlic and tomatoes in the ratio of 1 : (handful of garlic) : 1.
Then I roast them on the pan with a little oil starting with onions + garlic, and then once they're translucent adding tomatoes + salt. Next I roast it on a simmer for 30 minutes, stirring occasionally.
I would like to make the onion and tomato flavour a lot more punchy. How can I achieve this?
Unfortunately my cooking adventures are on a hold due to coronavirus in our country. I'll be delayed in choosing an answer. But don't let that stop you from adding an answer! I promise to try every recommendation before updating. :)
A. To make the flavor of tomatoes stronger in a sauce:
start with better-tasting tomatoes. Depending on time of year these will often be canned. There are many reviews of canned tomatoes, so I'll not
pass judgment here but there are some excellent ones out there.
reduce the sauce more to intensify the flavor.
Tomatoes are an umami flavor. Adding another umami to it could intensify the flavor you're looking for (such as marmite, anchovies, etc.).
if you want to get really fancy you can try playing around with a centrifuge such as a Spinzall.
B. To make onions and garlic stronger you can try combining sweated fresh onions and garlic with powder. Be sure to activate the powder in water before cooking directly in fat or the flavor enzyme will be
deactivated before it can go to work.
Marmite sauce! That is a new idea. I will try it.
Could you please define better tasting tomatoes? Do you mean bright red? Also, by reducing the sauce, do you mean heat it more to reduce the water content? 3) I'm looking for the garlicy, tomato, onion flavour. Not sure what other umami to use for that but I'll try searching about it. B) could you please tell me more about this powder thing? Do you mean the onion and tomato powders? I have them as home but I normally put them in oil because I read that their flavour compounds are oil soluble and not water soluble. Could you please elaborate a little on why you recommend putting them in water?
I mean more flavorful. If you have compared most grocery store tomatoes to home-grown or good farmers' market tomatoes you probably noticed that grocery store tomatoes have almost no flavor. Canned tomatoes are picked at their ripest and generally have much more flavor than ones you buy at a store, but there are large differences between different brands of canned tomatoes, and even differences within a brand between whole, cubed, etc. If you don't need fresh tomatoes for your recipe, you're often better off with canned. If tomatoes are in season buy them and make things where they'll shine.
Never knew that. Thanks for explaining this! Could you please also explain the powder thing? What powder are you talking about and if it's onion powder then shouldn't it be added at the end? And on hot oil?
Alliums (onions, garlic, leeks, etc.) produce a strong taste/smell when cut because chemicals separated by membranes combine. The enzyme alliinase converts alliin into allicin. Allicin is unstable and changes into other sulfur-containing compounds, producing strong tastes and flavors. The more allicin that is created, the more taste and odor is created. This is why roasting a whole garlic clove produces a sweet, mild flavor while crushing a garlic clove and then cooking it produces a very strong taste. Allinase in powdered garlic and onion is activated by water and killed by heat.
Tomato availability differs greatly from region to region. My local supermarket has a dozen varieties throughout the year, which are greenhouse-grown. These might be pricey, though.
This is a good answer. I want to reiterate that combining different sources of umami chemicals (glutamate, inosinate and guanylate) has a compound effect.
Also, if you slowly dehydrate the tomatoes in halves their own enzymes will unlock more umami chemicals.
You can do other things to improve ingredients early in the process, like enhancing the garlic with maillard reactions a bit, this is known as "black garlic".
You can also treat the same ingredient in different ways, eg lightly cooked tomatoes with lacto-fermented tomatoes, or cooking the flesh differently to the jelly.
Raw is punchy!
Reserve some of your crushed garlic and onion mix. Mince it fine. Then add it at the end. Cooking brings out some allium flavors and attenuates others. If your figure out the raw punch is what you are looking for, experiment with the ratio of cooked to raw, or experiment with just raw onions or just raw garlic.
Or you could consider bringing in different members of onion / garlic family which could also give your mix different depth. For example some people find raw green onions or raw sweet Vidalia onions more palatable than raw yellow onions / garlic. Shallots are similar to garlic but less pungent and if raw garlic is too much raw shallots might work.
On the tomato end I agree with @myklbykl as regards additions. Worcestershire sauce is one I use. Tomato paste in a small quantity can add more tomato punch. Anchovy paste is available in tubes and can be good for this sort of thing.
Good point about crushing garlic. I should have mentioned that the more the garlic or onion is crushed the stronger the flavor will be. Also, onions grown in soil with more sulfur will have a stronger flavor.
When you mention tomato paste, do you mean store bought paste? Because I already created my own while cooking. Also, I've never had Worcestershire sauce. Could you please describe the taste of it before I buy? I thought it contained soya which should make it strongly salty. I can't add Anchovy unfortunately because I'm allergic to sea food.
Worcestershire sauce doesn't taste exactly like anything else, but it's a pungent, vinegar-sweet-salty-umami sauce in the same broad category as A1 Steak Sauce, tangy barbecue sauces, or various Asian sauces like ponzu, if you've had any of those. It's reasonably salty, but not purely salt-forward like straight soy sauce.
there's another approach altogether that has worked for me: lacto-fermented tomato sauce. only takes a week, triples the amount of dishwashing, and could easily go completely wrong, especially on the first try!
same amount of raw tomatoes you're already starting with, quartered, and keep the juice!
halve the amount of onions you'd normally use, because the flavor doesn't get softened by heat, diced and puréed
(garlic, puréed. I add half the weight of onions used, but that's a lot of garlic)
1/2 tsp salt per pound of tomatoes (5.1 g salt per kilo of tomatoes)
1 tsp cultured buttermilk per pound of tomatoes used (about 10.2 g per kilo)
pick a vegetable fermentation guide on the internet, follow the process, but with these ingredients, mixed well and mashed down very well to eliminate bubbles. if all goes well, in 7-10 days, you can purée the results and pour your sauce over pasta or whatever. it tastes fantastic, fresh, bright, and hopefully very punchy.
This sauce can be cooked, but fresh flavor will be lost.
If you have questions about lacto-fermented tomato sauce, you should definitely create new questions, as this has veered far from the original topic, and I honestly don't know how well this answer will be received by the community.
This is a very interesting answer! I have a few queries. When you say "halve the amount of onions because the flavor doesn't get softened" - do you mean the flavor of tomatoes doesn't get softened? Or the flavor of onions don't get softened? Another question I have is about how one would use this sauce in dishes. Do you pour it at the end? Or is it safe to cook this along with rice? I'm not sure whether the heat will reduce it's flavor or decrease its edibility. Thanks a lot for replying!
the "sharp" flavor of onions gets softened with cooking
uses: usable immediately, but you will probably want to either slow fermentation by refrigerating it, halt fermentation by freezing it, or kill the fermenters by heating it to 180F/82C. eat it directly from the jar, pour directly on pasta or mix into whatever you would normally use a tomato/onion sauce for.. store in refrigerator up to a week. freeze in air-free container 6 mos
there's another option for concentrating flavor: freeze-concentrating or "freeze reduction." starting with ferment or fresh juice, squeeze all liquid you can out of the bulk, freeze the squeezed out stuff. put liquid in a bowl, freeze bowl in freezer, break up ice, put in strainer lined with cheesecloth or a paper towel, put strainer over a bowl, put stack in refrigerator, and wait for slush to half thaw. in the bowl is concentrated tomato juice with more flavor. discard remaining slush. with the concentrate, repeat 1-2x. works well. you can add concentrate back to squeezed out stuff
more options:
add more tomatoes via pre-concentrated products like tomato paste or powder
when initially cooking, add some rinsed tomato stems and leaves, this should help with the "punchy" part, just be sure to remove them soon after cooking
after cooking, add up to 1 tsp lemon juice per medium/large tomato. if balanced well, the lemon flavor will lift the tomato flavor without actually tasting lemony
other spices like fresh-ground black pepper may give you some of the desired flavor punch
cooking time might matter, too. a long-cooked marina tastes very different from a quick sauce of mashed, fresh tomatoes
(1) Could you please provide more information on how to "add tomato paste or powder"? Will the flavor be stronger when you add them to boiling water or should you add them to hot oil? (2) Tomato stems and leaves are hard to find in the market. I'm not sure how to get them. (3) (4) I've tried with lemon + pepper. They have a distinctly different taste than tomatoes or onions. I"m trying to increase the flavor of tomato + onions.
tomato powder, for thick paste, can be mixed by volume 1 part powder + 2 parts hot water. it tastes much less cooked (to me) than tomato paste. don't add dry powder directly to hot oil. 2) some retailers sell tomatoes on the vine. 3&4) honestly, I totally agree with you. for more fresh tomato and onion flavor, you can also try starting with more tomatoes and partially dehydrate them with a minimum of heat (sun drying or "Alton Brown dehydrator"), cook them for less time, and add the onions towards the end of cooking
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.875151 | 2020-03-21T15:15:54 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105925",
"authors": [
"A_S00",
"MSalters",
"Mugen",
"Willk",
"goboating",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78701",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81730",
"myklbykl",
"pleasePassTheCheese"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
43824 | What else is being done to make these biscuits
I am looking for a basic Biscuit recipe, and found the one on the Bisquick web site. Looks fairly basic. Too basic to make the biscuits pictured. There are distinct ridging on the tops and the browning looks too defined not be something like butter or egg.
So, would additionally would i have to do to get the same look? Or is this just a picture of plastic rolls?
http://www.bettycrocker.com/recipes/bisquick-rolled-biscuits/3e0c95f0-8aec-4a01-9463-73759b2ce066
It is highly likely those biscuits benefited from the skills of a food stylist.
They will have used any number of techniques to ensure the biscuits look as good as possible for the photo, possibly including some that would render them poor tasting or even inedible.
Among the things they might have done are:
Controlling the lighting to put the biscuits at their best appearance
Using a blow torch to carefully brown each biscuit individually in the most attractive way possible
Painstakingly cutting hundreds of biscuits with a fancy cutter and selecting the few that came out looking perfect for further treatment
Dabbing on flour with a paint brush to give them that rustic look
I am sure there are more tricks of the trade, but it is not something I do.
At home, you would achieve best results with a convection oven (if you have one), and a very sharp biscuit cutter (to not disturb the layers) used on biscuit dough that is properly and skillfully prepered to create the flaky layers. Brushing the tops with milk or butter will also help them brown (and taste good).
The 'ridges' are created by the biscuit cutter, browning may or may not be aided by an egg wash, but given the short bake time, I doubt it, if your biscuits don't brown evenly, rotate the pan 180° after 4 minutes.
(that said, yes, those in the picture are almost certainly props...)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.875958 | 2014-05-01T20:41:33 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43824",
"authors": [
"Josh",
"Samay Singh",
"Travis Eugene Evans",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102813",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102815",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102819",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102820",
"joseph payne",
"user25307"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
5891 | How much is a knob of butter?
I was reading a question here on Food and Cooking and no one seemed to know how much it is. I tried to Google convert it to cups but no dice.
So how much is it?
A knob is not a "unit", it's an expression. Just like a "pinch" of something. Use you own personal preference. If it was critical a good recipe would specify it. It's used here just for taste and texture reasons
In this Gordon Ramsey scrambled eggs video he uses a "knob" of butter. It appears to be about 2 Tbsp.
I don't think it's intended to be a specific term. You'd never see "knob" used for baking, where exact amounts matter. When cooking, recipes tend to be a general guideline rather than a strict set of instructions.
This page agrees, a couple tablespoons, but definitely not an exact measure: http://www.ochef.com/300.htm
In particular, it's a common English term. Jamie Oliver uses imprecise measurements all the time (a handful, a glass of wine, knob of butter). My (English) mother thinks this is in large part because the average Englishman thinks of a cooking as a woman's job or a bit queer for a man to be doing. To get around this, male chefs tend to be a bit nonchalant about things like measuring, leaving an "I'm a man, I just throw it together" kind of vibe.
My mother cooked some things without measuring. My grandmothers often cooked without measuring. One advantage is that you can compensate for variations in ingredients and the weather, for example, if you're not locked into "precision" but more focused on achieving a desired result and have a sense of whether what you're doing is going to succeed. I'm "nonchalant" about it to some extent because there are a lot of things that don't require any precision and sometimes the result of a variation results in a pleasant surprise. Perhaps it's "Darwinian" cooking.
Looks more like he sliced a bit of butter off the stick. Precision is actually bad for these kinds of cooking, because the amount of butter also depends on things like the size of the pan, type of butter, or the other ingredients it's going with. Much like herbs and spices, you'll have to practice winging it.
2 or 3 tablespoons is equal to a knob. Also it depends on what you want, it is your choice how much your eggs taste of butter.
I tend to treat it as 'a knifeful' but thinking about now it its probably about 1-1.5 tbsp, depending on how soft the butter is.
If the butter is too cold to get a knife to scoop it with, and I have to cut it, I try to cut a corner off starting about 1 cm into the edge, creating a pyramid type shape.
As @hobodave pointed out Gordon Ramsey uses about 2 tbsp, but that tends to be the same with the chefs, they go heavy on the salt and the butter and the cream.
YMMV.
Perhaps it's equivalent to a "pat" of butter.
A pat of butter to me is less than one tablespoon, more like half of one.
I believe the term "knob" of butter was developed and used in the days before standardized measuring. The amount is about 1 1/2 - 2 tablespoons -- about the size of a knob on a kitchen drawer.
Other non-exact measurements: palm, handful, wooden spoonful, size of a walnut, size of an egg, a glassful ...
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.876172 | 2010-08-24T18:07:40 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5891",
"authors": [
"Dennis Williamson",
"Kimshiro Benton",
"Manish Verma",
"Muz",
"TFD",
"ghosthop",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12625",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"stephennmcdonald",
"ujjain",
"user57975",
"yossarian"
],
"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
} |
22513 | How to convert a muffin/cupcake recipe to a large muffin recipe
I'm looking at the side of my "breakfast - O - meal" box at a recipe for 12 muffins. The kind you would use with a standard muffin tin. What kind of variation should can I use to make the recipe work in a larger 6 large muffin tin?
I tried this once before with corn bread muffins and they never seemed to be able to bake all the way though. Ideally I would like to try this with some other cupcake / muffin recipes I have too.
So what's the secret? Less liquid? More Egg? My underused large muffin tin needs to know.
possible duplicate of Do the cup cakes bake faster in a 24 hole cup cake tray rather than a 12 hole cup cake tray?
The question I proposed as a duplicate was asking about smaller cupcakes, but my answer there covers larger ones too. If we don't want to call it a duplicate, I can just post the table here.
This table comes from the front of the muffin section in Bread, by Beth Hensperger:
Muffin size Baking time Yield
Mini/gem (1 5/8") 10-15 minutes 18-20
Regular (2 3/4") 20-25 minutes 9-10
Oversized (3 1/4") 25-30 minutes 6-7
Muffin cake (8-9") 55-65 minutes 1
The baking times are for 375-400°F; most recipes will fall around that range. Note that the yields don't necessarily match up to typical pan sizes; for example, if you take a recipe meant for 12 regular muffins, you'll probably have more batter than you need for a pan of 6 oversized muffins. Perhaps this is your problem - you could be overfilling. If even after scaling the volumes appropriately, you still have problems, you could try reducing the temperature by 25°F and increasing the baking time.
("Muffin cake" refers to baking in an 8-9" pan of some sort - the author says that you can get away with it for any muffin recipe, but I've never tried it!)
Ended up baking for 30 minutes and they were good to come out. The batter was a little dry so that probably helped. Next time I'll try it with fruit or chocolate chips and see if it still works out.
Oops, just noticed I hadn't copied table formatting, my bad. Bits of fruit or chocolate chips in the batter shouldn't have much effect on the results!
BREAD BATTER CONVERSION CHART FOR DIFFERENT SIZE PANS
One recipe of quick bread batter can be baked in pans of many different sizes. If
you want to bake smaller loaves or muffins instead of a single larger loaf, use this
chart to figure the baking time. Do remember that no matter which pan(s) you
use, fill each only two-thirds full. If you have batter remaining, use it to make
muffins.
9x5x3-inch loaf pan 1-1 ¼ hr.
8x4x2-inch loaf pan 50-60 min.
7 ½ x3 ½ x2-inch loaf pan 40-45 min.
4 ½ x2 ½ x1 ½ -inch loaf pan 30-35 min.
2 ½ -inch muffin cups 15-20 min.
1 ¾ -inch mini-muffin cups 7-12 min.
Jumbo muffin cups 30 min.
*Note: Baking times are approximate and may vary slightly with individual
recipes.
** From Holiday Baking, Better Homes and Gardens Special Interest Publications,
Dec. 30, 2008.
I really like the excellent responses that questions collect over time. I wish I could vote for more of them!
Muffins are a quick bread, and quick breads can generally be scaled from mini muffins up to loaves by adjusting the cooking time only.
Follow the recipe as written on the box and cook the larger muffins until they are done. Done in this case would mean a nicely browned exterior and a tester inserted into the center comes out clean. Or, if you have a thermometer handy, 200º-205ºF in the center.
Beside adjusting the cooking time, you should try not to vary height. So, bake in a wide tin, not a narrow tall one.
The difference between baking muffins and baking cakes is that cakes are cooked for a longer period of time on a lower temperature (it took me a while to figure this out, as for some reason the lower temperature is counter-intuitive to me). Muffins I usually wind up baking at 350F for about 25-30 min, and cakes or loafs are usually 325F for about an hour. This can be done using the same batter recipe.
If you try to bake a cake or loaf at a muffin temperature you can wind up getting crispy or even burned outsides, and raw sticky middles. The same principle applies here for larger muffins. Cook a bit longer on a lower temperature and they should come out well.
For the mini muffin/cupcake pans I always bake at 375 F and check them at 7-10 minutes with a toothpick (make sure it comes out clean).
For standard muffin/cupcake pans bake at 375 F and check them at 20-25 minutes with a toothpick (make sure it comes out clean).
For oversized muffin/cupcake pans bake at 325 F and check them at 30-40 minutes with a toothpick (the cook time has depended on my ingredients... I am a plant-based baker and bake with fruits so sometimes I need to bake my muffins the full 40 minutes so just make sure to check the center of the muffin with the toothpick and not the side).
While the toothpick method for checking doneness is often correct, some cakes specifically call for a light crumb to be attached to the toothpick rather than coming out clean... so this method won't work for all cakes.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.876511 | 2012-03-23T02:21:01 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22513",
"authors": [
"Carolyn",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Dman",
"Jerry",
"Kellie Wiggs",
"MK Rahman",
"QueueHammer",
"Scott",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120716",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120718",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2153",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50659",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50667",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50689",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50707",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
10883 | Preserving Home Made Pasta
How would one go about doing this? Is it safe to freeze?
Pasta freezes well if you do it right. In fact, I know of a very famous Italian restaurant in NY that freezes their pasta which they make fresh everyday. They cycle through new pasta every three days and they serve A LOT of pasta. The chef dared me to tell the difference. And he's right. 99.9% of people can't tell.
To freeze, bundle into small amounts (e.g. wrap around your hand), enough for single servings. Put on a tray, with a little semolina flour or cornmeal dusted underneath (to prevent sticking). Keep each bunch separate, they shouldn't touch. Put into freezer. Once frozen (few hours), transfer to a ziplock freezer bag. It will keep for several months, but I'd eat it within one month.
To use, dump straight into boiling water. Make sure you have a big pot of water at a full boil (because the frozen pasta will drop the temperature more than unfrozen). Stir immediately.
This works very well.
Yes, it is safe to freeze. You want to freeze in a quantity you can eat or in a way you can get it to a quantity you can eat in a single portion. I often dry mine then freeze.
And if you dry it well, you don't even have to freeze it, although if you use a lot of egg (most dry pasta is just semolina flour and water) freezing might be a little safer.
@Doug - personally I always make egg dough for my pasta, which is why I prefer to freeze it.
Freeze away! After making the noodles but before cooking let the noodle air dry on a drying rack for maybe 30 minutes, then put in zipper freezer bags in whatever serving size you want. When it is time to eat - pull from freezer, have boiling salted water ready to go and plop it into the pan for 3-5 minutes. It will cook a lot faster. No need to defrost. You can also make raviolis and then freeze them. Works great for me, egg or egg-free.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.877040 | 2011-01-10T00:01:41 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10883",
"authors": [
"Doug Johnson-Cookloose",
"Jack",
"Kate",
"Paul Boisseau",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22347",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22349",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22363",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94290",
"jason_ruz",
"justkt",
"lrod9999"
],
"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
} |
7965 | Why does my fondue call to wipe the pot with garlic?
I got a Le Creuset fondue pot a year or two ago. Since then, we've found a bunch of great cheese fondue recipes, but there's a common thread that makes no sense to me. Often times, a recipe will call for a clove of garlic. The instructions of the recipe will call for you to rub the clove on the inside of the pot before starting the recipe. The recipe will make no further reference to the garlic.
Why do I need to do this? Am I supposed to use the garlic in the dish after the rubbing? Does the rubbing of garlic really affect the dish? How? Why?
This seems like it wouldn't have any significant effect and seems like a bit of a waste. We usually end up sautéing the garlic for 15-30 seconds and then proceeding as normal. Are we missing something?
We usually end up sautéing the garlic for 15-30 seconds and then proceeding as normal.
If you like the results, keep doing it. That's how we do it - I've never been able to taste even a hint of garlic in a fondue done the traditional way.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.877246 | 2010-10-09T03:01:59 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7965",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
13563 | How do I make large spheres using spherification?
I've had great success making 'caviar' with sodium alginate and calcium chloride. I've used both an eye dropper and a Parmesan shaker (when I needed a whole lot of spheres). But I've never been able to make the larger spheres, sometimes referred to as ravioli. I've had them in restaurants as big or slightly bigger than a grape. What's the technique to get them this large? Anything in particular I need to watch out for?
Could you drop a link to your process?
@mfg, The process of spherification or how I've tried to make the larger ones?
Larger ones. Normally you just use a spoon. What happens when you pop them into the bath?
@aaronut, They don't come out as a nice sphere. They end up funny shapes. What kind of spoon should I use? What quantity of liquid?
All you need to do is put the liquid on a spoon and slowly lower it into the bath while tipping so it falls off. It may take a few tries but it isn't difficult to master. Naturally, larger spheres are a bit more delicate so will require gentle handling to remove from bath, rinse, and plate.
Does it matter what kind of spoon? Are there curvatures, lips, or depth that make it easier / harder?
I was waiting for you to answer this one.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.877354 | 2011-03-29T17:35:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13563",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"mfg",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
2688 | How can I make a chocolate cup that looks like the seaweed on a sushi roll?
I want to make a dessert that simulates a salmon roe sushi (like this) using rice pudding and spherified melon juice with a chocolate "seaweed" wrapping. But I can't figure out how to make the seaweed convincing.
How do I do this?
Just to let you know that your image link doesn't work.
great question.
wow, that looks amazalatin'. I want one. What's the green?
Heh. Sam, That picture is the real sushi that I want to mimic, so I imagine that the green is wasabi. However, I plan to use a raspberry sauce as "soy", sliced peaches as "ginger", and some green whipped cream as "wasabi".
@yossarian: Have you made this yet? How did it work out?
@samalterman, I have not. I hope to give it a go this weekend.
@yossarian: some weekends have gone by... and? :)
@tobias, I made it, Check the new answer.
@sama, it turned out great. Check the new answer.
"Plastic chocolate" is a form of chocolate used for modeling and shaping decorative elements such as chocolate roses, ribbons and other elements for cakes and desserts.
Take about 1 lb. of bittersweet chocolate and melt over a double boiler. When chocolate is melted, stir in 2/3 cup of light corn syrup. Mix until evenly blended and then set aside to cool. When it firms up, wrap tightly in a heavy gauge plastic bag or wrap tightly in plastic wrap. Let sit for several hours or overnight. No need to refrigerate it, ambient temperature is fine.
Cut the plastic chocolate into smaller size chunks that will be easy to knead. Begin kneading to soften it. If it gets sticky, use a little cocoa powder but be careful not to dry it out. Knead until pliable and then roll out to desired thickness and cut as desired to shape your sushi rolls, decorative elements, etc. You can roll it through the roller of a pasta machine to help get it to an even thickness.
If you're wanting the rough look of nori then press some crumpled foil into it after rolling as previously suggested.
That sounds like just what I want. I'll have to try that soon.
So I made this. It worked out really well. The recipe leaves some room for improvement, but overall, I was happy with the way it turned out.
I rolled out the chocolate, pressed crumpled tin foil in, and then made the nori.
The dish put together.
Dessert for four.
I used reverse spherification of peach puree for the caviar, sliced peaches as ginger, raspberry sauce as soy, rice pudding as sushi rice, and pistachio butter as wasabi. The presentation was great. The flavor was good.
Some things that could greatly help this dish:
The pistachio butter didn't work at all. The flavor clashed terribly with the dish. Next time, I think I'll try a mint whipped cream with some green food dye.
To get the texture in the chocolate, I crumpled the tinfoil and then uncrumpled it to make the impression. I think this would have worked better if I'd crumpled it in to a cylinder and then rolled it across the chocolate.
I left the spheres in a water bath for a while and flavor leached in to the bath (the spheres tasted different upon making and serving). This should be the last step next time.
I didn't strain the raspberry sauce. It tasted good, but was too thick as "soy". Straining would have fixed that, I think.
The peach slices could have been cut much thiner so that they could get a ginger folded look on the plate.
I could have done a more Japanese presentation. Some soy sauce containers with the 'soy' and the 'wasabi' would have been a much better presentation. Unfortunately, I didn't have a set of 4 plates.
The chocolate was firm to begin with, but really got soft with handling and being in a hot kitchen. Next time I would make the cups, fill with rice, and then refrigerate until service.
I welcome thoughts or suggestions in the comments.
That looks really delicious. Well done. How difficult is the spherification process? Perhaps you could use a more translucent liquid than peach to give a more caviar-like look. Perhaps pomegranate juice?
@soba, spherification is relatively easy if you have the right chemicals and a scale that's accurate to .1g (i.e. not a standard kitchen scale). I think I could strain the peach puree or even just buy peach juice to get a more transparent look. I hadn't thought of that. Good idea. Of course, just about any fruit juice would work for the dish (although more acidic fruits may effect the spherification).
@yossarian In her "tiramisushi", Elizabeth Falkner uses shaved bosc pear for the ginger (I used a veggie peeler to shave it), and grated ginger for the wasabi. Because her dish is chocolate heavy, the "wasabi" was both accurately spicy and worked well. (My Rendition of the dish )
@yossarian For your chocolate shell, if you want something closer in appearance to the original photo, I'd recommend getting some acetate sheets, putting a thin layer of tempered chocolate on it with an offset spatula, wrap it around your roll, and chill. It will be a crisp shell, but give you a nice clean look. I did it in this dish, but used parchment, so it ended up a little more wavy than I'd like.
If you use a peeler on an apple you might get something that looks a lot more like pickled ginger (some comes un-dyed)
Good idea Nick. In a later version, I used a mandolin on plums and soaked them in a ginger simple syrup. The texture very closely matched pickled ginger, and the flavor was excellent. Pics: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/15547/1259
I don't do much with chocolate, so I don't know if you can mold in it, but I think a mold made of crumpled and flattened tin foil would give a pretty convincing texture.
That's a killer idea! Definitely going to try that.
How about using a fondant instead of chocolate? Roll it thin enough then wrap with a sushi mat to get the bamboo texture onto it.
That may very well work, but I'm not a fan of fondant.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.877502 | 2010-07-21T22:05:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2688",
"authors": [
"Filip",
"Kyra",
"Nick T",
"Sam Holder",
"SamAlterman",
"Sobachatina",
"Steve",
"TGnat",
"Tobias Op Den Brouw",
"ab.aditya",
"allindal",
"dstarh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17262",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4760",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4900",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8457",
"mark",
"yossarian"
],
"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
} |
19149 | How to customize the softness of custards like flan?
How do you dial in the right amount of thickness vs soft melt in your mouth style?
These are what I believe affect it:
Ratio of eggs to milk
egg yolk to egg white ratio
condensed, evaporated, regular milk or cream
cooking time
how long to let it sit out after the oven before putting it in the refrigerator
cooking temperature
dish/flan size
dish thickness/material
You forgot amount of thickening agent, such as flour or cornstarch.
Soft melt increases with fat and emulsifiers. Emulsifiers make the mouth feeling smooth and silky, but not as rich as fat. Firmness increases with proteins. Thickness increases with dry matter (a bit), proteins and additional binding agents.
I don't know which feeling you want to achieve, but here is a list of your relevant factors and what they do. The info (plus the info above) should be enough to tweak an existing recipe in the direction you want.
ratio of eggs to milk: more eggs mean more dry matter, more fat, more emulsifiers.
egg yolk to egg white ratio: egg yolks have fat, emulsifiers and protein. Egg whites have protein only.
condensed, evaporated, regular milk or cream. Let's take regular milk as base. In comparison, evaporated milk has proportionally more dry matter and fat. Condensed milk has even more dry matter because of the sugar. Cream increases the fat content a lot, and because fat is dry matter, it also increases dry matter - but the ratio of fat to overall dry matter is much higher than in milk (regular, evaporated or condensed). Don't count on the proteins of milk much, they are a relatively low amount and have been overcooked anyway (unless you use raw milk or cream).
Binding agent. Flour and starch add thickness only (flour has some protein too, but not much). Tapioca, arrowroot, etc. are starches. Gelatine is a protein, adds both thickness and firmness. Gums add thickness and emulsify. If you use something more exotic, ask in a comment.
The rest of your list doesn't really matter. Or, more accurately, it does, but there is one correct combination and you shouldn't tweak it in attempts to change the mouth feel.
It is actually wrong to measure cooking time. What you want to measure is the temperature your custard reached. Yolk emulsifiers start to work at about 50°C. Starch needs 70°C. The first types egg proteins start binding in the high-70s. Somewhere in the high 80s, other types of egg proteins bind too. You don't want this last binding to happen - if it does, your custard gets too firm and exudes some liquid after cooling. If you take it even higher, it gets not only firm, but grainy. If you let it simmer or boil, you also get biggish liquid-filled bubbles in a baked custard, and a sandy texture in a stovetop-stirred one.
So, the correct temperature is in the low to mid-80s. I usually aim for 85°C. The correct time is whatever it takes to reach that temperature, and depends on the rest of things you listed - but the relationship is so complex that the custards you'll ruin to determine the right combination for your oven/stove and dishes by trial and error will cost more than a candy thermometer (mine cost under 15 Euros). And if you go with the trial-and-error method, you won't be able to achieve a predictably good custard outside of your own kitchen.
Isn't the internal temperature the determining factor for the rate of setting, not actually the setting itself? Empirically it seems I always have to hold the custard at 85 for a certain amount of time before achieving the correct thickness...
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.877986 | 2011-11-26T01:29:02 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19149",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"Max",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"user41613"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
37879 | Non-spicy flavors for a spicy-hot food lover?
For medical reasons, my friend who adores spicy-hot food, is trying to cut down. What can we do to food to make it taste "less bland"?
Inspired by this post from a stranger
This could be a book... its basically "how do I make flavorful food." Can you narrow the question down to something more concrete and answerable?
Wait for your friend's taste buds to grow back, and this'll become a non-issue. :)
There are chemicals other than capsaicin which can give a sensation of heat, but I don't know if your friend can tolerate allyl isocyanate, gingerol, piperine, or shagaol.
@SAJ14SAJ, how about what other flavors and spices do lovers of capsaicin gravitate towards? Though then it is even more of a discussion style question.
@CS5ServiceManager A mix of caraway seed and cumin, with Soy sauce and or Fish sauce can be pretty tasty without added capsaicin. There are lots of similar good combinations available if you take some time to learn spicing, but isn't reflux usually brought on by the amount and carb/fat/protein proportions of food, rather than the flavorants?
@sourd'oh, is it allyl isocyanate that's responsible for the "sinus" heat of wasabi? Wasabi and horseradish were my first thought. Ginger was a close second.
@Jolenealaska Yeah, allyl isocyanate is in wasabi and horseradish, shagaol and gingerol are in ginger, and piperine is in black pepper
Generally speaking, threads which do well on reddit are questions that will get closed on any Stack Exchange site.
It depends on the medical reason. If it's a sensitive esophagus or stomach caused by GERD, replacing the capsaicin with pungent components, like mustard or black pepper, or strong acidic or base components, like vinegar, wine or citrus, may be out as well. Even alumvarics like onions and garlic may be out. By contrast, ginger can provide intense heat on the tongue, but is also recognized as a remedy for stomach upset. They will need to check with the doctor or nutritionist to see what's OK.
Used well, the boring old residents of the spice rack can provide strong and piquant flavor profiles without the irritation hot peppers in all their incarnations can introduce. Many traditional Continental, African, Near Eastern (Including Greek) and East Asian recipes that don't rely on heat for flavor are "adapted" for a mid-20th century Anglo-American palate - they're blander and less complex than the originals. Seek out traditional recipes and techniques, or 21st century interpretations, rather than rely on outdated Anglicized recipes. Don't be afraid to explore uncommon cuisines as well - Afghan cuisine, for instance, is very mild yet intensely flavorful - a mix of Near Eastern and Indian flavors that doesn't rely on heat.
Here is an article on intensifying and improving the flavors of commonly used spices and herbs. In summation:
Use fresh and freshly ground whole spices (I use a "magic bullet" style blender) rather than stale pre-powdered preparations.
Use fresh, green herbs rather than dried flakes - oregano is the exception.
Toast whole spices in a pan on low heat before they're ground, or bloom herbs and spices in hot oil, and use the oil as the flavorant.
Here is an article on common techniques to build strong flavor in dishes without introducing spiciness. In a nutshell -
Bloom the spices (as above)
Roast vegetables rather than sauteé, steam or stew.
Don't neglect the aromatics, such as sofrito or mirepoix. (Here is another article on selecting and using aromatic components)
Confit (poach in oil) powerful aromatics like garlic.
Use hygroscopic seasonings (salt or sugar especially) to draw out water and intensify flavors.
Brown butter before introducing it to the recipe.
My boyfriend loves spicy foods and he loves garlic. People who like spicy foods usually like really powerful flavors. So, anything super sour, like lemon or vinegar, or super salty, like soy sauce or...salt... Hope this helps.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.878261 | 2013-10-24T21:19:09 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37879",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"AnneMarie",
"Burt",
"Jeffrey W. Scott",
"Jenny jenkisn",
"Jolenealaska",
"Marti",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SourDoh",
"Tori Brown",
"Trex",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"eruditass",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1494",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89145",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89171",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89187",
"kgrfe",
"leigh lennox",
"user3259951"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
5811 | How do you prepare a steak to be rare and very rare (blue)?
I really enjoy steak, and the lowest I've gone is medium rare in terms of how it's prepared.
My questions are:
How do you prepare a steak to be rare?
How do you prepare a steak to be very rare (blue)?
Can these be prepared with any kind of steak from a supermarket? Or is there someplace special these kinds of steaks should be purchased from?
I'm interested in trying rare and maybe even very rare, but it's 1-2 steps away from raw, which I find a little uneasy.
The colour inside should be blue, and the temperature is about 37.5 degrees Celsius.
Seal on either side for about 1min place in an oven at 90 degrees Celsius, for about 6 min. The time in the warm oven will coagulte the blood so when you cut into the meat it shall have a blue tinge and won't bleed like a rare or medium steak
Thermometers are your friend. Blue is about 45 C, Rare is about 50 C. That way you know that it's not raw. That temperature kills a lot of bacteria, but not all parasites, so be careful. Searing it might not get the parasites either.
But people have been eating the stuff rare for a long time and few get sick.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.878860 | 2010-08-23T06:00:13 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5811",
"authors": [
"EDabM",
"John Hill",
"Katie Sheehy",
"Rocketmagnet",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11451",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11452",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91422",
"user1604416"
],
"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
} |
14156 | why did my liverwurst get crumbly?
i'm pretty decent at doing rustic pates in a terrine mold, but wanted to expand my skill set... so i decided to make liverwurst for the first time.
I used 1:1 ratio of pork liver and very fatty pork shoulder and followed this procedure - per recipe I found online:
Ground pork, then liver, then ground combined mixture all through small die
Mixed in spices, powdered milk and onions - chilled, then ground again through small die
Wrapped in muslin, twisted ends to create a tight casing and tied off
Dropped in boiling water, reduced water to simmer and poached for 3 hours
Drained water, dumped in ice water to chill - then set into fridge overnight
when i unwrapped it the following day i was expecting a nice firm, well bound sausage. instead i have something that crumbles when i cut a thin slice. it's really more like a pate.
i know that there are many many things i could have done wrong.
any ideas on what i should change up when i try again?
There are many types of liverwurst. The one most commonly sold in German supermarkets is, indeed, firm. But I think it may have added gelatine - it is firmer than the meats I've seen gelled from natural collagen content. Then there is the spreadable liverwurst, which isn't a firm sausage, but a creamy mass. Maybe your recipe is intended for the second kind, and you didn't ground it as fine as to be creamy (you'll have to really puree it for that, a blender will be better than a meat grinder).
@Rum why don't you convert that to an answer?
@mfg it sounded somewhat thin, because it was only a guess, not really helpful. But thank you for the suggestion, I did some research in the typical haunts of German home cooks and made that a full answer.
A probable answer is that maybe it wasn't intended to be firm at all.
There are different types of liverwurst in Germany. The most commonly sold one is indeed firm, but from its texture, I'd guess that it has gelatin added. It is more rubbery than the naturaly gelled meats I've eaten. But there is no guarantee that your recipe was intended for this kind.
Another common type is the spreadable liverwurst. It is a creamy mass which is intended to be spread on bread similar to cream cheese. If you want to make this kind, the meat grinder is probably only good for the first pass. I'd make sure to puree it really fine, a blender is probably better. (Unless you specifically want to make the chunky type).
I am not too sure that pork shoulder is such a good choice, probably the fat wasn't enough. The most popular recipes on chefkoch.de (a site similar in quality and popularity to allrecipes) call for pork belly, the part which is made into bacon. Some of them also say to add speck, which is the non-rendered subcutaneous layer of fat of the pig. It also tends to come from the belly (sometimes from the back), but has less or no meat attached. Many specify that the meat gets cooked first, then ground. The raw liver gets ground separately (after removing fascia and the ducts). Then everything is mixed, pureed (or regrinded for chunky). Then it is filled (some use natural casing, most fill it into jars, nowhere was muslin mentioned) and sterilized. I found some variance among the methods, but as I haven't tried any of them, I can't tell you which works best. I didn't find a recipe which was explicitly for firm liverwurst, but many of them explicitly mentioned spreadable liverwurst.
I also found some discussion on the proper ratio. This varies (depending on taste) between the liver being 20% to 33% of the whole mass. A higher ratio seems to cause both dryness and bitter taste.
This is probably helpful if you can live with spreadable wurst. If you insist on the firm kind, you may have to experiment with gelatine, because I couldn't find any homemade recipes for that.
Edit: some more research suggests that the denaturing proteins in the liver are enough to bind the leberwurst to be firm, and adding some of the fatty water in which the meat cooked makes it spreadable. The one who wrote it seemed to have some authority on making sausages (at least he made lots of posts and the others didn't disagree with any of them). Again, this isn't my opinion, just a translated summary.
wow. thanks for the rundown. i'm guessing you're probably right wrt the recipe being for a more spreadable product - that's what it produced! could definitely back off the liver ratio, per what you read when it's consumed this way. odd about the muslin. i went out of my way to find that since the recipe called for it. i know some people use that technique for foie, so thought it could be a good fit. back to the drawing board to find a technique for the firmer version.
And there are more varieties, some of which are indeed somewhat "crumbly" in that they contain larger chunks somewhat loosely held together.
thanks again guys. after letting it sit in the fridge for a day after unwrapping the wet muslin the texture is more consistent and the flavor has mellowed a bit. it's pretty tasty, just not what i was looking for in a liverwurst. more like a french pate grandmere. wish i could hand out samples here!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.878998 | 2011-04-19T14:48:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14156",
"authors": [
"Colin",
"DRUZiE",
"Ellen",
"Jonathan Marcus",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29735",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29748",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29751",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5770",
"jwenting",
"mfg",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
120505 | What is the point of a "Friendship Bread" starter?
Recently I started a "Starter" for Friendship Bread with some active (non wild) yeast. I thought it would be a good way to keep an active culture of yeast around in general and get some nice cake / breads too. However as i've been going though recipes paired with the starter for cakes, cookies, and muffins. I've noticed that all the leavening is coming from other means. So that becomes the crux of my question. If not for leavening, what value does a friendship bread starter provide?
Have you not been using it to make bread?
Cakes, cookies and muffins don't use yeast for leavening, you use friendship bread for making yeast breads.
It does seem that the internet is full of recipes for "friendship bread" that add chemical leaveners as well (a top hit for me on Google uses a cup of starter, 2 cups of flour, and 1.5 tsp of baking powder + 0.5tsp baking soda). Recipes without additional leavening seem really hard to track down so the question is more reasonable than it seems at first glance (partly @GdD)
It's so the success of the recipe doesn't depend on whether the starter is actually active, and you don't ruin a friendship by blaming the person who gave you the starter for a failed rise.
I see Amish Friendship Bread recipes that create a starter with dry active yeast, but also notice that once they are active, they are kept active by feeding with flour, water, and frequently sugar. After the first addition of active yeast at the creation, no further dry active yeast is added, from what I can tell. This is a similar process to creating a sourdough, however, with sourdough, no dry active yeast is used. Anyway, over time, the starter you've created will pick up lactic acid bacteria, and perhaps other strains of yeast. The pH of the starter will become more acidic. So, in addition to leavening, the starter adds flavor to the recipe and adds acidity to your recipe. Baking soda and powder also help leavening, but might be more important here to preserve the correct level of acidity and encourage browning in the final formula. Baking soda helps keep acidity in balance, particularly when used with baking powder (one can use less soda). The proper alkalinity is also important to encourage browning.
It is there for taste.
The starter you describe is simply a kind of preferment. Since active yeast is added, and maintained overtime, I expect it will have a very strong yeasty-sourdoughy taste, much more so than other preferments made without a culture, or ones that are fermented for short times.
The bread recipes itself (the ones I found online) are for quickbreads, and the leavening comes from the chemical leaveners in them. Even if the starter would have a leavening capability (which I don't know, since I haven't handled it - it could be highly overfermented) it wouldn't be able to develop any of it in a quickbread recipe.
This is of course about the technical side of baking bread. I have no contact to Amish culture, and I have no idea if adding such a starter has some kind of cultural or social significance. If it did, that would be off topic for us anyway.
Culturally the recipes on the Internet are far from authentic anyway, with the traditional breads being closer to sourdough except for being enriched (especially when feeding the starter).. "Amish" is branding
I looked at maintaining a culture based on commercial yeast early in the pandemic when supplies were lacking, and ended up with a sourdough culture obtained via a friend's doorstep. Based on what I read at the time, a method like this should keep a viable culture of something that will leaven, but it will evolve over longer than the 10 days commonly stated
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.879499 | 2022-05-03T20:17:28 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120505",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"GdD",
"The Photon",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50909",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
6873 | When does the rule "only flip meat once" not apply?
Title says it all and this is not just a burger question, what about those steaks, chicken breasts, pork chops on the grill?
Where did you hear about this rule? I don't think I'm familiar with it...
Yea, I don't think such a thing is a "rule" at all.
I have heard this rule countless times. I have stumbled across countless articles suggesting this.
I've heard it, too. Supposed to keep meat from getting tougher and/or drying out. The idea is to cook hot enough to sear in juices quickly.
"Countless" is not a URL or book title. If we knew where this information came from, we might be able to understand the context and therefore its rationale and exceptions.
It's a myth. I'm trying to find the article that I read a while ago which dispelled it scientific-experiment-style. In the mean time, I'll appeal to authority instead of to evidence: http://dinersjournal.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/08/harold-mcgee-on-flipping-steaks-resting-meat-and-char-from-electric-grills/ .
I believe the goal is to get the best sear possible on each side of the meat. Moving the meat around too much could cause it to cook completely without getting a good sear on the outside.
Clearly this doesn't apply when doing anything "rotisserie" style, as you're trying to do the exact opposite: slowly cook the interior of the meat without burning the outside to a crisp or unevenly.
Also, see this similar question: Grilling burgers: flip once, or keep flipping?
I think this rule really applies to the grilling marks on the food. The longer you leave the food on the grill the more those marks burn themselves into the food. If you want the pretty "clean" lines/pattern then don't move it.
I actually prefer, in the case of meat, to get an even sear on the meat's surface, so I actually move it often to not get the pretty pattern. So the whole thing looks more charred than having the pretty lines on the meat.
In some cases I actually finely score the surface of the meat to be grilled so I get deeper char marks into the meat. But that's just me. Also you will get more marks if the item is dry vs. wet or moist.
This "rule" only applies to the grilling marks on the food, if you dont' care about the marks you should actually flip often to get a more even cooking inside your meat.
Flipping prevents the outside from cooking as fast. So for thicker cuts of meat, that you want to cook more thoroughly before the outside burns, you would flip my more often. If you want medium rare and a hard sear, flip once. If you have a thick steak, or burger you want to cook more thoroughly, flip several times.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.879815 | 2010-09-07T01:07:54 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6873",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Chris",
"Dan Hauer",
"Erik P.",
"Kamyar Souri",
"doris enow",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13932",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"kajaco"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
8271 | how to curb the smell of fish?
More specifically while cooking it indoors. My girlfriend hates seafood and hates the smell, is there anything I can do to get this smell to go away faster or reduce its potent aroma when cooking with it ?
Do you already have an exhaust fan?
Yes but not very powerful.
Well, a more powerful one will better vent the smell, so you may want to look into that. So will opening the windows, if its at all breezy outside.
This is an apartment, I am not able to modify my unit.
i have found that a lampe berger works well to eliminate strong scents after cooking (http://www.lampeberger.us/) -- after all, they were originally invented to help reduce the odors in hospitals and mortuaries! (you can read about their history at wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fragrance_lamp). i use mine after a night of deep frying food to get that smell out. i'm pretty certain it would work on fish just as well.
Great, my girlfriend will love when this arrives. Any particular one I am looking for? Or just the brand itself is known for this type of thing ?
i believe they are all the same -- it's the way they work that's really key. i haven't tried any others, but i can't see why they would work any better (or worse).
Probably not the kind of answer you are hopping for, but in my case what my dad (he loves fish, mom and sisters dont) ended up doing was buying a second electric toaster-oven and just use an extension and cook it in the backyard... :S I guess you could use an electric or gas camping stove too. If there is no backyard... maybe rooftop?
Other than that its just fish fest whenever my mom is away got a trip or something :/
Although I appreciate the comments, waiting for her to leave town is not an option. I like my seafood too much!
Lemon juice neutralizes smells very well. Apply to hands in order to remove fishy smell, and to remove smell from enclosed space such as kitchen, squeeze lemon into spray bottle with some water and spray around room.
Many fish really only smell "fishy" when they're not longer fresh (there are some that just always smell potent, though). Most fish at your local supermarket isn't really at its peak. Unless she's extremely sensitive to the smell of all seafood, switching to different or fresher fish may leave your kitchen smelling better afterwords. For saltwater fish, the freshest fish will be the ones that were frozen on the boat and remain that way until you take it home to defrost properly. I also prefer my shrimp to be individually quick frozen (IQF).
Perch from lake eerie caught yesterday that we cooked today, smelled fishy.
This approach will limit your preparation methods, but broiling the fish seems to confine the smelling-up to basically the time between removing the fish from the oven and finishing eating it. It doesn't need to be a full broil; you can just put the oven up to broil with the fish removed and you'll still only need to cook it for 5 minutes or so.
Just make a little bowl of foil to fit the fish, spray hit some kind of non-stick spray, add the fish, add some sauce/fixings, pop it in the oven. It will be done before it has much chance to smell.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.880065 | 2010-10-18T23:26:52 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8271",
"authors": [
"Chris",
"DarkLightA",
"Raine Revere",
"coriander leaf",
"derobert",
"franko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17006",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17075",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17086",
"tqmon"
],
"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
} |
4214 | Can I boil pasta in a pasta sauce?
Is it ok to boil pasta in pan with a pasta sauce?
Is there any reason to boil pasta separately (and then add the sauce)?
Off topic, but I was bored once and boiled pasta with leftover cranberry juice .. the result was meh at best
That's the way many lasagna recipes do it, to keep the end product from being too mushy. I'd guess that the main drawback would be all the starch that would be released into the sauce. A lot of recipes have you add back some pasta water, to get that startch, but usually only a tiny, tiny fraction of the water that was used. If that supplies enough starch, I'd guess that all of it releasing into the sauce would not make for a good final product.
For the best of both methods, cook the pasta most of the way in water, then strain and dump into the sauce to let it finish the last few minutes of cooking.
From what I've read, this is how most italian chefs do it.
Yeah, this sounds like the right approach. The Pasta should be even slightly hard when you put it into the sauce however. You definitely need to cook it in the water first though.
Don't forget to salt the water too :) http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/2579/18418
Italians and Italian chefs boil the pasta in the PROPER amount of salted water to the correct and proper AL-dente and then they combine it with the sauce. they are not cooking the pasta further in the sauce.
In short, no, if you want a good result, you have to use at least some water. The starch particles rinsed off by the water would end up in your sauce and you'd have a gloppy mess on your hands.
Check out this article by Harold McGee, where he investigates the assumption that you need to boil pasta in copious water to have it come out right.
To summarize, if you're going to use the low-water method (2 qts water), you need to start with cold water and you need to stir frequently.
I don't matter adding some water. But eating the actual pasta water, will something detach from the pasta to the water?
@Tuomas, yes starch from the pasta will dissolve into the water.
You can cook pasta by the absorption method, where you keep adding liquid in a covered pot until it is all absorbed. The liquid can be flavored, including wine for example. The texture is somewhat different, and the flavor absorbs very well. The pasta can also be toasted first. This is a traditional method for the Spanish dish known as fideos.
Fideuá. Fideos are vermicelli in Spanish. http://spanishfood.about.com/od/maincourses/r/Fideua.htm
Fideos, for sure - in fact I have two recipes for them on my blog, but those are made with dried pasta, not fresh.
you sort of can do this. Lasagne is sort of done this way.
I assume that the reason why you don't see this advocated with other types of pasta is that your sauce would become very starchy, and often you want to get rid of this starch.
If you can think of a sauce in which a lot of starchyness is desirable, then as long as the sauce was quite thin to start with then you might be able to thicken it up as it cooks by cooking the pasta in the sauce.
But I think that the recipe would be very susceptible to going wrong as a small amount more water or a different brand of pasta and you might not get the sauce consistency you want, and then you'd have to take the pasta out to stop it overcooking whilst you adjusted the consistency of the sauce. And if there was not enough liquid to start with you might not cook the pasta enough before the sauce dried out or became too gloopy.
I imagine that you would get better results with fresh pasta than with dried too.
This blog post has some interesting investigations into cooking pasta and some of the pictures of the starchy water from pasta cooked in small amounts water show how much starch is coming off the pasta.
Lasagne notably has egg as a constituent though. I would definitely not want to try with normal semolina pasta.
@Noldorin, so you think it might be ok with fresh egg pasta?
Yeah, well I think it's less likely to ruin the egg pasta, though I still wouldn't recommend it. Egg pasta generally cooks a lot quicker, and wouldn't have the problem of starchiness.
I'm not recommending this either. Just wanted to point out that it might be possible, and that there are many reasons why it will probably not work. I assume wisdom of the masses means that if it was a good idea we would be doing it, and as we are not, then it probably isn't a good idea.
Indeed, I'm with you there.
I tried doing this because I have a very thin sauce and I thought this would thicken it up a bit. The end result wasn't good. The sauce had a starchy taste. I might try cooking the pasta half way then adding to the sauce, but really I should have just cooked the sauce longer to reduced it.
I think it can be done, but the flavour of the sauce seems to be less fresh and a bit 'blunt', which I guess must be either due to the starch from the pasta getting into the sauce, or the pasta itself losing the contrast of its own flavour and texture in the sauce.
Personally, I don't really like it.
On a separate note, I've tried a similar thing with rice noodles (cooking them in the final broth) and can say hands down, that that is a BAD idea lol. The rice starch flavour seeped into the whole thing; it tasted so bad it was almost inedible. Rice noodles definitely need to be boiled separately in my experience.
For ease of cooking I've made one-pot bolognese before using this as a method. Just throwing in pasta into the pot as the sauce reduces. Less cleaning up to do.
Personally, I don't like it as a method, before I prefer to reduce and simmer the sauce for a while, by which point most of the liquid has left the sauce. The pasta requires quite a lot, and so you have to pour in a lot more water. So, generally, this is for when I cook for the kids. They still love it.
So, yes, I just throw in the pasta, add some more water, top up and necessary, and it cooks. Takes a little longer than normal too.
You can do this, anyway the effect is somewhat different from the traditional pasta way. I guess that the main problem is the excess of starch. You may think at this like the difference between boiling and stewing.
Anyway you can cook pasta as a risotto (a southern italy recipe; pasta patate e prosciutto): sautè diced ham and potatoes in a large pan, add penne and cook like a risotto with chicken stock. The result is a very energetic dish and the pasta flavour is really different from the normal boiled pasta.
There's "one pot pasta" (Youtube), where you cook the sauce together with the pasta.
So, yes, it's possible.
There's also 'skillet lasagna', where you make the sauce, toss in broken lasagna sheets, let cook, then add the cheese on top.
@Joe, I've seen a mac & cheese all tossed together.
Without cooking the pasta first? Was it at least hydrated before going into the cheese sauce? (and I'm assuming this was a roux-based sauce, not block of velveta or jar of chez whiz). I would think this might be work, as you have to make sure you don't scorch the sauce at the bottom of the pan/pot.
@Joe Nothing. This is a bit of an infomercial (don't buy the product, it's not worth it).
Ah ... a pan that claims nothing can stick to it ... so they have to make something that would come out ruined in most pans. Got it.
I have cooked dried noodles in a very similar way with fresh tomatoes, by putting them in a pyrex pan, putting tomato slices, basil, olive oil, and spices on top, and baking it, covered in aluminum foil. Even with the foil holding in the moisture, it's helpful to pour boiling water into the pan occasionally while baking.
As long as the noodles are fully covered with sauce, it will work well. However, you will not have much control over how cooked the noodles end up. You will probably end up with some parts that are overcooked and some that are crunchy. It doesn't bother me.
Yes you can! But soak the pasta in cold water first. The food lab explains the idea quite nicely - the point being that hydration (i.e. absorbing water) and the actual cooking are distinct processes that usually happen together, but need not do so. Hence, you can presoak the pasta and then add it to the sauce for boiling for a minute or so. I've tried that and it comes out well if the sauce is actually covering the pasta, i.e. not so much with a "dry" sauce like puttanesca.
As you may be aware the term "one-pot-pasta" differs exactly to your question - it is a method of cooking pasta where you firstly sautee your veg, make your sauce and then dump in your choice of pasta. All done in one pan, pot or whatever. No need to make a spot on assumption the first time of how much sauce you need to cook your pasta in - just add water if the sauce has thickened before the pasta is cooked completely. You will have to stir however - the sauce can stick (also I feel it slightly lengthens the cooking time).
This method makes for a much taste-dense pasta as it is literally boiled in "flavoured" water (sauce). This is practically the only method I use these days - GO AHEAD!
Hope this helps :)
Not only is it possible to cook your pasta such as macaroni, shells, and just about any pasta directly in the sauce. I add two jars of sauce a can 8oz tomato sauce and the desired amount of water and let it come to a boil then turn it to simmer and it will come out fine. I cook two kinds of meat, add mushrooms, onion let them fry up then add the pasta. Then I add the sauce, tomato sauce, water and seasonings. Let it simmer until the pasta is to your liking. Comes out delicious!
Welcome to SA! Note that you are answering a question which was asked over 10 years ago, so it's unlikely that your answer will get any attention. In most cases, if you are answering old questions, it's best to only answer if you can add substantial new information to the answer pool.
There are several disadvantages:
Any fats from the sauce will coat the pasta and make it much harder to absorb water. Boiling time will be considerably longer, and especially in case of thicker noodles, pasta will be overboiled on the outside and still tough inside.
Your pasta will release its starch and while not harmful, it makes the texture bad.
Constant, persistent, thorough stirring required through the whole, lengthy boiling. In water, pasta floats, stirred automatically by boiling; only occasional stir is required to peel some random noodles from the bottom. In this sauce, you'd get raw pasta on top and thick layer of coal on the bottom unless you keep stirring all the time, scratching the bottom to remove any sauce and pasta that would burn.
Very hard to retain the right thickness. You WILL need to add water as pasta absorbs a lot, and with the starch, and evaporation, would turn your sauce into solid. And if you add too much water, you'll have a soup instead of sauce, and you can't even reduce it because you'll overcook the pasta.
Stupid proportions. You'll still end up with something more resembling a soup than a solid dish like typical pasta with sauce - you need considerably more liquid for boiling than the pasta being boiled, and so you'll end up with a lot of sauce and relatively little pasta.
Considering the big popularity of one-pot pasta meals, I think it's possible that some of your concerns are misplaced. Most of these are pretty successful at cooking pasta in the sauce directly, often a combination of stock and milk or cream.
@Catija: It's quite possible to cook in the same pot: make pasta al dente in water, drain it, then add the sauce ingredients and finish cooking the pasta with the sauce. But if you start by dumping dry pasta into raw sauce, you're unlikely to end up with something remotely good.
You should look at the one pot recipes... they don't use cooked pasta. I've made them several times and they are quite delicious.
i do this all the time! the trick is to reduce the sauce and when the sauce is ready add about 35 oz of boiling water/pack of pasta. i usually have a little boiling water on the side incase the sauce drinks it up too soon. stir frequently!
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! 35 oz sounds like a lot of water... it's over a quart Are you certain that's what you mean? Do you, perhaps mean 3-5 oz? Also, what is a "pack" of pasta? Depending on the brand, pasta commonly comes in 12 oz, 16 oz and 24 oz containers and I'm sure that some come in other sizes as well.
35 oz is NOT enough water. 5 to 6 quarts for a pound of pasta. more better then not enough.
@Alaskaman Peggy is saying that the water is added to the sauce when the pasta is cooked in the sauce. Additionally, 5-6 quarts of water is certainly not necessary. I regularly cook pasta in half that amount with no issues.
I just made some Iron Skillet Pasta. I've never cooked pasta right in the sauce before. Took longer but well worth it! :)
It tasted amazing!
Just took longer than a straight boil. Pasta absorbed flavor of sauce.
Keep an eye and don't be afraid to keep adding a little water to the sauce so things don't dry out before pasta is al dente.
That's the other thing, I nailed the al dente because the window was longer. I cooked it on a low boil.
Added parmesan towards the end for creaminess.
Sadness, it's all gone. Those that partook said it was 5 Star Pasta :)
The reason why chefs boil to al dente is so it doesnt become overcooked when they add it to the sauce. The pasta is usually cooked for a few minutes in the sauce after its taken from the water. So if you are cooking it in the sauce already, ending the pastas cooking process when its at the al dente stage will mean its undercooked as a dish.
The reason chef's cook pasta al dente is so that i will be al dente when you eat it. It should not be cooked past the point of al dente.
In context to the OP's question: There is only one correct way to prepare pasta. You must have the proper amount of water and it must be salted. At least 6 quarts of water for a pound of pasta otherwise it gets gummy. Salt the water when it begins to boil, use enough salt for it to taste like the ocean. Stirring it is also critical, stir constantly for the first 1 to 2 minutes and at frequent intervals there after. Boil until just Al dente,(about 9 minutes) drain your pasta, always reserve some water for adjusting the sauce. do not rinse or add any oil or butter to your pasta. sauce and enjoy.
I'm really sorry but there's certainly more than one way to prepare pasta. How you prepare it depends on what it's being used for... for example, for a cold pasta salad, you need to rinse the pasta to stop the cooking and clear out the extra starch. Additionally, cook time depends on shape of pasta, what it's made out of, whether it's fresh or dried, and the brand, to some degree. Angel hair would be mush after 9 minutes.
@Catija I did not there was only one way, i said there is only one CORRECT way. We Americans are good a bastardizing foods from around the world and saying that we do it better. Rinsing your pasta to "clear out the extra starch" causes it to loose its ability to hold the sauce or what your adding to it. context of the OP's question was for sauce not salad. Yes the 9 minutes was general time for your average size dried pasta such as penne or rigatoni, i assumed that people were smart enough to understand that angel hair would cook quicker. My bad.
@Alaskaman : 'do not rinse or add any oil or butter to your pasta'. What about Aglio Et Olio ?
@Joe obviously if oil IS your sauce then oil it. If you are saucing with tomato or cream sauce then you want your pasta to be able the old the sauce and oiling it will prevent this.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.880397 | 2010-08-04T14:14:18 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4214",
"authors": [
"Alaska Man",
"BaffledCook",
"Catija",
"Drew McGhie",
"FuzzyChef",
"Jay",
"Joe",
"Michael Natkin",
"Noldorin",
"Ocaasi",
"Patty Strilaeff",
"PoloHoleSet",
"SF.",
"Sam Holder",
"Simian",
"Travis J",
"Tuomas Hietanen",
"Tushar Garg",
"Tushar Joshi",
"Wipqozn",
"brian troy",
"dassouki",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1644",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7894",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7895",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7899",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7902",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7907",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7920",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87",
"ryan_s",
"shadowscout"
],
"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
} |
12083 | What is the best wine to use in a fondue recipe?
Assuming I'm willing to pull out all the stops, what is the best wine to use in a "standard" gruyere-based fondue, like this one?
Any white with a sufficiently high acid content. The canonical fondue wine is Fendant, which is made in the valais region out of chasselas grapes, so any chasselas (see Wikipedia for a long list of alternative names) will work well.
One notable alternative is a dry champagne. This will make your fondue very light and fluffy, due to the carbonation.
...and ideally, the same wine should be served with the fondue.
According to that Wikipedia article, Fendant is just an alternative name for the Chasselas grape. Are you saying that there is a specific wine with that name?
Yes and no... If it's called Fendant, it's a bog-standard chasselas made in the Valais region. Other that the provenance, there is no difference.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.881655 | 2011-02-12T16:35:09 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12083",
"authors": [
"Henrik Söderlund",
"Imtnt",
"adebaumann",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24894",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24895",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4127",
"ultrageek",
"vissi"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
113776 | Can I use the stovetop while a dough is leavening in the oven?
I usually use my (turned off) oven as a safe place for leavening doughs for hours.
I always get amazing results and never had any issue with that.
But... what if I need to use the stovetop?
Will the oven heat up and ruin my dough? Or the temperature change will be imperceptible, having no effect on the dough?
Do you have a thermometer? Place it in your oven. Check temp. Turn on your burners/use stove for a bit. Check temp. You will then know for sure.
That's the only way to know. I've had stoves where you really couldn't, stoves where this would be a good way to warm the oven (like leaving the light on),and some where you wouldn't notice any warmth at all. Newer ovens tend to be much better insulated,and that keeps heat out as well as in
When I wrote this question, I already had the dough in the oven, so it was impossible to check with the thermometer.
I was hoping to find an universal answer, but looks that really it depends by each oven.
Thank you. Your answer is correct and helpful, even if is not the answer I was expecting :)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.881861 | 2021-01-16T21:40:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113776",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"dolma33",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2172"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
74945 | Storing spices against mold
I'm storing spices and dried herbs, as I always did, in glass containers into a spice only-drawer. It always worked fine.
But looks that this house is particularly humid, because ground spices, and even seeds like fennel, started to become moldy, and they're not THAT old...
I don't always have access to new spices, so I must buy them all around once in a year.
Is there amy storage tip for avoiding mold?
Air tight containers?
If you live in the same town humidity house to house should not change that much (assuming both have AC). I would look for other variables also.
The outdoor humidity can vary plenty from area to area in a single town, and the indoor humidity can vary on top of that, so it's completely plausible that the OP's new house is much more humid. The bigger sign that something else is wrong here is simply that things apparently got moldy after just a year. Spices in airtight containers shouldn't mold that fast, even if it is humid outside the jar.
Air mixes pretty darn effectively.
It's quite possible that the Galápagos Islands don't use ac units as ubiquitously as in the US, so the humidity could be quite high inside the house. My mom lived in the Azores and no one had AC there and clothes could mildew in a month.
@Stephie do you think that switching from glass jars to air tight containers could be enough? In facts it looks like a good solution, I will definitely give it a try (I'm wondering why I din't think about it before). Promote it to answer so I can officially accept it ;)
@Catija is right... we don't use that much AC here, and everything, from spices and tea to clothes and books suffer from humidity (and salinity too)
Air tight containers might be best combined with a desiccant (dry rice?)....
Have you considered vacuum sealing? As you are buying larger amounts of spices to use for a whole year, here's what I would recommend.
Obtain some vacuum seal containers sized for the amount of each spice you are going to purchase. Get some smaller glass bottles for your daily use.
When you purchase your spices and get them home, fill the small bottles with enough of each spice to last 2 or 3 weeks.
Then vacuum seal the remainder of each spice in the larger containers.
As you use up the spices in the small bottles, you can refill them from the sealed containers and then reseal them.
Firstly, if you have any mold on your spices, then throw them out, do not risk it. When you say that you buy them at the same time of the year, I am assuming that you are buying quite quantities. Divide your spices into manageable quantities, then place into sealed containers, it might help to also go around the lid of the container with some tape to really keep them airtight. This works for me living in a humid environment. My curry powder is still great after more than a year using this method.
I worry about the rice method, as the rice will absorb the moisture and then become prone to mold in itself. It is possible to buy cheap humidity absorbers from most supermarkets, place one in the area where your spices are stored. Good luck...
I think the vacuum advice is excellent. If you can't do that or if you want to protect spices that you currently use, get some silica gel packets and add them to the spices.
First, I would suggest moving any spices that still seem good (that don't look like there's mold, and don't smell off, or anything like that), and any new spices you buy, to the fridge or even to the freezer for a bit - that should let them store safely for a while, so you don't get new spices growing mold.
Next, you should probably clean out the drawer pretty thoroughly - humidity is a problem, but the presence of mold spores are also a prerequisite for your molding spices. Having something moldy around makes it more likely other spices will contact the mold, from the spores getting on hands, or on jars, and getting inside as they are opened and handled. You might even swap your spice drawer out for a different drawer's contents, store something the mold spores won't effect in that drawer, if you're not sure of your cleaning.
For your new, or newly cleaned, spice drawer, you want to make sure it is as dry as possible, especially after cleaning, perhaps line it with paper or something if you think the mold might have settled into corners or edges. And make sure any jars and/or spices you add back are freshly clean (or new). You might, as MirekE suggests, add a handful of desiccant packets to the drawer to keep it from getting too humid in the future (maybe keep an eye out for the desiccants packets that sometimes show up in other things to keep in the drawer, if you don't want to keep buying fresh). Or occasionally aim a fan at the open drawer, so that air circulation can maybe dry things out.
If you keep checking and keep the drawer clean and dry, you might prevent the mold from re-infecting the drawer (and spices), or at least catch it early enough not to lose all your spices.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.882005 | 2016-10-22T19:29:59 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/74945",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Stephie",
"dolma33",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"paparazzo",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
68222 | No brown coloring: how to make macaron brown with only red and green coloring powders
My local store only has red, green, yellow, blue coloring powders. No brown or anything that looks like chocolate.
How to make chocolate-brown from these basic colors?
I tried cocoa powder, but that changed the texture and the macarons failed.
A French recipe suggests 1 green for 5 red, resulting in pink that supposedly becomes brown when cooking, but that is with liquid colorant so not sure it applies.
1 green to 5 red sounds about right proportionally, it's the interaction between the two when heated that matters. Powders vary, so the only way to find out is to test it. Try adding your coloring to a small amount of flour and water batter and then bake it, that will give you a good indication without wasting ingredients or taking much time.
I wouldn't try to mix food coloring for something as sensitive as macarons and a color as difficult as brown. Color theory sounds easy enough, but practice is a different beast. The intensity of the pigments varies, there are unexpected interactions, etc. And then you need some solid theoretical and practical background in working with color.
That is not to say that you cannot be successful just trying any likely-looking ratio, but the chance that you get the color you were aiming for instead of some drab mud color is not so good.
Unless you are willing to invest the time and effort needed for several macaron batches doing the R&D (and we can't do it for you, or report to you based on previous experience, because we don't have the exact powders you have), you are better off going some other route.
Order brown food coloring online. There are some great colors available, with very wide palettes and high quality ingredients. There is a reason why professional chefs buy from these palettes and don't mix their own.
Find a recipe for a colored macaron. It can be a chocolate or a coffee macaron. The recipe will already take the added ingredient into consideration, so no tweaking will be needed to achieve the correct texture.
If you absolutely need to go with your powders, the usual process of discovering the correct ratio is following:
Start with a certain amount of red, maybe 1 gram
Prepare 11 mini pots for color mixing
Use pure red in one pot, 1:1 red with green in the middle pot, pure green in the other end. Vary the scale in the between-pots logarithmically: in pot nr. 5, use 1 part red to 0.5 parts green, in nr. 4, use 1 part red to 0.25 green, etc.
Now you have different amounts in each pot, but at least 1 gram. Prepare a sufficient amount of macaron batter, divide it into 11 batches of known size, and add the same amount of mixed color to each. Leave sufficient batter for 2-3 uncolored batches.
First bake the uncolored batches, so the oven will have reached a steady state of preheatedness before you start with the colored batches.
Bake the colored batches, using exact temperature and timing.
Photograph the results (you have to keep very good track of your batches all the while - label all coloring pots, mixing bowls and baking sheets).
Now you have the hue you like, but not the intensity. Repeat the process, but instead of mixing red and green in a logarithmic scale, add differing amounts of color to each batch in a logarithmic scale.
If everything went well, you now have the color you wanted. If not, you have to repeat until you get consistent results.
A shorter form may work for you, where you start with a random ratio (why not the 1:5 you found somewhere?) and use a Newton method for finding a color good enough for you. Don't forget that the steps will still need to accommodate a nonlinear relationship between pigment amount and perceived color, so if you are looking for a color halfway between the effect of 1:4 and 1:64, it's not 1:34, it's 1:16. You will still need to bake several batches in succession, so it may be more work then doing a lot of batches at once. Anyway, I think you see now why I suggested buying the premade color.
By the way, what I outlined is an already abbreviated method, giving you only one "line" of hues achievable with your colorants. The full method would require you to make a whole color triangle. It is entirely possible that the color you want is not on the straight line between your red and your green, but requires also some yellow or some blue. Or that it is completely outside of the color space of your pigments, so not achievable with that brand.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.882418 | 2016-04-12T11:16:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68222",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
7486 | How to cook eye of round roast?
What are my options for cooking an eye of round roast? What's the best way to cook this cut of meat to minimize the potential for it to dry out?
Eye of round is an excellent cut for braising. You can braise it in stock or red wine. An example recipe would be the classic Beef Bourguignon.
It's also a perfect candidate for slow-cooking in a crock pot, as well as simply roasted in the oven. If cooking it in the oven, use a thermometer and don't cook it past medium. An overnight marinade can be used prior to roasting for additional flavor as well.
If I'm going to roast in the oven, what temperature and for how long?
350F, about 40 mins per pound for medium rare. But really, use that as a guideline - the thermometer is your friend. Simply pull the roast out 10 degrees before your desired doneness. You may want to try this high temperature roast recipe instead. I haven't, but it's highly rated.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.882779 | 2010-09-21T05:47:42 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7486",
"authors": [
"SarahVV",
"fluffy",
"georgedyer",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15377",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"runner"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
7799 | Bundt Pan Substitution?
I have a cake recipe that calls for baking in a bundt pan (it's a sweet potato spice cake). Can I use another kind of pan, or will it affect the quality of the cake?
The best substitution would be a a simple tube pan.
Besides the unique appearance, bundt and tube pans are used for particularly dense and moist batters. They might be used for a cake that might dry out on the outside before the center cooks through.
If you don't have a tube pan, then there are a couple alternatives. You can use two loaf pans, this should approximate the bundt pan. Another alternative is to use a deep circular cake pan with a ceramic ramekin in the center of it to create the hole. With either method you may need to adjust your cook time a bit depending on your results. (likely 25F lower and baked for a little longer) It also might simply just work without changes.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.882902 | 2010-10-03T19:51:25 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7799",
"authors": [],
"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
} |
13340 | How long can I store soaked beans before cooking?
I've soaked some beans in room temperature water overnight, since 6pm (white navy beans).
How long can I keep them in water before I must use them?
Will they last a day or so at room temperature and in water, or should I drain and store in the fridge, or must I cook with them immediately?
It rather depends on the temperature of the room. Where I live, in the summer it gets hot and humid, and they shouldn't be out on the counter during the day, or they ferment.
In winter (like spring in the northern US, 45-70 farenheit) they can be out for two days with no problem.
My recommendation would be to soak overnight for morning use, or to soak during the day for evening use. It also helps to change the water every few hours, though this isn't critical.
If you refrigerate them with the water, you get an extra half-day. Refrigerating drained gets another day or so.
Either way, they should always be shaded, never in direct sunlight.
If they do spoil, you'll know, as they'll have a sour/yeasty smell to them.
Thanks! I knew it was best to soak overnight and use the next day, I was wondering about how long they would still be viable in a worst case scenario. So, the best way to store beans soaked overnight is to drain them and keep them in the fridge? That way they can last an additional day?
I have soaked mine many times up to 2.5 days until I could get to them. I always plan to soak for 1 to 1.5 days (overnight then cook the next evening would be 1.5 days) but life happens so I just change the water and soak (on my countertop) another 24 hours without any problems. I do soak my beans in water with some apple cider vinegar and salt, the traditional way of soaking to remove inherent toxins. Maybe this make them last longer to soak for a longer time. Ive also soaked overnight, then realized I couldnt make them for a few days and simply put them in clean water in the refrigerator for up to 3 more days (changing the water daily).
I'll admit to this, with several kinds of beans. A couple 3 days for Pinto, with a boil or two, and water changes, really cuts the flatulence. A little fermentation never bothered me. It's usually yeasts. Slime goes too far.
I suspect the important things here are the changing of the water (which if tap water), and the addition of vinegar and salt. The vinegar and salt would make it less hospitable to organisms that you might pick up. Changing the water would reduce the chance of scum developing.
I, frequently, end up with more soaked beans than I want to cook right away, so after an 8-12 hour soak, I keep them covered with water in a sealed container (e.g. Tupperware) for up to a week in the refrigerator. I do not open the seal until I am ready to use them. I have never had any problems with fermentation or spoiling.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.883023 | 2011-03-21T17:17:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13340",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"SarahVV",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79893",
"whitebeard"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
11056 | Can I still eat this fish?
I just found a couple of salmon fillets in my freezer that seem to have been there for about two years. Are they still edible, or should I bin them?
My personal approach is to bin anything that I'm really unsure about.
@yossarian: Well I usually use it if it smells and looks okay, but with frozen food you can't really tell. I figure it'll either be perfectly safe to eat or a complete no-go, but I've no idea which, hence why I'm asking!
How are they packaged? (Vacuum-sealed, wrapped in paper, zipper bags?)
I agree with yossarian, if I question it, I chuck it. Although in this case, the salmon probably will not harm you, it might just taste bad. Loss of moisture (freezer burn), taking on of flavours, etc. I wouldn't eat it because it wouldn't taste great. My father-in-law would eat it, because you don't throw out food (his rule). Bottom line, if it has been in the freezer for those two years straight, it won't give you food poisoning or harm you. It's just a matter of palate. But rest assured, it won't taste great.
Depends on freezer temp too. If your freezer is just barely freezing, there's a chance (albeit a small one) something could spoil in the freezer. If it's good and cold though, nothing will ever spoil in there, it'll just, like you said, taste bad.
The other reason to chuck if you're worried about it is that even if it's fine, you're going to be fretting about it the whole time and won't enjoy it.
I guess I would take a different approach. I would first thaw the salmon and see if it looked and smelled OK, and if it did I would find a way to use it. True, it probably won't taste as good as it would have the day it went into the freezer, but would probably be palatable in some way. Maybe used in salmon cakes? or a salmon chowder.
I have found and used walleye fillets in my freezer that were several years old (I used to bad at labeling) that tasted just fine. I figure an animal died to provide me this meat, so I should do everything I can to make sure that it is used.
I take the same approach with frozen foods I find in the back of my freezer from back when I was terrible at labeling things. I maintain my freezer below 0 and regularly check it, so I know it's "safe" in the "not going to kill me" sense, so I just turn it into something that can mask the freezer burn. Soup/chowder sounds great to me.
@stephenmcdonald: you have your freezer below zero? Isn't that what a freezer is meant to do? Oh... I see, Fahrenheit. ;-)
My grandfather was a commercial fisherman on the NW Pacific coast. He used to salmon charter fish. When he had fish that was "aged" in the freezer he used to make sure he thawed it COVERED in milk. If it was overly fishy, the milk caused the fish to sweeten. You can smell the fish when it is completely thawed and check it's consistency. If it smells fine, and has good consistency for salmon just prepare it with a nice lemon sauce. You can always cook it and then mash it as a pate with herbs and onion for wonderful cracker snacks.
And thank you for that tip! I will definitely be using it in the future (if needed).
I fish in Alaska and have eaten 2 year frozen Salmon that was so freezer burned that I had to cut half of it away, but after 45 minutes on my Treager wood pellet grill it was delicious.
Frozen Fish Can Be Stored Indefinitely
According to the USDA, frozen foods will keep indefinitely if stored in an airtight package at a constant temperature at or below zero degrees Fahrenheit. Freezing fish does not decrease its nutritional value. Freezer burn may dry the fish out in spots, but it is still safe to eat.
I see no-one has bothered to listen to the posting guidelines in terms of answering the question.
No don't eat it. It is way past food safety recommendations. If you were a restaurant, cafe or any food outlet the maximum "use by" for all products that are frozen is 6 months. There are reasons for this, the cell walls get damaged and freezer burn sets in where a certain dryness affects the quality of the food so even though it may not kill you the quality would probably have deteriorated. Bacteria lays dormant in a freezer so they wouldn't spoil like in a fridge or at room temperature but still be active once defrosted.
I hope this helps people. You should really stick a label on your frozen things to help keep track of the date
There is a fundamental difference between food safety and food quality. Think of a undercooked chicken breast vs. a very cooked through one. As far as frozen food is concerned, we are dealing with quality, hence no one broke any guidelines.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.883308 | 2011-01-14T15:04:01 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11056",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"David Ansermot",
"Instance Hunter",
"Jürgen A. Erhard",
"Monica Cellio",
"Stephie",
"Taiki",
"Will Vousden",
"abu qusai saleh",
"dniviE",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1016",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22663",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6541",
"mrwienerdog",
"stephennmcdonald",
"yossarian"
],
"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
} |
13834 | What type of fish is best suited for baking?
I have very little experience in cooking fish (of any type, using any method). So I was wondering, what type of fish is suited for baking?
For reference, recently came across this recipe: http://www.dinnerintenminutes.com/easy-dinners/baked-fish/ which looks nice and simple. However the recipe simply says "fish fillets - no bones".
Thanks!
ps. the last time I tried baking fish, it turned out to be horrible - tougher then over-done steak!
talon8 is right that you need to be careful about overcooking - but luckily for you, baking is a relatively slow way to cook, so if you keep a good eye on it, you ought to be able to make wonderful fish in the oven.
To answer your main question, you can bake very just about any type of fish.
Looking at that recipe though, down in the "tips" section, it suggests you use a flaky white fish. So in that category, you have lots of options, snapper, cod, tilapia, for starters. Their flavours are often a little more mild and will pair nicely with the tomatoes and other flavours in there.
If you're prone to overcooking it, take it out sooner. I find many fish recipes that give cooking times tend to get you to overcook it. It'd done as soon as the fish "flakes" fully. Leave it any longer it will start to toughen quickly.
The baking technique is more important than the type of fish. With the right technique, most fish can be baked without being tough and dry. That said, there are fish that are less well-suited. You'll have to be especially careful with whitefish (as opposed to oily fish) such as cod or haddock since they have less fat and will dry out quicker. In addition, smaller fish with thinner fillets can be less forgiving.
Here is a great article that has more on technique.
Oily fish (such as salmon) will be MUCH more forgiving of slight overcooking than a very lean fish such as tilapia. If you're using white fish, check it more often, and remove it from the oven as soon as it's fully firm. If you don't intend to serve it immediately (as in it's going to be 10 minutes before you actually eat it), you can even remove it a bit before it's fully cooked and let the residual heat finish the cooking in the center.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.883704 | 2011-04-07T12:52:14 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13834",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Martha F.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28986",
"user28986"
],
"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
} |
13845 | Why is my sushi rice too sticky?
I'm on a quest of learning how to prepare a more than edible sushi. I figured that with enough practice I can achieve the goal of being able to make sushi. The most important part of sushi as I see it is the rice, and that's where I'm not really sure what I am doing wrong.
Although I'm making progress with the rice, it still comes out wrong, too sticky - ie not brittle enough - after it sticks it very hard to break, becomes a sort of Plasticine.
My question is, what variables should I try to change in order to make it less Plasticine? Cook it less, put less oil, boil it less time, let it steam on low fire more etc... Or more generally put, which parameters influence the texture of the rice and how?
Are you sure you took the correct rice? There are kinds which will always cook sticky.
@rumtscho I cooked it with 3 or 4 kinds of rices, the last two (one of them was specific sushi rice, and the other one simply a round rice) gave the same too sticky result.
I thought it was a good thing if the rice sticks. You obviously don't want sushi to fall apart.
In general, the stickiness of rice can be reduced by removing some of the starch by pre-soaking and/or washing the rice. For sushi rice, chewiness can be increased by reducing the amount of cooking water.
For what do you use oil? I don't believe that is a traditional ingredient in sushi rice.
thanks for your reply! I've been told to put oil, so it don't stick to the pot. I should try your links and tips for reducing stickiness and report.
Ok, got a great texture! But it's kinda less cooked than I've expected :/
That recipe has much too much rice vinegar, you rice will go slushy. One to two tablespoons of vinegar per cup of uncooked rice is all you need. Add the hot vinegar mix to the cooling, but still warm rice
Keep at it! A prospective itamae (sushi chef) spends the first 5+ years of his/her apprenticeship just practicing/learning how to make the rice!
I would give you a whole lot of individual pointers, but instead I give you the Serious Eats crew guide to sushi.
That said, washing your rice, and cutting in the vinegar are the most importsnt part of rice preparation as those two steps go a long way in detrimining final mouth feel. As long as you are using a short grain, high starch rice, that is.
If you want to make sushi the way Japanese make it at home then follow these steps:
Buy a decent quality bag of Japanese rice (short grain) from your asian mart or order it online.
Buy a nice Japanese rice cooker (zojirushi brand or similar). Most have a sushi setting on the rice cooker.
When the rice finishes use the rice spatula to break up the rice and to mix up the rice vinegar, sugar, and salt. If you break it up too much it will become way too sticky. Breaking the rice will release starch.
BTW, you don't use any oil for sushi rice. Also, when you cook the rice, mix in some sake, and place a sheet of konbu (about 2x2 inch) Add some Sake (alcohol) to the water as well.
Make sure your pot is sealed? I just watched a how to video because I have the same problem. He suggested putting a dish towel over the pot with the lid. I'm gonna see how it comes out this time :P
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.883907 | 2011-04-07T17:19:41 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13845",
"authors": [
"Benjamin Schroeder",
"ESultanik",
"Frances Fulcher",
"MeLight",
"Mien",
"Rob Lewis",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29002",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29003",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29004",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29028",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5613",
"night-spark",
"rumtscho",
"urir"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.