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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
129368 | What's wrong with my lamination?
When I roll my croissant dough it after enclosing the butter in it, the butter is visibly exposed at the edges, almost like there's not enough dough to cover it.
I'm trying to follow (as closely as possible) the technique demonstrated in this video by Jimmy Griffin, including slicing the folded ends of the dough after each fold, so that it's open at the sides. As in the video, I'm starting with my dough at ~3°C and butter at ~9°C. After that I'm keeping the dough around 9-12°C while working on it.
The croissants come out of the oven looking nice and flaky on the outside, but the interior is rather bready, and it certainly doesn't have that lovely honeycomb structure that I've seen photos of!
Where might I be going wrong here?
That looks like perfectly fine lamination to me...
@Marti Thanks, that's nice to hear! The crumb cross section looks a far cry from the light, airy ones I've seen (e.g., here) and I've not seen the butter splurging out of the dough like this anywhere I've looked, so I figured I must be doing something wrong… Should I just discard the end bits and not worry about it?
I'm wondering if these are just underproofed. I see clean separation between the layers, the crumb is just a little uneven and dense in places.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.884287 | 2024-10-14T17:21:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/129368",
"authors": [
"Benjamin Kuykendall",
"Marti",
"Will Vousden",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72993"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
18997 | Grilled Turkey and Gravy
I'd like to grill my turkey this Thanksgiving. Cook's Illustrated's method has you put the turkey on a V-Rack on the grill. If I do this I won't have any pan drippings for my gravy.
Is there an advantage to putting the turkey right on the grill? Can I just put my roasting pan + turkey right on the grill?
I grilled my turkey this year, here is how I made the gravy:
Cut the wing tips off
Make a mirepoix (chopped carrots, celery and onions)
Brown the mirepoix really well.
Brown the neck, wing tips and giblets (but not the liver-fry that separately and eat it for a snack)
Simmer the mirepoix and browned meat bits in a few cups of water for an hour or more to make a rich stock.
Add browned mushrooms if you like (adds umami).
This can all be done while the turkey is being grilled.
When you take the turkey off, put it on a platter to stand. You will collect some juices in the tray. Use these juices and the stock you made to make the gravy.
See: Making a natural gravy?
Canadians: the brave advance scouts of Thanksgiving.
Just trying to help out our Southern Brethren.
I haven't seen the method in question, but assuming you're cooking the turkey with indirect heat all you're really doing is roasting it on the grill. Given that, there's no reason you can't put your bird in a pan to catch the drippings the same way you would in an oven, provided it all fits in the grill, of course.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.884426 | 2011-11-17T18:50:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18997",
"authors": [
"Alari Truuts",
"Cascabel",
"Chris Cudmore",
"adamchen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41213",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41248"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
49528 | Cook mashed potatoes in buttermilk
I heard somebody mention cooking mashed potatoes in the buttermilk instead of water. Has anybody heard of this or have a link to a recipe?
Instead of water? As in boiling potatoes in buttermilk then discarding it, or at least most of it? Not just adding buttermilk after mashing?
Yes, as in boiling potatoes in buttermilk. At least, that's how I understood it.
Adding buttermilk instead of cream after the potatoes have been cooked and mashed was what my mother used to do. But cooking in buttermilk, no.
Jack Bishop of America's Test Kitchen has a recipe for cooking potatoes in buttermilk. It is correct that the acidity of buttermilk will cause the combination to cook unevenly and can be bitter, so Bishop adds a small amount of baking soda to counter the acid. Here is a link that may be helpful http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2014/10/23/358101692/test-kitchen-how-to-buy-the-safest-meat-and-make-the-juiciest-steaks
Yes, that is what I was looking for.
I would advise against it. Cooking in acid makes vegetables firm. Sometimes this is a good thing, but if you want to mash your potatoes afterwards, you want them soft. Else you'll get the wrong texture.
There are numerous recipes for adding dairy products to the mashed potatoes after they have been cooked and mashed, and they taste well. You can look for them, or experiment yourself. It's a matter of what taste/texture you like, there aren't any physics involved which you'd throw off with a "wrong" ratio.
You can boil your potatoes in milk instead of water. The milk cooks in as the potatoes soften. Then just mash and season. Potatoes come out amazing. Haven’t tried buttermilk instead of regular milk; but definitely interested in that. 2 cups milk to 2 1/2 pounds potatoes. Google recipes.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.884600 | 2014-11-05T04:54:21 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49528",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Dave",
"Don Visel Sr.",
"Jared Duncan",
"Jessica Terrance",
"Kim Brockway",
"Kristof Van Landschoot",
"Sarah Carie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118300",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118302",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118307",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5876"
],
"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
} |
14945 | A burger made from pastrami
For the past few months, I've been doing a fair amount of curing, and I think I've gotten my pastrami down pretty nicely. Now that warm weather is here, I have burgers on the brain, and considering how to merge these two loves.
What I'm looking for advice on is how to approach this feat. I was considering one of two basic directions:
Cure ground beef
Patty-ify completed pastrami
In the former case, I would mix the cure right into the beef, rest for a few days, then form patties, crust, and slow-grill over a smoky flame.
In the latter case, I would take a completed pastrami, mince it, form it into patties (probably with a binder), and then grill.
Has anyone tried anything like this? Am I off my rocker? Are there any other approaches I'm missing here?
This is an interesting idea. Part of the joy of pastrami for me is the texture. Perhaps you could abandon the burger idea and instead make a grilled pastrami sandwich. Slice your pastrami very thick and give it a nice crust on the grill.
It strikes me that it would be a bit overpowering, and that even with a binder you would have a hard time keeping it together. Cured ground beef just seems like it would be nasty :-)
I've experimented myself with two 'inclusions' in fresh beef patties. One is bacon (cooked), the other is salami. They are both interesting, and if minced finely and added to the grind they do not interfere with texture but add some excellent flavors and saltiness.
I would imagine pastrami would give you a nice result as an inclusion too. I'd chop it up and mix it in with the cubed up beef before you run it through the grinder.
With burgers really the fresher the better. I grind about 2 hours before grill time, and that is only so I can throw the patties into the freezer. I like them thin and cooked through, so I need to freeze them so they hold their shape better during the first side cooking. If you like your burgers to have some pink you'll probably want to skip the freezer.
Great idea on the mixed meat. I'll give a 50/50 a try. BTW, isn't much sausage cured ground beef?
Sure, plenty of beef based sausages. You could patty it up and cure it so you don't have to fiddle with binders. But then you'd really just be cooking a patty shaped sausage wouldn't you...?
I've ground ham and bacon into patties, but have found that much more than 20% results in a salty patty. The best results I've had with ham or bacon was to fold it in by hand after grinding, as the texture added to the overall flavour.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.884792 | 2011-05-20T23:56:34 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14945",
"authors": [
"Bruce Alderson",
"Juan Frijol",
"Masa",
"Ralph Green",
"Ray",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6204",
"renegade"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
21145 | Do I need to keep white peppercorns on hand for making stock?
Many classic recipes for chicken stock call for white peppercorns (which are just skinned black peppercorns).
I'm looking to trim my pantry list a bit and white peppercorns seem unnecessary, given that black will probably do the trick, and I always have those on hand.
Does anyone have first-hand experience with a stock made with white vs. black peppercorns?
White peppercorns aren't "just skinned black peppercorns". The process is different, which results in a different flavour.
White peppercorns are used purely for aesthetic reasons- just to avoid black specs in a pale dish.
Unfortunately, in my opinion, white peppercorns taste absolutely terrible. They have a sour, astringent, flavor not at all similar to black peppercorns.
I don't think black pepper looks objectionable so I always use it.
You could probably get away without having white peppercorns. There is a slight difference in flavor, but the reasons for white over black pepper tend to be more aesthetic. Just use a little less in black pepper than what the recipe calls for in white. I doubt you'll notice any difference.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.885079 | 2012-02-07T22:34:01 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21145",
"authors": [
"Mien",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
13367 | Fluffy texture in a Spanish tortilla
I made a Spanish tortilla over the weekend and it reminded me that I don't get the right egg texture I'm after when cooking this. The results are tasty, but the tortilla is 'spongy'. From a restaurant I expect 'fluffy', where the egg has a smooth omelette-like texture.
The recipe (a Jamie Oliver one) is: fry off onion and diced potato in a large pan over a medium heat, when browned add some spices and crack in 8 eggs. When the sides of the tortilla start to come away pop under a hot grill until set.
What will help get the texture I'm after?
He cracks the eggs into the pan? I've always whipped the eggs first, added the hot potatoes and whatever (and some of the oil) into the eggs, mix, and then back into the pan, then flip it after a few minutes. (putting it under the broiler might be too harsh of a heat)
@Joe This is how I learned to make tortilla de patatas in Spain. I can't imagine broiling the eggs to give an acceptable result.
Could the freshness of the eggs have an effect on the texture? I know that fresher eggs tend to be fluffier. How old were your eggs?
Thanks for all the answers, particularly @Mien. @Martha F. You might have a point there, the eggs were bought from the supermarket 4 days previously. I don't know how old they were from then, though still well within date.
If you want it fluffy, you'll need air. The easiest way to accomplish this is to crack the eggs in a bowl, whip them (with a whisk or a fork) for a couple of minutes. If you have a homogeneous-ish substance, add them to the onions and potatoes in your pan.
I also put a little water or milk in with the eggs before I whisk them.
@Kate Gregory: yes a lot of people do it. It wasn't proven to help or anything, but it doesn't harm either; I think it's a bit more smooth :)
Spanish Tortilla, as learned from my ex mother in law from Spain: olive oil hot in pan, cubed potato and chopped onion, salt and pepper, cover and cook on medium heat until tender stirring occasionally. Whisk until smooth 8-10 eggs with a dash of milk and pour in circular motion from middle out to edge of pan. As edges cook, with spatula, lift edges in all four directions and while tilting pan, allow egg mixture to seep under the cooked edges. Continue this until the top has little raw egg left and swirl the pan some to prevent sticking and allow "new" egg to redistribute under cooked egg . Gently press center and any bubbles as they appear. With a large plate inverted over pan, carefully flip tortilla and then slide back into pan to finish cooking. Serve with crusty bread.
Jamie Oliver has said that OLDER eggs whip up the best egg whites without having to use cream of tartar. He's right as I have done this with meringues so I don't think the age of the egg makes a difference. If anything, having your eggs near room temperature might help.
Cutting the potato in a "non parallel sides polyhedron" (sorry, I don't know how to express something like this but more irregular / random instead of cubes will make the tortilla tastier, as some of the potato's edges will be more golden.
@Martin Older eggs have a higher pH, but cream of tartar (or other acids used in whipping) are meant to lower the pH to improve whipping... curious. I wonder why Jamie Oliver says older eggs whip up better? They would also be lower in moisture, I wonder if the more concentrated proteins trap air better?
It sounds like you are over-cooking it a bit, so it is drying out. Eggs should always err on the side of undercooking for best results (with the usual precautions re. food poisoning for vulnerable groups).
The recipe most used here is to fry the potatoes and onion, with some salt, on medium heat (you don't want them to be crispy fried, you want them soft), and on a bowl whisk the eggs well. In this point you can add a bit of milk to the eggs (softer texture) or alternatively a bit of beer (I think this is the best option).
Then add the potatoes and the onion to the bowl to mix everything well, add a bit more of salt if needed, then go back to the pan, this time with not too much oil, as little as needed to make sure the mix doesn't stick. Use medium-low heat. After a few minutes, when it doesn't stick to the sides of the pan, flip it around with the help of a dish or a cutting board, then cook on the other side and it's done ;).
As the way of flipping it with a dish and to give it the proper shape is a bit tricky, maybe this video helps:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeLsT4gZH5I&feature=related
It's in Spanish, but the flipping-shapping technique can be seen starting from 2:35.
Hope it helps :)
Put a lid on it!
Add you whisked eggs and put a lid on the pan. It doesn't have to be a perfect fit, but you need hot steam to build up above the eggs
I tend to find you can cook hotter and quicker with the lid on, but this tends to vary on pan type and how even the heat source is
When done put under the grill as per recipe
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.885504 | 2011-03-22T11:57:16 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13367",
"authors": [
"Aaron",
"Andrei Tudor Călin",
"Gary",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Joe",
"Jonathan",
"Kate Gregory",
"Martha F.",
"Max Holloway",
"Mien",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66397",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66399",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8682"
],
"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
} |
23058 | Can I roast in glass?
All,
Recently we moved house, and took it as an excuse to ditch a bunch of old and dying roasting pans.
We kept some glass trays (suitable for cooking in) though, and have ended up using them for just about all our oven cooking. On the top I still use either the steel covered copper bottomed things or cast iron cookware, but in the over it's mainly the glass.
Everything seems to turn out just fine - am I missing something? Committing a heinous sin I've somehow forgotten? Do I need to run back to buying some proper metal roasting trays?
Dude you said you have cast iron. Cast iron rules. And it performs very well in the oven. No contest against glass and you can make pan sauce on the stove-top after the roasting is finished. My favorite pan to make roast chicken with is my 12" Lodge cast iron skillet. Glass is probably better at roasting than cheap cookie style sheets, because it keeps the heat distribution fairly smooth. But glass will not hold up well to heavy roasting use and will eventually ruin your dinner when it cracks or shatters. All Clad makes a great roasting pan with wire rack. But for most roasting a simple cast iron skillet works well and is indestructible.
I've used my covered deep skillet to do pot roast, it works pretty well. Never tried anything else in a normal skillet, I'll have to give it a go.
I don't roast any more but when I did, I only used glass trays. I always brushed oil on the glass before placing any food, in order to aid cleaning.
Line the inside of the glass with aluminum foil, if you choose you can also "tent" the foil (loosely) around you meat and you have a perfectly fine vessel for roasting, and none of the clean up problems. You might lower the temperature a few degrees (50 degrees F) and make sure to test the internal temperature of your roast to check for doneness.
Nah, I'd rather scrub than have little bits of foil stuck to the bottom of the meat.
A little olive oil in the bottom of the foil pack and I have never had that problem. (btw, I would agree w/Daryl that using your cast iron is a good choice as an alternate.)
Both are good. With care the cast iron is forever. Glass cleans up well and can be replaced quite cheaply. Why not keep both of them and see which one gathers dust?
The only problem I've found with roasting in glass is that it's hard to get roasting pans completely clean, and glass shows everything. I routinely take potatoes that have been roasting in a traditional metal roaster with some meat, and put them into a glass pie pan at a higher temperature while the meat rests and I make the gravy in the metal roasting pan. Works a treat. But the glass pie pans are no longer eligible to make pies in because they look like they've had stuff roasted in them over the years :-)
Oddly I've found the opposite. The roasting tins always end up filthy, but the glass scrubs clean pretty easily.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.885983 | 2012-04-16T00:02:57 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23058",
"authors": [
"Alex",
"Andy G",
"Cos Callis",
"IHateGraveyardStomachs",
"KevShas Daniel",
"Mamaholiday",
"Stephen",
"Tim B",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1761",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52132",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52133",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"mattliu"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
22884 | Properties of a good paella pan
I was bought a paella pan for my birthday. It had a small label on it with only the brand name on, which I've since washed off. It is steel (I think), with rubberised handles and dozens of concentric dimples on the surface. I was wondering what these impressions were for and by extension, what makes a really good pan for making paella in?
I believe the dimples are for two reasons. One, they possibly help to make the pan, which should be fairly thin, more rigid. Secondly, they are a reminder of the time when these pans were hammered by hand - so, in a way, they make a factory-made pan seem more authentic.
The pan should be fairly thin, yet rigid, and conduct heat well. You don't want localised hot spots, but a strong, even heat.
The pan should probably not be too non-stick - you want to encourage the formation of socarrat - the slightly crusty layer at the base of a good paella.
The "how to cook" series in the Guardian are excellent for researching various recipes and deciding on an evidence-based amalgam - have a look at http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/aug/18/how-to-cook-perfect-paella.
Thanks for the answer. With @toloco's corroborating it seems the dimples are an historic tradition. I quite like Felicity Cloake's series, but I find some recipes them less authoritative and thorough than others.
As I ask many times to my grandma dimples are a remain of old pans, now a days it is fancy, so there are a reason apart of this is how paella pans may look.
So remember non-stick surface and gas or barbacue (full power after you drop the stock)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.886275 | 2012-04-08T22:25:43 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22884",
"authors": [
"Gary",
"Malcolm Rae ",
"Marco",
"armb",
"baloo",
"flith",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51652",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51653",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51654",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51785"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
4272 | Alternative to Fenugreek in curry?
Is there an alternative to dried Fenugreek in curry? Is it required?
Fenugreek is one of those flavours that you can't really substitute.
However, I've been cooking Indian for a couple of years now, and I get by fine without it.
And a lot of dishes are better without it..
There are lots of different curries. Many use fenugreek, and many don't. My favourite one uses garam masala, cumin, coriander and turmeric.
Some garam masala recipes will include fenugreek.
Fenugreek seeds have a bitter taste, with the same flavor compounds as maple syrup. Once cooked, the flavor mellows out. Best fenugreek substitutes are yellow mustard seeds, masala curry powder, maple syrup or burnt brown sugar.
Undisclosed links to your own site that don't help address the question are regarded as spam here. Please focus on answering the question. See https://cooking.stackexchange.com/help/promotion.
I've never done much with fenugreek/curry cooking-wise, but when I make certain pickles I typically use fennel to replace fenugreek. I can't speak much to the flavor, but I know that fennel has a mapley smell like fenugreek seeds.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.886464 | 2010-08-04T22:25:25 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4272",
"authors": [
"Brendan Long",
"Cascabel",
"Edward Wilde",
"Glauber Rocha",
"Vic Goldfeld",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8027",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8033",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
13162 | Is there any reason not to decrystallize honey?
The other night some friends of mine tried to convince me that decrystallizing honey is bad for the honey. I don't buy it.
Is there any truth to their claims? I couldn't find anything to support them--or even anything considering the question at all.
Honey contains lots of aromatic compounds, which are quite big, fragile molecules. This is one of the reasons why cold centrifuged honey costs more. When you decrystalize honey by heating it, many of these aromatic molecules break up, and you lose the complexity of the aromas. So yes, it is bad for the honey. Also, it may reduce its health benefits, as vitamins and other micronutrients tend to degrade under heat (but only some of them - others, like trace minerals, are quite unimpressed by temperature).
Of course, the question is not only if it is bad, but if it is worse than eating crystalized honey. This depends on 1. The honey quality and 2. the way you plan to use the honey. With the honey quality, it is obvious that, if the honey has already been heated in the production process, the volatile stuff has already been destroyed, so subsequent heating for decrystalization is not a problem. But if you spent money on cold centrifuged honey, you are negating its benefits by heating it.
About the use: If you will heat it anyway (as in putting it in tea, or baking it into a dough), there is no reason not to decrystalize first. Also, if you are only using it as a sweetener, even cold, there is no problem in heating it. But if you are using it as an aromatic agent, like in a creme fraîche and honey dressing for a fruit salad, or using it as a bread spread, then it will taste better if never heated. It will still have a general honey taste and aroma, but the subtle notes will be missing. Whether this bothers you or not depends on whether you rate aroma or texture higher. My personal choice is to not heat honey in these cases, but your preference might be different. Probably the best way to decide is to take a small amount of crystalized good quality honey, heat it, and compare it side-by-side with the crystalized version. Then use whatever version you like better.
If you happen to like the decrystalized one more, it is probably a good idea to not spend money on fancy honeys in the future ("cold-centrifuged lavender honey from South France" etc.), as it won't taste all that different from a common wildflower honey after decrystalization.
I'm just a humble beekeeper. I went about my business doing what I do, ignorant of other ways or ideas. I sell my honey at a local food co-op, being the only local beekeeper who can meet their demand. I did a taste-tasting event one day where I got to interact with those who buy honey. WOW! What an eye opening experience. There were folks who would not ever consider buying my honey because it was liquid (I just harvested it three days ago!) and instead opted for the "raw" honey that had traveled thousands of miles and through various customs agents to get to their shopping cart.
Bees make liquid honey. Honey naturally crystallizes. Not all honey crystallizes at the same time. As a relatively small time beekeeper, I extract all my own honey. I get it from the bees, and spin it out a few hours later. I keep the room I extract in a balmy 80 degrees and have no problem extracting it or bottling it at this temp. I have never even heard of "heating" my honey to extract it... I guess the HUGE producers have to do that, they don't tend their own bees, but contract with commerical beekeepers. They are harvesting days to weeks after the honey has been taken from the bees.
In summertime a beehive can easily be over 100 degrees inside. Yes, it can be over 100 degrees where the honey is when the bees have it. I call this the biological norm temp.
The previous responders were right in that compounds in the honey do denature when it's heated. I couldn't find the link, but there is a good article on the half-life of enzymes in honey at various temperature... at high heat, they can disappear quickly. But at temperatures below 110, they are relatively stable... at 90 even more so. If I need to decrystallize honey, I stay around 90-100 degrees and decrystallize slowly. Again, 90-100 degrees is within the biological norm for honey; I don't feel I compromise the integrity of my honey with heat.
P.S. There is no USDA definition for "raw honey". As a beekeeper, I find it a meaningless term. One person could live in a climate where he harvests and bottles at 100 degrees, and another could harvest on day that is 60 degrees, but heat her harvesting and bottling area up to 90 degrees. Is his "raw" but hers not raw because she heated her working space?
P.S.S. Buy from small time beekeepers... they don't have the fancy equipment to heat or "cook" honey.
P.S.S.S. As a beekeeper, I have NEVER heard the term "cold centriguged honey". I feel sorry any foolish guy who is waiting til its 50 outside to harvest his honey and watch him extract at an agonizingly slow pace. Again, that same honey was just 100 or hotter just a few weeks earlier.
I think "cold" just means "not heated", and "heated" means heated enough to melt wax and separate, as opposed to using an extractor.
Crystallized honey is harmless. It is the natural precipitation of glucose out of the supersaturated solution. As shown in the first link, and recommended here, if you don't wish to use crystalline honey then you simply heat it.
The ideal storage temperature for honey is below 50 F (10 C). Temperatures between 50-70 F (10-21 C) will encourage crystalliztion. Very warm temperatures in the range of 70-81 F (21-27C) will discourage crystallization but degrade the quality of the honey. Temperatures in excess of 81 F (27 C) will prevent crystallization but will significantly degrade the honey and encourage fermentation and spoilage. You can read all of this and more on the Honey Hotline Fact Sheet (PDF).
So yes, while heating is the recommended method for de-crystallizing honey. repeatedly doing this will degrade your honey over time. That doesn't stop me though, I tend to use my honey before it crystallizes. If not, I never find myself heating it more than a few times.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.886610 | 2011-03-15T16:50:02 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13162",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"FameFlower",
"George",
"Matt S.",
"Razor",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27277",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27280",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8051",
"srgb"
],
"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
} |
37808 | Can gravlax be prepared from frozen salmon?
I love gravlax and have recently gotten into making it - partly to avoid the nitrates in commercially prepared gravlax, and partly for budget. But even making it still costs so much for fresh salmon ($16/lb).
I'm curious if I can just use thawed frozen salmon since I can get practically a whole half a salmon for like $15 at Walmart.
Yes, you can. If the frozen salmon is of high quality, there is no reason based on the food science that it should not work.
Many of the recipes and articles on the web indicate that you should (or sometimes can) start with frozen salmon. Some, including Cooking for Engineers, specifically recommend using frozen salmon to reduce the risk from parasites:
Parasites, such as roundworms, can naturally reside in salmon
regardless of if it was frozen or fresh. For safety, use salmon that
has been commercially frozen or freeze the salmon yourself to at least
-10°F (-23°C) for at least 7 days.
Yes, it should be prepared from frozen. Salt curing is insufficient for killing pathogens, unless cured for weeks. The FDA recommends freezing at -20˚C / -4˚F for 7 days, as well as being very careful to prevent cross-contamination during preparation. It's worth noting that freezing does not kill all pathogens either, but it does greatly reduce risk. Source: http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/SafePracticesforFoodProcesses/ucm094578.htm
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.887246 | 2013-10-22T02:57:02 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37808",
"authors": [
"Bruce Alderson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/201"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
9568 | How to replace chicken with tofu in a curry
I've never cooked tofu before and I appreciate that using a store-bought jar of curry sauce and expecting it to work nicely may be a little optimistic.
However, what cooking method should I use to cook the tofu before placing it in the sauce (Korma/Tikka Massala) (presumably not for very long, it'd already be cooked) and serving with rice?
I'd hazard a guess that frying it is the best option but should I just fry it and leave it at that or ought I use some herbs and spices?
If you're going to be adding a curry sauce, there's no need to just throw on some extra herbs and spices.
Use an extra-firm tofu, and make sure you drain/press out any extra water before frying. Wrap your tofu block in paper/kitchen towels, place a plate with some additional weight (not too much, a few pounds will do), and let it sit up to an hour before slicing and frying.
Thanks, that's what I ended up doing. A firmer tofu would definitely have been better but it was ok.
To carry on from what Bob said.
The choice of tofu is all important, there are so many different kinds and some would be repulsive in a curry, any silken tofu form for instance. Extra-firm is necessary, by all means press out extra water before frying, this is mainly necessary if the tofu you buy comes suspended in water.
Flavoured extra-firm tofu is fine if the flavour will go with the curry sauce. I can obtain a variety called "Tofu Rosso" in the UK, made by Taifun (all their tofu is excellent by the way), which goes very well in curries as it is spiced throughout with paprika and chili, and contains tomatoes and garlic.
Plain tofu will just take up the flavour from the sauce, though if you fry the tofu a lot first then the sauce will not penetrate far. I quite like marinading plain tofu first, unnecessary in the way it is unnecessary to marinade chicken first - but chicken tikka is quite popular, and it works well with tofu.
Do lightly fry the tofu before adding it to the curry, the texture improves for it in my opinion, if you over fry it, it can go hard externally like bacon does.
NB. Are you cooking for a vegan or just curious? If cooking for a lacto-ovo-vegetarian, you can disregard this point, but if a vegan, Korma and Tikka Masala sauces are rarely free from dairy unless they are using solely coconut cream/milk.
Thanks for your response & the suggestion of Tofu Rosso. That's a very good point about the dairy, I'll have to keep a closer lookout. I'm embarking on a 30 day vegan trial but the preceding week is just veggie as I need to use up the milk I have left!
Glad to hear you are having a vegan trial, a beneficial exercise. I have been a vegan for many years now, it is only a serious pain with restaurants. The main difference is you have to read all ingredient lists. Dairy especially gets in to everything, and honey is rather more common than one would expect. I think milk in crisps is the thing that annoys me most. Curry on the other hand is very easy to veganise.
I have heard some people say that extra firm tofu tastes like chicken. I couldn’t agree more until I tried it out myself. This is because the extra firm tofu contains very less moisture when compared to the regular tofu.
When replacing chicken with tofu in curry especially, I always use grilled extra firm tofu. The key is grilling the tofu for reducing as much moisture as possible and making it crispy. For grilling, I usually cut tofu into relatively thick slices, it crisps up beautifully on the outside and the insides stay tender.
Tofu should be marinated to absorb all the flavors, otherwise it will just taste bland. Never use the regular soft tofu, as the soft stuff will just melt like scrambled eggs.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.887389 | 2010-11-29T17:14:31 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9568",
"authors": [
"Mert Yazıcıoğlu",
"Orbling",
"Paul Williams",
"Roger",
"bcmcfc",
"bobuhito",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1762",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19584",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19585",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19586",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"randy"
],
"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
} |
14191 | How long will fresh scallops keep in the refrigerator?
Today I bought one pound of fresh scallops from the seafood counter at the local market, but my dinner plans have changed - I am no longer planning to cook the scallops this evening and I don't necessarily want to freeze them. How long will they remain fresh in my refrigerator?
The most important point is you bought them 'fresh'.
It is my understanding that scallops have to be flash-frozen within minutes of being caught, (probably somewhere like in the middle of the Bay of Biscay.)
Therefore, any scallops you see being sold in an unfrozen state have already started decomposing.
If you don't eat them immediately they should be used instead for enriching the soil in your garden, or perhaps as 'chum' on a fishing expedition.
Re-freezing is, of course, out of the question.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.887708 | 2011-04-20T23:40:29 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14191",
"authors": [
"Arend Pretorius",
"James Ruskin",
"Revan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29821",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29822",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29827",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29828",
"shirish"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
14002 | What type of noodle and sauce is used to making Thai Drunken Noodles?
I LOVE drunken noodles from Thai food restaurants, but am never able to find those wide, thin noodles in the markets and don't know what they're called to ask. Also, what sauce is used in drunken noodles? I assume there is some type of alcohol in it, but am not sure what.
So, my questions are:
What are the wide, thin noodles called that are served in Thai "drunken noodle" dishes?
What's in the Thai "drunken noodle" sauce?
They are simply wide rice noodles.
Fish sauce (nam pla), soy sauce, sugar, chilli, garlic, thai basil.
There are any number of recipes online.
The noodles themselves can go by a number of names, including shahe/ho/hor fun/fen and kway teow.
With regards to the sauce, from my understanding, Drunken Noodle is just spicy Pad Thai. IF this is the case, here's my recipe for Pah Thai sauce.
1/4 cup fish sauce (fish sauce is like salt, you don't taste it really, but you notice if it's gone)
3 tblsp tamarind paste (concentrated, other wise 3/4 cup)
1/2 of a plastic lime (i'm lazy, call it 1/4 cup or so)
1/4 cup soy sauce
1/2 cup dark brown sugar
3 tblsp minced garlic
mix these all together and add hot sauce to taste. the noodles get softened by soaking in warm water for 5-10 minutes. I usually let them soak for 7 minutes, then cook them in the sauce, so they soak it up.
Actually they are totally different. I haven't had any "drunken noodle" with tamarind sauce or even lime juice.
Ah! Good to know that they are NOT the same. Apologies for the error. When I was trying to develope my pad thai sauce, many of the recipes I ran across called for rice vinegar, but i really thought it threw the taste off. Since Lime is often served with pad thai, I thought it might be a good acid to use.
About the Tamarind...really? Most of the better recipes that I found on line referenced using it, and now I find that it's key to a good sauce.
Maybe there are other variations of the dish. Sometimes Thai food outside Thailand, particularly in the US, is totally different.
Traditionally it is just rice noodle but it is common in Thailand to use other types of noodles such as spaghetti or even instant noodle.
Besides fish sauce and soy sauce, oyster sauce and dark soy sauce (prominent in Pad See Ewe) are commonly added. So is palm sugar instead of white sugar.
From the Thai language wikipedia page about the dish, the ingredients for pad khii mao (ผ้ดขี้เมา) are:
rice noodles
soy sauce
fish sauce
garlic
any type of meat (even tofu)
chillis (usually green bird peppers in my experience)
snake beans
holy basil leaves or thai basil leaves (they are not the same thing)
I mentioned "my experience" so I better tell you what that is. I currently live in Thailand and the dish is one I eat quite often from various restaurants.
Most of the time it contains fresh green peppercorns, which is also mentioned on the Wikipedia page. They really give the dish some punch. It's also quite common to get carrots, broccoli and some other vegetables.
In addition to rice noodles you can get the dish with egg noodles, rice or (shudder) with spaghetti.
Another recipe lists oyster sauce as an ingredient.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.887829 | 2011-04-12T19:00:07 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14002",
"authors": [
"ESultanik",
"Foxsly",
"Macromika",
"Spammer",
"Ted",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29366",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/519",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5958",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98319",
"puri",
"user29359"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
14235 | How can I bolster up a boxed cake mix?
Is there anything I can add to/change about a store bought white or yellow cake mix to take it from ordinary to extraordinary?
There are a couple of cookbooks by Anne Byrn who has built a franchise on this subject. Her best known book (and the one I have) is titled The Cake Mix Doctor. written specifically on this subject.
Go to her website http://www.cakemixdoctor.com as there are several recipes and articles as well a listing of her books.
Using different spices, maybe a pumpkin pie spice added to vanilla cake, will give your cake a completely new and interesting flavor. Using citrus zests will spice things up as well! I have also used different flavored liquid extracts, added these to icing can really add that extra something special to the completed cake.
Substitute part of the butter with creme fraiche - say, 2oz creme fraiche for 1oz of the butter.
All answers provide great ideas but I'll take Jginger's spice recommendation a step further. I often use what I call "subtle exotic" spice combinations which is simply a fancy way of saying unusual or ethnic-influenced combinations. For example, Black pepper with dark chocolate; chili pepper and cinnamon; or cardamom. These types of spice combinations aren't typical in a cake and will provide a deliciously memorable flavor for your guests. A recent unusual combination I just tasted was a spiced gin cupcake. The baker used a basic cake recipe then infused spices and gin into the batter and frosting. A boxed cake could be that basic recipe.
When I make box cake mixes, I use vanilla almond milk instead of water and olive oil instead of vegetable oil. The vanilla almond milk gives it a hint of sweetness and the olive oil makes it fluffier. And then a add a touch of cinnamon and nutmeg.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.888121 | 2011-04-21T18:53:26 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14235",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
15196 | Garlic and oil emulsion
A few days back I was making garlic bread. I had pressed garlic into olive oil, added a little salt, and forgot about it for a good half hour or so. When I came back to it, I stirred it up a bit, and it seemed to thicken slightly. Intrigued, I whisked some more and it ended up extremely thick, with self-sustaining peaks.
Tonight I tried to recreate this phenomenon, and it really didn't do anything to speak of. After whisking hard for about 45 minutes, I still basically had a bunch of pressed garlic sitting in a pool of olive oil.
What did I do wrong the second time, and what did I do right the first time?
Congratulations, you accidentally made allioli, a Catalan emulsified sauce requiring only garlic and olive oil to thicken and emulsify. Unfortunately, it's harder to make and less stable than the other aiolis (garlic mayonnaises), which include egg yolks as emulsifiers. This is probably why you are having difficulty replicating it.
To make it more consistently:
Smash the garlic up into a fine paste before adding oil
Add oil slowly, starting with a drop at a time, and mixing rapidly until incorporated (traditionally this is done with a mortar and pestle, but it is easier with a mini-whisk).
Optionally, cheat and add an egg yolk (beaten) for every clove or two of garlic (it is no longer a true allioli though).
I've admittedly never made an aioli, but assuming that it works more or less like any other emulsion and requires dispersion, then you'd probably get the best results by grating the garlic into a paste using a rasp.
By a rasp, do you mean a microplane? (This is probably a regional dialect difference.) That's a good point, it would probably break down the garlic better than just the traditional mortar and pestle would. Also, you should totally try making an aioli from scratch... they're pretty fast and very rewarding. Oh, and you can cheat and use an immersion blender.
Yes, Microplane is another name for it (although I thought that was the brand name - mine has an "®" after the "Microplane"). As for me, I'll definitely play around with mayonaisses and other such emulsions once I get a half-decent stick.
Now that you mention it, this reminds me of some more relevant details in my original accident. I was trying to just get the oil garlic-flavored. After sitting, and stirring (to get the oil evenly flavored), I realized I needed some more oil. I added a small bit, stirred, and noticed it was still too thick. Assuming it was just a matter of being too concentrated, I added more oil again, etc. So, I accidentally followed the relatively (for making plain old garlic bread) process of adding the oil slowly and incorporating each addition before adding more.
Also, if you do use the immersion blender, definitely stay away from extra-virgin olive oil; it will turn bitter. See e.g., http://www.cooksillustrated.com/howto/detail.asp?docid=18825 for an explanation (and a workaround of starting the emulsion with a different oil, then whisking in the EVOO).
I cannot read the posted link, could you please tell us what is the explanation?
My grandmother usually added some large grains of salt with the garlic into the mortar to ease the initial smashing process of the garlic.
@PA.: The curiosity got to me also; I had to look it up. This source quotes and attributes the Cook's Illustrated article. EVOO has polyphenols, which are antioxidants thought by some to possibly cure or prevent cancer. Normally they're surrounded by fatty acids, but mixing with a motorized blender breaks up the fatty acids, allowing the bitter polyphenols to mix into the aioli. http://summertomato.com/the-bitter-truth-about-olive-oil/
I have made aioli autentico several times. You must add a pinch of salt to the smashed garlic paste before you start whipping in the oil. The emulsion absolutely will not form without the salt. It only takes a pinch.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.888306 | 2011-06-01T23:17:30 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15196",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"BobMcGee",
"MargeGunderson",
"PA.",
"Ray",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"user54131"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
13461 | Can deglazing a cast iron skillet remove the seasoning?
I would love to combine two of the best things in cooking, deglazing with a fonds or wine and my cast iron skillet, which I have been seasoning for a couple of months now. My concern is that the seasoning might remove the seasoning from the skillet. Could this happen?
If it's properly seasoned, and affixed well to the pan, there shouldn't be any problem.
In fact, it's what I typically use to clean my pans even if I'm not making a sauce.
If you're reducing a sauce that's highly acidic, you might have cause for concern, as you don't want to have acids in the pan for long periods.
Great! I deglazed the skillet for the first time tonight and everything went well. The sauce was delicious. I just added some butter and red wine to the still hot (but not maximum hot) skillet and it all started cooking immediately, reducing to a nice sauce. The seasoning didn't seem to suffer the least bit. Also, the skillet was basically completely clean after deglazing. Just had to rinse with some water and wipe dry, while I usually have to actively (cautiously) scrub away remaining residue.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.888642 | 2011-03-26T12:12:34 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13461",
"authors": [
"Haentz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4657"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
14921 | How much fresh potato to substitute for instant potato flakes when baking?
I would like to bake hamburger buns from a recipe that calls for instant potato flakes, only I can't find instant potato flakes.
This is the original recipe:
1 cup lukewarm water
1/3 cup (3/4 ounce) instant potato flakes
2 1/4 teaspoons yeast
1 tablespoon honey
2 1/2 cups (11 1/4 ounces) bread flour
1 large egg
1 teaspoon salt
1 tablespoon olive oil
How much fresh baked potato should I substitute for the instant potato flakes?
Where do you live? They are almost certainly sold as "instant mashed potatoes". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_mashed_potatoes and http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=instant+mashed+potatoes&FORM=BIFD may help you find them in the store.
There are many, many recipes online for potato bread that actually use potatoes. Why start with a "substitution" for what is actually a substitution for the real thing anyway? Google "potato bread". Look for recipes for which you don't have to substitute anything and that are highly rated by many reviewers.
@Jolenealaska There's some truth to that, but using potato flakes isn't that crazy. It's obviously more convenient, and it's less prone to measurements being off than when using fresh potatoes whose water content might vary, especially if they're boiled.
@Jefromi It may not be crazy to use instant potato flakes for bread. What's crazy is starting with a recipe that calls for instant potato flakes, and then looking for a substitute for the flakes 'cause you can't get them.
Instant potato flakes are effectively dehydrated mashed potatoes.
In general for potato flakes you mix 3:4 volume flakes to water. They increase in volume by about two and a bit times, and weight about six times
For potato powder you mix 1:5 volume powder to water. They increase in volume by about three times, and weight about six times.
So roughly 3.75 ounces of water are required to rehydrate .75 ounces of potato flakes which gives 4.5 ounces of mash, or just less than 2/3 cup of mash
Remember to remove the equivalent water (3.75 ounces) from the recipe
This all varies slightly depending on the supplier of flakes and what variety of potato they used
You can boil your own potatoes instead of using instant potatoes. Be sure to peel them first, it just makes it easier to whip them, and use them warm (about 70 degrees).
For the above recipe use about 1/2 to 2/3 cup well whipped spuds (I like organic Yukon Golds best) and then reduce the water to about 1/2 cup.
The dough will be moist but make sure it's not so sticky that it is clinging to the bowl. Makes great buns, bread and cinnamon bread that stays moist and soft for several days. Enjoy!
This answer would be a bit more useful if you could be more specific about the measurements. If you don't use the right amount of fresh potato, or don't remove the right amount of water, you're going to mess up the recipe.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.888763 | 2011-05-19T18:33:19 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14921",
"authors": [
"ACP",
"Cascabel",
"Erna van Wyk",
"Giorgos Xou",
"James Johnson",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kate Gregory",
"Smile Dental Practice spam",
"hamid",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116700",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116701",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31456",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97353",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97358",
"makrhenner",
"phteven"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
14612 | Are there carcinogens in grilled foods?
I do a lot of grilling (various vegetables and meats), but was recently told this will have similar effects to smoking. Is there much merit to the concerns over grilled foods containing carcinogens?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinogen#Carcinogens_in_prepared_food is interesting reading
Short answer: yes. Long answer: depends on what you're cooking.
Grilling some popular food items can produce cancer-causing compounds called heterocyclic amines (HCAs)
HCAs, a family of mutagenic and cancer-causing compounds, are produced during the cooking of many animal products, including chicken, beef, pork, and fish. In January of 2005, the federal government officially added HCAs to its list of known carcinogens.
Cancer Project nutritionists determined that many commonly grilled foods contain alarmingly high levels of HCAs. This table lists the five foods containing the highest levels.
(Source: Cancer Project/The Five Worst Foods to Grill)
Your source is fairly detailed, but doesn't actually say how large the carcinogenic effect is.
That's because none has really been measured. While HCAs are considered carcinogens, the link is far less established than that of, say, smoking and lung cancer.
@Sean: So arguably, the short answer is "maybe"?
The source of @Todd is fairly accurate on what can be grilled or not: basically, nothing, if you want to eat healthy stuffs.
However, the Cancer project website gives a link to a list of things that you can put on the grill and I attest that they give tasty nice meals.
The risks are low and mainly come from burning animal fat. There's little risk associated with grilling vegetables. Leaner meats are better. It applies to fatty fish also. I've also read that natural lump charcoal is better than treated briquettes. You can google this stuff and find tons of references and articles talking about polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), but there's not a lot of science saying specifically how much of it will hurt you. And people have been doing it for thousands of years, though evolutionarily it was probably less meat, most of which was lean meat from game and more vegetables in the diet.
Here in South Africa we are grill, or barbecue (we call it "braai") nuts. We grill anything from vegetables to red and white meat to fish and shellfish, using charcoal, wood and gas. I've been eating grilled-food by the bucket loads since I can remember. The average South African braai's at least once a week.
Unfortunately I don't have a scientific source or cite-able reference for you, but to my knowledge South Africa doesn't have a specifically higher percentage of cancer cases than the rest of the world as caused by eating grilled food. So my answer would be a definite no. At least no more than cooking your food in any other method or anything else you do in your day-to-day life, in any case.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.889054 | 2011-05-09T17:33:25 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14612",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Jules Shoferpoor",
"Sean Hart",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129153",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2832",
"johnny"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
14900 | How to spice up a carrot cake
I have made a carrot cake several times, and I like the way the cake turns out but I want it to have more spice flavors. The recipe only calls for 1 tsp of cinnamon, but since I want it to have more spice flavors I have tried adding varying combinations of the following spices:
cloves
allspice
nutmeg
I have tried amounts between 1/2 tsp and 1 tsp of each of the above spices but it seems the taste is always the same - good but not spicy enough. I'm afraid to go too far overboard and ruin a good cake, so does anyone have any suggestions on how much to add or other spices that would help the cake be more spicy?
Cayenne pepper.
I'm actually serious. I haven't tried it in carrot cake but a little capsaicin actually works well with a little sweet to offset it. Chile powder also works well in sweet things.
Cardamom is my wife's favorite and so it goes into many baked goods I make. It would work and be interesting but not spicy.
You can always put in a good extra dose of cinnamon if you want it to punch you in the face.
I love cayenne heat popping up in sweet things!
I'll try out the cayenne and cardamom next time.
For the record I don't know about trying them together.
Cardamom takes getting used to, imo. Another detractor is the price.
When it comes to spicing cakes I tend to err on the side of heavy handed as I like them to have a bit of punch. I'd go for more cinnamon definitely, and I'd also consider a good pinch or more of powdered ginger. i love the combination of cinnamon and ginger in a cake.
I also like to butter my cake tin, then sprinkle a layer of sugar over the butter and cinnamon/ginger/whatever spices I'm putting in over that, then pour the cake mix on, to give the cake crust a nice, cooked spiced edge, hopefully with a bit of chewiness from the sugar. this works especially well with upside down fruit cakes.
Right now I just butter+flour the cake tin, I'll have to try your method!
Wouldn't ground fresh ginger work well also? I find that it's got more kick than the powdered stuff.
I love cardamom with my carrot cakes. I'm from a Persian background so it's a nostalgic spice for me. Both my boyfriend and I love the punchiness of cardamom so I'm often liberal with it. I recently used boxed Carrot cake mix (super moist) and added 1 tsp cardamom, and 2 tsp of cinnamon to the dry mix, it and it was delicious for us. If I was to do it again, for guests, I'd probably just add half a tsp of cardamom. I also love a maple frosting with my carrot cake.
I would go easy on the cloves and allspice, but increasing the nutmeg and cinnamon more shouldn't be too risky. You might also try mace if you can get hold of it; it's the dried husk that surrounds nutmeg.
Love the mace! Deserty stuff is where it best distinguishes from plain nutmeg.
Add Chinese Allspice. These days people are using it to spice up cakes.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.889439 | 2011-05-18T19:08:56 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14900",
"authors": [
"Armando",
"DHayes",
"Nicolas",
"Paul Sheldrake",
"Simone",
"SkorpEN",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31416",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31419",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31421",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3252",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58872",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58877",
"keiv.fly",
"mthorp",
"nhgrif",
"paul",
"zanlok"
],
"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
} |
12548 | How to cook fall-off-the-bone beef spare ribs in oven or on stove top?
All,
I would like to cook spare ribs to a fall-off-the-bone consistency. I don't have access to a grill.
I know how to do that with pork shoulders (dry rubbed, then uncovered in the oven at low heat for 6-8hrs), but spare ribs are a different type of animal. They are individually smaller pieces (my ribs are sawed in chunks), and they are fairly fatty, with a big bone.
What should I do? Should I pan-sear them first, do I need some liquid in the dish? Should I cover them?
Thanks,
JDelage
You can do a low temperature cook on your ribs the same way you would do your pork shoulders. It's just the cooking times are shorter, that's all.
Set your oven to 250-275F, and roast those ribs until they're done. I've had beef ribs done in as few as 3-4 hours, but as many as 5. Optionally, you can foil your ribs about halfway into your cook, with some liquid in the foil pack. Just be aware that they'll cook faster if they're foiled. And depending on your preference, you may want to take them out of the foil to finish them.
I've done Alton Brown's method for both spare ribs and baby back ribs, with good results.
Basically, you bake 'em in a low (250°F) oven in an aluminum foil packet with liquid for a few hours (2.5hrs for baby back, a little longer for spare ribs) completely untouched , then put 'em under the broiler at the end.
+1: I've done these, and finished them on the grill as well. The two stage cooking thing is pretty popular with ribs.
@Satanicpuppy : I've done both broiler and grill finish ... I personally liked the grill finish, just because I could better control things without being paranoid that turning away for 10 sec could ruin hours of work. And I've packed 'em up after braising in the oven, then reheated 'em on the grill (at someone else's house), with pretty good results.
You can try a combination of roasting (for a good crust) and braising (for tenderness) as called for in this recipe. An equivalent would be pan searing and braising.
You can also cook at a low temperature for a long time, doing in the oven something similar to what sous vide would do. This recipe describes the technique.
Sous Vide ribs are incredible, particularly finished on a grill. Outside of the capabilities of most home kitchens, unfortunately.
@yossarian - a 170 degree F oven, if you have one, is all the recipe requires. Outside of my oven's capacity, but possible for some.
Actually, it calls for a 140F oven. I've never owned (or even seen) one that goes that low. And it calls for accurate temperature control. Ribs (or any low and slow meat) is really cool at lower temp / longer time cooking, as you can get it medium rare and tender.
I know of two ways to do it:
1 oven
cut up ribs and roast in a raosting pan at 350 for about 90 minutes, covered in foil and basting with BBQ sauce every 1/2 hour
2 stovetop
brown them in a french oven or large skillet, add sauce, and simmer for about 1 hr on low heat. usually you need to thicken the sauce after they are done cooking with cornstarch or the like.
Sous vide ribs are great if finished well, however fifteen minutes at full pressure with a cup of lager in a pressure cooker finished under a broiler with a good BBQ sauce is pretty near perfect!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.889736 | 2011-02-24T16:04:36 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12548",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Michael Lawton",
"Robbie",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Susan Elaine Graves",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25845",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25848",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25858",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"justkt",
"punkeel",
"user23186",
"user25857",
"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
} |
13030 | What are the tradeoffs replacing sucrose / table sugar with pure granulater dextrose / glucose?
All,
I'm researching a substitute for fructose-bearing table sugar. Glucose is potentially interesting from a health standpoint. Glucose is only 70% as sweet as table sugar (sucrose) which is a mix of glucose and fructose, so one tradeoff is to use a larger quantity or resolve to a less sweet taste.
What are the other tradeoffs when using glucose instead of table sugar? Does it caramelize the same? Does it bake the same?
Thanks!
JDelage
Table sugar, ie sucrose, is not "a mixture of glucose and fructose", but rather a disaccharide made by combining one molecule of glucose with one of fructose. In the body, the sucrose is metabolised into glucose and fructose; the fructose is further modified into glucose. I'm sure that you don't want to know about the tricarboxylic acid cycle which is how the glucose gets turned into carbon dioxide, water and energy as you are interested in the physical aspects.
Using a larger quantity of glucose (as opposed to sucrose) causes the proportions of all the ingredients to change, causing a change in taste and consistency - in the same way that diabetic foods, using sorbitol, have different consistencies.
Glucose is probably more reactive than sucrose in terms of the Maillard reaction (browning).
I thought fructose browned better than sucrose?
@Enigmativity: In general, smaller sugars like fructose and glucose react with amino acids in the Maillard reaction faster than larger sugars like sucrose; pentose sugars (5 carbon atoms), such as ribose, will react faster than hexose sugars, like glucose and fructose, and disaccharides, such as sucrose and lactose.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.890044 | 2011-03-11T08:42:46 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13030",
"authors": [
"Anonymous",
"Chad",
"Didgeridrew",
"Enigmativity",
"Niharika Bhatnagar",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11411",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26960",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26961",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26962",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26967",
"user26960"
],
"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
} |
37924 | How to decide between a French or a German pattern chef's knife?
I'm getting ready to buy (or commission) a nice 10" chef's knife. I need to decide between a French or a German pattern. What are the pros and cons of each?
Do you like to "rock" as you cut? Or do you move in more of a straight line? Do you like the way you cut or would you like your blade to help you change your pattern?
It really is an issue of personal preference.
If you prefer a rocking motion, the German profile suits your style better; if you are a push-and-slide person, the French profile is more suitable for you. It also possible to find models at various points within the range.
See this Chef Talk thread for an in depth discussion (with diagrams at one point). The original poster concludes, quite correctly in my opinion:
But... let's keep our senses of perspective and humor. A German knife
won't turn a good cutter into a bad one, and a French knife won't do
the opposite. Both profiles suit the classic, European and American
styles of food and knife skills. It comes down to taste and training.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.890239 | 2013-10-27T03:09:47 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37924",
"authors": [
"Allerleirauh",
"Anne",
"Carlotta Algee-Stancil",
"Jolenealaska",
"Ruby Bereford ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89254",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89255",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89256",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89269"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
12890 | dehydrator temperatures
I just bought a nesco dehydrator. Used it a few times with good results. Yesterday I sliced up some fresh pineapple and placed it over 4 racks. I let it run at 140-145 for 6 hours. The thinner slices were dehydrated but still moist.
My question is, how does the temperatures affect how food is dried? One would assume that the higher the temperature, the faster the drying. Obviously that isn't the case...or is it?
The higher the temperature the faster the drying but also the more damage will be done to the food. As high as 140 and it is being cooked. For something like pineapple this is fine but for delicate things like basil that is not ok.
If you live in a dry climate the heater might not be necessary at all but it will save time.
I don't know exactly why your pineapple didn't turn out but here are a couple notes:
1- Things that are thick or very moist take much longer than usual. 6 hours is not a long time. Obviously pineapple is both. Try letting it go overnight.
2- Really really sugary things are so hygroscopic that they have a hard time drying completely and staying dried.
3- Commercial dried fruits are usually candied and chemically altered before being dried in equipment that I can't reproduce. This shouldn't discourage you by any means but don't expect your product to always be exactly like commercial dried fruit.
thanks. I'm actually expecting it to come out like previous batches (made with a different dehydrator). My grandma used to dry pineapple (canned I think) and it would become hard/crispy. The user manual for my dehydrator says 4 hours at 135. I let it go 140 for 6 hours plus rotating the trays.
I don't expect anything to compare to commercial. My beef jerky is far superior to what you can by in the store. I'm good with what I produce. Just want to get the techniques correct
@DustinDavis- Sounds like you are getting your money's worth out of that dehydrator. You remind me that I need to make jerky again.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.890363 | 2011-03-07T16:34:46 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12890",
"authors": [
"Amru E.",
"DustinDavis",
"Michel Ayres",
"Sobachatina",
"William Melani",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26663",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26664",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26665",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5093"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
18783 | How can I make a sugar free strawberry syrup?
I make strawberry syrup using the follow ingredientes.
1 pound of strawberrys;
half lemon juice;
1 cup of sugar.
How can I make a sugar free (or at least using less sugar) strawberry syrup?
What about the sugar in the strawberries?
Sugar is not added to syrup for the taste; syrup is made of sugar by definition. You can make a strawberry-tasting liquid with artificial sweeteners, but 1) you will have to play a lot with thickeners to achieve a texture similar to syrup, 2) it will have a much shorter shelf life, and 3) technically, you shouldn't be calling it a syrup any more.
@Jefromi, the sugar in the strawberries is enough for me too, but I wanted to know how can I make my syrup (now I know that without sugar it's not syrup) without adding sugar, but keeping the texture. I'll try reducing the strawberries with a little bit of water and see if its tastes good. Maybe add a little stevia as Carina sugested.
Low concentrations of tapioca powder might fill the bill perfectly. Don't bother with agar or Xanthan gum. Orange peels provide a lot of pectin so you could try that to find what gives you something just shy of jelly. Sieve off the chunks of orange peel and there you are. Come to think of it some stores sell straight pectin. It's worth a look.
You could replace the sugar with some artificial sweetener. I don't know the exact ratio, but I believe you can use less sweetener to an equivalent amount of sugar. But by definition syrup contains sugar, so you wouldn't be able to eliminate it (or a replacement completely).
I suppose, depending on what you're doing with it (topping for dessert, waffles, pancakes), you could just take the strawberries, add some water and lemon juice, and reduce it and make a sauce instead of a true syrup...
I think it's worth pointing out that by "replacement" you pretty much have to mean some sort of thickener. The sugar is what thickens the syrup, so if you just use strawberries and artificial sweeteners, you'll cook it down until it gets thick enough... and end up using the strawberries' sugar to thicken it, and therefore have much less volume, and end up eating about as much sugar anyway.
You can make your strawberry sauce syrup without sugar easily just by replacing the sugar with stevia and then adding it to a proper amount of gelatin water for the proper consistency. It won't be the same for sure but it will be almost sugar free and thicker than water but not have the exact consistency of a syrup. Maybe a little xanthan gum along with the plain gelatin would be a little closer though.
Hmm, you might omit the sugar, reduce the lemon juice (maybe by half or so), and blend the strawberries very thoroughly with the remaining lemon juice, and that way you will get a nice flavorful strawberry sauce.
If, you then strain the sauce very well, and reduce the (basically) strawberry juice to the desired thickness (I'm picturing a honey-like consistency), you will end up with a translucent, thick, and smooth strawberry not-syrup - since syrup is defined by the added sugar, as others mentioned, and assuming the natural sugars in the strawberries don't end up counting enough to make it a "real" syrup. I don't think it will reach a really syrup-like stage without that straining, since the berry fibers will turn it into a paste instead when the water is too low for a sauce.
This strawberry not-syrup would be much more strongly strawberry flavored, for the same consistency, since the extra sugar needed to make it syrup-thick is substituted with extra strawberry juice, minus water. You will also get much less syrup out of it, between the volume of the missing sugar, the missing half of the lemon juice, and the loss of the extra water needed to make the final product thick enough. But, it should act, and store, much like a strawberry syrup would.
That would be strawberry treacle, not strawberry syrup. Treacle never tastes like the original fruit, the cooking down process is very long and changes the taste significantly. Also, the yield from strawberries will be really low.
I always use stevia. It's not an artificial sweetner, it's natural and it comes from a leaf. You can buy the extract which is super super sweet (a tiny level scoop it usually comes with equalls a tablespoon) or you can buy stevia sugar which is supposed to come to the same volume as sugar (so you don't have to add bulk) but it's more expensive. I usually buy the liquid stevia drops since I make a lot of chocolate at home and it just mixes right into other liquids I'm using. Nice. Liquid stevia can even come in different flavours. Oh, right, and it doesn't have any carbs/calories!
Use Agave Syrup/nectar instead. Reduce the quantity a little, about 2/3cup instead of your 1 cup of sugar.
Since you're using a liquid instead of real sugar, you may need to then reduce the amount of lemon juice. To keep a lemon flavour, you could try infusing the syrup with a slice or two of lemon while it's cooking. Definitely remove any lemon rind before bottling or using as it will be too bitter otherwise.
Agave nectar is a (natural) mixture of fructose and glucose ([wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agave_nectar wikipedia)) so if the poster wants to reduce refined sugar it would be a good substitute, but fructose and glucose are both sugars, so it's really just substituting unrefined for refined sugars.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.890545 | 2011-11-06T01:36:30 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18783",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Gregor Thomas",
"Hannah",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"Xavier Nicollet",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40711",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40712",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40727",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40731",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7893",
"pablosaraiva",
"rumtscho",
"shahzar khan",
"user40727"
],
"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
} |
13001 | Cook Burger on Stove - Turns Gray
So I've been wondering why whenever I cook burgers, they end up turning into a gray color, and a greasy mess. I'm restricted only to a stove top pan and oven, and I'm sure that's contributing to it, but I'm not sure what to change.
My first guess was that it wasn't high enough heat, but I've waited to heat them up pretty well, and it hasn't really impacted anything. Is it the mix I use to make the burgers? I usually take ground beef, mix it with an egg and breadcrumbs and spices, and then cook some immediately and freeze the rest.
I'm just curious of anything I can do to change the color they come out as, and hopefully improve the taste as much as possible.
Got any pictures of the gray burgers?
What spices do you use? That might help with flavor.
If you add egg and breadcrumbs, you aren't cooking a burger, you're cooking meatloaf.
Try using just good beef with plenty of fat (80% meat, 20% fat is the ideal ratio, lean mince is not good for burgers), and pepper. Get the pan good and hot, salt the burgers well (don't add salt beforehand), brush the burgers with oil, then whack them on the pan, 5-6 minutes a side (depends on thickness) and you'll get a nice brown crust.
A couple of other tips: make the burgers plenty ahead of time so they can sit in the fridge for a good few hours. And never press the burger down with your spatula, you just end up losing all the juiciness.
Check out The Burger Lab's Top Ten Tips for a Better Burger for more tips.
Several others have suggested a grill pan. The main reason a grill pan is effective is that it keeps the meat dry.
Ground beef contains quite a good bit of water. On a flat pan, the liquid released gets trapped under the meat, and wet meat doesn't sear. A grill, or grill pan, gives the juice somewhere to escape, so the meat stays dry, and turns brown instead of gray
You can get the nice brown sear lines on a stovetop with a grill pan. Lodge has a cast iron grill pan that's not too expensive. I've also found that with ground beef in general, first it turns grey, then brown as it starts to sear.
Another option, if you're willing to use the oven, is to use a pan that allows the grease to drain. Either a wire rack in a baking pan or some variant on a broiler pan. You might also consider using the broiler in your oven to give you results like an outdoor grill. (It's essentially an upside-down grill, since the flame/heat is above rather than below the food.)
In the book What Einstein Told His Cook, Robert Wolke suggests using a salt crust to soak up the grease in the pan. The recipe can be found online here. That might help with the grease. The only other suggestion I might have to help with the grease is to drain the pan halfway through.
I agree on the broiler approach. I love my broiler. (and to make things more interesting, other countries call it a grill)
Looking around I saw that typical frying pans, on high heat achieve about 500'F whereas commercial flat tops typically have a range up to 575'. From my experience, the burger/pizza place I worked at kept ours at ~550'F.
We cooked at this heat (until a grill was added) and used frozen pre-packaged patties (so I can't speak to mixture), but the result was a brown patty. Also involved was a cover and steam part; where once both sides were cooked, we would add the cheese on top, cover with a metal lid, and spray water on the flat top, causing steam which melted the cheese and probably cooked the burger a little bit more. My guess would be that the lower heat would be the culprit here. It might help to use a skillet and wait for it to heat up higher than a pan would allow.
If you are noticing a taste difference (or if the look is too unappetizing), I would recommend baking the patty at 375'F then searing the burger instead of relying on the fry pan. This is the method I use at home for non-grill, winter burgers and they tend to turn out well, and can be cooked to a good range of done-ness. (For the baking part, use a baking sheet with some low walls, and a drip/cookie rack on the sheet to keep the patties off the sheet).
The reverse sear method of which you speak is vastly underrated. It allows you to render enough fat out of the meat so that when you sear it, you have a dry enough pan to allow a Maillard process to take place.
I think burgers are basically grey. They look more appetising if you cook them on a griddle so that there are sear lines -- but that doesn't matter too much if you're serving in a bun.
When I make burgers, I just mix good minced beef, egg and salt. No breadcrumbs, and no onions. I try not to use too much salt in my cooking -- but burgers do benefit from a generous salting -- say a teaspoon for a pound of mince.
I know most are gray, but this is a pale gray throughout the patty, with just some random brown spots. Which is why I'm presuming that a higher pan temperature would change that, but it hadn't.
Just a thought - have you tried patting them dry with kitchen paper before cooking? You want them to fry/grill rather than boil in their own juice.
I usually use wax paper to flatten them before cooking, but I haven't tried just forcing them dry. I'll try that next time I cook.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.890941 | 2011-03-10T15:14:49 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13001",
"authors": [
"Diana",
"Echo says Reinstate Monica",
"Joe",
"Just Jake",
"Loren Robison",
"Marc",
"Martha F.",
"Sean Hart",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26894",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26895",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26897",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26899",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26900",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5232",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/814",
"likejudo",
"nocley",
"slim",
"ttj",
"user281336"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
4972 | Can nonstick pans go in the oven?
I have a heavy bottomed sauté pan with a non-stick surface (could be Teflon). The handle is stainless steel and there are no plastic or rubber parts.
Can this go in the oven? If so, what are safe temperatures for a non-stick surface?
Some pans have 'oven safe' labels on the bottom. That may help.
If not: DuPont studies show that at 446°F Teflon starts offgassing toxic gasses (Multiple sources).
Generally, I wouldn't put my non-stick pans in: use stainless.
"The recommended maximum use temperature for cookware with Teflon® nonstick coating is 500°F (260°C)." http://www2.dupont.com/Teflon/en_US/products/safety/cookware_safety.html
Also oven safe: iron (cast or mineral), aluminum
Nonstick pans are generally not good in the oven.
In my experience, the best thing to use is a cast-iron pan, which can go in and out of the oven with no worries. I'm just generally to lazy to use it, because I have to season it again.
Why would you have to season a pan after a trip in the oven?
My Teflon pans say they are safe to 350. Try looking up your pans online to see what the manufacturer recommends.
"safe to 350"... they're basically saying they aren't oven safe, then. :D
Centigrade or Fahrenheit?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.891387 | 2010-08-12T08:02:34 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4972",
"authors": [
"Al Schwarz",
"BaffledCook",
"Carlos Jaime C. De Leon",
"Daniel Cook",
"Denise21",
"Jeanette Brook",
"Jeremy Stein",
"PoloHoleSet",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/835",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9597",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9598",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9620",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9954",
"sdg",
"user9600"
],
"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
} |
14544 | How can you tell when flour has gone off?
I was just reading another topic about grinding flour where someone suggested that their flour supply would go off within two weeks if not kept in the freezer. I buy my flour in 20lb bags that last me several months. Is this wrong? How do I know when it's bad?
Similar questions: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5701/what-does-flour-smell-like-when-it-goes-bad http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3105/does-white-whole-wheat-flour-need-to-be-refrigerated
Whole wheat flour goes rancid. There is a lot of fat in wheat germ and when it oxidizes the flour becomes very bitter and has a very noticeable, unpleasant scent.
First of all- if you use bleached white flour there is little to worry about. Bleached flour has had much of the wheat removed to give it a longer shelf life. At the expense of flavor and nutrition of course.
Keeping whole wheat flour out of light, sealed from oxygen, and cold will keep it from going rancid. Any one of those will extend the life of the flour- putting it in the freezer sealed from air will keep it good indefinitely.
In the cupboard I will start noticing off flavors in my fresh ground flour in a couple weeks. In the freezer I have gone as much as a year with no discernible degradation.
You will notice if it has gone bad because it will smell and taste bad. This rancidity isn't dangerous so if the flour smells and tastes fine then it is.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.891640 | 2011-05-06T18:08:28 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14544",
"authors": [
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
14214 | Can you substitute whole eggs for egg whites in baking?
Will using egg whites instead of whole eggs have an effect on the finish product when baking?
Yes, it will have quite a difference. I once wrote an answer detailing what egg whites and egg yolks do in cake flour, read it: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14025/are-there-any-vegetarian-friendly-egg-substitutes-that-can-be-used-in-cakes/14035#14035. Note that changes which are bad for a cake is not necessarily bad for a bread or other baked goods.
It will definitely make a difference. Yolks contain various things like fats and emulsifiers that affect the flavor and texture of baked goods.
If you want more details, then tell us what you're baking.
According to ChickenPing (http://www.chickenping.com), you can use 2 yolks and 1 tbsp water (for cookies) OR just 2 yolks (for custards).
While this link may answer the question, it is better to include the essential parts of the answer here and provide the link for reference. Link-only answers can become invalid if the linked page changes.
In addition to @TFD's comment...chickenping.com seems to just be a site for a recipe-organizing app. What part of that site would tell you how and why you could substitute whole eggs for egg whites?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.891764 | 2011-04-21T17:14:54 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14214",
"authors": [
"Laura",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6808",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
12370 | Using seltzer to help a marinade
I saw the host on a cooking show claim that using seltzer in a marinade will help the flavors better penetrate meat via the carbonation. Is there any truth to this, and how would it actually work? e.g. would the bubbles carry bits of flavor material, or somehow open "pores" in the meat...?
Interesting claim; I know that seltzer is used to aerate certain sauces and batters and thus lighten them, but I don't think I've ever heard of it being used to improve a marinade. Google turned up one or two "explanations" of this process but they sound a little like pseudoscience. Mind my asking which TV chef said this?
I believe it was "Star Kitchen" on TVB.
Susur Lee did a sweet and sour pork marinated with Sprite at his eponymous restaurant in Toronto and it was super tender and delicious. No idea of the food science behind it though.
I make chicken adobo pretty regularly, and my friend's Filipino mom introduced me to her "secret" ingredient, a half can of Sprite. The one time I didn't have any on hand, I adjusted for the sugar content, and it was good, but the final product wasn't the same. Like Allison, I'm not sure what's happening, just adding to the discussion :)
I would strongly doubt that the bubbles themselves would have any mechanical effect on flavor. However, seltzer or soda water has a acidic pH, usually between tomato and orange juice. This could account for any tenderizing action. The addition of salts to some seltzers might also account for apparent changes in flavor.
I have not seen a recipe that contains seltzer , but I would imagine that it is the same reaction that MSG has in Asian cooking, where restaurants can use cheap cuts and tenderizes the meat before cooking. Most MSG is banned in restaurants now.
I myself have used coca cola in marinades in meats like ribs and pork belly as the acids does the same thing to the meat tendons as well as giving sweetness to the meat.
Coca Cola is really acidic in addition to being sweet, so I'd say any tenderization that happens is probably because of that rather than the bubbles (which, come to think of it, is probably what's happening with the seltzer, which is also acidic).
MMMM.... this reminds me of root beer in a slow cooker with pork. yummey.
In other words, it's basically an expensive an inefficient version of vinegar? (Coca Cola is obviously flavourful as @bikeboy says but plain seltzer water is just going to be very weak carbonic acid).
@aaronut I certainly can't think of anything else it would be bringing to the party.
I suppose the way to test this would be to try a recipe with flat coke (and some with fresh, carbonated coke as a control) and see if the flat coke produces the same result.
what is "most" MSG? MSG is MSG, regardless of the brand. And MSG does not have a tenderizing effect: it is added for flavor.
Was in Missoula Montana at local hospital and my spouse got talking with local Native American Indian about hunting and cooking. She said after cooking wild turkey she submerged in ginger ale/ seltzer mix for 3 days and it makes meat very tender & soft......especially legs of wild turkey which there is no other way to soften. (According to her) ......she had to be at least 70yrs and had no teeth....so I image the meat did become soft as that would be the only way she could eat it.
I use sparkling waters when I brine. It looks like it has a PH level of between 3 and 4 so it is acidic. I still add salt (which bubbles when added) and lemon juice for added acid.
One thing that may be a contributing factor is those bubbles. Well not the bubbles themselves but the escaping gas.
If the container being used is sealed you are increasing the pressure inside of that container which should assist in penetration.
I use ziplock bags so the aid can't be all that much but the results are always a very juicy piece of meat. Or fish as I am doing right now (a good portion of dill is sitting in there too).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.891919 | 2011-02-19T04:56:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12370",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Allison",
"Cooking Student",
"G__",
"Walter A. Aprile",
"Zombies",
"bikeboy389",
"filmil",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1962",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25466",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4086",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4558",
"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/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
8274 | Dissolving cocoa powder in milk
I wanted to make a Stevia-sweetened chocolate milk so I tried mixing some unsweetened cocoa powder with the milk and stevia, but I found that the cocoa powder doesn't mix with the milk at all. It tends to float on top, and even with a lot of stirring and mixing back and forth between two glasses it was a lumpy mess.
Any techniques or natural additives I can use to help the powder dissolve more like Nestle Quick and the like?
Mix the cacao with a SMALL amount of liquid, until you get a thick even dough, then you add some drops of more liquid & stir, then repeat until it is a runny paste, like syrup, then you can add larger amount of liquid, until desired amount, but stir OFTEN.
You could do it the same way that you make chocolate syrup: Heat some water to boiling, dissovle the cocoa and sweetener and reduce down till it reaches the consistancy that you desire. This will result in a syrup that will mix in to cold or hot drinks with no problem and can also be used to top ice cream and or other desserts.
Not sure I'd expect this to work as well as a slurry: it's still prone to clumping when mixing into hot water.
Aw, you youngsters, spoiled with your Nestle Quick... :)
To mix cocoa powder with a liquid (or really, to mix any powder with a liquid - salt and granulated sugar aren't powders), you need to make a slurry by mixing a small part of the liquid into all of the powder. Then you can dilute the slurry with the rest of the liquid.
Note that if you're using sugar for sweetening, it helps to add it to the cocoa powder before you add any liquid, because the sugar helps the dissolving. However, since stevia is so much sweeter than sugar, you use too little of it to make any difference to the dissolving process. Thus, you can go ahead and add it afterward, so you can adjust the sweetness better.
Yes, this is the way to do it. Note that it's very easy to put too much liquid in when making the slurry, which is irreversible, so add the the liquid in very small increments until you get the paste to be the proper consistency--a bit thinner than a typical cake frosting. Also: beat the slurry well to get rid of any pesky dry clumps that may remain.
Yup. Only way to do it.
One brand of cocoa powder I used to make hot chocolate with when I was a kid (I forget the name) actually had these exact instructions. Funny - until now I never realized why it was necessary, because I had never tried it the "naïve" way.
The only problem with this method is it leaves a grainy texture in the final product, at least in my experience.
@sarge_smith, I think that may depend on the brand of cocoa. Also, once you've dissolved the cocoa this way, you can certainly go ahead and heat it up - that should get rid of any graininess, and my great-grandfather the pastry chef always said that cooked chocolate tastes better than uncooked.
I always dissolve the cocoa/sugar in cold water, not milk. I don't know if there's physics to it or it's related to the speed at which some ancestor's milk jug poured compared to a tap, but fwiw I have little or no lump issues making a cold water paste and then adding hot milk, or adding cold milk and microwaving after it's mixed.
@Marti thank you so much! This works so well and is much better than the clumpy cocoa milk I've been drinking.
Did you try mixing the cocoa and stevia together then adding the milk? That should help. Also, you could make a paste with the cocoa and a little bit of milk, then adding a bit more milk to make a concentrated chocolate milk base. At this point, you will be able to stir in the rest of the milk with ease.
Cocoa powder also mixes better in warm liquids. Try making some hot cocoa... Way better than the prepackaged powder stuff they sell at the market.
If you are a regular cocoa drinker another solution is to make a large quantity of cocoa mix in advance, using the method described above by Marti, then store in the fridge to use as required.
Blend the cocoa powder/sweetener with water rather than milk as it will stay fresh in the fridge much longer.
A further suggestion is to pour the cocoa mix into ice-cube trays and freeze to store indefinitely. Just put the number of required cubes in a cup and pour hot milk over, or use cold milk and reheat in a microwave. Very quick, and no mess to clean up afterwards.
I mix cocoa and Stevia in a small amount of hot water to form a paste. Then I pour that into unsweetened almond milk (Almond Breeze) which I shake in a bottle 500ml.
Use a blender, as someone already mentioned.
A different trick is crushing the lumps on the side of the glass or cup then stirring, then setting it aside to kinda like mix by itself. After about 1/2 hour try stirring it again. Then you'll see that it does dissolve more readily. For even more smoother consistency repeat the "crushing the lumps" steps. How do I know it works? At this very moment I am enjoying a large plastic glass (probably 10 ounces) of unsweetened Hershey's cocoa (the kind they use for cooking). I sweetened it with corn syrup, and is it ever delicious! BTW, I use soy milk.
The method I use for my own home-made milk-powder-free cocoa powder involves this process:
Pour about 1/3rd of a mug of milk.
Microwave for 1 minute.
Stir in powder.
With a round whisk that fits inside the mug, I roll it between my hands to get good mixing action.
Microwave another 10-20 seconds. This is what really gets the chocolate melting.
Repeat step 4
Fill mug to desired level
Microwave another minute.
Repeat step 4.
Looks like a lot of work, but it really gets the job done. No lumps, thanks to sufficient heat and a lot of manual labor. Also? It can be done in one mug.
You could skip a lot of manual labor if you added the milk to the cocoa rather than the other way around. (If your gravy accidentally ends up lumpy, you can remedy the problem with lots of mechanical action, e.g. a blender, but it's much simpler to just not get it lumpy in the first place. Same principle applies here.)
@Martha True, true. But then I'd give up the elegance of a single-mug solution. That said, I could probably do without the wisk...
There's no reason you couldn't do my method in a single mug; in fact, I do it all the time. Just make sure the mug is dry when you start. (Been there, done that, wasn't pretty.)
I add cocoa powder and sweetener to a mug, then add skim milk. Microwave for a minute or until almost boiling, and it should be completely dissolved. Since you're trying to make chocolate milk not hot cocoa, just chill it afterwards.
Valrhona Cocoa powder is quite expensive, but it has a much nicer flavor than Hershey and Nestle (much less acrid after-taste so you can go darker without as much acridness) and it will dissipate nicely into even a cup of cold milk with simple stirring. One is just trying to dissipate it without clumping as cocoa powder doesn't ever actually dissolve in water, which is why pretty much no matter what you do, cocoa powder will eventually settle to the bottom.
You won't believe this but quite simply use a blender to blend them together.
i tried dropping the powder in first and no way. it takes way too much milk to dissolve the powder on the bottom. try milk first then the powder mixture you made.
one point, the blender makes a nice frothy top for the drink. I used whole milk, homemade nestle quick mix from hershey cocoa.
If you've already screwed it up and have added the powder to a lot of liquid, just microwave it until it's warm/hot. The cocoa powder will magically dissolve and make a lovely hot cocoa. :) Enjoy.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.892574 | 2010-10-19T00:18:29 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8274",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Agen Bola Terpercaya spam",
"Carolyn Stewart",
"Cascabel",
"Chris Cudmore",
"Gueenbry",
"Hans Vonn",
"Jeannette Doherty",
"Kate Gregory",
"Kierran Batchelor",
"Lucas Lazaro",
"Lyn",
"Marti",
"New Hire",
"Noel",
"Pamela May",
"Sebastian Norr",
"Spammer",
"Théophile",
"Tonya Eheman",
"acutesoftware",
"bsmoo",
"coreyward",
"daron",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100048",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100722",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126753",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17012",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17014",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17019",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57139",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62140",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78473",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78475",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/798",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87396",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98976",
"kevins",
"rxdazn",
"sarge_smith",
"sysadmin1138"
],
"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
} |
10476 | How can I prepare bread dough to be cooked the next day?
I'd like to make some fresh bread for breakfast tomorrow, but don't particularly want to wake up at 5am to mix and prove the dough. How could I make the dough tonight so that I could just throw it in the oven tomorrow?
Just to clarify - it's a stuffed loaf (a layer of cheese and cooked vegetables in the middle) rather than a straight bread loaf.
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/14184/67
Make the bread all the way through. You can even let the first rise happen. Drop your yeast to about half. Oil a bowl, drop in the dough, spin once to get the ball of dough covered with the oil and then put plastic wrap over the bowl, or a damp cloth...and plastic wrap. Put the bowl in the refrigerator.
The refrigerator slows down the yeast without killing it, which also increases the flavor of the bread (over night cool low yeast methods for bread are considered the "right" way to make bread).
In the morning, pull out the bread, press out any large bubbles, roll it around and let it come to life again. I usually punch it down one more time and then let it rise in the pan or on a sheet depending on what kind of bread I am making, then bake as normal.
In your case, because you're doing a stuffed loaf, assuming there is a rise before the stuffing, THAT is the point where you will start the morning. Everything before the pre-stuff rise, the refrigerator IS the pre-stuff rise, pull it out, let it warm, punch it down, stuff, put in the pan, let rise, bake.
In breads where the final step is kneading in baking powder, should I do that final step, or wait to knead in the baking powder until I'm ready to bake the dough?
You will likely find you actually get far better results if you start the dough the night before, because the long, slow rise will build great flavors. Go ahead and make it as normal, let it rise a little bit (1/2 hour maybe) and put the covered bowl in the refrigerator.
In the morning, pull it out and let it warm up enough to work it. It may take a while depending on how much dough you have. It'll go faster if you move it to a warm bowl instead of the one that's cold from the fridge.
Once it's warm enough to work, handle it as usual.
How much time does it take for a 0.5kg bread to warm up enough?
Well, it really depends on how cold your fridge was and how warm your kitchen is--and how firm your dough is in the first place. Maybe 45 minutes to and hour? You basically want to let it get to room temperature if you can. You can work it when it's colder, but if you need it to rise after stuffing, that step will take longer if you start with colder dough. It will also have a tendency to snap back, making it hard to spread out if you need that to do the stuffing and rolling.
I have made bread with dough out of the fridge and for a small un-stuffed loaf, I formed it immediately then let it sit to re-awaken for 30 minutes before putting it in the oven. I think this is the method that "Artisan Bread in 5 Minutes a Day" suggests.
@kin Just follow your normal recipe. As long as it's a working recipe and you wake the yeast up before it goes into the fridge, it'll work.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.893206 | 2010-12-24T12:40:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10476",
"authors": [
"Allison",
"BaffledCook",
"Cascabel",
"Joe",
"Robin",
"Xeon06",
"bikeboy389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18161",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21390",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"mdegges",
"nickf"
],
"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
} |
8293 | Roasting corn in the oven
I am trying to roast the corn in the oven, by:
leaving it in its husk
wrapping it in tin-foil
There are results, but far from real-grill roasted corn.
Any pointers on how to really do it?
EDIT:
Cooking times, temperatures? (Celsius please)
There is always a debate on in-the-husk versus out-of-the-husk with roasted corn, but I fall firmly on the out-of-the-husk side of the debate. When you roast corn in the husk, the steam that is created stays largely next to the kernels. When you remove the husk, your corn is cooked with dry heat, which provides a really nice texture that has the significant difference from boiling that you're looking for.
Editing to add: the reason this prevents development of 'roasted' flavours is that dryness is needed for caramelization processes to occur. Excess moisture prevents browning from happening, and either the husk or the tinfoil will trap too much steam; you are essentially steaming the corn (wet cooking) as opposed to roasting it (a dry method).
To keep the kernels from completely drying out while still charring nicely, slather with softened butter and season to your preference. You can also use a Mexican Corn-style sauce.
I would also use the broiler to simulate more of the kind of heat a grill provides. Using the broiler (set to high) you only need to cook for a few minutes until you reach the desired char - ten or so.
can I just say... slathering the corn in butter before baking sounds outrageously delicious!
@lomaxx - butter plus season salt plus a cracked pepper blend is definitely delicious. Enough butter drips off to keep the whole thing from being unbearably oily, but enough stays to make it extremely tasty.
@daniel - thanks - mind if I (or you, since you have the rep) update the answer to make it more correct?
@daniel - sorry, I can, I was just thinking you might say it better.
Personally I prefer (for the sake of time) to dry roast them in a skillet. It works in a pinch to char them, and it's also easy to add spices at the same time.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.893485 | 2010-10-19T13:54:13 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8293",
"authors": [
"Cody",
"Mark Paskal",
"No One in Particular",
"The Art of Cooking",
"Very Objective",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17052",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17058",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17081",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17087",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17090",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"jobinbasani",
"justkt",
"lomaxx",
"user17051"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
59522 | Protein in mayonnaise...none?
I was looking at a Hellman's real mayonnaise jar with whole eggs and yolks, and the nutrition label says there are 0 grams of protein. How is that possible? Is this common for mayonnaise in general?
Probably due to rounding off of the numbers - if you use only very little egg you can get below 0.5%. We have a question here that deals with how much oil one egg can bind. Welcome!
It's just rounding. The Hellman's nutrition matches the USDA generic mayonnaise nutrition very closely for the single serving size (1 tbsp, 13.8g), but the USDA one also includes amounts per 100g. It's 0.96g protein per 100g, and when scaled down to the serving size that's only 0.13g and gets rounded to 0.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.893705 | 2015-08-01T21:10:02 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59522",
"authors": [
"C Leeper",
"Debbie Emerson-Power",
"Joyce Jones",
"Martin Price",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142232",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142233",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142256",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
10792 | How many cups of batter does a cake mix make?
I admit it, I'm lazy, I use cake mix 9/10 times I bake a cake.
There seems to be a standard size (because Duncan Hines, Betty Crocker, and our local brand all make the same size cake, same number of cupcakes, etc.). How many cups of raw batter is this?
I'm trying to figure out what I need for a nonstandard-size pan I have.
It'd be easier to figure out if you remind us what size pan the mix calls for (at least for me). Using standard pan conversion charts you can make up a ratio.
One cake mix fills two 9" rounds. If I remembered how deep, I could just do the math :/
A 9" round pan that is 1 1/2" deep takes 6 cups of batter, while one that is 2" deep takes 8. That's for totally full to the brim. This source says about the amount of batter from a box:
An average 2-layer cake mix yields 4 to 5 1/2 cups of batter.
and should have a bunch of helpful guides to using batter for non-standard pans.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.893808 | 2011-01-06T01:19:57 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10792",
"authors": [
"Donatello",
"HedgeMage",
"Marina",
"StrayPointer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22111",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3272",
"justkt"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
18568 | What's the most appropriate way to thaw hamburger meat?
So I've long been in the habit of freezing my meat when I get it home from the store, and then thawing it later. My fridge tends to be set rather cool (because someone in my house likes nearly frozen beverages) so if I leave the meat in the fridge, it may not defrost completely overnight. But I'm concerned about leaving it out in the sink for too long.
What's the best way to know how long to leave some ground hamburger meat from the store in the styrofoam tray that's been frozen once it got home?
Assume 1 or 2 lb chunks of meat, 85% through 97% ground beef.
I like to put the meat in a largish ziplock bag and flatten it out so it occupies the whole flat area of the bag but is only a couple of cm think. Then I press a chopstick into the meat lengthways both horizontally and vertically to create indents in the meat, as if I was making a naughts and crosses (tic-tac-toe) grid.
Then I freeze it lay flat in the freezer. Then when I want to use it I can 'snap' off squares of meat (along the indentation lines) to the amount that I need and I don't need to defrost the whole pack in a single go.
To defrost (I don't have a microwave) I leave the pieces on a metal tray for a little while, turning occasionally. This usually defrosts them in an hour or so, depending on how many there are
If you have time, you can achieve a faster defrost if you have a surface that can absorb and distribute the cold. My preferred surface is metal storage container, or my pressure cooker. I place the meat that I want to defrost into the cooker (not on the heat of course) and leave it in a cool space in the kitchen. They are great at transferring heat from the stove to the contents, and also at transferring the cold from the inside to the outside.
Being airtight, this also eliminates the risks of flies and other "creatures" getting at the contents. As the item reaches room temperature, the process of "sucking" off the cold from the item slows.
I freeze my hamburger meat in smaller pieces than that - squares a little smaller than the palm of my hand. I don't get worked up about them all being the same size either - I can grab two large ones or three smaller ones and come up with the amount of ground beef I want.
For spaghetti sauce, shepherd's (technically cottage) pie etc, I defrost the right number of squares in the microwave (on a plate or in a wide shallow bowl) then into the hot pan. Usually the centre is still frozen but it doesn't matter, it will defrost while the rest is browning. Sometimes a corner starts to cook but again this is not a big deal. For hamburger patties, I buy medium instead of lean or extra lean, and form them into patties before freezing. This means I know at a glance which is which in the freezer, and I don't have to worry about the meat partly cooking in the microwave before I form it into patties.
About the only meal this doesn't work for is meatloaf, which really needs ground beef that isn't a teeny bit cooked in one corner already and isn't still frozen in the middle either. I make that only with fresh ground beef which eliminates the problem.
Does your microwave have a defrost option?
I freeze ground beef in the tray it's bought in. To defrost I remove it from the packaging, put it on a microwave-safe plate and put it in on the "defrost" option for the appropriate weight.
When the microwave defrost cycle completes I then use a large sharp knife to chop the block into quarters, turn them so the corners of the quarters that were in the centre of the block are now on the outside edges of the plate, then put it through the defrost cycle again.
But how do you prevent the slow cook that is happening to the outside surfaces... I always find that to be a turn off...
I don't try to prevent it. It's a total of about 10 or 15 minutes max in the microwave (so not a food safety issue assuming appropriate handling in the rest of the chain) and it doesn't affect the taste or texture that I have noticed. I agree it doesn't look the most appetising while it's in progress but as soon as it's finished defrosting and you cook it properly then you can't tell the difference.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.893933 | 2011-10-25T22:39:21 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18568",
"authors": [
"Adrian Hum",
"Brian F",
"Natalie Park",
"Valentin Tihomirov",
"Vicky",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150058",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40213",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40238",
"terray",
"user133430"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
7643 | difference between glucose syrup and sugar syrup?
I am not talking about the chemical difference (sugar is chemically a molecule formed by two monosaccarides: glucose and fructose). I am wondering about the difference from the cooking point of view in using pure glucose syrup vs. a syrup made of simple kitchen sugar dissolved in water.
Sugar is actually a class of molecules including glucose, fructose, and many other sugars. Sucrose is what you were thinking of, which is specifically a disaccharide consisting of glucose and fructose.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.894410 | 2010-09-27T16:41:26 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7643",
"authors": [
"Jim Helleck",
"Michael Mior",
"grant7bar7",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15724",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15725"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
4394 | What is the secret behind "always soft" ice cream?
Since humanity discovered the ice cream in a frozen cave in Antarctica, it was so hard you had to wait 15-20 minutes to be able to use it as food and not as a blunt object for a Hitchcock's plot. Then, suddenly one day all ice cream were soft right out of the refrigerator.
What is the magic component the industry added in order to keep ice cream always soft ?
I imagine ice cream would be soft if you're keeping it in the refrigerator - melted, in fact.
If you happen across this in the process of looking for tips about how to get a hint of that magic in your own ice cream, David Lebovitz has a pretty good blog post: http://www.davidlebovitz.com/2007/07/tips-for-making-1/
The softness of ice cream is going to depend on a variety of factors:
Use of gums and other binding agents, amount of sugar, the amount of fat, and especially the amount of "overrun" (air) that is churned into it during the freezing process. Less expensive ice creams will usually have a softer "chewier" texture than premium ice creams due to more gums and a great amount of air being churned into it to increase volume.
More air = more volume = more yield for the same amount of ingredients used.
Sadly, I think the answer is less physics and more chemistry--and not the good kind. The ice creams you are likely describing have been barraged with food stabilizers, emulsifiers, and other gelling agents which have nothing to do with sugar, eggs, and cream, and everything to do with getting texture out of "milk base" or whatever dreaded concoction frozen-yogurts, low-fat ice creams, and over-processed brands employ.
Make sure your ice cream has very few ingredients, lest you accidentally eat iced-emulsified-dairy base instead.
@Michael is right on, that faster, lower-temp freezing takes for smaller ice crystals which are creamier. Just make sure you know the difference. For interest, check out iCream which uses liquid nitrogen on the spot and claims very soft results do to the low, quick freeze.
Related: The soft-serve ice cream you get from the ice cream trucks usually isn't even real ice cream, it's mostly lard.
"Now go chase the lard-truck Jimmy, before it drives off..." Just doesn't have the same ring to it.
There seem to be two approaches:
-Get away with as little water content and as much (emulsified) fat, sugar (bonus for adding some of a non-crystallizing variety like corn or inverted syrup), salt and alcohol as you can- they all lower the effective freezing point of the mixture, though fat in itself can get rather hard if it is the wrong kind. Alcohol in particular is surprisingly effective (once tried using a good amount of 160 proof rum, it really took freezing down to -20°C overnight to not be soft-serve-ish. Tastes great BTW). Works just as well with non-dairy bases!
-Go with "chemistry, and not of the good kind" approaches as described below.
Below? If you're referring to other answers, you should probably say "in the other answers" or "in [username's] answer". Relative positions of answers change over time.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.894494 | 2010-08-05T22:47:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4394",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Ocaasi",
"avgbody",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8274",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8275",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8311",
"kirill_igum",
"shafty"
],
"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
} |
11481 | Food that does not spoil, lightweight, energetic and balanced
As I am preparing to get into sailing, the problem of having food with me that does not spoil, is lightweight, sufficiently energetic and well balanced becomes relevant for me. Personal satisfaction is of course also important. Water is available, but occasionally something without water may be called for.
If you had to arrange food with these characteristics in mind, what would you pick ?
Is this a question about how to preserve foods so that they'll last longer outdoors, or are you looking for a list of snacks? I'm a little uncertain as to whether or not this is actually cooking-related...
It's about food that does not spoil easily and can be preserved for a long time, and how to prepare it. @Aaronut
Are we talking about sailing for a week, or sailing for multiple months straight?
You also might want to see my answer re: food for camping : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11087/adolescent-camping-food-menu/11137#11137
It's too broad a question to be answered here. Search for "provisioning" along with sailboat or yacht or cruising and you'll get a lot of links to cruising sites and fora. Food that works well on a sailboat is more the area of expertise of sailors than cooks.
@Joe: for now, a week, but the point is that the food on the boat may be left there for the next time, so it must not spoil.
You have asked a huge question; bigger than one can reasonable answer on a site like this.
I suggest you look into "Crusing Guide" type books. One such is Sail Away - I have no involvement with this book other than having met the authors; there are many others.
Books like this will take sailing-specific exigencies into account such as limited water/power/etc. as well as accounting for storage issues.
Sailing, like many other travel endeavours can vary widely between people as well. My version of spartan may well be your luxury. Power budgets lead to refrigeration issues, and the like.
Good luck and fair winds! (from a sailboat owner)
I'm so looking forward for the sailing SE to start ! :)
by the way... off topic: what boat model do you have ? I am looking around for a future thing to dream about.
@Stefano - a Bayfield 29. Full-keel cruiser. Is/was a good solid starting boat, may trade up as the kids get bigger.
My neighbor when I was growing up used an edition of the Joy of Cooking from 1943 because many of the baked recipes where designed to be durable enough to send cookies and things to soldiers in Europe during WW2. It looks like Amazon has a couple copies available.
Well on that note, there's always fruitcake.
@Joe - I remember tongue-in-cheek article close to Y2K about fruitcake being the perfect survival food. And they can be used for boat ballast as well! :-)
Eggs. They keep like crazy if you turn them over once a day, are delicious, cheap and can be found anywhere.
They're fragile, but that's about the only significant drawback I know.
Likewise, hard cured meats--sausage, raw ham, etc. will keep well and can be eaten raw.
Eggs go off quite rapidly compared to anything preserved, tinned, or in fact a lot of things. I consider them something to keep an eye on from a "going off" perspective.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.894769 | 2011-01-26T00:01:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11481",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Joe",
"Orbling",
"Pontios",
"Stefano Borini",
"Ward - Trying Codidact",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/835",
"sdg",
"जलजनक"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
40926 | How to make ground almonds creamy?
I put roasted almonds through a food grinder — first on coarse grind then on fine[1] — thinking I would wind up with almond butter. I wound up with a fine ground instead. I haven't tried, but it appears somewhat spreadable; but I'm afraid that if I spread it and stand the bread on end it will fall off the bread. I'm seeking something creamier — I mean, more like commercially available peanut butter. What can I do to my ground almonds to achieve that?
[1] There are only two settings. It's a stand mixer's attachment.
Similar non-duplicate: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/25124
I use a Cuisinart food processor to make almond butter. I once used a processor that was not very powerful and it burnt out (my brothers, so I had to replace it). You'll need a machine with significant wattage because it takes a bit of energy to grind up almonds unless you are making a very small quantity. Sorry, I don't think there is a way around that. The advantage of a food processor over a blender is a wider surface area so there is less of a need to add liquid to improve flow. I don't add anything to mine except a little salt, but if I did it would only be oil. Water may reduce its shelf life. BTW, even in the processor it takes about 15 minutes to make, probably less if the almonds are hot and freshly roasted.
You will have to use a blender, grinding produces nut flour, not nut butter. You normally start from whole nuts, but now you have some preground ones, they should work too.
Be aware that most blenders don't have the power to produce nut butters. If you have a high-powered blender, it is still a hassle, because it is too thick. You have to use enough nuts to have a good flow (at least 500 g in a 2 liter jug), add oil, and use the tamper to get the nuts to move towards the blades. The more oil you add, the easier to do it, but your final product gets runnier. Almond oil would be ideal taste-wise, but a normal neutral oil will be good enough.
You can also add water instead of oil, to make the mix flow easier. You still can't add enough water for it to flow on its own, or you will end up with something more liquid than a paste. The taste is also much different than when adding oil. You can also add both oil and water.
When I got my Omniblend, this video helped me understand the process. However, my own results were never as thin as what she gets there. I don't know if this is because I bought preshelled nuts (which are drier), but I added water to compensate for this, and also used quite a bit of oil.
I don't know how commercial nut butters are made, but I suspect that maybe it is not a blade system, it could be that very fresh nuts are mashed between flat surfaces. That, or there is some blade system which, unlike a home blender, contains something to "feed" the nuts to the blades instead of relying on the blade sucking in the pureed mass.
+1; many thanks. Any chance you can [edit] in advice for those of us without high-powered blenders (and without industrial machines :-))? (Or maybe there is none?)
@msh210 it is hit-and-miss even with the high powered (or maybe just a matter of experience). But it is really hard to do, and a slower blender will deliver even worse results. I wouldn't even bother trying. Even if you don't overload the motor, it probably won't get you a good product, and it will cost a lot of effort to try it. If you want to try nevertheless, the advice won't be different than the vitamix advice, because they function the same way as the cheap home units, they just can cut better and take more before getting overloaded.
I managed to make a decent peanut butter using a cheap (cost $59 AUD), high-speed blender a couple of days ago. I used 1 cup of lightly roasted, still-warm, skin-on peanuts and blended it until it started to get runny. Then I added maybe 1/2 tablespoon of peanut oil and kept blending and ended up with a runny peanut butter.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.895051 | 2014-01-07T07:56:02 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40926",
"authors": [
"Adm Kuznetsov",
"Amy",
"Elegant Lock and Key",
"NRaf",
"Theodore",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95657",
"msh210",
"rumtscho",
"user95304"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
44779 | What does one use a saw for?
In the 1939 illustrated book Madeline is a kitchen scene. On the counter are plates (or bowls), a colander, a ladle, a saucepan, a large knife — and a hand saw. Is a hand saw a kitchen implement? If so, what's it for?
Does the handsaw look precisely like the sort of cross-cut handsaws that are in that picture? Butcher handsaws of the sort suggested in the answers here tend, as they say, to look more like hacksaws. Butchers generally called then handsaws, but if you'd known that already you wouldn't have been asking that question. It's a long time since I last read Madeline so I can't remember what any saws in it looked like.
@JonHanna, I don't recall what the saw in Madeline looks like, but I recall that the blade is broad (rather than thin and held in place by a frame as is usual, I think, of hacksaws).
Any Kitchen I worked in –that does a bit of butchering– has one (any butcher also). It's for sawing bones.
At the time you would not throw anything out of an animal, and a lot of people would make their stock or put a piece of bone in a stew or soup for taste. But, as far as I know, they usually look like a hacksaw not like a the one you're showing.
Maybe the illustrator did not know what a kitchen saw looked like. He's been asked to draw one and did a hand saw by mistake.
This type of saw could be also used in a pastry shop. At some stage (and still, apparently according to @divi) wedding and other momumental cakes, but also smaller ones, were consolidated with pieces of wood or other non comestible material.
It's also entirely possible that the illustrator thought a hand saw would be more recognizable to the reader, or that classic handsaws were more common in kitchen usage at the time. Disposable blades for a hacksaw would have been harder to come by in the 1930s than they are today.
I wondered the same,so I checked Wikipedia: hacksaws were already in industrial production in their modern form in 1898. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacksaw
Yes, but apparently by a single producer; I think it's difficult to assume that would have been the standard in a majority of kitchens at the time, even though it may be the modern choice. Perhaps we can find photographic references instead.
Have a look at p 63 of this 1865 [book] (http://books.google.fr/books?id=ODBFAAAAcAAJ&dq=butcher%20saw&hl=fr&pg=PA62#v=twopage&q=saw&f=false) It's not butchery, but it's still for sawing bones...about 70 years before the book of OP.
I'm not sold on that, since it's a book on surgery and the author goes into great deal about the design, like he's trying to convince an unfamiliar reader. This seems more convincing, it's supposedly from the 1930s and there are clearly some large hacksaws: http://www.ci.pinole.ca.us/about/images/history_butcher_lg.jpg but that's still from a professional butcher, not a domestic kitchen.
The illustrator most certainly did know what a kitchen saw was; Bemelmans, who both wrote and illustrated the Madeline books (though the later books in the series are by his grandson) was pretty well-known as a gourmet, and was a restaurateur at least once in his life.
Instrument styles change over time, it's not inconceivable that a regular handsaw would have been in use in the past. Given that for most people you'd simply clean up the saw used to cut kindling for the oven and then use it to cut the bones for the stock for your soup, you'd save yourself having to have 2 potentially expensive tools.
In addition to cutting up bones, I've also found the hand saw handy when layering cakes. I've used it for cutting woden and plastic dowels to specific length for cake layering.
It could conceivably be used for sawing through bones. Or perhaps in the book the saw has been left on the counter by somebody?
Of course in the book the saw may have been just left around. I was asking about saws in kitchen use, not why the saw is in the book: the book was just my motivation for asking. Anyway, thank you (for the bone answer). +1
I've used a hand saw to cut up bones when making stock making a long leg of lamb fit a roasting pan, other than that I can't think of any use for them in the kitchen. Serrated knives are commonly used to cut bread, but they don't look like hand saws. There are also tomato knives that are serrated, however they would be hard to mistake for a hand saw as well.
It's possible that the illustrator just added some implements to fill the scene, I wouldn't take that book as a true source of what a 30s kitchen looked like.
It was illustrated by a restauranteur and gourmet, though, which would influence the composition's accuracy.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.895388 | 2014-06-11T16:01:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44779",
"authors": [
"DML Locksmith Services - Spam",
"Dave Turnbull",
"Erich Adams",
"Jon Hanna",
"Lebesgue",
"Lina",
"My office supply qatar",
"P. O.",
"Spammer",
"alt1tambang888",
"glass materials.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106333",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106335",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106336",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106338",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106352",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106354",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106384",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106421",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12892",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18343",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5983",
"jwenting",
"logophobe",
"msh210"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
45668 | Why not use a polypropylene dish with carbonated drinks?
I found a polypropylene (♷) measuring cup in my home today, of the sort that comes with an immersion blender for preparing drinks. Printed on it is the warning "not to be used with hot or carbonated products". Hot I understand: the heat can warp the plastic, or cause chemicals to leach therefrom into the food. But why not use it with carbonated liquids?
As identified in my original comment, the most likely risk is not from the container itself, but from the fact that it's meant to be used with an immersion blender.
Heat actually isn't a major problem with polypropylene (PP). It's generally regarded as food-safe and is BPA-free (see here and here for references), and its melting point is somewhere between 130°C (266°F) and 171°C (340°F) depending on its specific crystalline configuration (or isotacticity). So you could even pour boiling water into a PP container without major risk of deformation - just don't try to bake a casserole in it or anything.
PP is often injection-molded, which can leave molding seams; these could be weak points in a closed vessel containing a carbonated beverage. But that's not really a concern with an open container.
Once you introduce an immersion blender with fast-moving blades, though, you've got the potential for hot liquids to be flung outwards if not fully submerged, causing possible risk for burns. Those blades will also intensely agitate carbonated beverages, causing a release of CO2 and extensive fizzing. The biggest reason not to use an immersion blender with these is probably that you'll lose half of the volume to spillage, and agitate the rest to the point of losing its carbonation.
The problem with carbonated liquids is cavitation.
In normal water, if you spin up a propellor fast enough, you'll cause the disolved gasses to come out; this causes dramatic wear on the blades/fins, and in some cases, can cause fatigue resulting in them tearing off. This is actually a major issue in pump and boat propellor design.
If you're dealing with carbonated water, the bubbles form at all speeds. I doubt you'd do much damage to the blades (although you'll likely cause the same mess as with hot liquids, but at high speeds you'd run that same risk of damage and fatiguing of metals ... after doing it enough, the blades may break off while rotating and lead to injury.
(and this makes me wonder -- are there issues with using blenders at high altitutes?)
Adding to this answer - think of cavitation in terms of the blade entering water (which is denser) then exiting into air (which is less dense) then entering into water again (which is denser). This repeated process at high speeds puts immense strain on the blades to the point where some failures will launch the blades. Also - I haven't heard of any issues with using blenders at high altitude as high altitude wouldn't cause the same issue as bubble caused cavitation.
I didn't know that cavitation is so bad. Does it mean that my high speed blender will fail quickly, or at least require a new blade? It causes cavitation all the time. Is it a thing the owners of high speed blenders have to live with?
@rumtscho : I'd assume they'd be rated for the typical operating speeds; also, most bar blenders have much heavier duty blades than immersion blenders.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.895852 | 2014-07-17T16:10:38 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45668",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"jsanc623",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
53878 | American cheese availability and utility
According to Wikipedia, the product commonly (and in that article) called "American cheese" is
generally manufactured from ingredients such as one or more cheeses, milk, whey, milkfat, milk protein concentrate, whey protein concentrate, saturated oil(s), emulsifiers, and salt.… American cheese can not be legally sold under the name (authentic) "cheese" in the US. Instead,… laws mandate that it be labeled as "processed cheese"… or "cheese food"…. As a result, sometimes even the word "cheese" is absent, altogether, from the product's labeling in favor of, e.g., "American slices" or "American singles".
It seems from Wikipedia that there is no actual cheese that may be labeled "American cheese". Yet, the product in my refrigerator labeled "white American pasteurized process cheese" has as its first ingredient "American cheese". Specifically, its ingredients are:
American cheese (pasteurized milk, cheese culture, salt, enzymes), water, cream, sodium citrate, salt, sorbic acid (preservative), olive oil.
What is that "American cheese" the label refers to? Is it available on the market? Can I use it in substitution for, perhaps, American slices, or maybe instead of Cheddar or something?
Could it be as simple as your product being made of actual cheese from America?
The most famous such product in the US is Velveeta, which has been around for a long, long time. Nowadays it is a "processed cheese product".
American cheese isn't real cheese, but a processed cheese product made partially from cheese, but with loads of extra stuff added in to make it pliable and melt easily. The "American Cheese" you see in the ingredients is the real cheese part of it, although the American part of it is probably for marketing purposes.
It's not a substitute for cheddar or other cheese from a flavor, texture, or melting point perspective, although it can be used in many of the same things. If you want a cheese that tastes good then use real cheese, if you want something that looks and tastes a bit like cheese and melts quickly and evenly use american cheese.
I think this is it. The package is very confusing: "American cheese" is normally used as the name for the processed slices themselves, not for their ingredients. We can't guess why the manufacturer chose to apply it to the base cheese, maybe because he wanted to evoke patriotic feelings, or because he had no better name for the generic cheese they are made from.
Does the "it" in your second paragraph refer to the processed stuff or its actual-cheese base? If it refers to the processed stuff, then I don't see how this post answers my question, which was about the availability and utility of the actual-cheese base.
The method described isn't the only way to make American cheese.
@msh210, I see what you are asking for now. It doesn't really come out in your question that you want to know how you can buy the "American Cheese" as stated in the ingredients. In this case it's just cheese made in America, it doesn't say what kind.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.896149 | 2015-01-22T06:05:43 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53878",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Margaret Snyder",
"Mr. Mascaro",
"Richard ten Brink",
"Simon Wilkinson",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5983",
"msh210",
"rumtscho",
"user3169"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
35112 | Boil water first when cooking what foods?
The directions on some packages of raw food (frozen vegetables, dry beans, dry pasta, rice, and the like) indicate that one should first boil water, then add the food, wait for the mixture to boil again, turn the heat down, and cook the stuff for some length of time. The directions on other packages indicate that one should combine the water with the food first, bring it to a boil (or to the boil if you're British), turn the heat down, and cook the stuff for a length of time. (That is, the latter directions don't include boiling the water first: the water is heated with the food in it.)
What determines which types of food are cooked each way? Or is one set of directions right (for all foods) and the other wrong?
There is no single universal answer to this question, as it depends on the specific food and outcome desired, but there are a couple of common themes that influence whether starting from cold water or boiling water is the preferred method:
Larger foods that need to cook through may overcook on the outside before the inside is cooked, if started in boiling water. For example, potatoes are usually started in cold water so that they cook through to the center.
Some foods contain enzymes that will be deactivated at boiling temperatures, but may act more quickly at lower temperatures. Starting in boiling water would be for when it is desirable that the reactions be inhibited; starting in cold water facilitates the reactions continuing.
Sometimes it is simply for precision to get a repeatable recipe. Boiling water is always the same temperature (at least for a given altitude), so beginning cooking at the boil is reliable and repeatable compared to starting with cold water which may have an unknown temperature curve as it comes up to the boil.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.896442 | 2013-07-05T20:59:00 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35112",
"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
} |
33973 | Shirred eggs elements
I've found a number of recipes online for shirred eggs.
Some have a fat (cream, ham) beneath the eggs; others don't (except for a bit to grease the ramekin).
Some have a cheese (Parmesan, Cheddar, Swiss) above the eggs; others, I think, don't.
Some have milk or cream above the eggs (beneath the cheese if both are present); others don't.
I have two questions:
What purpose in the recipe do these elements serve? How important is each?
What is considered classic, or traditional, or standard shirred eggs? I'm seeking not an exact recipe, but merely indication of the presence or absence of ingredients like those listed above.
Only two elements are necessary for shirred eggs:
Fat to grease the baking dish, so that the eggs do not stick unduly
Eggs
I would suggest a touch of salt is the only one that is truly important, as it is in almost every dish.
The rest—cream, spinach, ham, cheese, and so on—are simply to add flavor. They are only as important as your enjoyment of their flavor, or the pressure to use up leftovers before they go bad.
For the dish at its most basic, see Julia Child's recipe at WGBH: it consists of nothing but eggs, butter, salt and pepper. Of course, it is immediately followed by suggested variations with garnishes.
I suspect you will never find a single canonical version of a dish this simple. It is like asking "What is the classic version of an omelette?" At its heart, an omelette requires little more than eggs, fat, and dairy—but more than this, it is a foundation on which generations of cooks have wrought their creativity, or just used up their leftovers.
Shirred eggs, much the the same way, are a foundation on which flavors can be built, or leftovers expended. The basic recipe, for both shirred eggs and omelettes, is the starting line, not the finish line.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.896749 | 2013-05-06T06:28:31 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33973",
"authors": [
"KC Cowen",
"Lovethenakedgun",
"Sam Baron",
"Sampo Smolander",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78987",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78988",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78989",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78992"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
54449 | Why add vanilla extract after removal from the heat, and what about fake vanilla extract?
Recipes for pralines, for fudge, even for hot cocoa say to add vanilla extract only after removing the dish from the heat.
Why?
Does that apply to artificial vanilla extract also?
"Artificial" could mean something based on either vanillin or castoreum, these might need different treatment each.
Liquid vanilla extract has alcohol in it, so if you add this extract to hot cocoa, puddings, fudge, or anything you make with heat, the alcohol burns off and so does most of the flavor. If you wait for it to cool off the flavor stays strong. Same thing goes for artificial vanilla also because of the alcohol levels (but the flavor is just not there to begin with with artificial flavor). If you use vanilla beans, open up the pod and scrape the inside of it and put it in the beginning with the hot mix. That is another story. It is very delicious, but you see teeny tiny little beans swimming in your lighter mixes like vanilla bean ice cream.
35% alcohol. That's 70 proof. I just buy bulk Vanillin crystals and mix it with appropriately diluted alcohol. It's much cheaper than store-bought. Most people cannot tell the difference between the two.
I read the boiling point of alcohol is 173F degrees, so I assume that if the temperature of whatever you're cooking is less than that, then it has "cooled off" enough?
I have a bottle of imitation vanilla extract that's water based. I know from experience that adding it to a hot liquid results in a strong imitation vanilla scent being released into the air, which means less imitation vanilla flavor is staying in the liquid. I think it's safe to say that it wouldn't evaporate nearly as quickly as an alcohol based extract, but it's still not immune to heat.
A good point -- if you can smell it when you're cooking, that means not as much if ended up in the final product.
There are (more-or-less) three kinds of 'vanilla' you can buy today: real beans, 'natural' extract and 'synthetic' vanillin. (The synthetic version can be sold either as a liquid extract, or as a powder, e.g. vanilla sugar.)
Synthetic vanillin is these days made from guiacol, that can in turn come from many sources, including crude oil. (You will see online claims that it's made from 'castoreum' which comes from beaver butts, but that's pretty unlikely, considering how much cheaper it is to use the fully synthetic version.) (Synthetic vanillin used to be made from lignin, i.e. wood pulp, but that has apparently been phased out.)
Vanillin is the chemical that gives the main 'vanilla' note to vanilla, and the synthetic version is identical to the natural one. However, in real vanilla beans there are also hundreds of other chemicals that provide further flavour.
That said, it's not always true that 'natural' vanilla is better. Quoting from 'Eight Flavours' by Sarah Lohman, which has a very informative chapter on vanilla:
But I believe there is a time and place to use every version of vanilla in your kitchen: bean, natural extract, and imitation extract. I was first introduced to the potential of imitation vanilla extract in Cook’s Country magazine, beloved for its thorough taste tests of everyday ingredients. They tested natural vanilla extracts against imitation extracts in blind taste tests, adding them to puddings, cakes, and cookies. Each of these three vanilla-heavy dishes cook at different temperatures: low, medium, and high heats, respectively. Although cakes and cookies bake at the same temperature, around 350 degrees, cakes reach internal temperatures of only around 210 degrees. But cookies, which are small and thin, will exceed temperatures of 280 to 300 degrees. At high heats, all the hundreds of wonderful flavor chemicals of natural vanilla burn off. The result is that your vanilla sugar cookies, baked with natural vanilla extract, end up virtually tasteless. But imitation vanilla, which contains pure vanillin, delivers a much more potent dose of flavor that survives the oven’s heat. While real vanilla extract won the low-heat competition for pudding, it tied with an imitation extract for cakes, and lost the cookie battle.
Skeptical? Well, I decided to do an informal taste test of my own. A year before I set foot on Norma’s plantation, I gave a lecture on artificial and natural flavors. There were more than a hundred people in attendance. I had baked two batches of snickerdoodle cookies, using identical ingredients except for the vanilla: one had high-quality, expensive, natural vanilla; the other, cheap-as-dirt imitation. The taste test was double-blind—the cookies were labeled so that neither the participants nor I knew which cookies were which when they were distributed. The crowd voted on their favorite.
The imitation vanilla cookies won 2 to 1.
Ms Lohman keeps all three variants at home: whole beans, 'natural' extract and 'synthetic' extract. Some food, cooked at really low temperatures, such as crème brûlée doesn't work well with extract, as the alcohol won't boil off, leaving a boozy flavour. For these, use real beans.
For cookies that will be baked at high temperatures, on the other hand, the richer flavours of real vanilla will be ruined (and can apparently turn nasty), and artificial vanilla with its pure vanillin is better.
For everything in between, 'natural' vanilla extract is probably preferable.
As @user33210 said, vanilla extract is prepared with alcohol, so adding it early to the cooking process allows a lot of the alcohol to evaporate, consequently the vanilla aromatics as well. However, if you use vanilla beans instead you won't have this problem but instead end up getting a better vanilla smell in your dish.
Kinda yes. If you are bent on using the actual seeds of the vanilla beans, you will get more flavor out of them if you cook the seeds (and bean hulls, but fish them out) in the liquid you will use, e.g. in the milk for a flan. But if you make them into vanilla extract instead, and use the extract, you will get a much stronger, richer and better flavor, while using up less beans.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.896937 | 2015-02-06T09:18:30 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54449",
"authors": [
"Cayla Hebert",
"Deborah Bartlett",
"Edward James",
"Joe",
"Lou C.",
"Ronel Van Rensburg",
"Spammer",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"aruna dikshit",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128109",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128110",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128111",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128113",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158419",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158445",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"pacoverflow",
"phuc nguyen huu",
"rackandboneman",
"rajshri ashok",
"robert murphy",
"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
} |
17132 | Vinegar and battered chicken?
I made a recipe for crispy shallow-fried battered chicken. The recipe called for a little vinegar to be added to the chicken after drying and seasoning. This dish did not work, the batter (just flour and water) slipped off the chicken in the oil because the meat was too wet. What is the reason for the vinegar here? Is there a trick to this or do I just have a bad recipe?
Adding vinegar 'to the chicken' might give it a slight tanginess, but its certainly going to cause issues with the batter adhesion. Sounds like a bad recipe (especially if your batter was just flour and water too!).
Every time I've seen vinegar in batter dipped chicken, its because there's also baking soda and it helps produce a lighter, airier batter. And you put it in the batter, not on the chicken.
Thanks. I think I'll consider that a low point of this otherwise decent cookbook. I'll go back to my normal practice of consulting more than one recipe before trying a cooking style that is new to me.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.897470 | 2011-08-25T17:26:16 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17132",
"authors": [
"Matt Surabian",
"NeedTungsten",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36774",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6083",
"michael haines",
"user442920"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
18569 | What's the best way to store (freeze) purchased ground beef?
When I buy my ground beef at the store it comes in a styrofoam tray with some sort of pad underneath to catch any excess blood (at least, I believe that to be the reason for the pad) and it is wrapped in cellophane of some sort, and appears to hold the meat rather well.
Is it safe and sane to freeze it like this or should I be transferring it from that packaging to an alternate ... container? ... before storing?
It is not only sane, it is safer than any other packaging you can make.
At least here in Germany, meat from the supermarket is not just wrapped in celophane, the celophane is glued to the tray. The packaging is air-proof. And the air inside the packaging is not normal air, it is a mostly sterile atmosphere with a composition different from normal air, which hampers bacterial growth (I think it has lowered oxygen content, but I'm not absolutely sure on that detail). This means that 1. no bacterial contamination is possible after the meat has left the packaging plant, and 2. the bacteria already present in the meat when it was packed grow slower than normal. So if this is your type of package, do yourself a favor and leave the meat in it.
I haven't frozen such packages, so I don't know how big a problem they have with freezer burn. But it may become a problem in the long term, as the moisture from the meat will sublimate on the inside of the celophane.
If this is not the type of package you get, and you have just plain clingy film wrapped around meat and a styrofoam tray (I've seen other products wrapped this way, but not meat), there is still no problem to freeze in it. The pad full of meat juices (this is not blood btw) is a good feeding place for bacteria, but the meat itself is as least as good as the pad, so you won't be reducing the risk if you remove it. By leaving the meat in the original package, you reduce the risk of additional bacterial contamination during transfer. And no other container will offer better food safety.
You can still consider a transfer for reasons other than food safety. First, you can portion and/or preshape the ground meat before freezing, and then you'll have to repackage it. Second, if the package is not tight enough, you risk freezer burn. But if these don't apply, it is probably best to leave it in the original container - this is convenient, and not dangerous at all .
It probably also depends on the size of the package. If you're buying a large package, it makes sense to put it into smaller containers (I use ziplock freezer bags), so that you only need to thaw what you're going to use.
If you're buying a package that is small enough to use when you thaw it, then the package it comes in is ok. However, it seems like it might be problematic to remove the padding if you try to use it before it is fully thawed.
It's fine to leave it in the container to freeze it.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.897595 | 2011-10-25T22:47:07 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18569",
"authors": [
"Julio",
"Markus Schanta",
"Ryan Knell",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40257"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
30518 | Cooking a chicken and peppers in a crockpot instead of sauteeing, how much water should I add?
My father shared a recipe with me and my mother "gently corrected" some of the details, but it sounded good, and I wanted to replicate it, but cook a little more to have some leftover for later.
The recipe they're using is:
1 whole onion, sliced
1 bell pepper, sliced
1 1b chicken, sliced into ~1" x 2" pieces
1 jar pasta sauce
handful of parmesan cheese
Saute the onion and pepper for about 10 minutes, till they start to have some juice
in the pan. Add the chicken and cook about 3-5 minutes on a side, till it's about
cooked through. Add the pasta sauce and let it come to a slight boil (so it's nice and hot)
Remove from heat and cover with the cheese (so it melts)
But I've moved up to 5 peppers (two green, one red, one yellow, one orange) and 2 onions and 2.25 lbs chicken breast, sliced as per recipe (also seasoned a little with some light marinade to give it a little extra taste). I thought it might be nice to cook it in the crockpot (4qt classic) with the cool weather and let it slow cook, and have something nice when I get home.
My plan is to add all the veggies and chicken when I leave the house, and add the sauce right before I'm ready to eat (I actually want to split half of the crockpotted mixture and store it without the sauce on it, to heat later with the sauce). What I'm not entirely sure about is:
Do I need to add some water so the chicken doesn't start to stick while it cooks, or burn in some way? I'm going to be at work but I'll be home at lunch if I should stir it or change something.
What is the best temperature to set my crockpot to? Low I would assume.
If I really need to cook this in my large deep skillet I can, but I like the idea of trying this recipe in a slow cooker.
Sorry if the "two questions" seem like they should be separate. I can fork and create a second question, but I figured two was ok for this.
You don't need to add any water to the slow cooker whatsoever. Your recipe is somewhat similar to the one that I use to cook my lunches but the quantities seem larger than mine, much larger. I assume that you chop everything up into small piece, including the chicken. The slow cooker should not be more than 3/4 full, so reduce your amounts if the quantities are too big.
Chicken breast doesn't need more than three hours on the 'high' setting in order to cook (six hours on low); this cooking time leaves most of the vegetables crisp (courgettes and pumpkin soften, but bell peppers, carrots and onions retain their texture).
Running a kosher kitchen, I would not know about adding cheese to the food, but anyway I would recommend adding the cheese to the food prior to serving, not while it is being cooked.
If you wish to separate some of the vegetables, one technique which I have used successfully is to put these vegetables in a wire tray (I use the plastic punnets in which we buy fresh mushrooms): these vegetable are cooked like the rest but are kept separate.
If you do wish to add certain vegetables after you have already started cooking, then you are supposed to add 20 minutes to the cooking time (every time one opens the lid of the cooker, steam escapes and it apparently takes 20 minutes to obtain the same amount of steam).
It doesn't matter; the water comes from the vegetables and from the chicken itself. Believe me!
If you don't mind I've edited your post a bit for the accept, to remove parts that I don't think added much.
So, as final resolution for those coming along behind me: I put the chicken on top of the veggies, added 1/2 cup of water, cooked for a little over 5 hours on low and unmolested, and everything turned out beautifully. The vegetables were a little soft, but I don't mind, based on my recipe that was perfectly acceptable. I'm doing this for the lower gluten diet, but adding a slice of garlic toast on some french bread would've been divine. Cheers and bon apetit! In the future I would save the veggie scraps and make a broth with >.<
My apologies. With haste.
This is the pattern of crock/slow pot cooking I am accustomed to.
Separate your vegetables into two groups
vegetables to be dissolved into the stew with the chicken.
vegetables where you want to retain their individual distinct cut and taste.
Procedure
Cook the chicken with group 1 vegetables on high for 2 - 4 hours.
After that, turn it lowest until you are ready to serve it.
Mix in group two vegetables and let it stand for 10 minutes before serving.
My recommendation that can be used as group 1 mixture
onions
carrots
egg plant
potatoes
garlic cloves
dried shitake mushrooms
hot chilies (don't if you can't take the heat)
celery
chick peas
lentils
artichokes
cauliflower
any spices, bay leaves
My recommendation that can be used in group 2:
sliced bell/sweet peppers
broccoli
asparagus
green peas, french peas
long beans cut short
sliced tomatoes
mint leaves (never cook mint leaves)
cilantro
chopped lettuce
sliced mangoes
sweet canned mandarin oranges
My grouping for group 2 is because, undissolved vegetables must retain some level of crunchiness and should never be cooked yellow. I find it easy to be close friends with people who like to eat vegetables cooked crunchy. I find myself very reserved with people who like to eat their vegetable mushy and cooked yellow. There is a distinct quality of personality/character between the two groups.
Given as how I provided a very straightforward recipe and indicated precisely how I intend to cook this meal, I can't in good conscience find anything about this answer that applies to my situation. Thanks for playing.
Too many herbs for this cat.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.897872 | 2013-01-30T03:25:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30518",
"authors": [
"Brendan",
"Colleen Brolin",
"KOMAL BORA",
"No'am Newman",
"NothingToSeeHere",
"Tom",
"donnapark",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3325",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71335",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71336",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71359",
"jcolebrand"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
18375 | Cooking with barleywine
Given that barleywine is a strong ale, is it suitable in recipes which call for ale, or does the extra alcohol and stronger flavor overwhelm the recipe?
I realize the answer will be "it depends" if varies by recipe; I am more interested in whether the answer is "Absolutely!" or "Absolutely not!"
Barleywines initially have a large amount of sugars in them before fermentation, and brewers balance that by adding a large amount of hops. There is a large bitterness factor in a barleywine, which you may or may not notice, depending on your tastes and the individual brew. If you try to reduce it like you might with a wine, the bitterness may quickly get overwhelming.
With that in mind, I see no reason why you couldn't use a barleywine in any recipe that would work with a strongly flavored beer.
Check out The Home Brewed Chef for some great ideas for how to cook with beer.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.898302 | 2011-10-15T06:55:05 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18375",
"authors": [
"Brian G",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39744",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39752",
"user39752"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
16339 | How to pick a good mango at a local store?
Simply just like the title says. I LOVE mango. But the thing is I don't know how to pick a good one at the local store. I read some tips somewhere from Googling (long time ago, I don't remember its exact url) said to smell it, but I'm not sure what smell should the good mango have? My family and I often must wait for our mangoes in the fridge for more than 5 days just to make sure that they're ready to serve.
Advice? Help? Thanks!
I look for a few things...
Colour: There are many different varieties of mangos. Some go from green to red, some end up Orange, some start off yellow and end up orange. So once you're familiar with the type of mango you're buying, you can get an idea of what a ripe one looks like.
Smell: A ripe mango will smell sweet. Check near the stem end, the smell should be stronger there. You should smell it and think "mango". Smell is a large part of your taste, so it should be very familiar.
Firmness: Mangos, like peaches will soften as they ripen. Just as it starts to go from firm to soft, it is just about ripe.
Weight: With most fruit you can tell their ripeness by their weight. A riper fruit will be slightly heavier than an unripe one.
As an aside, if you're at a grocery store, and you see a few different types of mangos, look for these Ataulfo mangos: http://goo.gl/IeEZ4. They're my personal favourite. The flavour is richer, and they are a lot less stringy.
Finally, DO NOT refrigerate if you want them to ripen.
More info on the Ataulfo mangos. (There is also some generic mango info there)
Awesome, thanks for the well-written answer. I'm studying both links right now.
+1 for smell. For almost any fruit and vegetable, if it doesn't smell good, it doesn't taste good either.
"A riper fruit will be slightly heavier than an unripe one." ... really? Maybe if it were ripened on the tree, but when it ripens off the tree, how does it gain weight? There isn't anywhere for the extra mass to come from.
Well, as with most mass harvested fruit, they don't exactly check each mango before picking. :-) of course you are correct, but if I'm at the store and I have a choice, I'll grab the heavier one. It won't get heavier over time in the store. The original question was just about selection.
In the fridge? Keep the mangos out of the fridge and they'll ripen faster, and taste better. The smell should remind you of a delicious mango. :) (No other way to describe it, really)
oic, I've been worried and I thought it will be rotten if I keep it out of the fridge. I'll try to remember the smell of a delicious one when I eat it next time so that I know how to pick a good one. Sorry for my super duper basic question :) Thanks for your answer, I appreciate it.
Mangos are tricky to pick ripe from the supermarket. Not knowing, I used to assume firm was the way to go, but it was often not ripe enough. So I picked only mangos which were soft, though those are often too ripe or bruised.
I determined that the best mangos are those that are neither too firm nor too soft. Of course that's a largely subjective answer, but I suppose that means that it comes with experience. Though in the case of doubt, better that they are more firm than soft, since you can always let it sit to ripen on its own.
@talon8, the yellow box said "Vote Up requires 15 reputation" to me after I upvoted all useful answers here. I can only "accept" so far.
@Arie: Ahh right, my mistake.
As i experienced while choosing mangoes,it have many varieties in it and their type. but still you can choose on the basis of color,firmness,smell,peel texture
,weight. The India is the top producers of mango of vivid varieties.
before this you must know that which one you want to purchase(that is available in your region or not).
mostly famous ones are
http://www.india-forums.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=613788
http://mumbaiboss.com/2012/03/30/your-seasonal-guide-to-mangoes/
Smell: A ripe mango will smell sweet. Smell should be very familiar to one like ripen sweet mangoes have.
Firmness: Mangoes, will soften as they are about to ripe. Just as it starts to go from firm to soft.
Weight: A riper fruit will be slightly heavier than an unripe one.
DO NOT refrigerate if you want them to ripen with its natural sweetness,as refrigeration will results in little frozen pulp and taste less delicious.
It's simple. First check the color of mango, then smell it. If it smells sweet it's good. Remember mangoes should not be too hard or too tender.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.898422 | 2011-07-22T13:09:29 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16339",
"authors": [
"Adriano Varoli Piazza",
"Arie",
"BKlassen",
"Bruno Lopez",
"DA.",
"LemonTart",
"Theolodis",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34781",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34784",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34789",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6315",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71800",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76382",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76402",
"magoodigan",
"rumtscho",
"talon8",
"tudor -Reinstate Monica-",
"user71800"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
16479 | How should I keep date palm fruit at my home?
My neighbour gave us date palm fruit, its colour is not that black, kind of brown, not as sweet as the date palm fruit I ate before. I'm not sure if it's ripen already, but it's sweet enough, so my family and I just enjoy eating it.
Now I'm confused of where I should keep it. Should I keep it in the fridge? Or should I keep it outside the fridge? Won't ants come to get it if I don't store it in the fridge? I once kept date palm fruit in the fridge, but the fruit became firmer/tougher to bite, I'm not sure if that's better.
Advice? Help? Thanks.
The dates you have are probably brahi, whereas the ones you remember eating before are medjhoul. These are different types of dates, and have slightly different flavour profiles.
As for storage, they should be fine for a few days at room temperature. For anything longer than that, they should be kept in the fridge, particularly if you live somewhere hot/humid.
I also vaguely remember an old Israeli habit of eating yellow dates frozen, or after a few minutes out of the freezer.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.899110 | 2011-07-29T02:33:51 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16479",
"authors": [
"Dansmugs",
"John Smith",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35211"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
18723 | Sourdough starter - will it set off my allergies?
I'm very allergic to mold, among other things (all airborne, no food allergies). I also adore sourdough bread. If I were to make my own sourdough starter so I could bake sourdough regularly, would it a) be similar enough to mold to set off my allergies, or b) be likelier to attract mold than anything else in my kitchen?
Are you allergic to yeast?
Not as far as I know? I eat bread, and bake bread, but have never had a culture growing in my kitchen.
No. Sourdough culture is not a mold.
Even when the surface of your sourdough gets moldy (per Adam, above) to get moldy, it's not the kind of mold which releases spores into the air.
I speak as a severe allergy sufferer.
Aris: psychosomatic allergy reactions are a thing.
The problem is that if you think you are, then you'll have a reaction whether it has any basis or not. Mind you, the aroma of sourdough is pretty heavy on ammonia, which is hard on the eyes and nose even if it isn't an allergen. And you could, conceivably, have an allergy to bread yeast or any of the various sourdough bacteria.
Sourdough starter will grow mold if it starts going "off". If it's healthy, it will naturally prevent mold from growing, but if you forget to feed it for too long and/or the container it is in is dirty, it can start growing fuzzy stuff.
Feed your culture regularly, and transfer it into a clean container now and then, and it will be fine.
My starter and I are cohabitating just fine, though he's staked out territory in the fridge rather than sitting on my counter. He's my new favorite hypoallergenic pet: the benefits far outweigh those of fish. Seems I was worried for nothing!
I’m severely allergic to Penicillium mold. In the folder that I was given, it says to not eat anything with a lot of yeast. Sourdough bread has a lot of yeast.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.899329 | 2011-11-02T16:07:00 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18723",
"authors": [
"Carole",
"FuzzyChef",
"Jonah",
"Mel",
"Nir Glazer",
"Yamikuronue",
"baka",
"bgkahuana2",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40566",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40567",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40598",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47928",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
18691 | Hulling pumpkin seeds - Possible? Easy?
I have a recipe I want to use that calls for "hulled pumpkin seeds (the green ones)". I have pumpkin seeds saved from carving pumpkins. Do I just... peel them? Any fast way to do this? Is there any other preperation needed?
It's practically impossible when they are raw. You have to bake them first. But I don't know any fast way, the normal way is to pop them out of the hull just like sunflower seeds, one after the other.
@rumtscho "Bake them first" is exactly the kind of advice I'm looking for :) I've never purchased pumpkin seeds (always just toasted fresh ones) so I have no idea what processing is done before using them in candies or baked goods.
Actually, you can eat them without toasting first. The taste is slightly different, but not bad. The problem is that you can't really get them out of the hull when raw, you have to scoop out pieces of them with your front teeth. So, for candy, you have to bake first if you want a chance of getting them out in one piece. I'm not making this a complete answer, because I hope somebody can offer advice on how to make this easier - I would buy hulled seeds before I spend half a day on hulling to get a handful of them.
@rumtscho The main reason I'm looking for pumpkin seed advice is because I have a big bag of them sitting in my kitchen right now from carving pumpkins. If it's really that much work, I might just make toasted seeds, but I tend to make sweets each week for a get-together and I thought it'd be a nice change to do brittle.
Describing the only method I know, and hoping that somebody will come up with an improvement, because this one is quite time-consuming.
First, clean your pumpkin seeds and toast them. They cling to the hull when they are raw. When toasting, it is preferable to use lowish temperature for a long time, so you can prevent strong taste changes and burning. If I remember correctly, it is also a good idea to let them cool them first, because they are more likely to break when hot, but
When the seeds are ready, you want to pop them out of the shell. For this, hold a seed between your thumb and index finger. Apply pressure to the most prominent parts of the edge.
Ideally, the pointed part of the hull will split along the edge, and the seed will fall out, or you will be able to squeeze it out. Even if it goes like that seed after, it is a slow, monotonous work. Often, the hull will refuse to split, or the seed will break within the hull, or it will cling to the hull and refuse to come out after it has split. And then there is no guarantee that you'll get the beautiful plump seeds you see in the supermarket, because carving pumpkins aren't bred for nice seeds, it can happen that yours are very small and thin and not a particularly good decoration.
Conclusion: it is possible, but even if I had the seeds sitting around, I'd throw them out (or feed them to birds outside) and get hulled seeds for cooking, instead of spending half a day to get a handful of seeds out of their hulls. If it doesn't bother you, or if you can find a more efficient method, feel free to do it and share your process improvements here.
I found a method here: http://www.heritagefarms.com/recipies/recipie_pages/roasted_pumpkin_seeds.php
To hull seeds in quantity, first break them up with a rolling pin, hammer or food chopper, then drop the seeds into a large container filled with water. Stir vigorously to bring all the kernels in contact with the water and to break the surface tension. Kernels will sink to the bottom; the shells will remain floating
Anyone ever try this? I might experiment tonight..
I tried it. They cracked, but not enough to let out the seeds. I suspect I'd have to have less flat seeds for it to work. Oh well.
This works great! I used a food chopper and had the seeds finely chopped, the kernels sank to the bottom alright and the hulls stay afloat, after which you can easily scoop the hulls out of the container. It saves hours :D
I spent a couple of hours in front of the television splitting dried pumpkin seeds with an exacto knife. Make sure you don't point the business end at yourself or the fingers that are holding the seed. Ended up with about a cup full of seeds. If you have the time that seemed to work the best for getting whole raw seeds which are better for you.
I decided that buying raw pepitos (which I've found seems to be what they are usually labeled as) is worth the expense, so unless I end up with hulless seeds, or can find some sort of mechanical huller that doesn't cost $2000 or more, that's the way I will continue to get my hulled seeds.
When I was a kid we grew pumpkins for the pigs to eat during the winter. Most of the seeds were dried and sold, but we also ate some.
This is how we shelled them:
Clean and dry the seeds. (No need to wash, just separate seeds from pulp by hand).
Hold the seed between fingers similar to a guitar pick (plectrum).
Insert the seed between your front teeth and squeeze until it cracks. Start at the narrow point and squeeze your teeth 2-3 times moving towards the middle of the seed. By the time you reach the middle the flesh will be almost out of the shell, at that point you decide if you like to ate it or save it for a dish.
If you hull lots of seeds that way, your tongue might get a little sore from guiding the seed, so take it easy at first.
My grandma showed me this and it works very well.
You sold seeds that you put in your mouth?
@sobachatina I think they sold seeds still in the hull, which customers then put in their own mouths to dehull.
This post is old, but surprised nobody has mentioned Kakai pumpkins. If you do gardening, just plant Kakai pumpkins. The seeds are grown without the shells. Can't get easier than already shelled.
I like it! Let nature do the hard work
Centrifugal dehullers are used commercially; something like this. Basically, you use a spinning rotor to throw seeds at a hard wall at about 100 mph (45 m/s). This cracks the shell, and releases the seed. All that reamains then is to separate seed from broken hulls.
The same process may be used effectively for oats, rice, sunflower, pumpkin and etc. seeds.
Rotor speeds run from 1200 to 5000+ rpm for smaller units. There are currently no consumer grade units on the market; but it's not impossible to build such a unit at home.
Sunflower seeds dehull nicely in a homebuilt centrifuge based on an angle grinder and a variac speed control. Haven't tried pumpkin seeds yet, but they should split as easily as sunflowers, perhaps a slightly higher rpm.
If you grow naked-seeded or hulless seeded pumpkins, you don't have to remove the hulls. One variety is Kakai as mentioned above. Other varieties include Styrian, Lady Godiva, Streaker and Eat-all. After harvest, just cut open the pumpkin and you'll find green, tender seeds.
I used pliers to crack off the rim around the hull( roasted seeds), then the sides peeled away fairly easy. I had more whole seeds that way. It still takes awhile & I'll most likely buy the hulled seeds next time.
I wanted nice whole ones so I washed and dried them and then used my kitchen scissors to cut along the seam on one side. Then it wasn't hard to separate the hull.
Wikihow suggests using a rolling pin to crack the (cleaned, dry) seeds, then boiling for 30 minutes so the pepitas are released from the hulls.
Skim the empty hulls out of the water, then drain the water off of the pepitas and pat dry. Now you can eat the pepitas as is, or roast and flavor them.
This was mentioned above from another site, and did not work well for me
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.899549 | 2011-10-31T14:40:37 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18691",
"authors": [
"Bazil",
"Billi Cat",
"Dan",
"Hal Klein",
"Kyriakos Vardakos",
"Lillian Lathrop Jacobs",
"Martin",
"Peter Pepper",
"Ricaardo Carra",
"Robin Macson",
"Sicco",
"Sobachatina",
"Spammer",
"Tigerware",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115006",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40496",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40497",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40510",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45396",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89155",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89190",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97001",
"iod",
"j robbins",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
18725 | How to get raspberry flavor into a smoothie without seeds?
I often enjoy (when it's not dead of winter) a fruit smoothie for breakfast; generally I use orange juice or some other juice flavor (V8 has a few with fruit flavors masking veggie tastes that I sometimes use), yogurt, and fruit I've frozen myself (removes the need for ice, leading to a thicker smoothie). Typically I use strawberries and bananas; however, when I purchase smoothies, my favorite flavors involve raspberry. I've tried purchasing frozen berries and tossing some in, but the seeds irritate me to no end.
How can I get the taste of raspberries, preferably from raspberries themselves rather than extract (seems healthier), but not the seeds?
I'd stew the raspberries down with a little water (and sugar if the raspberries aren't sweet) until they're very soft, then pass the whole thing through a sieve to remove the seeds. You can then either store the result in the fridge, or pour it into an ice cube tray for easy portioning and a nice cold smoothie.
oooh, raspberry ice cubes would portion well - I usually put a single portion of fruit into a baggie so I can just dump it in while half asleep, so I could measure out cube sizes with whatever other fruit I'm mixing it into. Great idea!
This is how I go about raspberry lemonade, more or less, except I mash the berries with a spoon and strain it through cheese cloth. Worth noting that this will stain anything you get near it - the cloth, the spoon, the container, the counter, your shirt, ...
There are a couple common ways to deal with seeds in berries:
Use a food mill, which uses a rotating blade to crush the berries and force them through small holes. They're designed for this sort of thing - removing seeds or large pieces of pulp.
Do what the food mill does, but by hand: push them through a reasonably fine strainer/sieve. Unless they're really soft, you generally want to puree them first. You can also incorporate other ingredients first, to give more liquid to work with, so you don't have to do as much pushing.
How does this interact with the freezing process? Do I freeze the puree? Or mill frozen fruit?
+1 This is what I do. I usually add a little of the seeds back in for cosmetic reasons. You can freeze the puree. You cannot mill frozen fruit.
If your fruit is already frozen, you can simply thaw it and then use this method. You'll have to add ice to your smoothie if you want it cold, though, and/or re-freeze the puree.
Instead of cooking the berries, freeze them. Freezing causes the berries to burst their cell wall. Run them through a coarse wire sieve or colander (strainer) using the back of a wooden spoon. Faster is to run the frozen, and now thawed berries through a Foley food mill. It will remove most of the seeds. A few seeds might slip through. That's why I suggested using a food sieve or strainer. I use my Grandparent's antique one. It has two thin metal supports on the outside of the wire.
Some brands of raspberry yoghurt don't have seeds, and you say you're adding yoghurt anyway, so you could try that.
While that will technically work, a smoothie is about fruit, and a "raspberry" yoghurt isn't fruit.
We have invented a new product called the Smoothie Press™. It's a travel mug for smoothies that strains out berry seeds. Really cool!! Check it out here:
www.smoothiepress.com
Happy Holidays!
~Jodi
This does not appear to be spam: it is a product which solves the problem given in the question, and the affiliation is disclosed.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.900207 | 2011-11-02T19:57:13 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18725",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"ESultanik",
"Kogitsune",
"Nishanth A B",
"Reid Ellis",
"Sobachatina",
"Will",
"Yamikuronue",
"ash108",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154079",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40574",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40575",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40577",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"jochen",
"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
} |
13876 | Stir-frying: how much of the oil evaporates?
When you're stir-frying or sauteeing, I'm sure some of the oil get evaporated due to high temperature. How much of the original oil evaporates? Since I suppose it depends on the kind of oil, temperature and duration, can you give example for several typical cases? (for example, vegetable oil, medium heat, 15 minutes, etc)
How does this affect the nutrition and energy calculation? For example if 50 grams of vegetable oil contains ~400 kcal, how much calories does some food cooked with that much oil has?
The boiling point of most cooking oils is much higher than their smoke points. The boiling point of olive oil, for example, is around 300°C (572°F), which is hotter than the temperature of a pan on a typical residential range/cooktop. With that said, alcohols and esters which make up the flavor and fragrance of the oil will have lower boiling points and will therefore evaporate. That should not significantly alter the nutritional content of the oil. Furthermore, much of the perceived loss of oil is likely due to a combination of absorption of the oil into the items being fried, and also due to splatter. The latter cannot be easily quantified due to its connection with the cooking vessel and the technique of the cook.
Doesn't evaporation also occur below the boiling point with enough heat?
For oils, should not be an amount that you would notice.
Yet oil loss happens when stir frying - probably by being carried along with steam and spluttering...
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.900581 | 2011-04-08T15:34:02 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13876",
"authors": [
"AmitG",
"Fitri",
"Mighty Ferengi",
"Robenroute",
"Willie Wong",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29064",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3425",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5656",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
12832 | omelettes and scrambled eggs - How long can I store them?
Is it a good idea to keep make a lot of them and keep them in the refrigerator? I like them for breakfast but I don't like cooking every morning. For how long I can keep them?
If you're looking for time savings in cooking scrambled eggs, you'd almost be better going with microwaving them, as you'd likely want to warm the previously cooked eggs anyway. Another slight time savings is to do what my grandfather referred to as 'silver and gold' eggs -- break 'em directly into the warm pan, and then scramble them.
@Joe: I have always just added the eggs directly into the pan, but that was in order to have one less dish to clean.
So I was thinking about this, and realized that there are plenty of egg dishes that work well out of the refrigerator, but the thing is, you don't reheat them, you serve them at room temperature:
quiche
fritatta
pizza rustica
tortilla (the spanish dish, not the south american item of the same name)
I mean, it's not going to be the exact same as making it fresh and serving it warm, but the problem is in reheating eggs when you tend to overcook it. (I once turned a pizza rustica into a nasty puddle of water when I tried reheating it)
So, my thought on the matter is you could probably pull it off, just don't heat it. You might be able to microwave it on really low heat to just take the chill off ... but don't try to get it hot.
You'd have to try it yourself to see if it's an acceptable taste / texture / temperature for your palette. You might also consider either serving it with something else warmed through to let some of the heat transfer (eg, place it on a freshly toasted bagel or english muffin)
I don't know how long they remain sanitary but when I'm cooking scrambled eggs for a lot of people and I have to store them in the oven to keep warm I always cover them with slices of cheese. This seems to help keep their flavor as if they were right off the pan and prevents the surfaces of the eggs from drying out and becoming crusty. It may improve their refrigeration life as well?
I have been scrambling three large eggs at a time. I eat one and put the rest in the fridge in a sealed plastic container. I make egg salad out of the leftovers for sandwiches over the next two days adding various things like onion bits, dill, mustard, hot sauce, lemon pepper, cheese slices, etc. The eggs taste just fine. The sealed container keeps them moist.
You make egg salad out of scrambled eggs? I've never tried this before. I'll have to check it out.
Interesting. I know I've had potato salad made with mashed potatoes that was amazing, and this sounds like a similar variation.
Keeping cooked eggs is not very tasty
Follow my previous post on "better-scrambled-eggs" for making scrambled eggs in 60 seconds from eggs to plate (thin stainless skillet on a gas stove)
I've been cooking my eggs in a small round pan. To keep that shape, I'll cook 4 batches for 4 days at a time, then place them in fridge. Wake up, grab one round cooked egg, nuke in the microwave for 30 secs and it tastes great to me on a piece of Ezekiel bread. I have 3 small children and a busy morning, so I need something healthy and fast with no mess in the morning.
so, what is your answer? "They are good for at least 4 days"? I am not sure what exactly you are trying to tell us.
Eggs keep fine for two weeks just fine raw in the shell and about abit over a week cooked into a fritta shape, 25 sec in a microwave works wonders
What about freezing the eggs in separate containers? Daily portions, thaw one the night before and cook it in the morning. Microwave if you have it. Would this work?
Eggs don't like being frozen. The yolks change too much when defrosted. And besides, you want to start an omelette with as warm an egg as possible, because then it curdles less.
I've heard Sanitary wise they are good for a week, but my experience is after about 3-4 days they tend to give you the runs, soo I wouldn't make more than enough for 3 or 4 days.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.900754 | 2011-03-06T16:47:54 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12832",
"authors": [
"Audrey Sharp",
"Charles Ball",
"Joe",
"NMrt",
"Preston",
"Ross Ridge",
"Web Nash",
"bjb568",
"duchessofstokesay",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116864",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139692",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26577",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93382",
"not.a.hotdog.vendor",
"rumtscho",
"unom"
],
"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
} |
13462 | Why do eggs have expiry dates?
And what will happen if I eat them after they're past the expiry date?
What country are you in? Does your egg supplier wash the eggs first? Do they look washed? If not they can last a very long time. Of course they are only "designed" to last three to four weeks at 37°C (98°F)
All of the answers you are looking for have been touched on in various parts of this question: How long can I keep eggs in the refrigerator?
Summary:
Expiration dates are for best quality only. Nothing magical happens on that date.
Truly fresh eggs (i.e. from the chicken) will hardly degrade at all even after a year in storage.
Supermarket eggs are washed, removing the protective layer and lowering the shelf life.
Some supermarket eggs are already contaminated with salmonella, and there's no test you can do to find out for sure (other than eating them raw). This will cause serious problems if you leave them in storage for several months, unless you freeze them.
Lastly, damaged eggs will simply go rotten. You won't always see the damage, but you'll definitely smell it by the time you hit that best-before date.
As with just about every other food, you're better off interpreting the sell-by or best-before dates as a conservative guideline; any food can go off before the date if it's been damaged or mis-handled, and many foods will still be fine long after they "expire". StillTasty.com is a good resource for finding out how long various foods actually last in storage.
Maybe in the US, but not necessarily in many other countries. Egg washing is not required or common around the world
@TFD: I don't live in the US and wish you wouldn't be so quick to point out what you perceive as issues or oddities there. Canadian and EU food inspection regulations both require eggs to be sanitized from salmonella; in some cases "egg packing centres" are allowed to do microbial tests but most don't, because it's far easier to just wash them with a disinfectant.
@Aaronut Sorry, should have said North America. AFAIK in the EU and many other western countries, food laws specifically ban washing eggs except for specially controlled systems that use a gentle warm water wash which does not damage the egg cuticle
@TFD: That is incorrect, and I specifically referred to the EU above. This is in Regulation 853/2004; the only stipulation therein is that disinfecting has to kept separate from other processing, and some sections for some specific countries insist on either very strict negative tests (which will usually fail given the conditions in most large-scale suppliers) or separate disinfecting. A "gentle warm water wash" would be pointless as it would not kill any bacteria. There's plenty of legitimate criticism of agribiz, but let's please stick to the facts.
@Aaronut Are you sure sure? I have not read the regulations, but a quick google check shows that as the "egg products" regulations. Fresh eggs are different, as in most countries of the world. Again a quick google finds 589/2008 for these. Only saying this as my practical experience is only of unwashed eggs in the EU (never bought from supermarket though)
@TFD: And as a rule we are talking about supermarket eggs, not fresh eggs. I've never seen farm-fresh eggs with an expiration date on them. Most animal products found in supermarkets have been treated or processed somehow; that's true in virtually every part of the world.
EU Regulation 589/2008 articles 2 and 3 say that eggs must not be washed except in countries that had allowed that before the 1st of July 2003, and washed eggs must not be sold outside those countries. In the EU, salmonella is countered by vaccinating the hens.
The sell by date isn't so much going bad (bad eggs are rather obvious) but Salmonella.
Most eggs, especially factory farmed, have traces of salmonella on them - it can pass through the shell. But unless you are already ill you can handle it, the older the are the longer the bug has add to get into the egg and grow.
Same again. Maybe in the US, but not necessarily in many other countries. Egg washing is not required or common around the world
Same again, @TFD. Yes, it is common around the world, and yes, it is required if the distributor isn't testing every individual egg for salmonella.
Vaccinating hens against salmonella is very common in Europe (and actually required in many cases), so this mostly becomes a non-issue.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.901130 | 2011-03-26T12:52:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13462",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Matthias Brandl",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76013"
],
"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
} |
9272 | what is the difference between butter spread and pure butter?
first of all, basically what is the difference?
what are their uses and is there a big difference? for example is there a case where I should use pure butter for some things but never a spread or vice versa? When the recipe says butter which one should I use?
Can you define butter spread for us? Do you mean margarine or other non-butter spreads? Or is there some spread that uses butter as a component that you're referring to?
Most things I've seen marked "butter spread" in the store have a subtitle or ingredient list explaining what they actually are.
@Jefromi While you are right about the ingredient lists, perhaps for the sake of the site's international diversity, it's not so bad to explain a little what those "common terms" or "shelf commodities" mean. In my country (as an example) you can't use the label "butter" if the product contains vegetal by-products.
@belisarius: True, true. I figured since there were possibly multiple formulations of "spread butter" it might be helpful to be specific.
the ingredient list says vegetable oil, butterfat, milk oil, emulsifier, etv
@Fitri Ha! So ... "vegetable oil" ... unnamed vegetal ... "butterfat" ... but not butter ... "milk oil" ... sure! and cow eggs too! ... emulsifier,etv ... <choke... just plain venom> ... I prefer McD's (just because burgers come without labels)
Generally speaking, butter spreads have a water component to them. That's what the emulsifier is for, as it keeps the fat and water from separating.
The problem is that you can't fry/cook with it. If you place it in a pan it will separate, and sizzle in a very unpleasant manner. If I remember correctly, it actaully smells quite awful in the process.
As for baking, I think it'll be fine anywhere there needs to be fat as fat. Wherever you need fat as something to hold the structure, you had probably best not use it. Caveat emptor, as I don't bake very much at all.
Let it be aid, however, that margarine as opposed to butter spread, can be used anywhere that butter is used. It isn't as tasty, and has trans-fats. On the other hand, it has less cholesterol.
Thanks! I would have upvoted this if I had enough rep lol
There -- I did it for you. :-)
"butter spreads have a water component to them" doesn't tell us about butter spreads versus butter, since butter also has a water component. The USA requires that butter be at least 80% fat. Most USA butters will be 80% fat since the fat is more expensive than water. There are premium butters that have higher fat content. The remaining 20% is mostly water. My understanding is that many European countries have higher required fat contents, but none are so high that butter does not contain water. In the USA margarine also must have at least 80% fat, it is "just" a radically different fat.
In a TV commercial for butter--long ago--Vincent Price exclaimed, "Margarine always claims it's just like butter but we would never claim butter is just like margarine!".
Usually things titled butter spread are actually made from largely vegetable oil. They can be a replacement for butter in recipes where the fact that there is fat in the recipe is all that matters (quick breads, brownies, muffins, etc.). In general if you have a recipe where melted butter joins the wet ingredients and those wet ingredients get mixed into the dry ingredients, you should be able to get by using butter spreads (at least the oil-based kinds).
On the other hand, butter spreads aren't going to work well in baking that requires the creaming method (where butter and sugar are creamed together) because the texture is "firm out of the refrigerator, softens quickly" (source) as one spread maker says. The bubbles needed to make baked goods rise using the creaming method won't hold.
Yep. Butter Spreads are usually a mix of butter and vegetable oil (that you may prepare in-house processing the ingredients COLD)
Butter Spreads are used as Butter substitudes in Baking. Usually containing Animal fats from bovine and ovine along with water, Butter Flavour, Emulsifiers and food acids. The results in baking is almost very close to the natural butter but the taste is a bit different in comparison with unsulted butter. It is not recommended to use butter spreads for frying but it can be used in cooking which I personally do nut suggest that !
Definitely check the labels. "Butter spreads", that is vegetable oil spreads that have a small amount of butter for flavor, aren't a suitable substitute while baking because they usually have too low of a fat content. Most vegetable oil-based spreads, with or without a butter component for flavor, don't actually meet the legal definition of margarine, which must be at least 80% fat to match the fat percentage requirements of solid butter, so it can be used as a one-for-one substitute in all uses, like baking.
Conversely spreadable butter, usually labeled as "butter with X oil", can be used for cooking, as the oil content is usually just the small amount needed to keep it soft in the fridge, and is still fat, so it doesn't change the fat percentage.
To determine the difference we must first take in to account the ingredients found in them.
Butter - pure butter is made from buttermilk or cream. As a result it contains some saturated fats and cholesterol (30mg per serving).
Butter Spread - is a combination of oils (mostly vegetable oils) and buttermilk that taste like butter. They offer lower calorie count; some choices offer "Zero Cholesterol".
Buttermilk is not used to make butter... It is what is left over after you make butter. Also, we aren't a health site, so discussion of the health quality of these products is inappropriate.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.901523 | 2010-11-19T16:35:31 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9272",
"authors": [
"Andrew Hall",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"DanielleD.",
"Don",
"Dr. belisarius",
"Fitri",
"Janus Troelsen",
"Martha F.",
"Rob",
"SMJ",
"Shannon Severance",
"bikeboy389",
"fsli",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160891",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160895",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18961",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18964",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3425",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/949"
],
"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
} |
19598 | Can I stuff peeled bell peppers?
I enjoy stuffed bell peppers, but while green peppers are substantially cheaper than red or yellow, they're also more bitter. Reading on the web, it looks like peeling the pepper will reduce the bitterness. Can I use this technique for this application, or will that also destroy the integrity of the pepper, making it unsuitable for stuffing?
Absolutely. Look to chiles en nogada, or chiles relleno, for a common example of something similar. Poblanos are admittedly a much firmer and more flavorful pepper, but you can definitely stuff bell peppers with the same process.
By charring the peppers first - either directly on a flame (e.g. on a gas stove or grill) or under a broiler, you can quickly blacken the skin, making it easy to remove. Doing this quickly enough can help avoid making the flesh of the pepper too soft and fragile.
You can then (carefully) stuff the pepper with the filling of your choice, and finish in the oven. If you're really good, you can get it all in through the top where you remove the stem, but it's much easier to split it down the side in just one place, and carefully tuck it back together after stuffing. I've often seen stuffed bell peppers sitting upright, with the top removed; if you've roasted them first you'll probably have better luck with them whole, lying on their sides.
Thank you @Jefromi. They look delicious. I will definetely try.
It probably depends on the stuffing as well. If you would puree a stuffing really finely, then pipe it into the pepper using a piping bag, that should impact the shape less than spooning it in.
As you mentioned already, peeling of the peppers most probably will cause problem while stuffing and cooking as they will be very soft and they may get destroyed (stuff may spread out of the peppers during both procedures).
The link below about stuffed green bell peppers may be helpful;
http://almostturkish.blogspot.com/2007/07/vegetarian-stuffed-peppers-zeytinyal.html
Looks tasty! I've got a few recipes I like for stuffed peppers, but I usually have to buy red ones or I'll end up not eating much pepper.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.902104 | 2011-12-12T16:22:19 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19598",
"authors": [
"Erik P.",
"MissesBrown",
"Porter",
"TTT",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42689",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42693",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42745",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8120",
"user6644",
"yuzhen"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
25457 | What happens if you cook pureed pancakes?
Okay to begin with, I know this is an odd question, but I've been reading The Flavor Bible and they mention an experiment where they made pancakes, pureed them with milk so it looked like batter again, then squirted that onto a frozen griddle to firm them back up. What would happen if you cooked this mixture again? Would you get bubbling? Would it burn right away?
The only thing I can think to say is, why not just try it and see what happens?
@lemontwist I probably will, when I get some free time, but I was curious if anyone had any science-type answers
Egg firms up from cooking due to various proteins binding together and forming a tangled mass that traps water molecules inside. I believe that flour has some solidifying properties under heat as well, but not nearly as much. Both these reactions are chemical reactions, changing the molecular structure (or making bigger molecules as they bind together). Puree-ing seems to be a mostly mechanical separation. I doubt it would solidify the same way, and you would see faster burning. The bubbles come from baking powder reactions...so I'm also guessing few bubbles.
When you cook it, the mixture would go from firm to melted as the temperature increased above the freezing point. Also, your egg proteins that previously held it together will have already been denatured (no way to undo this step mechanically) with the first cooking episode so I'm not aware of anything that would hold the batter together once it melted unless you added more egg. Also, you would not have the bubbles expected in pancakes without adding more baking soda/ powder (as previously mentioned) or putting the mixture in a siphon with nitrous. Either way, probably not a very pleasing result unless you put the batter in a siphon, charge it up, freeze it, and make sure it remains frozen until consumed. In that case you would have frozen pancakes not much different than freezing the original subject other these would melt into a mess with the consistency of the batter upon thawing.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.902307 | 2012-08-04T01:33:16 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25457",
"authors": [
"AGB",
"Eric Hu",
"Justus Eapen",
"Mark Crawford",
"TruGrits",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58281",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58282",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59145",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6818",
"lemontwist"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
18692 | Nut brittle -what went wrong?
I'm preparing to make pumpkin seed brittle, and I notice the recipe is very similar to the peanut brittle recipe I used before. Unfortunately, it turned out awful! The sugar never quite turned "light amber" even after almost an hour, and eventually I noticed it start to crystallize. I tried pouring it anyway and ended up with basically a clear sheet of sugar that dissolved into crystals when broken (I left off the nuts because I was pretty sure it was ruined - the nuts tossed in spices made a lovely alternate snack instead). I notice several comments having similar issues, but also many more saying "It worked perfectly the first time!" What did I do wrong? Should I use a different recipe? Is there some way to make this more foolproof? One of my friends started babbling about "invert syrup" being the cure for my ills...
Recipe is at http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/alton-brown/peanut-brittle-recipe/index.html . My attempt was done in spring in Manchester, UK, so while it may have been a bit damp, there wasn't likely to be a ton of humidity and no altitude problems.
You didn't heat it enough. "Turning light amber" means that you want caramel. What you did instead was to evaporate water from a sugar syrup, without reaching caramelization temperature. The crystals are not unusual (at some point you get a supersaturated syrup, after enough water has evaporated), but it is better if they don't happen, so don't give them occasion (use a clean pot, don't stir, etc. I suspect the oiling of the pan is meant to reduce nucleation sites).
The recipe is a bit strange anyway, using way too much water. Maybe you can try another one, if this has negative comments. The regular recipes will use some more conventional nut instead of pumpkin seeds, but this doesn't affect the physics of making the caramel. And do yourself a favor and use a candy thermometer. There are experienced cooks who can make sugar candy without one, but if you are not one of them, you'll save yourself lots of errors (and probably enough money in expensive ingredients for the thermometer to pay for itself).
Here is another recipe for brittle. While I haven't tried to make it, I strongly suspect that they know better what they are doing - not at least because they give you the exact temperatures you are aiming for. This is a site with lots of useful tips for candy making, and if you really want to try this without a thermometer, use their chart to learn about the different stages of sugar syrup and caramel.
And choose your recipes carefully. Candymaking (both sugar and chocolate) is even more exact than baking. Directions like "put back on medium for some time" are practically useless. In order to successfully cook a candy recipe, you have to know if not the exact temperature, then at least the desired sugar syrup stage. Maybe somebody who has made lots of brittles could work with a recipe like the foodnetwork one, noticing the problems on the fly and making the appropriate corrections towards the ideal brittle mass. If you don't know what the ideal brittle mass looks like before you start, it is better not to try it that way and go for an exact recipe.
Thanks! I've never had Alton Brown fail me before :/ His pumpkin seed brittle recipe appears identical to the peanut brittle recipe except for the substitution of nuts, so I suspect I can use that recipe + his seasoning on the nuts + pumpkin seeds rather than peanuts. I do have a candy thermometer - bought one after the brittle fiasco.
Agreed - Alton Brown's recipes are usually quite good. From the comments, it seems like people had very variable success - some perfect, some awful. Some of them suggest that you need to watch the video (i.e. some details got left out in the transcription). In particular, the video says to stop at light amber or 350F. It seems likely that it does work... if you actually manage to do what he did.
"...until light amber" while not boiling hard indeed sounds like the procedure for invert syrup, but in the recipe you link there is a crucial step/ingredient missing (if invert syrup is indeed wanted): ACID. A lemon or two worth of juice should go into the syrup at the beginning, and the syrup should be simmered not boiled, and at the end be partially or wholly neutralized with baking soda - foams like rabies so be careful! Also it is better to underneutralize than overneutralize - sour syrup is tasty and keeps great, alkaline syrup on the other hand... if you store some, be sure to put a "dnɹʎS" label on :)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.902508 | 2011-10-31T14:46:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18692",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Eve Dean",
"KC13",
"KRyan",
"Reeann Sorbello",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150971",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40500",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
23075 | Is white vinegar the same as White Wine vinegar?
Is white vinegar, aka the stuff just labelled as "vinegar" in the US and which I use for cleaning my kettle, the same as "White wine vinegar", which I have purchased on accident a time or two? If not, what is white vinegar made of?
No, it's not. White vinegar (also known as distilled vinegar) is made of acetic acid diluted in distilled water. Its flavor is simple—its just sour. Typical concentrations range from 5–7% acetic acid.
White wine vinegar is made by allowing white wine to turn to vinegar. It has a much more complex flavor profile. It is also frequently less sour (acidic) than distilled white vinegar.
(I appreciate this is a USA question - but just for trivia sake; in the UK this legally cannot be called vinegar and must be labelled "non-brewed condiment". White [Distilled] Vinegar in the UK is generally made from distilling malt [barley] vinegar)
White wine vinegar is a completely different thing, it's less tangy and is more diluted as it's made from the white wine. The Ethanol in the white wine is let to oxidise into ethanoic acid, which is a carbolyxic acid also known as vinegar.
the acetic/ethanoic acid is normally produced by fermentation rather than oxidization.
They are different. You can drink white wine before it turns to vinegar but if you drink distilled water and acetic acid you’re nuts.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.902879 | 2012-04-16T15:52:26 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23075",
"authors": [
"Bilkokuya",
"JoJo",
"Matthew Flynn",
"Michael James Whiting",
"SourDoh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67874",
"marija"
],
"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
} |
4208 | How do I temper an egg?
I just saw a recipe that said to "temper" an egg, which I had never heard of before. I did a little reading on it, but what is the easiest/best way to do it?
It means, basically, to stir in some warm liquid to prevent it from later curdling. Once the egg is warmed and mixed with some of your sauce, it can safely be incorporated into the rest of the high-temperature sauce without (as much) fear that you're going to end up with scrambled eggs floating around in your hollandaise.
Generally, you crack the egg in a bowl, and spoon in a little sauce, mix it, spoon in a little more, mix it, and then you should be good to go. It goes without saying that if the sauce you spoon in curdles the egg, discard, and start again.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.903036 | 2010-08-04T13:32:01 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4208",
"authors": [
"Sarah",
"Trin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7881",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7883",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7884",
"karen",
"wn0"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
11438 | How do I defrost frozen flour tortillas?
There is a wide variety of suggestions about how to thaw frozen flour tortillas. What works best?
This is an odd question.. why freeze them? The fridge keeps them good for quite a long while without as much sacrifice to floppy goodness.
@zanlok As soon as I read the question title the answer, "don't freeze them to begin with" popped into my head. But I guess there could be cases where it would be useful.
If you are freezing the tortillas yourself and don't mind putting in a little extra work in the beginning to get more convenience later, I would separate the tortillas with waxed paper (actually I use the paper sheets that are waxed on one side, intended for bakeries). What this buys you is the ability to pull out one or two tortillas as you need them.
They will defrost just fine in the pan that you are going to warm/brown them in anyway.
If you customarily run through a dozen tortillas, then you probably don't want to bother. But if that is the case then you probably aren't freezing your tortillas in the first place.
The paper used in baking you are talking about is called parchment paper btw.
I buy tortillas in bulk (36 to 48) at a time. I freeze them because even our family of 6 won't go through them fast enough if left in the refrigerator! I stack them with individual freezer wax paper between the tortillas (get them at warehouse stores such as costco) and then place in a plastic freezer bag or in a plastic storage container. I THAW them in the microwave 6 at a time, papers removed, then wrapped in a SLIGHTLY damp kitchen towel. 30 seconds on high does it for the stack.
this is exactly my reason for freezing them, and how i freeze them, too. i separate them into stacks of 10, freeze them, and then vacuum seal them in fresh bags after that. a minute or so (at most!) in the microwave in a ziplock bag and they are like fresh again. our local stores sell them in stacks of 40-100 at a time (nothing fewer!), so freezing is the only way for me to go.
The microwave is good for this sort of thing. Just wrap them in a towel to hold in steam and go for a couple minutes until they are soft. Or if you aren't too worried about plastic toxicity, you can put a few holes in the bag they came in and do it right in that.
Plastic toxicity, feh!
If it's a resealable bag, open it and holes (destroying the bag) could be avoided.
If you've got the time, just put them (back) in the fridge for a couple of days. I always keep some frozen (mostly because I have more room in the freezers than in the fridge).
I put them directly on the stove burner and flip with tongs. Works great, they taste better this way.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.903136 | 2011-01-25T00:03:20 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11438",
"authors": [
"Bernard Scully",
"Jay",
"Jimmy McCarthy",
"Joe Zilch",
"Pinch",
"Preston",
"Scott Stafford",
"TIM NOYCE",
"franko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153629",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23494",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23495",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23496",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
15978 | Rubbing eggplants in salt
I saw somewhere they rubbed sliced eggplants in salt and leaving them out up to an hour before putting them in the oven.
From what I understood it had to do something with the eggplant's bitter taste...
I want to cook sliced eggplants in the oven myself now, and some in with a pasta sauce.
Should I rub them in salt? Why do people do that?
Eggplants differ in bitterness. You can cook some of them and never notice a problem. But other exemplars are quite bitter, and can overwhelm a dish. That's why it is a good idea to preemptively do something to remove their bitterness.
I have read dozens of suggestions how to do it. Some are OK, others are downright terrible. Have you tried soaking eggplant in water with lemon juice? An eggplant being basically a sponge, you end up with pieces bloated to three times their original size, dripping water into whatever dish you try to use them in. Also, they stay rather bitter.
The logic behind the salt is that it will suck out the bitter juice of the eggplant through osmosis. You can then remove the mushy salt and use the eggplant pieces. You can certainly use it if you want, but it isn't the best method. First, osmosis does occur when you salt food, but nowhere near the rates claimed. You don't end up with a dessicated steak if you salt it 10 minutes before frying, and if you salt a slice of eggplant, you have to make thin slices (doesn't work for ratatouile 2-cm-cubes), give it some help (press the slices with a weight so the juice will be pressed out) and wait a long time. Even then, the results can be inconsistent.
The good news is that one of the few veggie-themed Food labs posts is dedicated to the problem of disembittering eggplant. The tests seem to be as rigorous as usuall, and the best practice recommendation is to not salt the eggplant, but bake it.
Microwave is the best method, as it dehydrates well and does so quickly. If you don't have a microwave, the second-best method is the oven.
Slice the eggplant, aiming for even thickness
Put absorbing paper towels on a baking sheet (oven) or a wide plate (microwave)
Arrange the eggplant slices in a single layer on the towels
Cover them with another layer of towels
Optional: stack another layer of slices and towels to get all the eggplant ready at one go
Anchor the towels with some weight. (I use all-metal serving knives laid across the slices; another plate on top would work in the microwave).
Microwave for 3 min or roast at 175°C for 30 min
Use your eggplant as intended
Obviously, this isn't good for all applications, because it dehydrates the eggplant. For example, I don't think you can make a good imam bayildi with the dry roasted eggplant (but then, maybe it will be OK, I've never tried). But for the typical uses in Western cuisine, it should go fine.
The original article is also highly recommended reading, as any of Kenji's stuff.
The article suggests that microwaving works even better than baking - in particular, it's faster. (I haven't tried it myself.) And wow, I'm ready for some eggplant now.
@Jefromi you caught me - I didn't reread the article, just linked it. And back when I read it, I adopted the roasting method, because I don't have a microwave. Thank you for noticing, I'll update the answer.
Salt + put a weight on top of the eggplants is very efficacious, also to remove lots of the water that the eggplants tend to release when cooked.
Great answer. Thank you. I too lack a microwave so I'll probably use the oven method... However, wouldn't putting it in the oven for that long take from the time I need to put it in the oven again, after rubbing it with the rest of the spices?
Modern eggplants are bred to be less bitter, so if you are buying store bought eggplant you shouldn't have to worry about it. I've never noticed my eggplant being bitter, no matter how I prepared it. If you are using heirloom seeds (i.e. you are getting the eggplant from your grandmother who has been growing the same variety for decades), then you might want to go ahead and salt it.
OK, I am going to enter my thoughts here. The accepted answer is a pretty good one, and the article is a great way to help you prepare eggplant parm without it being to heavy with oil. But I don't think you can skip the salting.
As in the article I have always baked/roasted my eggplant prior to assembling it. I did not use the paper towels as at that heat the paper towel shouldn't need to absorb the moisture. It should be able to just evaporate. In fact I would guess that if the moisture was bitter adsorbing it into the paper towel that is sitting right on top the eggplant would be bad. Better just to let it evaporate away.
Now, as I have said I baked my eggplant. And I have to tell you that the first time that I made eggplant (not for eggplant parm, but I still baked it first) it was so bitter I couldn't eat it. That is when I discovered salting it. I think there is something different that happens here. Were the bitter molecules actually leech out when you salt it (osmosis) but they don't evaporate out with the water when it is baked. The key is it takes a long time depending on how bitter the eggplant was. At least 30 min possibly up to an hour.
I think the reason why it works for the author and others is what Sara D Gore was referring to in her answer. Most eggplant you find today are just not bitter to start with. And you really don't have to worry about that problem. If you don't want to take the time to salt the eggplant every time, then taste it first. Raw eggplant it perfectly edible. Or there are some signs it might be bitter like a thicker skin and a large number of fairly large seeds. Then if you think you need to generously salt it, let it drain in a colandar, rinse it, and dry it. Then proceed exactly like the article.
This of course is just my experience in my kitchen. And sometimes weird, strange, and wonderful things occur in a ones kitchen that can't be replicated outside it :) That is why if I think the eggplant will be bitter I salt it (or throw it away), and it seems to be working for me.
Not sure what was really wrong with my answer. Not sure if it is considered ok to ask for feedback, so in the future I could avoid the problem and become a better contributer to the comunity. So thanks in advance if you would care to share why you disliked the answer so much.
it's written in a very personal style. OK for facebook, not great for a global audience. Bits like 'OK, I am going to enter my thoughts', 'Now, as I have said' are unusual. In egneral it's quite hard to follow your thoughts. Work as if writing a novel, itemise the main characters (points) and expand on them. Not sure why -ve points though, nothing wrong?
Yes, it is a way to remove the bitterness from eggplant, for larger more mature fruits with developed seeds. You may sprinkle the salt on both sides, let them sit for 15 - 20 minutes, and then rinse before baking. If you have younger or smaller eggplant, this is not necessary. I love to bake sliced eggplant, and serve it as a side dish, in a pasta dish, or on pizza. I usually slice 1/4 inch slices, and dress with olive oil, and a little tamari and any other seasoning desired, bake in a 350 - 375 degree oven, turning once till soft in the centers, brown and a little crispy on the surface, about 20 - 30 minutes.
To answer the last bit of your question; "Why do people do that?", I can only tell you why I do that.
I peel, slice (either length wise, or on the bias), salt and press eggplant for an hour prior to cooking; I raise Japanese eggplant, which is slender and long, so I slice them lengthwise.
I will slice the eggplant evenly, usually about 2 cm-3/4" thick, assemble each half of the sliced eggplant on the counter, salting each side of each slice as I go, with the widest slice down and the smallest on top. Then I figure out how to weight the individual stacks of sliced, salted eggplant. Very often I use a cutting board with some cans on top of it for weight.
After about an hour, I pull the weight, remove the eggplant slices to a bowl, clean up the water on the counter, rinse the eggplant slices very well and dry them. They are now ready to use in whatever recipe I am using at the time.
This process removes the greater portion of the free water and compresses the eggplant to a bit less than half the original thickness.
Up until I learned this technique, we considered eggplant as somewhere at the bottom of the desirable vegetable list. After learning and using it, my eggplant went from being chunks of mush to chunks with texture, improving the esteem in which it was held tremendously.
If you can find it in a restaurant, order eggplant parmigiana and ask your waiter if the eggplant is pressed. The difference between pressed (meaning salted and pressed) and unpressed eggplant in this dish is pronounced and very noticeable.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.903433 | 2011-07-06T12:32:05 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15978",
"authors": [
"Bellthasar",
"Cascabel",
"Graham White",
"Jen philips",
"JimP",
"Nicolás Ángel Damonte",
"Singh Robin",
"TFD",
"hizki",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34015",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34019",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34399",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5550",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6755",
"jeffwllms",
"nico",
"poetryrocksalot",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
16927 | Does salt interfere with the yeast in the dough swelling process?
I was told by a friend that, when making pizza dough, I should add the salt at a later stage than the yeast, because it might disturbe the yeast from doing its thing...
I apologize for not having anymore concrete information, I just wanted to check this...
Thank you for this question! I've always wondered how salting dough doesn't kill the yeast
Short answer, no. Worth a watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a65UPbbuZE .
Salt in high concentrations can kill yeast yes. So can sugar, though salt is so much better at it. You see both are hygroscopic, meaning that they suck water out of stuff. This induces osmotic stress to the yeast cells leading eventually to cell breakdown (aka death).
On lower concentrations salt will throttle the yeast fermentation producing a richer and more uniform crumb.
Adding the salt early or later in the process will have a big effect on your dough, but that won't be because of the way it messes up with the yeast. Salt is supposed to coagulate gluten proteins, in a sense it "stiffens" the dough. On various situations this should happen late in the process (e.g. see the "Delayed salt method" used for sourdoughs).
For pizza dough I'd add the salt early.
I simply thought salt will kill yeast but you have come out with a better explanation, didn't know that sugar can also kill yeast, I usually add salt while I knead the dough that too not too much
I think I've seen the following experiment somewhere: take a cube of fresh yeast. Divide in half into separate containers. Add 1 Tbsp salt to one half and 1 Tbsp salt to the other. Observe how both mixes will progressively get watery eventually killing all yeast. Salt should be done with its yeast significantly faster.
something tells me you want to edit the above charisis - I'm thinking you mean 1Tbsp sugar in one of them?
I've heard that if all your salt hits all your yeast (i. e. if one or the other isn't properly mixed during adding the food), it will reduce your yeast's activity significantly enough that it will hurt pizza dough. I learned this from a chef in a pizza making class. So when adding them to dough make sure you've mixed the first one in before adding the second.
Oops, that should read 1 Tbsp salt and 1 Tbsp sugar, no experiment otherwise. Thanks @Bruce
Salt doesn't kill yeast entirely, unless there is too much of it, but it does slow down its growth rate. So adding the salt later would allow the dough to rise more.
In the case of pizza dough it probably doesn't matter all that much, and if you find that it doesn't rise enough, you can also leave more time for it to rise.
Given the amount of salt used in bread, the answer is no according to The Bread Bakers Guild of America:
Most scientists believe that at 2% of the flour weight or less, salt alone does not significantly alter either the yeast’s gassing power or the bacteria’s acid production. A study measuring the gas production in a fermenting dough has shown that gas production is retarded by only about 9% in a dough containing 1.5% salt (based on the flour weight).
https://www.cargill.com/salt-in-perspective/salt-in-bread-dough
Greg Blonder, a Professor of Design and Product Engineering at Boston University, carried out experiments to see how salt affect yeast, with some nice pictures to show the results:
https://genuineideas.com/ArticlesIndex/saltyeast.html
Summary of the experiments: 1) salt at 3% by weight does not kill yeast and does not change the effectiveness of co2 production by the yeast. 2) Salt does strength the gluten so the dough will rise less (which is probably why many believe that salt retards yeast). 3) Dissolving salt in water prior to mixing helps strength the gluten more than a later dry mix (again, probably why some people though that early mixing damaged/killed/retarded the yeast)
I assume the experiments were carried out using commercial dry yeast, so the result may or may not apply to wild yeast in sourdough starters.
9:15 am: I thought I would add my yeast to the liquid prior to mixing in the flour, etc. I added the olive oil, agave, and 2 t.SALT to the 3 cups warm water not knowing that the salt might prove to kill the yeast. I had a feeling though, so I checked. Sure enough I obviously goofed big time. Well my dough is hopefully rising now, so we'll see. 9:32 am ... well, it's rising, but maybe a little slower than usual. Hopefully another 15 minutes or so will tell the tale. 9:50 am: It has doubled and is now baking and looks beautiful! Guess I lucked out! Maybe the ratio of salt to water was mild enough so as not to kill the yeast.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.904298 | 2011-08-17T01:16:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16927",
"authors": [
"Angew is no longer proud of SO",
"Bruce",
"Florent Bayle",
"Kumar",
"Lars Larsson",
"LauraC",
"Maurício Araldi",
"Rikon",
"T. C.",
"charisis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36246",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36256",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6459",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67681",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7087",
"justkt"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
102263 | Is there a Welsh recipe called cacan menyn?
In the Wikipedia article about the Breton delicacy Kouign-amann, there is the following statement:
The Welsh equivalent is the etymologically identical cacan menyn, literally 'cake (of) butter'.
It isn't clear from the article whether there actually is an equivalent Welsh recipe, or if the text is pointing out a similarity between the Welsh and Breton languages.
Is there a Welsh recipe called cacan menyn?
For a start there's a typo: my Welsh dictionary has cacen=>cake, but cake=>teisen. I've seen a few hints as to the existence of both cacen menyn and teisen menyn, but nothing definitive.
It looks like the name originates from the Briton language, which is essentially the same as some regions of Wales (closer to Southen dielectric), but the wiki page makes no mention of anything but the language. My family is welsh and I've never seen a cake like this.
There doesn't appear to be (I know very little Welsh but enough to guess at a few terms with the aid of a dictionary).
There are a few recipes called "cacen menyn" (note the typo in Wikipedia) but they differ from kouign amann, and certainly aren't the celebrated dish that kouign amann is. Various recipes under similar names have less butter and don't use layer in butter and sugar like in kouign amann.
This one for example uses baking soda (the kuoign amann recipes I've seen use yeast) and has added nuts and chocolate icing.
If you can get hold of a copy of "Favourite Welsh teatime recipes" you may find something under the same name.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.904758 | 2019-09-11T07:19:06 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/102263",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Gamora",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75772"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
15256 | Why is the alcohol content in British beer so weak?
I am a Brit married into a French family, so there has obviously been some teasing and so-on over the years about the relative merits of the two cooking cultures :P
I recently took my wife's uncle to the UK, and made certain that he ate well - he came away impressed with the food (despite some preconceptions!), but less so with the beer. He is from the North of France, near the border with Belgium, thus giving him access to a lot of different beers.
I made sure he had the opportunity to try what I consider to be good British beers (he mainly tried Shepherd Neame Kentish ales, as we were in Kent) - and the problem for him was that they were too light, as if they were lacking something.
Real British ale's alcohol content usually hovers between 4 and 5% alcohol, while Belgian beers can obviously go a lot higher. While my father-in-law has developed a fondness for British beers, my wife's uncle wasn't particularly impressed, and I think it was mainly because the beer lacked the 'punch' he is used to.
This made me wonder why British beer's alcohol content is so low compared to the neighbouring cultures- is it just a quirk of different cuisines, or is there some more sinister underlying reason such as the UK government wanting to reduce the impact of drunk workers on the economy at some point in the last few hundred years?
Please don't take this as an attack on British beer - I have always been a big fan of the stuff, and always try to paint British food in a good image!
I would dispute that beer at 4-5% abv is weak. Most beers I've seen are in this range, including Belgian beer (I haven't seen beer from northern France). The list of beers in On food and cooking confirms that. Of course there are stronger beers, but the most popular ones in any beer-famous region in Europe seem to be in the 4-5 range. Maybe he is missing the deeper, drier notes of bottom fermented beers and is erroneously attributing the "lighter" taste of ales to a lower alcohol content.
I think it is likely that he prefers brown ale - there's a lot more substance in brews like Wilfort and Leffe Brune than there is in yer typical UK beer, and a big tradition of brewing brown beer in both Belgium and Northern France. Try feeding him Hobgoblin and see what he makes of that ...
As an American, I would say 4-5% is the weak end of normal. Most mainstream beers from large breweries are in that range. Microbrews tend to be in the 5-6% range, and some styles are up around 8-9%. Most imports seem to be right around 5%, and tend to be a bit stronger than our "mainstream" beers (i.e., Bud/Miller/etc.)
Yes, the US microbrew scene has gravitated towards a strong, hoppy style, for the most part (often to great effect)
Would this not fit better on Beer, Wine and Spirits SE
It's the points/levels in the duty imposed that have made UK beer weak, from a historic point of view.
Over 4% and you are on to a higher tariff point for the duty paid on it, so brewers aimed at 3.9x% for a long time, although there have been changes, and a lot of brewers find that people are prepared to pay a few pennies extra for a stronger brew these days.
Pub prices were once highly sensitive to duty, but so much of the price of a pint is now determined by the running costs of the pub, rather than duty, that stronger beers are becoming more common.
When I was a lad, Old Peculier was only sold in 6oz bottles, and a lot of pubs would only sell it in halves on draught ...
I think the reason is the strong pub culture in Britain. The idea is you go to a pub, hang out, have some food, and generally spend an afternoon or evening socializing with your mates. For that purpose, a beer that is lower in alcohol is ideal, since you can sip numerous pints over the course of the evening without becoming drunk to a socially unacceptable level. The culture is so strong in fact that there's even a market for low-alcohol "session" beers with 3.2-3.7% alcohol, specifically intended for extending drinking.
The explanation sounds nice, but doesn't convince me completely. Bavaria also has a strong pub culture (Stammkneipen culture?) and both doppelbock (10% lager) and spiked beer cocktails like Kirschgoiß are widespread there (although not as popular as standard lager). If the socially acceptable drunkedness after a long evening was so important in determining the alc content of drinks, there should be much less demand for strong beers in Bavaria too.
@rumtscho Perhaps the "socially acceptable dunkedness" has not a universally accepted unit. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre#Timeline_of_definition
@belisarius: Or maybe Brits can't hold their alcohol like Bavarians ;-)
that's well known. And of course Brits tend to drink a lot more heavily as compared to many other people, so a similar amount of alcohol would have to be distributed over a larger volume even if they didn't get drunk so easily.
The keyword I was scanning for was "session beer"; for all the logistics of why a beer would play tax and dodge with tarriffs, a good amount of the customers' adoption (and corresponding success) of lower gravity beers is to do with extended drinking sessions.
3.6% is not an uncommon strength for British bitter, and I strongly suspect that historically, even weaker beer was common.
Brewing beer was the primary method of making water safe to drink and store, in Northern Europe, from prehistory right up until the 19th century when municipal water supplies began to be built.
Since people would be drinking it all day, it makes sense that it would be just strong enough to fend off bacteria, but not strong enough that you'd expect to get drunk -- something like the Kvass that's still popular in central and eastern Europe (typically less than 1.2% ABV).
During the Industrial revolution, manual workers such as coal miners and factory workers would emerge from a long shift, dehydrated from sweat and long hours without a drink, and go straight to the pub. The first pint would barely touch the sides, and you can well imagine them drinking three or four before going home to their families -- wanting only to quench their thirst, not to be too drunk to function in the home. This "ordinary bitter" wouldn't be as weak as Kvass, but it would be nowhere near as strong as a typical modern beer. Perhaps 3% ABV.
India Pale Ale, mentioned elsewhere on this page, is characterised as being brewed stronger and hoppier, so that it could survive the long sea journey to India. Yet I do not believe that a beer would need to be as strong as many modern IPAs (often 5% ABV) to have that property. Hence I suspect a 19th century IPA might have been around 4% ABV, compared to much weaker domestic bitters.
There is a heritage of stronger beers in Britain - porters would be 7% ABV or more, but these are not thirst quenchers to be drunk in quantity.
All this raises the question -- why is British beer now stronger than it used to be? Almost all mainstream lagers are 5% ABV, with 4% variants being marketed as a "responsible" variant when you want to go easy. Where there's bitter on tap, there's often a 5% option. I have in my shopping bag a Scottish beer - Brewdog Hardcore IPA, at 9.2% ABV!
I believe this is a response to competition from European lagers. During the 1970s and 1980s, the fashion for lager almost eradicated traditional British ales from pubs. Alongside the negative stereotypes of the real-ale drinker, the weakness of traditional ales, and their typically mild flavour, made it difficult to compete. The resurgence of real ale in the British market was led by strongly hopped beers, 4.5% - 5% ABV. We are only now seeing weaker beers return to the market, as real ales become fashionable again.
As an aside, in my early 20s, my much older manager taught me the "trick" of choosing a weak beer, on work related pub lunches. "You see," he said, "you can have at least three, and still be able to function when you get back to your desk". A wise man.
Beer was once an important part of daily diet in Britain and Ireland and drunk in large quantities by both men and women throughout the day when working, for example, in the fields. So it needed to be weak.
25 years ago when I was a barman in the North of England standard bitter and lager were both around 3%, with only premium brands as much as 5%. And there was Mild, which was often only 2%.
Our drinking culture tends to be about drinking lots of pints, so that is slowly changing, so when Brits ancounter stronger lager and wine, we tend to get knocked down by it.
The explanation I have been given by a mircobrewer is that it is, indeed, due to the duty levied on British beers - it's not so much a purely economic argument, it's as much a matter of principle of not wanting to give the government too much money.
However, there are many excellent microbrewers opening in the UK (based on the American model!) serving their local outlets and they tend to brew stronger beers. A good plan would be to always buy local bottled beers (cask and keg travel better) and you may find something really special. There is a newfound excitement in going to the pub if you are a fan of "real" beers - you may find a gem!
The microbrewer I was referring to is the owner of The Kernel brewery in London but there are many popping up around the country.
One issue that doesn't seem to have been addressed is the effect of 2 World Wars. Significant drops in beer strength and pub hour restrictions were all born from a need to conserve grain supplies for the war. This does help explain the strange closing times of pubs in the UK and Ireland.
The info about the taxation seem spot on!
A possible reason beer was originally drunk in quantity was because it is safer than bad water (beer is boiled during production and the alcohol discourages bacteria). I guess if it was 10% that wouldn't scale very well if you needed to get a day's work done too.
There are lots of very strong beers produced in the UK and I'd hazard a guess that not all European beers are 10% so perhaps you're not seeing the full picture
I'm sure it's the "duty" as most people said. I had no idea the percentages were this low until recently. The English beers I saw over here (east coast US) are usually the ESBs and have a normal percentage. Most micros over here have 5-6.9% with special styles being over 7% up to 11%. As a home brewer I noticed the style guides for bitters have some of the lowest alcohol percentages. Even the grain content is slightly under (around 5lbs compared to a California pale of 6-8lbs). The last part would be the most popular yeast probably used for this style ferments out at a higher gravity, then expected for the amount of grains, leaving some sweetness and low alcohol. I enjoy the ESB styles and I'm sure I would enjoy the taste of an ordinary bitter.
As others have pointed out, beer was historically a thirst quencher/drinking water substitute rather than a recreational beverage, so there would not have been much incentive to make it stronger in terms of ABV. Rather, the opposite was the case: just enough ABV to inhibit bacteria growth (though the microorganisms at play here were not well understood at the time), but not so much as to impair the consumer’s cognitive skills.
The strong beer in Belgium is in part the result of a previous ban on distilling alcohol. With spirits being out of reach, there was an increased demand for strong beer—just short of 10%, close to the limit of what can be produced by means of fermentation. (The exact amount depends on the type of yeast used, and some purpose-bred yeasts can yield a lot more.)
As a Bavarian who likes to try various European beers, I consider ABV levels between 5–6% normal (not only in Bavaria but also elsewhere in Europe). So British beers tend to be slightly below that, while Belgian beers are slightly above.
Finally, flavor and ABV are not necessarily related. When comparing, say, an Irish Stout (4.8%) to a Lithuanian Tradicinis (6%), the former is definitely richer in flavor. (Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of great beers to try in Lithuania, should you ever get there :-) So don’t just go by ABV, try (or have your guests try) various different kinds of beer—IPA, porter, you-name-it…
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.904931 | 2011-06-05T19:43:19 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15256",
"authors": [
"Adam Jaskiewicz",
"BobMcGee",
"Cotton Headed Ninnymuggins",
"Dr. belisarius",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40250",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89258",
"jwenting",
"klypos",
"mfg",
"roni",
"rumtscho",
"slim"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
27275 | How do I know if a given pickle recipe is meant for long-term storage?
I've never canned or pickled anything; however, I'm keen to give it a shot. However, I'm the only one in my family who likes cucumber pickles, so it might take me a while to go through a batch. There are a lot of recipes out there for "refrigerator pickles" which only keep for a few weeks; what steps are taken in a real pickle recipe that mark it as one for long-term storage? Can a refrigerator pickle recipe be converted to long-term storage?
I've been wondering similar things. I've found that pickle juice from cans lasts longer even after being opened than fresh refrigerator pickle brine.
Pickle recipes meant for longer-term storage will include instructions for sealing the jars. While some recipes may have you use hot jars and hot brine that will result in a fairly reliable seal ratio (meaning most of the jars will properly seal), other recipes will have you put the filled and closed jars in a boiling water bath to be processed for a specific amount of time. I've found this method to yield an even higher ratio of properly sealed jars.
In either scenario, the sign of a sealed jar (assuming you are using canning jars with a lid and ring system) is an indented dome on the lid. Jars that do not seal properly will still have a protruding dome.
Most recipes will have all the specific information you need to make pickles including the shelf life of sealed jars. The Ball canning jar company has a good website: http://www.freshpreserving.com/recipes.aspx
Best of luck - I hope your pickles are a tasty success!
I understand your concern when you proposed an edit to the other answer, but we prefer not to change the meaning of others' posts. If you disagree with somebody else's answer, please leave a comment. In this case I agree with you, so I left the comment myself, and rejected the edit.
Thanks for the advice. I didn't see a comment button previously but will take care to do that in the future. :-)
Assuming that standard metallic ball lids are used, yes. The best way to test for a proper seal is trying to pry open the lid with your fingers (obviously not using too much pressure or you'll open it), and if it's tight, it's a good seal. There are other lids that don't necessarily indent such as Tattler lids and Weck jars.
Thanks lemontwist, in my 20 years of pickling, I've only used the Ball-type jars with new lids. My mother re-used other types of jars but only for refrigerator storage, not long-term storage.
Tattler lids and wreck jars are the only 2 technologies I know of that are ok to reuse for long term storage. I think the tattler lids indent but its not as obvious as with the ball lids.
Canning is relatively simple, but there are still some safety tips that you have to be aware of.
Always use a recipe from a trusted source. This can be from the Ball website or one of their many wonderful (recently published) cookbooks, or another reputable website like pickyourown, Food In Jars, etc. Don't use recipes that are very old as they may not have a high enough level of acid, may not process for a long enough time, or may rely on antiquated jar sealing technology. This USDA publication has some great recipes for free. Otherwise I highly recommend the Ball Complete Book of Home Preserving and The Joy Of Pickling.
If you are using a hot water bath method, do not use a recipe that calls for a pressure canner! Pressure canners can obtain higher temperatures than you can at standard atmospheric pressure and are used to process items with less acid, which would be unsafe to can in a water bath canner.
DO NOT invert your lids to form a seal, regardless of what other commenters on this post suggest. This doesn't sterilize the contents of the jar, and could potentially lead to Botulism. (See: pickyourown.org, http://sharonastyk.com/, foodinjars.com)
If you use a larger jar size than the recipe calls for, you may have to increase the processing time. You may also have to increase processing time when canning at altitude. These guidelines should be included in the above recommended cookbooks.
The PDF and books I recommended above also have instructions on how to use a hot water bath canner -- as well as how to make fridge pickles and lactofermented pickles.
Whatever you do, don't forget the food safety problems here. The reason most recipes don't claim they are good for canning is that nobody tested them if they are safe for canning.
When you can food, you have to seal it (so no bacteria can enter the jar) and sterilize it, so all bacteria in the jar will die. This gets rid of almost all nasties present in food. The only thing which survives sterilization: botulism spores. They are much hardier than the living bacteria and don't die at 100°C (the highest temperature you can achieve with boiling). Also, they are anaerobic, so they will love to multiply in your sealed jar. And botulism toxin is very strong. If you eat a jar with a botulin-producing colony inside (which you can't recognize on opening), you won't just get a day of upset stomach; botulism is a serious condition and often fatal if left untreated.
There are two ways to eliminate botulism risk. First, you can use a pressure canner. It increases the temperature in your jars enough that the spores are killed along with the bacteria. If you want to invest in a pressure canner, please refer to trustworthy literature for the exact process. But if you don't can much, it is easier to choose a recipe suitable for simple hot-water canning. For that, you don't need an actual "officially approved" recipe; all you have to do is to ensure that your current batch has a pH of below 4.6. At this acidity, botulism spores cannot grow and you are safe. As pickles contain lots of acid, it is very probable that some of the "refrigerator pickle" recipe will turn out to produce batches suitable for canning. Alternatively, you can still search for an "approved" recipe; these have been tested and found to consistently produce food of sufficient acidity.
As I have never made pickles myself, I can't tell you for sure that there won't be taste deterioration if you can a recipe originally meant for the refrigerator. But while the tase will probably change during the boiling, it won't necessarily get worse, so it may be worth a try.
I think the only huge difference I see when I make a recipe for fridge pickles and can it (assuming acid levels are high enough) is that in the case of peppers or cukes, they're not always as crunchy after the hot water bath and storage. However I've seen a lot of ways to combat this, I just haven't tried them myself.
As the time passes, vinegar-based pickles will absorb more acid, so reducing the amount of vinegar will help keep them tasty.
Other thing is that refrigerator receipes usually tell you to just cover or cover loosely the jar. For long-term storage you could can them. The simplest way, that I use mostly for jams (I don't like vinegar pickles, just sour pickles) is to pour the boiling marinade into the jar with veggies, immediately close it tightly and turn upside down (the jar and the cover get hot VERY quickly!). The boiling liquid will sterilise veggies and when it cools, the little amount of air inside the jar will seal the jar. Sometimes the middle of the cover will not pop down - those are not properly closed and should be stored like refrigerator pickles.
Returning to the vinegar. My grandma uses usually 1 portion of vinegar per 4 portions of water. This way the canned pickles will last even 2 years (well, maybe even longer, but I don't remember ever eating any older pickles) and have a beautifully mild taste. My picky 3-year old loves her pickled pears!
If you are afraid that you will be the only one to eat your pickles, maybe just make them in small batches? Just a half-liter jar or two per receipe. I know it's more work this way, but you wouldn't have to worry about the storage time.
Changing the vinegar amount in refrigerator pickles may be OK, but it becomes a food safety risk if you intend to can the product! If you are canning using the usual hot water bath, please don't change anything about the recipe.
Inverting jars is not generally accepted as a safe technique for sealing jars. It doesn't sterilize them as a hot water bath would. The water bath isn't just for sealing the jars!!!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.906162 | 2012-09-19T19:28:20 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27275",
"authors": [
"Brōtsyorfuzthrāx",
"Ginni",
"Grafton Kevan",
"James Dinius",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Mark Waters",
"Razvan Zoitanu",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61408",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61410",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61411",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61412",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61420",
"jonellnapper",
"lemontwist",
"rumtscho",
"user61412"
],
"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
} |
37903 | What is "Irish Moss"?
I'm trying to reproduce a recipe mentioned in a novel for a beverage, and it mentions that the main character threw in some "irish moss". I assume this isn't literally just moss from Ireland. What is this? Does it have another name I might be able to buy it under?
Irish Moss, Chondrus crispus, is a species of seaweed, rich in carrageenan, an emulsifier and hydrocolloid.
Evidently, you can buy modern extracts as well from brewing supply stores, for use as a kettle fining to help precipitate unwanted proteins.
Exactly this. Try your local homebrew supply store; it's most commonly used to keep the beverage clear.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.906936 | 2013-10-26T00:43:30 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37903",
"authors": [
"D Yerel",
"Justine Tunney",
"KatieK",
"Nathan Opeda",
"Ricardo Cyncynates",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89205",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89207"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
20367 | What difference would using Rock Sugar make in tea?
I like my tea sweet, and generally add several cubes of white sugar. Teavana sells rock sugar, which it claims is somehow "better" while being vague on what that means. Is it sweeter? Less sweet? Somehow interacts with the tea leaves differently?
Interesting, you're meant to brew it with the leaves, presumably sweetening the whole pot rather than doing it to taste for individuals, which sounds annoying. Is that just marketing or does that have some benefit?
I'd assume you have to put it in with the leaves because the crystals are large, so that lets them fully dissolve.
@Jefromi Makes sense. Do you know if they'd dissolve in the cup, considering I use a cast-iron teapot so the tea is still quite hot after steeping?
My mom has always told me that rock sugar is healthier too. I dont think she knows why either. Just something passed from her parents.
Contrary to the advertising, raw sugar would definitely affect the flavor to the tea.
10 out of 10 5 star reviews. I'm impressed and suspicious.
In China people love brown sugar, but in the West it's seen as less healthy. This is often pretty confusing to me. I guess sugars are mostly equal in chemical composition. Therefore, I would focus simply on what you like more. Rock sugar is often used with Chrysanthemum teas in China. The light sweet flavour matches those flower teas well.
It appears to be brown sugar instead of white sugar. So there will be some flavor difference from less refining (e.g., more molasses remaining)
You could pick up turbinado sugar at the grocery store, which will probably taste just about the same, for much less money.
edit: I should also note that honey makes a good sweetener for tea as well, depending on the type of tea. You could use normal brown sugar as well. Maple sugar (or syrup) goes in some... there are a lot of sweeteners you can use, and most of them you can get fairly cheaply at the grocery store so you can experiment. (Except maple, I suppose, which is just expensive)
So it's brown/turbinado sugar in a larger crystalline form? Do the crystals change anything?
The larger crystals will be (a) easier to grab with your hands; (b) fit less (by weight) to the tablespoon (c) take longer to dissolve. Flavor-wise (once fully dissolved, which they should be before drinking) that shouldn't matter.
Hmm. I had wondered if the surface area or anything like that made a difference, chemistry-wise. Honestly I'm not particularly picky about sweeteners, I was just curious why it was being touted as "better" than white sugar cubes or white sugar by the spoonful.
@Yamikuronue: Well, its a different flavor than white sugar (since its less refined). Other it's sugar for $9/lb—I'm sure Teavana's shareholders consider that much, much, better. Someone would have to do a double-blind taste test to be sure, of course.
haha, I'm sure they do. The correct comparison would probably be the rock sugar vs brown sugar, but I'm not in the habit of drinking in my tea so I can't comment on that.
In Northern Germany, sugar crystals similar to the style depicted on the linked web page are used for "East Frisian Tea". East Frisian Tea is more a style of tea service than a specific variety of tea, but usually some blend of Indian black teas is used, often Assam and Darjeeling, but some variation from that is possible; the main thing is that it's not an aromatized or fruity tea, but a black tea blend, and tends to be infused with the intention of being slightly bitter.
When serving, rock sugar is placed at the bottom of the cup. Tea is poured over the rock sugar. Then, typically, but not always, a bit of cream is poured on top of that. You don't stir what's in your cup, so you start with a creamy flavor, progress toward a fairly bitter/astringent black tea, and have an increasingly sweet finish. You keep on repeating the process of adding sugar, tea and cream and drinking until you've run out of things to talk about with your friends.
The slow melting process is the main desirable attribute of this type of sugar, not the flavor difference. The brown crystals, with a slight molasses hint, were the most common ones I saw in Germany, but clear ones were not unheard of either. The hint of molasses is the only flavor difference from the brown crystals.
Aha! That's probably where it came from. Teavana is known for bastardizing tea traditions for Americans
Other answers have mentioned the possibility of different colors of rock sugar, but just to be clear, the question is asking about this brown type of sugar from Teavana:
There is also clear ("white") rock sugar (sometimes also known as rock candy or crystal sugar), such as this:
As one other answer mentioned, rock sugar is often manufactured from beet sugar, though this has to do more to do with European sources and traditions than any actual manufacturing requirement.
Regarding flavor, I find Teavana's description to be misleading: "These pure, unprocessed sugar crystals are the best way to enhance the natural sweetness of your tea without changing the flavor." As others have noted, the brown version of rock sugar generally has molasses or slight caramel notes, so it is actually more likely to flavor your tea than more processed sugar.
If anything, in the past I've heard such claims of little flavor alteration associated with white rock sugar. There is an argument to be made that larger irregular crystals allowed to grow slowly for white rock sugar could have fewer impurities than smaller crystals in normal granulated sugar with a lot more surface area to collect unwanted stuff during drying and processing. (To know for sure, you'd need to know a lot about the processing at the particular manufacturing plant.) Also, larger crystals with less surface area will be less susceptible to absorbing "off" flavors from humidity, making large-crystal sugar more shelf-stable and less likely to taste "stale" when stored in less optimal conditions.
My guess is that Teavana appropriated the marketing hype for the "purity" of large-crystal white sugar (which might actually be more pure and have fewer unwanted tastes) and combined it with the marketing hype for "natural" raw sugar that doesn't wash away the molasses and other flavors/colorants during processing. But the two are not the same thing at all.
In any case, rock sugar should provide the same amount of sweetness by weight as normal granulated sugar. Other than longer dissolving time, the only difference may be slightly more non-sucrose flavors for the brown types of rock sugar and slightly less for white rock sugar.
Color's the key here. If it's brownish, there's some non-sucrose impurities in it. We usually call the brown stuff molasses, and sugar which contains it, brown sugar. In small quantities, It adds a nice flavor.
I received this rock sugar with a tea gift set, and to my palate it tastes no different from refined sugar. It does take longer to dissolve, so I don't see how you could brew it with the leaves and get the sweetness you desire. I just finished a cup of tea over a period of about 10 minutes, and there are still tiny rocks sitting undissolved in the base of the cup.
If you let the last bit of your tea sit a bit before drinking, those remaining tiny rocks will dissolve, and make the last sip far sweeter than the rest of the cup.
The Teavana German Rock Sugar even tastes different in coffee than regular sugar. I just bought some along with some tea and am still feeling out the fact of whether it is worth the price or not... I will buy it online nextime but my first few tastes (including just popping the rocks in my mouth) I love the stuff. It definately tastes different than other sugars and as long as I can get it cheaper than at Teavana, I will buy more. Teavana uses some pretty tricky marketing techniques as well. The guy even told me it's extracted from the German beet root. I'm not sure this is true though.
If the sugar is imported from Germany, the part about the beet root is probably true. Virtually all sugar in Germany is beet root based, and while cane sugar is available, it is expensive and not as widely used. But once we start talking about refined (white) sugar, there is no perceptible difference in taste between beet and cane sugar. While other factors (even crystal size) can change your taste experience, the beet root part is not relevant.
I've used rock sugar quite a bit in the past. It does take a bit longer to dissolve, but in a hot mug of tea it's going to be dissolved before you drink it anyway, so I don't consider it to be an issue. I have never put sugar in with the leaves while the tea is brewing.
The flavor is the same as granulated sugar, although I would describe it as a milder form of sweetening. Overall, I prefer rock sugar to granulated sugar in tea.
I bought the German Rock Sugar at Teavana along with my tea. I do prefer my tea with the German rock sugar. I have put it in with the leaves, and in afterward it brews. No difference. If using boiled water (as you should) it completely dissolves in the 3min I steep the tea. I would buy the german rock sugar again but not at Teavana, because of the price.
I bought some of the Belgian natural rock sugar from teavana because they are going out of business and it's "cheap"er with the email discount. They also told me that it was lower on the glycemic scale than cane sugar. I have been looking to confirm that but I'm suspecting that was an outright fabrication. Either way the flavour is not as sharp as regular white small crystal sugar. It's more of a caramely flavour when you put too much in. I'm still trying to figure out exactly how much of the stuff equals my usual double spoon in a large cup.
It's cheaper to make beet sugar than cane sugar; beet sugar involves only a one-step process whereas cane sugar involves two-step process. Only Teavana profits from this by marketing it as better than cane and charging a higher price.
Our history of rock sugar. Rock sugar is more resistant to humidity. The white was sun bleached more. Clear with white in it. That looks like only 1/2 sun bleached.Rock sugar. A rock could be gave to a child as a reward or treat.Candy. It came in a colored cloth like paper pouch. This pouch was then boiled down for the die in it. To die cloth. So the pouch's were saved.It dissolves much slower in water. But sugar is sugar. Asians use about 1/2 the amount of sugar in things as Americans or Europeans do. It was easy to transport in the pouch's. Up rivers & dirt trails. These were the advantages of rock sugar. Taste no different than other sugar. You could grind it yourself into food. Most of this died out after the Korean war. Things became more modern. It's main advantage would be in traditional cooking. All done the old way. Hard to find rock sugar today. So modern sugar must have the advantage over it. Yours might have something else in it besides sugar for color. Tea leaves were placed in a holder then the hot water poured threw them. So probably less sweet water.
What's up with all the people commenting who have never tasted the Tevana Beet Rock Sugar? I bought it once. Ran out. Decided not to spend the $ to replenish. I immediately recognized that my tea tasted so much better with the rock sugar that I marched to TEavana to replenish and have ever since.
First-hand experience is useful. Can you add some more details about what tasted better -- was it sweeter, richer flavored, or more specifically how was it different from other sweeteners?
@Erica Asking for such information in the face of such a clear preference creates misleading answers. I think it is better left alone as a personal preference, or even deleted for being too subjective, but not extended with post-hoc rationalizations about the difference.
Old post, but still popping up in google. My two cents: I have used Cuban sugar, different types of honey, and rock sugar is still my favorite. While the price is steep, the flavor does make an incredible difference. I am an avid tea drinker and brew tea all day- more than a hobby, it helps me focus, enjoy, and smile more often. I often brew the tea with the rock sugar at the bottom of the infuser, so it actually dissolves as the tea is being made and not when you're about to drink it. Another way I like to use it is to fill up my 32 oz thermos with the sugar at the bottom, let it take its course for a while, then flip the thermos upside down, slowly, so it can sweeten the rest. I use about 4 teaspoons per 32oz, which makes it just right for my taste. I have never tried using the sugar at the bottom of the mug, as I drink little bits at a time (remember, all day).
Like with anything else, there are different types of sweet. Rock sugar, although I buy plenty, I only use for tea, since it's the kind of sweet I enjoy the most on teas. It is cane sugar, just processed differently. If you really want to know the difference, pass by a Teavana and ask them for a small sample (you can order cheaper sugar online). Your mouth will understand. I don't personally oppose tradition, as I enjoy it quite a bit, but I don't mind trying new things and improving older measures. This is our time for us to live, right now, not then or later, so I believe breaking tradition is as important as studying it.
A smaller note: if you use a Teavana tea maker or something to that effect and place the sugar at the bottom with the tea while it brews, and you serve it straight out of it and into the cup, the first cup will be sweet, and the second one will not even be aware there was sugar ever involved. It's only a tiny annoyance that can be quickly fixed.
Rock sugar is beet sugar (rather than cane sugar). It sweetens tea without overwhelming the natural flavor of the tea. Use it as you would use crystallized sugar, including that you stir the sugar into the tea (to get it to dissolve).
Why do you think it is beet rather than cane? Rock candy can be made from sugar of either source. By the time they are processed, they are 99.9% sucrose anyway, practically indistinguishable. Update: Unrefined cane rock sugar is readily available.
@SAJ14SAJ: agreed see here: http://noodle.en.made-in-china.com/product/temJqcfdglkb/China-Hunk-Yellow-Rock-Sugar.html
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.907069 | 2012-01-11T17:24:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20367",
"authors": [
"Annette",
"Brittany",
"Cascabel",
"Erica",
"FuzzyChef",
"IEnjoyEatingVegetables",
"Jay",
"Jolenealaska",
"Lisa at Teasenz.com",
"M P Deva",
"Mary Ann Schmitz",
"Mary Lack",
"OliverRadini",
"Patrick OBeirne",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Shia",
"Suzanne Manley",
"Tonya",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"Yamikuronue",
"Zane Dufour",
"cooperised",
"derobert",
"esnowrackley",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118144",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118871",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139733",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44667",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68618",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68665",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68676",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68778",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75916",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80462",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84751",
"rumtscho",
"talon8",
"wayanad123",
"wemily"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
17634 | Substitution for beef (veal) in a stew
I have a recipe for an Italian stew that is pretty much just caramelized onions and juice from tomatoes plus veal. My partner does not eat veal so we've substituted stewing beef to good effect, though it takes longer to cook and is not quite as tender.
I'd like to make the dish for some friends of ours, but they don't eat beef of any kind. We've tried it with chicken in the past but the chicken came out tough; we probably cooked it too long. The veal cooks for 1.5-2 hours over very low heat, the stewing beef is more to the 2 hour end, if not a little more. Can I successfully substitute chicken or pork and not have it come out tough? Any pointers on how long to cook it, or how to know when it's cooked but not overcooked?
Thanks!
I'd suggest skinless bone-in chicken thighs, as they have plenty of fat and collagen to keep them moist and tasty. I've cooked them in French-style wine-based stews, not to mention cacciatorre, for 2-3 hours before now and they just fall off the bone.
It is virtually impossible to overcook them, unless you boil them mercilessly for hours. Just get a nice gentle simmer going - not only will this make the meat tender, but it will improve the flavour of the tomato sauce as well.
Do not use chicken breast - it is far too lean.
And if you use pork, use a cut from the shoulder.
Finally had the chance to try this out, and it worked very well. I mistakenly bought boneless thighs, and I think having the bone-in would have made the broth richer, which I think it needed. But overall I'm very happy -- thanks!
Welcome, glad you enjoyed it. Thighs are also very nice marinaded and roasted in the oven or barbecue.
If you substitute a meat, I would suggest stewing for a longer period of 4-6 hours, to allow connective tissue and muscle fiber to break down. This longer period turns tough, chewy meat into tender, succulent melt-in-your mouth goodness.
As Cos Callis said, lamb or goat chunks could work well, but you should check with your friends to see how they feel about lamb. While these are wonderful meats and have some flavor similarity to beef, some people find the muttony/gamy flavor of lamb very off-putting. Pork is another possibility, in which case you should use hocks or ham.
For extra flavor, you can sear/brown chunks of the meat before adding to your stew.
So cooking longer will make it more tender, not tougher? I wouldn't have thought that, which is why I'm here asking those more knowledgeable than I....
First thought: Lamb (but if they don't eat beef do they eat lamb? Also, if it available to you: Goat)
If poultry is preferred option, then ground chicken or turkey. Brown it off, add it to the onions & juice and just slow/low cook till you are ready to serve.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.908205 | 2011-09-10T17:06:08 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17634",
"authors": [
"APR",
"Claire Boggs",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Joe Casadonte",
"Joel V. Earnest-DeYoung",
"Marguerite",
"Sean Hart",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1659",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37958",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
42563 | How to keep fresh-made soft pretzels from getting soggy or stale?
I've recently learned how to make fresh pretzels and they are quite good. However, they start to get hard and chewy after about four hours. If I store them in a plastic container before that then they get soggy.
If it matters, the recipe uses active yeast and a baking soda wash.
Unfortunately, I think soft pretzels are one of those items that just has a naturally short life, and is best eaten right after being baked. The commercial ones are normally sold frozen, to be reheated...
Even if I could get 12-14 hours I'd be happy. I'd like to make them at night and bring them to work the next day.
You could try storing in something semi-porous like parchment paper. No idea if this will help. Might give a compromise between plastic and open air.
Do you by some odd chance have access to an oven--even a toaster oven--at work? If so, reheating them until hot again (maybe 10 minutes at about 300, for an initial guess) should bring them back from seeming to stale to being pretty good. The heat helps regelatinize some of the starch crystalization that is a hallmark of staling bread products.
Sadly not, microwave only. But good thought for non-work re-heating.
Unfortunately you're fighting bread-physics... Bread with a high crust:crumb ratio become stale faster than those with low crust:crumb ratios like large boules or miches. Their large surface area allows moisture to evaporate quickly and the starches dry up and harden. This is why thin breads like baguettes are traditionally "daily" breads, i.e. made/purchased to be consumed that day. Soft pretzels have an even higher crust:crumb ratio than baguettes.
Breads with extremely high crust:crumb ratios like hard pretzels, crackers, and hardtack are usually cooked to the point of being dry to prolong their storage capacity. These bread actually "stale" in the opposite direction by becoming more moist.
There are a couple of things you could try that might help a little. It might take a lot of experimenting to get something that helps, and you will likely still need to reheat the pretzels just prior to serving them to have the soft texture you're looking for. Without re-baking or light toasting there really isn't a way to bring back the original crust texture.
Use pre-ferments to increase the concentration of a-amylase in your pretzels. Using a prolonged autolyse and/or sourdough starter can increase the amount of a-amylase in your bread which has been shown to slow staling.
Incorporate conditioning ingredients like fat, sugar, malt, or honey into your dough. All of these slow staling.
Try baking the pretzels at a lower temperature. The article linked above also mentioned that higher temperature baking leads to faster staling.
For storage, your best option is probably to allow them to cool completely (15-30 minutes) then place them in a sealed container at room temperature. Placing them in a sealed container before they are cool fills the container with humidity, which then coalesces and makes the crust soggy.
Bread-physics vs. You. Let the fight begin. FIGHT!
Since Pretzels are a German baking good and many primary school children get Pretzels in a lunch box, especially German moms wonder again and again how to keep their Pretzels fresh. Many German cooking forums / threads say (and the commentators SAJ14SAJ and derobert here already pointed out)
Don't put salt on the Pretzel or remove the salt. That makes the Pretzels soggy.
Wrap the Pretzels in a dish cloth and put them in a plastic container or put them directly in a paper bag - in both cases store the Pretzels a cool place.
There is no way to have "fresh" Pretzels the next day without baking them again for a short time (after wetting the Pretzel a bit).
Supposedly the lye makes Pretzels hygroscopic.
Somebody in the chefkoch-forum says that he/she wraps every single Pretzel in aluminium foil and puts them into the freezer. 2,5 - 3 hours before eating the Pretzels are taken out to thaw. The Pretzels are supposed to be ready to eat without beaking them again. I couldn't find this advice in other websites, so I doubt that this will work. But why don't try it? :)
Addendum: Maybe it is possible to re-heat Pretzels in a microwave for 10-30 seconds at 850W.
I've had soggy and I've had stale. A french baker once recommended to me that her baked goods should be wrapped in two paper bags and at best that should keep them for one additional day after they were baked. Since the majority of the time spent making pretzels is waiting for the dough to rise, for my next pretzel batch, I'm going to make the dough the night before, refrigerate it, and then bake the following day.
Freezing, wetting, and reheating may work. If you've ever had Super Pretzels sold at the grocery store, the pretzels come frozen and unsalted. The directions have you moisten the pretzels, add the salt, and reheat in the microwave. These steps seem to be all of the aforementioned techniques combined into one process. Perhaps homemade pretzels can be frozen and reheated in much the same fashion for times when fresh out of the oven isn't an option. I imagine a nice, firm crust achieved with sodium hydroxide holds up much better than the sodium bicarbonate approach.
I have made soft pretzels at home to give out as Christmas gifts. I made and baked them then froze them almost as soon as they were cool to the touch. It's been a awhile (7-10 years) but I think I dipped them in a baking soda mixture but did not salt them prior to baking. We reheated them in the microwave just like the store bought frozen pretzels, with 1 exception. Sometimes instead of water Id spread butter on them and then sprinkle with cinnamon and sugar instead of salt. They were quite good. Though you had to play with the microwave setting a bit to get the best result.
It's a little hard to see how this answers the question - I think since you were giving them as gifts, they must've lasted a bit longer than the OP's are, but it's not clear what part you're saying causes that.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.908491 | 2014-03-06T16:09:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42563",
"authors": [
"Brenden McDougal",
"Carol Cuevas",
"Cascabel",
"Dawn",
"Gary Badura",
"Joe Casadonte",
"Kay Campbell",
"Lucas Haferman",
"MommaG",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sab Takahashi",
"bryanbraun",
"deltaray",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1659",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99429",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99430",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99431",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99550",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99553",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99597",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99785",
"tbn20220426",
"user34314"
],
"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
} |
73278 | What effect would boiling for 1 minute and resting have on a vinegar-based BBQ sauce?
I'm making a Carolina-style BBQ sauce (specifically Piedmont-style), so it's supposed to be a thin and vinegary sauce. The recipe is basically: 2 cups vinegar, 2 tablespoons dark brown sugar, 1 tablespoon each of ketchup and hot sauce, plus some salt and pepper. The instructions call for it to be brought to a boil for a minute, and then it should be refrigerated overnight.
Since the sauce is supposed to be thin, and we're only boiling for a minute, the desired effect cannot be to reduce the liquids. Is there some other sort of chemical reaction that this is supposed to produce? Also, what effect would the overnight rest have on the sauce -- I don't see the flavors mellowing in the bottle, really. I'm wondering if these are just some urban lore bits being passed down that have little actual effect on the end result.
I would think that the boil is simply to dissolve the sugar and salt. I am sure you could consume it right away, but there is definitely something to flavors melding with time.
Do you think that a (nearly) all-liquid product like this would have any appreciable flavor mellowing?
It's also possible that it's for pasteurization to get a longer shelf life.
@Joe While it's possible, I doubt any recipe would assume pasteurization in one minute. If that were the case, the time would likely be longer.
@moscafj : good point. And there might be enough vinegar in there to preserve it.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.909016 | 2016-08-20T15:26:21 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73278",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Joe Casadonte",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1659",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
98841 | Reducing sauce or gravy always forms a skin
Apologies if I've phrased this wrongly. I don't try to do this very often: that is, boil a sauce to evaporate the liquid (I understand this to be known as 'reducing the sauce'); however, when I do, I frequently end up with a skin forming on top of the sauce.
I have two questions related to this: this first is, is this expected / normal, or am I doing something wrong? The second: assuming I'm not, should I try to scrap the skin off, or just stir it back in?
As an aside, is there a guideline time for this (for example, 5 minutes per 10ml)? I usually leave it for too long, or get bored early and end up making a standard sauce using flour and butter.
I've usually seen this happen as it cools, not necessarily as I'm reducing it ... because I stir it frequently when I'm reducing it, so make sure I don't scorch it.
Not an expert at this, but I suspect the skin that forms on top is just the upper layers that gets slightly drier from being exposed to open air. By not being submerged like the rest of the sauce, fluids on top evaporate at a different ratio causing a more solid "skin" to form on top.
It can also happen on casseroles or sauce heavy dishes that go in the oven, and is probably an important part of gratin technique.
I don't think there is anything wrong with it other than potentially being unsightly. If you find it inaesthetic or unpleasant you can remove it at the expense of wasting a portion of the sauce.
You can however mix it back in without issues, or prevent its formation by stirring gently or from time to time so that the top layer never forms.
Math experts here can probably give you a more informed answer, but setting a ratio of evaporation per unit of time is hard because it depends on a lot of different factors, like the type of sauce, chemical composition, the total volume being cooked, area of exposure to air (wider or narrower recipient, lid/open air etc.), temperature/flame intensity, among others.
It happens because of lecithin which is found in butter. Lecithin helps to dissolve the lipid (fat) phase and water phase together.
Water phase evaporates rapidly at surface leaving behind lecithin and lipid dissolved in lesser concentration of water, this becomes the skin.
Reagitating either mechanically or by heating will make it uniform by dissipating in the entire solution. Or you can just throw it away.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.909264 | 2019-05-06T14:15:37 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/98841",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
10326 | Substitute fresh garlic instead of garlic powder?
I have a recipe that calls for garlic powder, but I only have fresh garlic on hand.
What ratio should I use to substitute?
possible duplicate of Garlic Powder vs Garlic
The other question did not have a ratio.
I think the important thing here is to remember you can never add to much garlic.
The english language doesn't actually have any legitimate sentences that include the phrase "too much garlic"
I'd say about 1 clove for every half-teaspoon of garlic powder. There isn't going to be anything particularly scientific about this, since garlic cloves vary in size, strength and flavor but that will be in the ballpark.
I'll typically get 1/3 the starting weight of the cloves ( weight before peeling ) once it's all dried and ground.
I've only weighed before and after twice though.
Method used: peel and slice garlic really thin (used a mandoline), spread out on a parchment lined baking sheet (heavy aluminum), bake at 170 F (lowest my oven would go). Remove when the dried garlic easily crumbles between your fingers (check every 15 min. after the first 45 min.). Then grind it up.
The other option I can think of...
Finely chop up some garlic and cook them in med-to-high temp oil. You may put in the garlic when the oil is warm, so you don't over cook. As soon as you see the colour of garlic turning to brown colour, remove it asap and get the garlic out of oil.
After that, you can use the same amount of the cooked garlic as the powder.
Another way is to roast your garlic and then chop it up which is closer to garlic powder
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.909490 | 2010-12-20T05:40:27 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10326",
"authors": [
"Amy Joseph",
"Bob",
"Dave Griffith",
"Marian Egan",
"Matthew Scouten",
"Renshia",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112104",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21081",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21084",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3819",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3892",
"scaevity",
"user21084",
"user32522"
],
"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
} |
13252 | What is the orange part on a scallop?
I bought some scallops and they have an orange crescent part attached to them which I haven't seen before. Is this part meant to be discarded?
A scallop without the orange thing may not be a scallop! Sometimes it's just a piece of stamped out squid. Fresh is best, get them straight out of the sea, and lightly BBQ, yummm!
This is called the "roe". More on wikipedia: Scallop
Red roe is that of a female, and
white, that of a male.
It's optional if you want to eat it, personally it don't like the taste.
More on (ahem) Yahoo Answers
I quite like the roe, actually.
@bikeboy389 want to share a few kilos of scallops? :)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.909667 | 2011-03-17T23:39:29 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13252",
"authors": [
"Johannes_B",
"TFD",
"bikeboy389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27480",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"janneia",
"russau"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
13479 | How much is a small/medium/large onion?
By size or weight - I never seem to know ...
Here's some general guidelines I have used in the past:
Small onion = 4 ounces by weight or
about ½ cup chopped
Medium onion = 8 ounces, or about 1
cup chopped
Large onion = 12 ounces, or about 1½
cups chopped
Jumbo onion = 16 ounces, or about 2
cups chopped
source
The terms are not always completely accurate so use your best judgement. I've often seen large onions that were as big or bigger than "jumbo" according to this data.
While not scientific, I think some ingredients are best left to the idea of artistic interpretation -- or in chef vernacular, "to taste". Onions are the perfect example of this. Like onions just so-so? use medium sized ones. Love 'em? Go large. Hate 'em? Go mini...and dice it really, really small.
NOTE: Skip jumbo. It's a bad category regardless of your affinity for the root. For most all veggies, it's ideal to buy small or medium, because smaller sizes maintain better flavor. The larger ones have often gained their girth through water weight...making for pithy textures and disappointing taste. Think watered-down chicken soup.
But how big is a medium onion? The ones at my local store were all about the same size -- was it a crate of small onions, medium onions, or large onions?
This may not help you distinguish between small and large, but will put relative sizes in perspective: Remember that volume is proportional to the cube of the girth. So it doesn't take much additional girth to increase volume substantially.
An increase of 25% in girth nearly doubles the volume.
An increase of 50% will more than triple the volume.
And doubling the girth gives you eight times the yield.
If you look at the recommendations of the US National Onion Association you'll see that a small onion can be anything between 1" and 2.25" in size.
In sheer volume the difference is staggering.
Then if you chop or slice it the next inaccuracies appear. How thinly or finely do you chop.
Then the taste, the amount of volatiles in the onion play a role; after all the volatiles give onion its taste and smell.
So, it is up to your personal taste. Use it as a guideline, chop an onion, taste it raw and cooked and then add as much as you would like.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.909766 | 2011-03-26T23:32:24 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13479",
"authors": [
"Mark",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32646",
"mirams"
],
"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
} |
13496 | what is the reason for adding tomato paste when making a brown stock?
I'm studying for an apprenticeship test and I know one of the questions is about why you add tomato paste to brown stock. I have been taught that it's for depth of flavour and colour. However, the choices on the test are separated into a) flavour, b) colour, C) acidity d) to speed up cooking process (?!) I'm curious if anyone knows the actual ONE reason we add tomato paste to the bones?
Is there an underlying question of "what happens when it is omitted and why?" and/or "how to choose a satisfying substitute?" ?
It's odd that they force you to choose one, as many things in cooking have multiple reasons, e.g. browning meat adds flavour and colour to a stew. Are you sure the question isn't one of those 'tick all that apply' ones?
In this case, the tomato paste adds flavour, colour, and the acid helps break down the connective tissue in the bones, which helps the stock to jellify.
Definitely all of those things apply. If I had to choose one, I'd probably say flavour, because brown stock already has colour and the pH change is pretty negligible for the typical 1 T of tomato paste.
As another poster said, several of these apply. However, the most noticeable difference will most assuredly be the flavor. Tomato paste is absolutely packed with glutamates, and the umami from even one tablespoon will enhance the flavor of the whole stock.
I think the question is odd and we may therefore be delving into the semantics of the question rather than real substance, but I would say that perhaps "acidity" is the best answer - wouldn't this help accelerate flavor extraction from the bones by drawing out the calcium?
The reason is for color, as it helps make a brown stock browner.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.909966 | 2011-03-27T18:45:36 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13496",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Jonathan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8682",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
13550 | Sous vide without plastic bags?
I really like the idea of cooking steak using sous vide. However, I am very wary of heating food up together with plastic, and then eating the food, as I believe that at high temperatures, chemicals from the plastic will leech into the food. *
Is there an alternative to plastic bags for sous vide?
The requirements for the new type of container must be that it is airtight, waterproof, and of course able to withstand heat.
Call me paranoid, but I do believe this to be the case - and I do not want to ingest these chemicals
60C, the standard temperature for sous-vide, can hardly be called 'high'. It's just about the same temperature as a cup of coffee left out for a couple of minutes. The only alternative would be something like aluminium foil, but I imagine this is more likely to release something nasty than a plastic bag.
@Elendil : I don't even microwave plastic containers or cling film - 60C is too high for plastic (for me). Do you have any other suggestions than al foil?
I'm afraid it's a choice between swallowing your fears and swallowing nicely sous-vided food! You probably ingest more 'harmful chemicals' (remember, most things are chemicals!) walking down a street with traffic than you do eating something microwaved in plastic. There are apparently plans for a new polythene being made out of sugarcane, which at least sounds more natural (it's still hydrogen and carbon bonded in a particular way), perhaps you could wait for that?
I hate to be a nitpick, but sous vide, by definition, requires vacuum sealing. If the alternative does not provide a vacuum, then you can't call it sous vide. ;-)
Here's a related question from another SE site on the dangers of heating plastics: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/2202/does-regularly-drinking-from-a-plastic-container-cause-cancer
You're either going to have to overcome your irrational fear of plastic, or eliminate this as a cooking method.
To be fair... Irrational? That's taking it a bit far considering that there are very real dangers associated with some plastics.
First of all, I agree with the others that there is no harm done by plastic bags for sous vide. I have read a statement by the manufacturer that brand-name Ziploc bags don't release anything below 76°C. If you think how much a lawsuit could cost them if the information turned out to be wrong, I trust that they are telling the truth. For other brands, you may have to do some research about safe temperatures.
If you are still unconvinced, your choice of material is very limited. You say it must be airtight and waterproof; I'll add that it must be pliable, so it can cover an irregular steak shape perfectly, without leaving air pockets, and it must somehow be able to create a seal. Also, it must not release any harmful chemicals by itself.
About the only thing that fulfills all criteria would be a wax with a high melting point, like carnauba wax. You could paint the steak with the melted wax, or, probably better, you could soak a piece of gauze in the melted wax and wrap the steak in it, pressing out any air bubbles. Then let it cool and set before cooking. The downside: not only is the food grade wax difficult to source for private people, it also can end up costing quite a bit.
Another option would be silicone, like the one used for baking pans. Unlike plastic, food grade silicone does not contain any chemicals which could leak - the medical sector uses the same stuff for prostethics and implants; it is safe to have it inside your body, so it is definitely safe to cook your food in it. The problem is that you'll need a sealable bag made of silicone, and I don't know if anybody manufactures such bags.
You might consider very tightly wrapping the meat in a caul (not necessarily an amniotic caul, a peritoneum should do nicely) and binding it, but I don't know where you can get cauls. Maybe you can ask a butcher. Also, it probably won't be 100% watertight (but still enough to keep the tasty juices in the steak where they belong, instead of having them flow out into the water).
If you are willing to relax your rules a bit, you can solve the problem much easier. I think you will agree that whatever hypothetical substance might leak from a plastic bag, it cannot travel far through a solid medium. So a steak wrapped in something protective and then sealed in a plastic bag should be safe - you just discard both the plastic bag and the presumably contaminated protective substance. Yes, it is possible that meat juices that have come in contact with the plastic bag end up on the steak, but the possible contamination should be hundreds of times less than if direct contact is allowed between the plastic and the meat.
If you can live with this option, the usual insulators used in the kitchen should do. They are plant leaves - I'd use grape leaves, but you can use practically anything that is big enough - and batters, like tempura batter (breading leaves an irregularly shaped surface, so I won't consider it here, you'll end up with lots of miniature air pockets). If using a batter, you will want to first set it in a pan with very hot oil, just hold it there long enough to set the batter, but not enough to warm the meat on the inside above the sous vide temperature. Both of these options wont't function on their own, as they won't create a sealed waterproof barrier. But combined with a plastic bag and later discarded, they should be a good solution. The leaves will also add a nice taste of their own.
Batter would be awkward- it would definitely become a soggy mess in the bag and wouldn't stop any chemical diffusion. A silicon bag would be awesome.
@Sobachatina As the outer bag would be sealed watertight, it will only become somewhat soggy from the meat juices. Still, it shouldn't get actually liquid, so there shouldn't be any currents inside the batter to bring contaminant molecules from the outer side to the inner side. We are speaking diffusion of big molecules (Bisphenol A is C15H16O2) through a solid, which is extremely slow, and happens with only a miniscule fraction of the molecules present on the batter, and the plastic-batter and batter-meat interfaces also don't let through much molecules. It's not perfect, but should work.
The steak and chicken that I have cooked sous-vide released enough juice or fat to easily turn any fried coating into soup. Perhaps lobster or fish would be ok though.
"turn to soup" is another matter, thanks for the correction. And I agree that the silicone bag is the best solution. But if Lurch don't have them, I doubt that they exist at all. Maybe they will start making them once sous vide catches on.
+1 @rumt : For silicone bags - if anyone knows where to get them from, please do let me know!
I have a silicone piping bag, but it seems to me that the problem isn't merely getting the material, it's forming a vacuum seal. Without a seal you aren't doing sous-vide. Even if you could find a silicone bag suitable for sous-vide, what vacs would support it?
If the plant leaves aren't an option, I suspect that a wrap in parchment paper, then vacuum bagging it would work.
There are food grade silicone packets for papillote, so if you combine that with rumtscho's suggestion, you'd have it.
Update: as of 2019 there are many silicon bags available in the market, I even saw one with a vacuum pump!
Do you have a source that says that food grade silicone doesn't contain any chemicals that could leak? According to this page, "there has not been a lot of research done to date on the health effects of silicone," and "silicones are not completely inert or chemically unreactive and can release toxic chemicals." Several studies seem to have been conducted that show that silicon leach chemicals. Amongst others, it seems to react to fat and alcohol. I'm assuming that at least the silicone bakeware they tested, which did leach siloxanes, was food grade.
The problem is that air must be removed so that the food is not insulated from the water.
Mason jars work fine but you have to fill liquid around your food. Marinades, broth, etc can be used. Some recipes will have to be modified. Some probably just won't work with the extra liquid or the target food won't fit in a jar.
And then there's the issue of undetectable chemicals leaching out of the glass. Sure we've never discovered any but that's hardly conclusive. :)
+1 @Soba : Thanks for the suggestion of jars - If I cannot find silicone bags, I'll do this
Wouldn't the mason jar solution be more like poaching than sous-vide?
@Aaronut- sous-vide is a lot like poaching. I personally like using ziploc bags myself so that extra liquid isn't required. Still with mason jars less liquid would be required than actual poaching and you get all the benefits of the temperature control.
A company called Lekue makes 1 liter resealable bags out of silicon. You can find them on Amazon for $20 at the moment.
I have not used them myself. I've heard some complaints of leaking, which would obviously be a showstopper. But if you get one that does not leak, and think that the silicon manufacturing process leaves no unsafe chemicals, then they could be your best option.
The side benefit is they are reusable instead of piling more waste in the landfill.
If found a three-pack of those silicone dough-kneading bags on Amazon that are rated from -40°F to 450°F. The bags can go in the fridge or freezer for marinating or food storage. They came today, and they are plenty large for doing large batches of dried beans (195°F) and rice (200°F) sous vide. (I was using gallon-sized ziplock bags until I read that the seams break down above (I think it was) about 158°F.)
These dough bags look large enough to each hold one of those pork sirloin tip roasts from Costco, which around here come in three-packs. How convenient.... I'd use the water displacement method, not vac-sealing, so for anything that doesn't have a lot of liquid, I'd try to find some kind of bag clip capable of working with them. But most of what I cook sous vide is done in a liquid and usually for not more than 12 hours, so I just displace the water and clip the bag over the side of my square container.
Hello, and welcome to Stack Exchange. This is interesting, but doesn't answer the original question.
@DanielGriscom Silicone is often regarded as distinct from plastic, and indeed other answers mentioned it as a possible option and the OP seemed to like the idea, so this seems like an answer to me - a specific product suggestion, and some notes about how it'll work.
@Jefromi "Plastic" covers a broad variety of materials, often including silicone. And, the original poster's concern about chemicals leeching from "plastic" bags applies just as much to silicone as to petrochemical-based plastics.
@DanielGriscom Well, point that out if you want, that's fine, but it doesn't seem to be the view of the OP or other answers here, so it definitely doesn't make it not an answer.
You could also consider a combi-oven or water vapor oven. They're sometimes called "sous vide without bags". The very moist air is a great heat conductor and foods come out just beautifully. But the ovens are not cheap.
Keep in mind that not all plastic is created equal, and while not all of it is heat-stable at the temperatures we're discussing some of it is very, very stable.
Polyethylene (NOT polypropylene!) is a great sous vide and freezer-storage plastic. It's also used in cryovac, which means that your meat was likely stored and wet-aged in it prior to final butchering at point of sale. It's the plastic found in Rival Seal-a-Meal, FoodSaver and Ziploc. Also no PVC or phthalates. I've been told some off-brands use different plastics (NOT verified!), and that's one reason why I don't use other brands.
What you suggest first is a steam oven; the problem is that there's no temperature control, it's always hot steam.
Food grade disposable gloves work fine (latex or others). Wash them first as many have starch based release agent in them which may effect food presentation
You can either use a vacuum pump, or just immerse filled glove in water just below the opening so as to push out the air. Then tie off with kitchen string. Sort of the reverse of a party balloon
How would this differ from using food grade plastic bags? I mean, it's not a bag, but it seems like whatever chemical concerns the OP has would apply to gloves too.
Latex is not a plastic
Your answer doesn't refer only to latex gloves.
"Rubber" gloves are stinky to me, but if you don't mind use them?
fun idea. might just turn the glove inside out so the starch powder stays away from the food.
Sheep stomach would likely work, as for Haggis as might intestine from a large enough animal. Barring anything quite that 'organic', Cellulose or Collagen based sausage casings should work. You can buy them in a variety of sizes; 3.675" (93 mm) is easy to find.
A thin walled pyrex bowl worked somewhat for me: http://www.cookskit.co.uk/shop/vclose1.asp?prd=1841&cat=371000327
Throw the goods into the bowl and apply the bowl's cover. Let it float on top of the bath.
It will only work if your sous vide cooker has a lid. If you don't have a lid over the bath, the bowl will not heat through. I tried without cooker lid and failed.
It also takes way more room in the cooker than bags do. Only useful if you heat just one portion.
For vegetables at 90°C it worked perfectly.
For meat at 54°C it worked very much slower than a bag. Still, if you can leave it in long enough, it will work.
I found it unsuitable for steak and fish, because of the increased cooking time and uneven heating, even with turning the goods. But I will always use it for hot stuff like veggies.
As the public has been increasingly conscious of BPA and its alleged effects, I've seen more and more BPA-free plastic products hit the market. FoodSaver now produces BPA-free bags, presumably to address your exact concern.
FoodSaver bags have, AFAIK, always been polypropylene, which doesn't have BPA in it. Other bag materials in common use are polyethylene, which is also BPA-free. The major plastic with BPA is polycarbonate, and I don't know if anyone has ever made a bag from it... it's more expensive, I believe. (BPA is in a lot of non-plastics as well)
I'm sure they have always been BPA-free; recently they've specifically advertised as being such.
There are zip-loc bags with aluminum foil insides. This might be the most practical option. we try to avoid aluminum usually, but perhaps is more preferred over plastic.
Thanks
Just saw these reusable silibagz on indiegogo, they claim to seal airtight and the cylindrical design makes it easy to stand on its own for mixing ingredients. But they're $30 plus $7 shipping to the U.S.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/sawatdee-silibagz
I've been thinking of cooking fish and beef fillets using Pyrex dishes filled with vegetable oil as a good conductor of heat around the food. Chefs have been oil poaching fish for ages. Air is not such a good heat conductor, thus air is removed out of the foodsaver bags. Sure, some of the juices of the fish or beef will end up in the oil bath, but I'm willing to sacrifice a little of that for my health. Plastics leach many chemicals with and without heat (we never heat IV bags and tubes, yet it's proven they leach harmful chemicals) so just knowing BPA is taken out (only after the consumer outrage) doesn't make me feel any better.
Are there any specific "harmful chemicals" that you are aware of leaching, or are concerned about?
pyrex isn't as good of a conductor as you may think, it's more well known for it's heat resistant properties but will take a lot longer to transfer heat in this situation and especially in a container full of oil.
I'll remind you of the old ways: batter, clay and salt dough used in a similar way to duck skin.
Are you suggesting to wrap meat in salt dough for sous vide? It will get washed away, and you'll be lucky if the thickened water doesn't damage a pump. Similarly clay: you can't bake it first, so it will just muddy the water.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.910183 | 2011-03-29T12:08:04 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13550",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Atty64",
"B E Fencing LLC spam",
"BaffledCook",
"BakingMomOf2",
"Brendan",
"Cascabel",
"Daniel Griscom",
"ESultanik",
"ElendilTheTall",
"HelloGoodbye",
"Joe",
"Luciano",
"Mike Cranga",
"Nina Kemp",
"Preston",
"Ray",
"Robert Pearse",
"Sean Hart",
"Sobachatina",
"SourDoh",
"TFD",
"Tyrahnon",
"bguiz",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108171",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124065",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124071",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154430",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45362",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97558",
"rumtscho",
"skinneejoe"
],
"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
} |
85384 | What is the difference in the making of yoghurt to produce carbonated (like Kefir) vs non-carbonated yoghurt?
What is the difference in the making of yoghurt to produce carbonated vs non-carbonated yoghurt?
I'm not a proper cook, and am just researching this 'cos i'm curious..
Yoghurt is fermented milk, and gas would be produced..
So what's the difference in the yoghurt making process between when a yoghurt is carbonated, like a Kefir drink(Kefir is mentioned on wikipedia, it's a carbonated yoghurt).. vs when a yoghurt is like most we are more familiar with, not carbonated like normal yoghurt.
There are different kinds of lactic acid fermentation which are done by different kinds of bacteria and/or yeasts.
The simplistic picture is that yogurt is typically made with only two types of bacteria (lactobacillus bulgaricus and streptococcus thermophilus) that perform only homolactic fermentation converting sugar (glucose) into lactate only. In contrast, Kefir is made with a larger mix of bacterias that perform homolactic fermentation as well as heterolactic fermentation, which converts glucose into carbon dioxide (CO2), ethanol and lactate.
For this reason, kefir is carbonated and have even slightly alcoholic.
+1 I am super impressed to see such a scientific answer. I'd been reading about fermentation a lot and not run into that.
Thank you, @barlop! If you are interested in a less sketchy picture keep in mind that while yogurt is somehow easy to understand, Kefir is a much more complex business! Different kefir can have different mixes of bacterias and yeasts that of course interact and compete during the fermentation process. It is easy to get lost in the plethora of scientific articles about kefir...
perhaps a correction, when you write "lactic fermentation" you mean "lactic acid fermentation", named that way because it's a fermentation process that is seen in lactic acid bacteria(though can occur elsewhere eg it occurs in humans)..It's not named because of what it produces. It produces lactate. So when you write converting sugar into lactic acids, you mean into lactate not into lactic acid. Interestingly, some human cells do lactic acid fermentation, and like any "lactic acid fermentation" it's lactate that is produced.
Thanks for the precision @barlop. It never occurred to me this distinction in English. Interestingly, in the romance languages "Lactic acid fermentation" is simply "Lactic fermentation", e.g. the French "Fermentation lactique", Spanish "Fermentación láctica", Italian "Fermentazione lattica" or Portuguese "Fermentação Lactea"! You are also right for lactic acid vs lactate. I tend to mix them up because they are conjugated! But in solution, it is indeed lactate.
one question that has bugged me, you may be the man to ask.. When Louis Pasteur coined the term "anaerobic" in reference to fermentation, did he mean "without air"(which is what anaerobic means etymologically), as in, it occurs in a vacuum. Or did he mean without oxygen. And say he meant without oxygen, did he mean no oxygen in the atmosphere, or did he mean yes there can be oxygen in the atmosphere but it doesn't use any of it? There is no history of science stackexchange site for me to ask that one on
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.911507 | 2017-11-02T10:38:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85384",
"authors": [
"barlop",
"greedyscholars",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62537"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
14333 | What is direct heat?
Why is it that when I check google images for Direct heat, I see pictures of a flame under a grid like surface? Is that direct, or indirect?
And what'd you call sticking a marshmallow directly in a flame to toast it? no grid at all. Is there a unique name for that?
I call sticking a marshmallow directly in to a flame "lighting a marshmallow on fire".
@Ryan Elkins British people sometimes cook marshmallows on a bonfire and eat them. they don't light up i don't think. they just taste nicer! what'd you call a bonfire in America?
@Ryan Elkins and does every method of cooking in america involve a grill/grid/surface between food and flame? Is there no name for without?
got it.. campfire roasting.
I just more meant to imply that you don't want to stick it directly IN the fire otherwise they tend to catch on fire and burn. It was mostly a joke.
@Ryan: What?! That's the best way to eat them! Light it on fire, let it crisp up nice and black, blow it out, and devour. The gooey insides contrast nicely with the thin crispy burnt exterior.
@Dave Yeah, I ate them like that a lot when I was younger - got sick off of it once though and could never stomach it again.
Direct vs. Indirect Heat are terms usually used when referring to American style BBQing or grilling. While the terms can apply to other areas of cooking as well their usefulness makes the most sense in this context.
Direct Heat
A method of heat transfer in which heat waves radiate from a source (for example, an open burner or grill) and travel directly to the item being heated with no conductor between heat source and food. Examples are grilling, broiling, barbecueing, and toasting. (source)
Keep in mind that the grill itself doesn't really act as a conductor as much as a way to hold the food in a static position relative to the heat source. To better understand direct heat, understand it's complement:
Indirect Heat
When using indirect heat, your goal is to never have any part of the meat directly over flames or charcoal. You can only do indirect cooking with a charcoal or gas grill that has a cover. In this respect, it acts very much like a convection oven... the heat swirls around the inside of the grill and the meat is cooked from all angles. This also eliminates the need to 'flip' or turn your meat during the cooking process. (source)
This is generally used to cook large pieces of heat that need a long time to cook. A smoker is an example of the kind of equipment used to cook with indirect heat.
so would frying be indirect? or neither?
I think that this question is causing so much confusion because while a distinction can be made, it just isn't useful for cooking. If you want to understand what is happening in cooking and why, you need to understand the mix of heating by conduction, heating by convection and heating by infrared radiation of every different source. Direct vs. indirect doesn't matter much, maybe only if you're afraid of charring.
@rumtscho: As silly and ambiguous as the distinction is, if you want to do American-style BBQ, you really do have to understand the terminology, otherwise half of what you hear and read won't make any sense. It's like the difference between essences and extracts; there's a pretty long continuum of gray area but nevertheless, if you use the wrong one in a recipe then it'll be ruined.
@Aaronut, you're right, I've never read instructions for American BBQ, so I didn't know that this distinction is used there. Thank you for the information.
@rumtscho you make an excellent point. Besides this I am also thinking in terms of how to think about the different methods, and the ways you describe make good sense. What do you mean by "heating by infrared radiation of every different source"? and what'd you call the type of heating from heating a marshmallow in a flame?
@barlop, Basically, food is heated by a) conduction, b) convection, c) radiation. A heat source can use one or more of the methods, but usually there is one which supplies the most heat. A marshmallow in a flame is one of the harder examples, heated both by convection and radiation. The question which contributes more isn't entirely clear. I found a dissertation which states that without wind, radiation is dominant, with wind, convection is dominant, but it was about heating wood to the ignition point, not about marshmallows. contentdm.lib.byu.edu/ETD/image/etd3066.pdf.
though a grill is hot metal, so how can it not be a conductor? (I see between the grill it's direct. but on the grill itself it seems to be indirect, I can't see how the grill is just a placeholder and not a conductor)?
I believe the direct v. indirect distinction originally comes from grilling. There, its essentially a question of do you put the food directly over the heat source (burning charcoal, gas burner, wood longs, etc.) or do you put it on the other side of the grill. Putting it directly over concentrates most of the heat on the bottom side of the food; putting it on the other side allows the heat to distribute to all sides of the food. Naturally, since its spread out, its also cooler.
So, you can then generalize that the following are more like direct heat:
Sitting on the coals in a foil pouch. (Or on the wood, whatever fuel).
Under a broiler, gas or electric
Held with tongs over a burner on a stove (e.g., a pepper)
In a sauté or fry pan, with only a little oil
The heat-contact side may be being hit by heat upwards of 1000°F in some methods.
And some examples of things more like indirect:
Baked in an oven.
In a smoker (what's called BBQ in the American South)
Boiling, steaming, braising.
You also get some things that are harder to classify, like if you deep fry something its being cooked evenly all around, but at a heat delivery rate more similar to direct heat. And some odd things like a slice of bread in a toaster (mostly like direct heat, but with two heat sources).
Direct heat is used to cook thin cuts of meat (thin steak); indirect to cook large cuts (roast). Sometimes both are used; you may use indirect heat to cook a thick steak or roast through, but direct heat to sear the outside.
what about heating it in the flame itself. that'd be direct I suppose. or another name? does "direct" not go as far as that? similarly, (and I doubt anybody would do the following, but) directly on the coals.
In the flame is definitely direct, and a very quick grilling method. Sitting on the coals would be direct too, I guess, but quite a bit more intense than a grilling recipe that calls for direct heat would expect. (Also beware that charcoal can be hot enough to melt aluminum and tin.)
I'm going to pull quotes from BBQ god Steven Raichlen to help answer your question:
Direct: food is cooked directly over
and just a few inches away from the
flowing coals at a temperature in
excess of 500F.
Indirect: food is cooked adjacent to,
not directly over, hot coals.
Direct heat is therefore hotter and fiercer, and suitable for thin, small tender cuts of meat (or breads), and will cook for a relatively short time. Therefore the images you're seeing are direct heat.
Indirect grilling is better suited for oven-style cooking: ribs, turkeys, whole fish.
So with the glowing coals, even if the food isn't even touching the flame, that's still direct? So what about a gas powered grill above food, and food on a tray under it. If it's just a few inches away, is that -direct-?
I see, broiling is direct heat too.
I would guess direct; like me it sounds like you're from the UK - where these terms are completely alien. I'd only heard these terms from reading American BBQ manuals.
In what context are you hearing these terms? I'm most familiar with direct vs indirect cooking with regards to grilling. In the context of grilling, direct heat means that the meat is directly over the flame, whereas indirect heat would be a configuration in which the coals are on one side of the grill and the meat on the other (often with a pan of water or other liquid underneath).
Indirect grilling is often used for slower cooking (ribs, brisket, etc) and provides more even heat. Direct grilling is great for quick searing, burgers, grilled pineapple, etc.
Isn't a grill like something that looks like prison bars? so if there is grilling how can it be indirect? if you look in between the bars, the food is over the flame.
LOL this is getting silly - what are we going to say about induction hobs, rotisseries, and microwaves?
Perhaps we should think more deeply. Let me suggest that direct heat means heat directly applied to the food from a source that is red hot or hotter - flames are hotter than that by definition. That way electric heating is also accommodated.
Induction hobs are not a heat source at all. Rotisseries expose meat to an open flame so they are definitely direct heat. Microwaves are not a direct heat source because the heat is generated within the food itself, not applied externally. It doesn't seem silly to me.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.911761 | 2011-04-25T20:19:09 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14333",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Gary",
"Ryan Elkins",
"barlop",
"derobert",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
14518 | Where can I buy fresh water prawns?
Seafood Watch persuaded me that I ought to experiment with fresh water prawns in my cooking.
Problem: I'm in central Texas, and I can't find any. The local fish markets and grocers offer no leads, and I've failed to find any good options for having them shipped on line.
Probably too localised to be an allowed question here.
The internet market place is too localised?
Given the nature of the item, which has a very short lifespan if not frozen, and that you state your location. It would have to be relatively close to you. You could find a US shipper who will use a frozen cooler pack on overnight air (very expensive), but still you could not ship such a thing internationally; which localises the question to a single country at best, and more likely only Texas and surrounding states would be sensible. There are supposed to be hatcheries in Texas, so you should be able to find something.
@orbling - Just to give you an idea of what happens, a large proportion of the prawns caught in the North Sea are shipped to factories in Thailand for processing. There are specialised ships which can transport seafoods internationally - all it takes is for someone to hire a large vessel. You are unlikely to see this happening in US because import tariffs keep the profits down.
@James Barrie: Living not far from the North Sea, I am aware of the fishing boats with onboard freezers. But the OP was asking about Fresh Water Prawns.
Remember that a lot of this seafood naming is odd sometimes. Prawn is often used to refer to what we used to call shrimp.
In the UK I get these in brine from my local supermarket, marked "krabben im lake" or something similar ...
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.912708 | 2011-05-05T03:07:53 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14518",
"authors": [
"James Barrie",
"Orbling",
"VoiceOfUnreason",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5930"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
21473 | How do I control the shape of my spheres?
I've been experimenting with reverse sphereification this week. The results... well, the results remind me that even the professionals have to practice.
How do I control the tension of the alginate shell, so that it can maintain a round shape when bearing its own weight? In other words, how do I get marbles instead of egg yolks?
What you need to do is experiment with the height from which you drop them. Too low and there isn't enough time to form a sphere. Too high and you get too big a splat.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.912879 | 2012-02-18T03:16:03 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21473",
"authors": [
"Anna",
"genealogyxie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47550",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47551"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
16270 | What type of oil is used in korean side dishes?
I recently tried making the Korean side dish gamja jorim. Although the taste was spot on it was noticeably different from what is available at local Korean restaurants due to the lack of oil.
Many of the side dishes served at our local Korean restaurants have a considerable amount of oil and I would like to know what type of oil I should be using and at what point should this oil be added? Should it be add into the pan, during cooking or after cooking?
Toasted sesame oil is usually the go-to for Korean cuisine. It is included as a seasoning in the last steps of the recipes you link.
Sesame oil is typically used for seasoning, not cooking with. Some types of sesame oil may be appropriate for stir frys and such, but I don't think I've ever used toasted sesame oil (the very strong smelling, flavored one) for that kind of use.
The recipe actually says to use sesame oil at the end. I suspect that the OP may have used raw or even refined sesame oil which has a very different taste. You definitely wouldn't use toasted sesame oil for cooking, it would burn long before getting sufficiently hot.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.912956 | 2011-07-19T02:44:35 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16270",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Lian Z",
"Matej",
"hongkheng",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34637",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
36899 | Mould in water when making preserved duck eggs
We have ducks at home and my wife has been making the Chinese delicacy 咸鸭蛋 preserved duck eggs for about 3 months now.
However in the past week the current batch of eggs has mould in the water.
The weather here is getting warmer as we have just switched to Spring. So we are guessing it might be the extra sunlight or warmth coming into our kitchen.
My wife didn't think we need to put it in the fridge, but is there a suggested temperature?
When my mom made salted eggs, we always put it in the fridge.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.913069 | 2013-09-18T11:50:18 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36899",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
14579 | Which spice gives brown colour to Indian curry?
Many of the premixed curry pastes and curry dishes I have eaten have a brownish / reddish colour to them.
I have a nice collection of spices that I cook with, but my curries seem to always look and taste quite similar. Most of these are a yellowy colour, dominated by turmeric.
Thinking of butter chicken and also a goat masala that is available at a local restaurant; what dominant coloured spice am I missing that would give my curries a red or brown colour?
I am assuming that these would introduce me to some new flavours that I can mix and match with.
Note: I already have paprika.
I've seen a lot of different curry recipes with varying levels of authenticity, but the most common ingredients I see in curries that might impart that colour are:
Garam masala (brown)
Chili powder (red)
Cumin (brown)
Paprika (red)
Tandoori powder (usually a mix of masala, cumin, ground red pepper, fenugreek, and others - very red)
Saffron (red)
Still, it's all kind of a moot point, because, in Indian restaurants the most common source of red is actually red food colouring. Don't kid yourself; Indian restaurants use plenty of "artificial" ingredients - they also usually use food colouring in the saffron rice, which is how they get those few vibrant red grains to mix in with the yellowish rice.
While garam masalas and cumin lend brown colouring to the sauce, don't forget that browning the onions well has an effect on the final colour too.
+1 - Thanks for all the options. Got a few options there for me to try out.
Garam masala is not a spice - it's a spice mixture, literally translates to 'hot mixture'. It often includes several brown spices. Cinnamon is probably the one contributing most to the brown color, but there are other brown spices in there as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garam_masala
Never claimed that garam masala was one spice - nor is tandoori powder or chili powder. That seems irrelevant - they are still ingredients used in Indian curries and that is their colour.
saffron does not make things red, yellow maybe orange at a push but not red.
Saffron red? Never in my life have I seen saffron colour anything red, it colours yellow.
Yes. While saffron spice has red color (more noticeable if its powder), it makes things yellow, not red.
don't forget coriander! another common ingredient that's brown.
I actually have two slightly Zen comments about this, in that they don't answer your question though they may solve your quandary.
First, you might have the right spices but get the ratios wrong.
In my exeprience, the ration of cumin to turmeric is about 4 to 1, sometimes more. Turmeric is to be used sparingly, half a teaspoon is usually plenty in a big dish. This may be why things are a little too yellow.
Second, colour doesn't only come from spices. A source of a lot of redness, at least in the Indian food that I know how to make, is tomatoes.
I once learned from an Indian chef that a lot of dahls and curries have onions and tomatoes in them, usually grated to pulp.
This story reminds me of the famous Indian story of an Elephant and blind men describing the elephant. Firstly, not all Indians curries are brown. Mostly, the meat curries are brown. And, to get that brown color, Indian cooks do not use any color.
They first create what is called as 'Bhuna Masala' by frying onions and/or grated dry coconut along with garlic, ginger, whole spices and powdered spices. This roasted mixture is brown in color and that is what gives the curry a brown color. The more you roast, the darker will be the color, but you have to be careful because more roasting can burn your spices and will make your curries bitter. Only experience can teach you when to stop roasting and add water to the mixture to make the final curry.
Welcome to the site! Good to see somebody debunking the nonsense and guesswork that's been posted in the other answers.
The brown colour that seems to predominate many 'curry' dishes comes mostly from the largish (in proportion to other ingredients) quantities of cumin and coriander used as the main basis for most indian curries. The addition of garam masala towards the end of cooking will also impart a brownish colour.
The red colour you refer to can come from any number of different sources, which is why it's unwise to use 'colour' as a basis for what the dish my actually taste like, or trying to replicate the taste of a dish based on its colour.
The red colouring can come from: artificial colouring, tomatoes, tomato paste, tomato puree, red chilli's, chilli powder, paprika and so on.
If you're trying to replicate the 'flavour' or taste of a specific dish it's far better to try and do so with spice combinations and ingredients and cooking techniques than worrying about the final colour.
Other than red chili powder (not the spice blend you use to make chili, but just ground chili peppers) and cumin mentioned above, another ingredient I was introduced to by an Indian friend is tamarind. Adds some brown to curries, but also a wonderful sweet and sour flavor.
I second the comments about making sure you've thoroughly browned your onions... should take a good 30 minutes, and not overdoing the turmeric.
On the tomato front, you also want to make sure that after adding tomatoes - typically after browning the onions and frying the spices - that you cook down the resulting mixture until the oil starts to separate from the tomato mixture.
All of this and you should definitely not end up with a yellow curry.
The Indian curries get their color usually from the spices used (red chilly powder, turmeric, garam masala... etc.)
My family personally likes dark red / brown colored spicy curries.... and to achieve that I usually use fresh tomato puree and paste of fried onions.
I slice large onions and deep fry them till crisp and then store them in the refrigerator in an air-tight container (they stay good for 8-10 days).
And then when I'm required to use them in my curries, i just grind them in my mixer grinder by adding a spoon of water to make nice thick paste... and use it in my curry.....
And from there my curries get a lovely dark red color...!!!
To add red color and spicy taste, try Kashmiri red chili (whole) and Byadgi chili (whole)...
idk why this was downvoted, Kashmiri Mirch is very much the colourant of Northern Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi dishes, [along with tomato purée.]
I too notice that curry pastes are less yellowy than curry powders. Maybe the oil-base dissolves the pigments better or the oil itself is rather dark? Could there also be tamarind in the paste? That certainly darkens a dish.
Late to the party here, but simply…
Brown is easy, long-cooking will generate brown, as well as half the spices you'd put in any curry.
Yellow is, of course, turmeric &/or saffron.
Red, however, is
tomato purée, fried in with your base onion/garlic/ginger paste before you add your liquids, and
Kashmiri Mirch, which is a very mild-flavoured but very deep red chilli, usually available as a ground powder in the West. If you cannot find true Kashmiri Mirch - something I had to buy on import in the UK until just the past year or so; now you can get it in supermarkets - then you can substitute regular paprika [sweet or hot]. It's not the same, but it's close. Choose the darkest red you can find.
But also - don't forget a lot of food colouring is used in 'indian' food too. The rainbow-coloured pilau rice you get with BIR curries is just drops of food colouring added as it's steaming, then stirred in afterwards.
Usually Indian curries have a spice base that has a ratio like this-
(say for 1 kg of meat)
1/4 to 1/2tsp turmeric : 1tsp red chili powder(Kashmiri mirch or Degi mirch) : 1TBS coriander powder
The red of the chili powder with the yellow turmeric & green/brown of the coriander with browned onions in suspension give the reddish brown hues many Indian curries have.
The questioner is asking for brown color. Every answer talks about spices which give yellow and red. The secret of brown is the secret of all great Indian cooking. Caramelized onions. You slowly fry onions in oil until they are the darkest brown or black. Can add salt, spices, chilies. It takes about 45 minutes to do right with constant stirring. There is no substitute. Can be refrigerated for weeks or frozen.
Wasn’t that covered by an earlier answer?
Brown is easy, it's red that is ingredient-specific.
It's probably cinnamon, even in small quantities, it disperses very well in liquids and has a lot of color, and it's commonly found in garam masala blends. I'm guessing it's pretty likely to be cinnamon because adding a very small amount of ground cinnamon to a light colored food like oatmeal or white flour dough turns them from white/beige to brown.
Turmeric was already mentioned, it's the main colorant used in yellow curries and a very small amount of that turns things bright yellow, but combined with other common curry it might turn brownish as well (anise, cumin, coriander) esp with something like lentils.
I put cinnamon in my oatmeal every day and it doesn't turn it anything like the brown colour that you see in curries.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.913180 | 2011-05-09T02:40:09 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14579",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Chikei",
"David Richerby",
"Gary",
"J.A.I.L.",
"JJJohn",
"Jane",
"NimChimpsky",
"Ricardo D. F.",
"Sneftel",
"Tara",
"Tetsujin",
"going",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93109",
"paul",
"spiceyokooko"
],
"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
} |
25263 | Preventing chocolate from burning, when its used as the crust of a New York style cheesecake
I am using this flour-less chocolate cake recipe as the crust of a New York style cheesecake. Cake recipe
The full recipe is in the youtube description, if you didn't feel like watching it, and the only alteration I am doing is switching out the alcohol with Malibu Rum.
The cheesecake recipe is here Cheesecake Recipe
What I do is bake the cake first, then I pour the cheesecake over that and follow it's baking directions.
The problem I am having is that the chocolate burns in a couple of places at the bottom of the pan. How do I prevent this?
A few things I noticed:
The cooking times/temps are different... You need to somehow account for that. 350 for 15 min and 250 for 60-90 vs 350 for 25-30 min is a pretty big difference it seems. I'm not experienced to know how to modify it...
The chocolate recipe specifies cooking in a water bath. The cheesecake recipe does not. I would definitely cook my cheesecake in a water bath. I have had great luck with the techniques described in The cheesecake episode of Good Eats.
Have you thought abou using a more standard chocolate cookie based crust and making a sauce with the similar chocolate/liquor flavours?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.913895 | 2012-07-25T18:13:01 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25263",
"authors": [
"LoveD",
"bcl",
"hawkeyegold",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57778",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57802",
"msitt"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
28408 | Need help reconciling quantities in this recipe
Here's a recipe from a package of chocolate chips (edited, but not substantively):
2¼ cups all-purpose flour
1 teaspoon salt
1 teaspoon baking soda
1 cup brown sugar, firmly packed
½ cup granulated sugar
1 cup softened butter or margarine
1 teaspoon vanilla extract
2 eggs
1 package [=12 ounces] chocolate chips
1 cup chopped nuts, optional
Preheat…. Combine…. Add…. Drop mixture by rounded teaspoonfuls onto non-greased cookie sheets. Bake 8 to 10 minutes. Recipe yields approximately 2 dozen cookies.
Now, I figure we can't count powdery ingredients like flour as adding their full volume to the batter: they get condensed when wet. But the liquid ingredients should add their full volume: specifically, the cup of butter should account for a cup of batter. The cup of brown sugar is firmly packed (and it's pretty moist, too), so I figure it should account for another cup of batter, or very nearly. Finally, all the other ingredients — including 2¼ cups of flour, two eggs, and a lot of chocolate — surely add at least another cup to the batter. So we've got at least three cups of batter.
The yield is about two dozen cookies, so each cookie is made of:
(at least 3 cups of batter) ÷ (about two dozen) = (at least one fluid ounce of batter).
Yet the recipe calls for the cookies to be made of "rounded teaspoonfuls", surely not fluid ounces. (A fluid ounce is six (flat) teaspoonfuls.)
Where did I go wrong in my reasoning? (Or is there simply a mistake in the recipe as printed?)
That recipe, which I've made many, many times, yields approx 5-6 dozen cookies if a rounded tablespoon is used as a gauge. For that amount of dough to only yields 2 dozen cookies, they would each be approx. the size of a golfball, maybe. I believe your recipe has a mistake in yield. Check out this link to a similar recipe (nestle Toll House cookies):
http://www.verybestbaking.com/mobile/detail.aspx?id=18476
A golfball is about 40.65ml in volume which tallies well with my answer :-)
@chrissteinbach, Woo-hoo! What a team we are! :-)
Here are my estimates assuming a 240ml cup:
Flour (retains roughly a third of its volume after being mixed with water): 180ml
Sugar (retains roughly half its volume): 150ml
Butter: 240ml
2 eggs (assuming large US size): 92ml
12oz chocolate chips: 550ml
Total volume: 1212ml
Per cookie (assuming a yield of 2 dozen): 50ml (or about 3 1/3 tbsp)
I think it quite likely that there is a mistake and that tablespoons was meant and not teaspoons. As Kristina noted in her answer, to make 2 dozen cookies you would need to use a golfball-sized lump of dough for each cookie.
Could you define 'heaped' vs. 'rounded' ? I've typically taken 'rounded' to be 2 to 3 times the volume when dealing with spoons, but it really depends on the ingredient being measures and the shape of the spoon. (and for dry goods, the angle of repose )
@ChrisSteinbach, your calculated dough portion size is for a yield of 2 dozen cookies? OP may want to know that and also how big the resulting cookie would be. (love your calc's btw!)
@Kristina Yes, I calculated with 2 dozen cookies. I've not tested this recipe so I would have to guess the cookie size. I imagine they would be between 4 and 5 inches in diameter depending on how much they spread out and about 6 or 7mm thick. I'll make a more accurate estimate if I get time.
@ChrisSteinbach, I think your estimate is pretty good. The rounded TBSP makes an approx. 3-in. cookie and yields 5-6 dozen.
@Joe I've always assumed that a rounded spoon measure is about twice the volume of a flat measure so that the heap on top is roughly symmetrical with the bowl of the spoon. And a heaped spoon, for me, is as much as I can balance on the spoon. I think it quite possible that I have invented these differences myself. I'll edit if that turns out to be the case.
@Joe Regarding 'heaped' and 'rounded', I've found answers that confirm my distinction and others that contradict it. Maybe I can find some way to avoid the ambiguity.
When recipes mention teaspoons for scooping up the dough to drop onto the cookie sheet, I'd always inferred the kind we stir beverages with, not the measuring ones which would yield much smaller, although more precisely equal in size cookies. But regardless of the measuring or scooping device, I would interpret heaping vs. rounded exactly as @Chris Steinbach does.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.914137 | 2012-11-14T07:54:57 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28408",
"authors": [
"Alexander Riccio",
"Annie Melvin",
"Cassie Hercules",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Dale",
"Gimli",
"Joe",
"Kristina Lopez",
"MargeGunderson",
"bob",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65523",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65525",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65529",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65530",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65566",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"prasad"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
17541 | Can I use duck feet to make duck stock
I had my first crack at making chicken stock the other day and now I would like to try duck stock.
One of the posts I read when learning how to make chicken stock was about using chicken feet. It mentioned:
It has its own unique and wonderful flavor, and the added gelatin from
the feet give whatever dish is made with the stock a luxurious feeling
when eating it.
Is this also true with duck stock?
Can I follow a chicken feet stock recipe and simply swap the chicken feet for duck feet?
Duck feet will render plenty of gelatin because of the amount of cartilage, same as chicken feet. Any bird's feet are a good choice.
The method for making stock is pretty much the same no matter what you put into it, so yes, you can follow your favourite recipe for chicken stock and substitute duck feet. The only thing to keep in mind is that duck feet, like any other duck parts, are substantially more fatty than their chicken equivalents, so assuming you want a clear or mostly-clear stock, you'll have to spend a lot of time skimming.
Alternatively you can "clean" the feet and other bones by boiling them in plain water for 5-10 minutes, then dumping it all out and starting over - which is what your linked recipe suggests. I don't usually do this for brown stocks because you lose a lot of flavour, but if you're starting from raw then it won't make much difference and it's an easy/lazy way to get rid of a lot of the fat at once.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.914508 | 2011-09-07T09:00:58 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17541",
"authors": [
"Babar",
"Ian",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37735",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37737",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37754",
"thereaverofdarkness"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
17571 | Why does olives with the pit left always taste better than pitted ones
When you buy or eat olives it seems that the high quality ones always have the pit left in them. If you buy cheaper, not so good olives, they will most likely be pitted.
What is the reason behind this? Does the pit have an effect on the olive once it's in the brine or is it something else, perhaps tradition, that makes it seem "low quality" or "bad" to pit the olives before they are put in a jar?
Probably for the same reason that corn tastes better on a cob or turkey on a huge drumstick at a renaissance fair.
Just like the US dollar, olives suffer from dilution.
When an olive is picked and brined, the olive skin provides a barrier between the tasty fruit and the liquid medium.
When the fruit is pierced to remove the seed, the unprotected pulp of the fruit is in constant, direct contact with the brine liquid.
This direct contact allows the natural juices, which are protected by the olive skin in regular, unpitted, olives, to leach out into the brine liquid, reducing the flavor proportionally.
Pitted olives have their place, in stews, soups, salads etc. For full flavor though, always go for the unpitted olives.
Have worked in many olive producing areas in the world, and the best olives are always unpitted.
You could even do an experiment to prove or disprove this:
Buy some decent unpitted olives, fairly large. Buy a hand held cherry pitter and remove the pits of half the olives, put both the pitted and unpitted olives back in the brine and leave them on the counter for a week or so, then try them. There will be a difference.
that might explain why I didn't like the canned pitted olives. I thought it's due to the long transportation because they come overseas
Just found out that "Canned black olives may contain chemicals (usually ferrous sulfate) that turn them black artificially." From wikipedia.
The better taste applies only to canned olives, which are eaten on its own, not the ones used in cooking. For cooked salads for example, the pitted olives are not only easier to cook and eat but more important do taste better. Of course this is my subjective opinion but I can see you @Frankie also mention it.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.914661 | 2011-09-08T12:38:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17571",
"authors": [
"Bogdan",
"Datageek",
"Frankie",
"Jerry Browne",
"Sobachatina",
"captainblack",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37805",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37806",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37851",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37908",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5009",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7092",
"kumarharsh"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
107880 | Should I be able use a metal wok spatula on a seasoned wok?
After a couple months of cooking with a wok my uncle gave me because he didn't use it, I was very pleased to see it seemed to be developing a nice patina.
I cook with it, soak for a few minutes if necessary after eating, then wash with my normal sponge after I rinse the soap out of the sponge. Then I rub a tsp or two of peanut oil into it and heat until smoking before putting it away.
My understanding is that most traditional Chinese cooking uses metal wok spatulas. But when I bought one and used it this happened.
Am I doing something wrong with my seasoning? Or should I be using a wooden wok spatula?
I wonder if your cooking is a little western, e.g. you brown meat with little oil and often deglaze with acidic liquid (e.g. apple cinder and wine). Wok is more suitable for Chinese cooking where large amount of oil is used and meat never stick to the pan and form a fond, and deglazing is rarely used. If your cooking is low on oil, non-stick is much better, while if you brown and deglaze often, stainless is better.
Are you sure that's pressed steel? It looks a bit too shiny & 'white' where your seasoning has scraped off. It also looks very thick metal. I had a steel wok I used a chan [metal spatula] in for 20 years without taking the surface off like that.
I probably should use more oil, but I don't deglaze with acidic things. Maybe a little shaoxing wine mixed in the sauce. I do not know what material it is since I didn't buy it myself unfortunately.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.914875 | 2020-04-25T03:13:59 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107880",
"authors": [
"Philip",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5500",
"user3528438"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
90494 | Uses for meat that has been in the freezer for 2 years?
I have some old chicken breasts, thighs, and a steak vacuum sealed in my freezer. I think it is between 1.5 and 3 years old.
I'm assuming it won't have a good texture if I cook it and eat it normally. What can I do with it? Can I at least toss them in with the rest of the bones when I'm making chicken/beef broth in my Instant Pot?
Time isn't as significant as how well it's been frozen. If it's badly freezer burned, I'd probably pitch it. If it's only lightly freezer burned, I'd use it like you suggested. 1.5 year old meat might be just fine if it was prepared well for freezing .... 3 year old might be pushing it, but it also might be fine.
Can you add pictures? It would be good to see how well they're packaged and/or freezer burned.
It's perfectly safe, even if not a perfect texture, so I'd cook it and eat it. The only question is how.
I suggest that you first mince or finely chop it (even in a food processor) then brown it and cook it in a sauce. Chilli would work well, or curry, or pasta sauce (perhaps in a lasagne). If just cut up small, risotto is another option. These are just examples of what I would do. I've done this quite a lot with meat that I've cooked and frozen, less often with raw meat but still successfully. If you're worried about the texture, you may want to spare your nerves by not planning to serve it to guests, but it will be fine.
Or cook it using your favorite slow and moist method. That can help a lot with freezer burned meat. If it's still tough or funny looking after cooking, then cut it up add a sauce or something. The main problem will be if it picked up any weird freezer odors. But, being vacuum sealed, it's probably going to taste just fine.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.915025 | 2018-06-22T02:40:18 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90494",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"logophobe",
"mrog"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
54662 | What is the purpose of using ice cubes in smoothies over frozen fruit?
I usually make smoothies with frozen fruit berries and a banana with a liquid like orange juice or home made kefir.
I notice lots of smoothie recipes online call for ice cubes and fresh fruit. Is there a benefit to making smoothies that way? Since half your volume is crushed ice it seems like the result would be less flavorful.
If you want to buy and use fresh fruit, you need to get the drink ice cold somehow, right? I guess you could freeze the orange juice instead of using water ice cubes.
It also reduces the amount of sugar in the final product. If a smoothie is being made as a meal replacement/supplement, the extra calories add up quickly.
Yes, it makes it less flavorful. That doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad idea.
Often it'll still be plenty flavorful even with a decent amount of ice in it. So by using ice, you save the trouble of having to freeze some ingredients first, and don't go through your fruit quite as fast. You can avoid having to keep fruit juice on hand.
It also lets you pretty easily control exactly how cold/icy you want the smoothie.
If you live in a hot area, smoothies with a decent amount of ice are actually pretty nice - they stay cold much longer, and the icy graininess can make them more refreshing.
I'm sure plenty of people would never dream of using ice and some people do all the time; feel free to go on doing whichever suits you! (I'm originally from Texas, and honestly, in addition to blending some ice in, I used to put whole ice cubes in after blending just to make extra sure it stayed cold.)
For a helpful comparison: a lot of really good sorbet recipes use a decent amount of water. For example, David Lebovitz's mango sorbet (from The Perfect Scoop) uses two large mangoes and 2/3 cup of water. Sure, it could use some kind of fruit juice instead, but I promise, it really really tastes like mango, and doesn't taste watered down at all.
I make smoothies almost daily and have made them both with and without ice. You can add ice for a variety of reasons but they all come down to personal preference.
Some of the reasons that I prefer adding ice include:
Adds bulk so it takes longer to drink and fills me up more
Gives the drink more texture similar to small cubed ice which I prefer
Keeps the beverage colder for longer
Ice is very inexpensive when compared to fresh fruit, and is still refreshing
I can leave larger chunks of ice if desired to slowly melt depending on when I will consume the smoothy
Allows me to add warm/warmer ingredients but still end up with a ice cold beverage
I think the central argument for ice is efficiency.
Sure, using "4 oz acai, grape, or pomegranate juice" as well as 4 oz amounts of rather potent fruits such as "strawberries, blueberries, peaches" will result in a fantastic smoothie.
But the ingredients in the quoted recipe are packed with flavor, and some of them are also quite expensive.
Adding ice releases the possibility of using 2 oz amounts of those frozen fruits, using just two of them, or skipping the fruit juice while still having a great smoothie. If the fruits are fully ripe there is often flavor to spare and the taste won't be watered down.
Ice, if used wisely, can help create a delicious, cold smoothie that costs less.
Personally, I can't drink thick liquids if they are not icy - I gag. Drinkable yogurt, milkshakes that have melted, ice-less smoothies, etc. are all a complete no-go for me. Sure, most people don't have this reaction, but I'm betting I'm not the only one. For whatever reason, the ice particles make it far more agreeable to me.
Additionally, it can help to cut down on calories in two ways. One, obviously, water/ice has no calories, whereas the same volume of additional fruit/juice does. Second, when it's so cold from the ice, you can't chug the stuff quickly, lest you get brain freeze. Prolonging the drinking of it gives your stomach time to process that it's getting filled up, so there's less of a chance you end up grabbing additional food/calories after the smoothie.
My 2 cents...
It makes no good sense to use ice in smoothies. Alton Brown's smoothie recipe is the highest reviewed on Food Network, and uses no ice at all.
4 ounces plain, low-fat soy milk
4 ounces acai, grape, or pomegranate juice
4 ounces frozen banana
4 ounces frozen strawberries
4 ounces frozen blueberries
4 ounces frozen peaches
Directions
Combine the soy milk, juice, banana, strawberries, blueberries, and the peaches in the carafe of a blender. Cover and refrigerate overnight or up to 8 hours.
In the morning, or when the fruit is partially thawed, put the carafe on the base of the blender, start at the lowest speed and slowly accelerate to medium, until you achieve a vortex. Blend on medium for 1 minute. Increase the speed to high and blend for an additional minute. Serve immediately.
As you say, all ice is going to do is water the smoothie down.
As Catija says in comments, you can make ice cubes out of the juice and/or freeze the fruit, but it makes no sense to use frozen water.
One disadvantage of that recipe is need to wait for the frozen fruit to partially thaw in the fridge.
@RossRidge You could defrost it a bit in the microwave if you're in a hurry, or under water.
I do prefer using ice in my smoothies as it gives it that thicker, but cool and refreshing texture, with a hint of your fruit flavor. Of course I totally see where you're coming from without wishing to use ice, in the end however it all depends on your personal opinion as opposed to the other's.
It depends. Most smoothies I make don't need ice - just frozen fruit. But I've been working on one smoothie that's supposed to taste like French toast -
1 and 1/2 frozen bananas, in chunks
one cup milk
teaspoon of vanilla extract
tablespoon of maple syrup
a dash of cinnamon
and three ice cubes.
Without the ice, even though the bananas are frozen, you get a bad texture. The creaminess of the bananas makes it more slimy than shake-y. The ice cubes give it the texture of a milkshake.
Freezing fruit can damage their nutrition.
When you freeze a piece of fruit, all of the water inside the fruit's cells expands and tears the fruit apart on a cellular level. This can result in moisture, texture, and flavor loss, as well as the loss of nutrients like antioxidants and Vitamins B and C.
By contrast, making your smoothies with ice and fresh fruit avoids these problems! You might experience some dilution of flavor, but you'll have the full nutritonal benefits of the fruit you use to make it with.
ah, I never thought of this. I am guessing that for small fruits (or cuts of fruit) modern flash freezing is pretty good at not damaging the fruit very much.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.915197 | 2015-02-12T21:39:00 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54662",
"authors": [
"Amy Chacon",
"Beth Caplinger",
"Carolyn Brooks",
"Catija",
"Charles Widen",
"Daksha Hindocha",
"EICR Testing Co.",
"Eris",
"Georgia Warner",
"Green Heart",
"Jane Cho",
"John Johnson",
"Jolenealaska",
"Matthew Schoenborn",
"Philip",
"Ross Ridge",
"Spammer",
"Wendy Barker",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128702",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128703",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128706",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128712",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128713",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128762",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139076",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144261",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150029",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36987",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5500",
"user378283"
],
"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
} |
49108 | What can I substitute for tomato paste to thicken a marinade?
This recipe calls for 2 TB tomato paste in the marinade. I assume it is to thicken it so more stays on the meat and veggies. I don't want to open an entire can of tomato paste just to use 2 TB. Can I substitute anything else in its place?
Given that cans of tomato pasta are only 6oz, traditionally, I'd say open it and keep the rest in the fridge. It keeps for quite awhile. The closest thing that you will find is a can of crushed tomatoes, hopefully in tomato puree and not water or juice (too thin). But in that case you'd be opening a bigger can, using the wrong ingredient, and losing out on the magic of the paste. Tomato paste conveys umami and fullness in such a way that I find it to be quite unique and irreplaceable.
It might be there for body, but more likely for the umami kick that tomato past helps with. I bet you could leave it out with no ill effect...otherwise, try some ketchup. You could also open the small can, use what you need and put the rest in a baggy in the freezer.
I did leave it out and it was still delicious. I didn't realize it added umami though. Next time I'll just use the smallest can of tomato paste I can find. Thanks.
In the future buy real Italian tomato paste in the tube. You'll use it all up, it lasts and lasts.
Use your can opener on both ends of the can. They will both continue to stick to the tomato paste, especially the one on the bottom because gravity's had its way. So slowly pull up and grab one edge of the top lid. Then slide it off, pressing it against the lip of the can. Everything that was attached to it will now still be in the can. Carefully discard it.
Now, use a couple fingers (or your thumb) to press firmly on the bottom lid, being sure not to let it rock from side to side. It will slowly rise in the can, pushing a clean cylinder of tomato paste out the top of your can. (Just don't squeeze the can too hard.) When you've extruded the desired amount, use a flat blade or a credit card to scrape it off and add it to your ingredients.
Place the open can in a baggie (or vacuum seal) and then into a cool part of the fridge (toward the back). (If using a Ziploc style bag, seal it all the way, then barely open it, squeeze out as much air as you can and close the seal back up without letting any of that air back in.) When you need more, just pick up where you left off. It'll last a long time, even longer if you dip it in olive oil first. If you ever see it starting to darken a bit, pull it out, extrude that part and scrape it off before returning it to the fridge. Along the way however, be sure to never touch the actual product with your hands or fingers, as you'll impart bacteria certain to reduce its shelf life.
my apologies that this answer veers off a bit from what's technically being asked for (a substitute product), but I hope it may still be found useful in its own right; I was thinking that the questioner didn't really want to use a substitute but would rather do so than waste so much of the recommended product.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.915752 | 2014-10-21T01:02:26 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49108",
"authors": [
"Arzu",
"Chillin",
"Grey Dog",
"Heather Dickinson",
"Martin Pociej",
"Natalie Eldredge",
"Philip",
"Selkie_dream",
"Steve Mszaneckyj",
"Thomas Raywood",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117233",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117235",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25282",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28723",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5500"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
13680 | Why does my chard taste bitter when I cook it?
I've tried cooking it in various ways, but it always ends up tasting bitter. What am I doing wrong? I'm using fairly young chard (homegrown), using the whole leaves.
Your chard most likely tastes bitter because chard is bitter. You can't really change that with cooking technique alone, but you can:
Use older chard, which tends to be markedly less bitter than the young chard you're using;
Avoid bringing out the bitterness, by cooking at lower heat;
Mute any remaining bitterness with salt, which is pretty common for leafy greens.
My favourite chard technique is to start by sauteeing chopped onion in olive oil until it is starting to brown, then adding chard with the rinsing water clinging to it, and putting the lid on. I then turn off the heat. The combination of lower heat and the sweetness of onion and olive oil means that the result is only slightly bitter, just how I like it.
I do it with balsamic vinegar right at the end, and sometimes add nuts for texture. Low heat + olive oil definetly would help make it less bitter.
Another technique is to sweeten the chard; for example, you might add a little sugar and some raisins. This is a classic French technique for Swiss chard. Here's a recipe:
Ingredients
1 bunch Swiss chard
3 TBS unsalted butter
1 TBS olive oil
1 TBS sugar
1 TBS chopped, fresh rosemary
1/3 cup (2 oz) dark or golden raisins, roughly chopped
2 TBS pine nuts (optional, but best)
Salt and freshly-ground pepper to taste
Steps
Remove the stems from the chard, and slice it roughly.
In a large saute pan over high heat, melt the butter and oil until it sizzles. Add the sugar and stir until the sugar begins to brown, about one minute. Add the chard and rosemary; stir well to coat the chard with the butter mixture. Continuing to stir, cook until the chard wilts to about half of its volume, about a minute and a half. Add the raisins and stir to distribute evenly. Add the pine nuts, if using, and continue to cook over high heat to evaporate any moisture.
Season with salt and pepper, transfer to a warmed serving plate, and serve immediately.
Cooking bitter greens like chard and kale long and slow in animal fats, as in stews or soups, tends to get rid of the bitterness.
The simple best way to get rid of the tanic acid in cooking chard greens only is the cut up the greens and bring them to a Rolling Boil and boil them for 3 min. pour of the water then rinse them in hot water. Next cover them with just enough water to finish cooking them till tinder, maybe 20min. will be like High quality spinach & season them how ever you like.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.916036 | 2011-04-02T15:26:09 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13680",
"authors": [
"Balage",
"Manako",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72320"
],
"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
} |
13852 | How do you cook nopales while keeping the green color?
I am trying to cook mexican Nopales but they seem to loose their green look. Is there an ingredient that needs to be added or a special technique that would keep them as green as possible?
I am not familiar with nopales, but I would be astonished if their green color was determined by something else than chlorophyll. Chlorophyll is usually destroyed by normal cooking techniques. If you want to keep the color mostly green (some dulling is inevitable):
cook the vegetable in an alkaline fluid. The easiest way is to use water with some baking soda added. The problem here is that humans like food which is slightly acidic, and alkaline food tastes soapy. Also, vegetable fibers soften more easily in alkaline environments, so they will be somewhat mushy. So use a very small amount. If they are to be added to a dish which is acidic (in a Mexican dish, the culprit will probably be tomatoes), cook the green vegetable separately, and only combine it with the rest of the dish at the last possible moment. Right before serving is best.
Heat destroys chlorophyll too. Cook the green vegetable as short as possible. Blanching is perfect, don't forget the ice bath at the end. It will probably be enough as a preparation method. While I don't know how hard a nopale is, I find blanching to be quite sufficient even for broccoli (provided the water contained either salt or baking soda), and their stems are one of the woodiest things we eat. If you don't think they are softened enough after blanching, cook them longer, until you find they are sufficiently softened.
+1 on adding some baking soda - you can try 1/2 to 1 teaspoon. This is what I use to keep Collard Greens and Green Beans colorful. Enjoy your nopalitos.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.916361 | 2011-04-07T23:15:53 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13852",
"authors": [
"Ray Mitchell",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5431"
],
"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
} |
14290 | Making meat balls in chicken marinade
I have this marinade in with I usually make chicken legs. It consists mainly of maple syrup, soy sauce, and sometimes ketchup.
Is it reasonable to put meat balls in that marinade? Is it OK to put them together with the chicken legs in the same pot?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.916513 | 2011-04-23T17:23:03 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14290",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
19235 | Recipes for cookie cutters vs drop cookies
Today I made a batch of sugar cookies using my new snowflake-shaped cookie cutters; when I pulled them out, they had puffed so much they became flower-shaped instead. What should I look for in a recipe to use cookie cutters on versus one that would be better for drop cookies or a sliced log? Specifically, I suppose I don't want them to rise much after cutting - do I want less leavening? Smaller flour to butter ratio? How much?
A couple of things will lead to less spreading:
Shortening instead of butter - butter contains up to 20% water. When it reaches 212F/100C, it turns to steam, expands, and causes things to rise/puff. Also, shortening, as a more processed/refined fat, has a more even melting point, which would cause it to spread less. If you want the flavor of butter, consider butter-flavored shortening. If you must use butter, use clarified butter instead, as it has most of the moisture removed.
Refrigerate the dough -- the fat will melt later, causing less spreading by the time the starches and proteins set.
Egg whites -- stiffens a dough.
White vs. brown sugar - brown sugar contains more moisture than refined white sugar.
I did refrigerate the dough, though it warmed up some as I rolled it out and cut the shapes, so I probably could have stuck the cut shapes back in for a bit. They used white sugar, but we did use butter rather than shortening. I could make that change and probably toss an extra white into the recipe I have rather than look up a new one... Thanks!
Here's a trick -- put a parchment-lined sheet pan in the refrigerator while you're rolling the dough. When you're done rolling and cutting, transfer to the sheet pan, and put back in the refrigerator for 15 minutes or more. When ready to bake, transfer the parchment with cookies on it to a room-temperature sheet pan, and bake as normal.
Keep in mind, if you do add the additional egg white, it will make the resulting cookie a little tougher.
Made christmas cookies over the past weekend; I had dough that had been refrigerated overnight prior to rolling, then popped trays of cut cookies into the fridge and (later, in desperation) into the freezer. Still lost all shape. These were butter cookies, so unfortunately shortening didn't seem appropriate. The picture had nice complex oak leaf designs, whereas even simple stars turned into circles in my kitchen :(
@Yamikuronue, many butter cookie recipes use a mix of butter and shortening (often butter-flavored shortening). Another thing you can do to prevent spreading is use higher-fat European-style butter. American butter is typically about 20% water.
Alternatively, you can use a mix of clarified butter and shortening. If you're concerned about the lack of butter flavor in the cookie, you can brown the butter a little; it'll develop more flavor.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.916571 | 2011-11-29T23:46:16 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19235",
"authors": [
"Aaron Traas",
"CWBStu",
"David Hammond",
"David Harbage",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41831",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41835",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7769",
"krufra"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.