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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
26095 | Adapting waffle recipe into mix
Assume I have a decent waffle recipe that I like. Assume it has nothing particularly unusual for waffles -- this means it has liquid ingredients such as milk or buttermilk, eggs, butter, vanilla extract. How can I modify this to make an "instant" waffle mix where I just add one or two ingredients (say, milk)? Can I simply replace most of the liquid ingredients with powdered or solid versions? Or must other adaptations be made to compensate? Will I have to adjust proportions?
If you replace liquid ingredients with a powdered equivalent, you'll need to add in additional liquid to compensate.
For instance, let's say the recipe calls for two eggs. If you replace two eggs with a powdered substitute, you'll need to add water to the mix in addition to the milk in order to replace the moisture loss by using a powdered egg substitute.
I'd also be concerned about loss in product quality when using an instant / powdered substitute, but in principle it should work.
That being said, I work in a bakery where we do something similar. For our muffins and scones, we combine the butter, flour, salt, sugar and baking powder and mix it until the butter is incorporated into the dry ingredients. We also beat together the eggs, milk and water required.
The dry mix and the wet mix are stored separately in large quantities in refrigeration and when we go to bake we simply combine them.
There will be a shorter shelf life to the dry mix because it's got the butter in it, but under refrigeration it lasts a long time. In theory, you could store it in the freezer -- I know you can freeze butter with minimal loss of quality so I cannot think of a reason why this wouldn't work, and it will give it a very long shelf life (however long you can freeze butter for.)
The egg, milk & water mixture's expiration date is whichever expires first from the egg and milk.
This probably isn't a practical solution unless you're making waffles all the time, but if you make them a few times it week it might be worth it because you won't lose quality. Otherwise, parse through your waffle recipe an ingredient at a time, replacing liquid with powdered versions, making sure to keep track of the water you'll need to add back in.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.916804 | 2012-09-10T16:32:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/26095",
"authors": [
"CMOS Kramer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61202"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
20012 | How to use cast-iron teacup?
I love my cast-iron teapots; however, for Christmas, I received a set of teacups to match my latest acquisition. Do I pre-warm them like I do the pot? Or is the intent for it to leech some heat out when poured so it's drinkable faster? They appear to be traditional Chinese-style: small and without handles. They also appear to be enameled on the inside, to match the pot.
Also, is there anything I should know about the care and keeping of them above and beyond the usual cast-iron advice (no soap, dry well, et cetera)?
Maybe keep them for iced tea?
The cast iron tea equipment is a Japanese development. In Japan, tea is most commonly a green variety, and brewed at a lower temperature than boiling. This can be as low as 104˚F (40˚C) for high grades of gyokuro, or as high as 167˚F (75˚C) for more common varieties of sencha.
The lower grade the tea, or the more oxidised/fermented the tea, the higher the temperature of the water recommended. In western tea culture, where black tea is the norm, the water used for tea preparation is usually boiling, 212˚F (100˚C), so if you are using cast iron equipment to prepare tea in the western fashion, you may be in for some burned fingers. This may also be the case for some Japanese ceramic tea services. I have one favourite Japanese stoneware tea cup that is equally likely to burn you if you put boiling water in it, unless you wait 5 minutes or more for it to cool.
In any case, the cost associated with cast iron tea services is such that they are more often used for more formal settings in which a higher grade of tea, and therefore, a lower water temperature, are more likely to be indicated.
I'm not sure about the higher grade = lower temperature thing, but black vs green might well be my problem.
I've never found cast-iron teacups to be practical to actually use. Not only do you not want to warm them before pouring the tea in, after you pour it in the cups will be to hot to drink out of. One has to wait for the tea to cool to lukewarm before it's safe to touch one's lips to the cup.
As far as cleaning them goes, you can use soap and hand-wash, just don't put them in the dishwasher.
I guess the answer really is "you don't, they're a bad buy" :(
My son also got a beautiful cast iron set this last Christmas and we were having the same issues with the teacups being too hot to hold. We set out on a mission to find a remedy and were told to either use two cups nested in each other or not fill the cup more than 1/4 of the way full. So I decided to create something myself. We came up with a heat diffuser product. You can see it at www.tealovey.com.
As far as cleaning them, we just rinse the pot and cups out after use and wipe the lips with a wet soapy rag and rinse.
I love my Cast Iron cups more than anything. In the winter they keep your hands warm forever but they do get extremely hot. I love my tea and coffee so hot that they do cause a problem. I don't preheat mine and I just wipe them clean. They are great for warm sake too.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.916984 | 2011-12-28T13:14:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20012",
"authors": [
"Asmaa",
"Ayt Ayda Burnie",
"DACula",
"Tom Anderson",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104088",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43702",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86926"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
49846 | What is the white dust on red grapes?
I bought some red grapes, and they have a thin layer of white dust on them. What is this? It has no flavor and seems to be harmless, but sources differ on what exactly it is, so if anyone has an authoritative source, I'd be interested to find out.
This coating, which wipes right off and is indeed harmless, is called the "bloom" of the grape or sometime the "blush". As described here, (the wiki for Fermentation in winemaking), it contains trace amounts of natural yeast, though thought to be the result of ambient yeast rather than the result of growth process proper.
Here we find a more thorough answer,
It’s mostly harmless wax, says Kay Bogart, a winemaker who works in
outreach for the University of California at Davis’s viticulture
program. The grape plant produces it to protect the berries from
moisture loss. It’s also often just plain old dust, adds Jim LaMar, a
professor of wine sensory evaluation at California State University,
Fresno. Until recently, winemakers believed the white stuff was
yeasts, responsible for wine fermentation. Now they believe such
yeasts are airborne. In any case, that white stuff isn’t pesticide
residue. Which is not to say that there isn’t pesticide residue on the
grape, so wash it anyway before you pop it into your mouth.
In the book Caravaggio: A Life Sacred and Profane by Andrew Graham-Dixon, we find of Roman mythology the following statement regarding Bacchus, the ancient god of wine and intoxication,
The bloom on the grapes, which dusts them with a layer of whiteness
and dulls the reflected light caught in their opalescent skins, is
echoed by the dry and whitish lips of the god himself.
In addition to their use in wine making, they are also used for this yeast at the beginning stage of some sourdough starters. The same bloom can also be found on plums and even cabbage.
This would be a stellar answer if you mentioned the possibility of chemicals on the grapes.
My plum tree had its first harvest this year. They all have a powdery coating. I have not sprayed them with anything and i dont live anywhere that they could get covered in dust. It wipes of easily if you do it before cleaning. After i put some in a bowl of cold water it was hard to remove it, so best to wipe them before rinsing.
I lived in Cyprus for many years and the white dust on the grapes bought there was the residue from all the insecticides that are sprayed or puffed onto the grapes to prevent disease and insect attack. The locals when asked would say its poison!!! No one would eat any fruit without thoroughly washing it.
I used to work in a produce department in a grocery store. After even 20 minutes of unpacking green or red grapes, my fingers would be raw from all the chemicals on them. I've heard of other people's mouths tingling when they eat grapes without washing them.
I have experienced two kinds of white coatings on grapes - one is called "bloom" and although it appears to wipe or wash off, it often reappears immediately. This is a natural part of the grape. The powdery substance that really wipes or washes off completely, must be pesticide or fungicide. Wash thoroughly!
I buy red organic grapes and the white coating is on them, too, so it must be something natural, however, I've not seen it on regular grapes.
I've been told that the white powdery coating on purple grapes is naturally occurring acidophilus. You can also see this same thing on other deeply colored fruits and vegetables, such as plums, blueberries, and purple cabbage. It is actually on all produce and other living things - green grapes, green cabbage, cauliflower, etc, but you can't see it as well on light colored plants. It exists on healthy human skin, too. I think it is a good thing to have this because it is a beneficial bacteria.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.917268 | 2014-11-17T16:34:25 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49846",
"authors": [
"Beth Evans",
"Conla Benham",
"David Schaller",
"Jimmy Maguire",
"Linda Behrens",
"Peter",
"Ronald Steele",
"Stephen Eure",
"Susan Mather",
"Sydney Desouza",
"WendyM",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119109",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119110",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119111",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119116",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119119",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154361",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24698",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27244",
"jvriesem"
],
"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
} |
19580 | Refrigerator Life Of Cooked Clams
I steamed some clams seven days ago, and not all of them were eaten. I removed the shells and stored the flesh in a plastic container in the refrigerator. After seven days are they still safe to eat, since they were well cooked and refrigerated?
I hate to claim credit for this as an answer: http://stilltasty.com/fooditems/index/16892
@Jefromi: Thanks for the link. If you would have posted it as an answer I would have happily handed you a +10 anyway since it looks like that site might be quite useful in general.
Yeah, it's handy. I just don't think it's complete information: certainly if you throw things out when it says, you'll be safe, but sometimes it's based on really paranoid FDA rules. And if you're careful how you store things, you can often do much better in the freezer.
I think when we give blanket advice online, we have little choice but to be paranoid. I'd much rather tell somebody what is certainly safe (within reason) and not worry, than tell them what is probably safe and later find out they got sick.
It's too risky for my tastes. Cooked seafoods (fin-fish and shellfish) are nearly a perfect growth medium for bacteria, so they have a particularly short shelf-life even when properly kept refrigerated -- perhaps three days. Here is a PDF from the Texas A&M Agricultural Extension Service with some useful guidelines.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.917616 | 2011-12-11T19:03:56 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19580",
"authors": [
"Bob Mc",
"Cascabel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42627",
"lng",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
113096 | What cultures can be added to pasteurized milk to allow it to clabber like raw milk?
I have a dairy cow, and when I leave its raw milk on the counter for a couple of days, I end up with clabber (also called clabbered milk). However, I am not willing to take the risk of consuming non-pasteurized milk products during a global health pandemic. I want to try out some recipes that use uncooked clabber. And since there are cultures that can be added to pasteurized milk to make kefir, yogurt, and cheeses, I thought surely there must be some that can be added to make clabber! Alas, I have not been able to find any information on this.
What specific bacterial, fungal, or yeast cultures can be added to pasteurized milk to create clabber?
https://joepastry.com/2014/is-clabber-anything-like-yogurt-2/ suggests it's just a difference in cultures ... but I have no idea where you'd get that specific culture so that you could use pasteurized milk. Do you have a source of clabber that you know is untainted, so you could just use it like active culture yogurt?
Unfortunately, I don't have access to guaranteed-safe clabber from which I could culture more.
What is the relationship between your home-clabbered milk and covid-19? ...and what do you do with the rest of your cow's milk?
@Kerrick the wiki article you linked says "A somewhat similar food can be made from pasteurized milk by adding a couple of tablespoons of commercial buttermilk or sour milk to a glass of milk.[1]"
I have made something like a yoghurt using just kefir and pasteurized milk. One of the two bottles was in equilibrium. Sour and with bubbles. Not so lucky though with the other bottle as it was more like yeast in taste.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.917757 | 2020-12-11T21:05:00 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113096",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Kerrick",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4261",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
17145 | How do I diagnose and adjust my bread recipe?
Our family has maintained a sourdough start for several decades. It has great flavor, but we use it mostly for pancakes. I've tried making bread with it several times, but never get good results.
This experience has led me to look for some sort of diagnostic procedure for bread. I'm hoping to find some sort of bread trouble-shooter, with common problems and their cause. And, I guess, not just problems, but say I just want more chew, or a flaky crust, the ideal guide would give me some things to try.
Can you recommend a good bread trouble-shooter?
"Our family has maintained a sourdough start for several decades" - wow, NICE!
I think your 'troubleshooter' and the desire to know what to do to get a different result ('more chew, or a flaky crust,etc) are definitely one in the same. You'll need to understand the basic chemistry of bread (and some critical techniques as well). Baking in general is more (not all) chemistry than normal cooking. If you throw too much of something in, it may not just taste different, but change the entire critical chemical reaction in the oven.
Once that's cemented in your head, then if your bread doesn't rise, you immediately know that its one of a few things. If you want a crisp crust, you'll know what to add. Its the same knowledge.
The best two references that I've read in regards to this are :
The Bread Baker's Apprentice by Peter Reinhart - Its pretty much a classic now and a must read for anybody wanting to get into baking. Its got great chemistry, technique, and recipes in it.This is the book that made MANY things with bread just 'click' with me. A large chunk of this book deals with sourdough.
I'm Just Here for More Food by Alton Brown - Just like on TV, he goes through the why and the how of everything. It's a general baking book - not just for bread, but there's a whole section on dough. I like the techniques and understanding here, but found the recipes to be a bit lackluster. (He's got pancake info here too!)
Additionally, I'd encourage you to ask specific problems in regards to your bread issue on here. There's a wealth of knowledge on the site and absorbing some via here would be a perfectly valid resource.
Thanks for the input. I've got The Bread Baker's Apprentice on hold at the public library. If it looks good, I'll definitely buy a copy for reference.
+1 for the bread baker's apprentice. I have AB's book but I don't know I would recommend buying it just for this purpose. Shirley Corriher's book "Cookwise" is also excellent for recipe troubleshooting.
I am also wondering what you mean by "never get good results".
Is the taste not what you expect? Or is it the texture and/or crust? Or do you not get enough leavening from the starter itself?
James Beard's Beard on Bread has a recipe for sourdough that uses a starter, a sponge and another packet of yeast when putting the final dough together. If leavening is the issue, this technique may help. (I have had lots of success with this recipe.)
Beard recommends a tablespoon of salt per pound of flour, which is too much for me, but this may help improve the flavor of your bread, if that's the issue.
For chewy texture, try putting a pan of water in the oven - 1 to 2 inches deep - while baking. The steam keeps the loaf from drying out.
There are several ways to treat the bread for different types of crust:
Water - spray or brush water on the crust before baking. This doesn't do much for me, personally, especially if I use a steam pan.
Butter - brush melted butter on the loaf before baking. You will get a very brown, but dull crust, but lots of flavor.
Egg Wash - whisk one egg with one tablespoon water and brush onto the loaf just before baking. This is my favorite method. It gives a shiny, hard crust that is perfect for sourdough.
Mostly the texture (too crumbly, not chewy). I will give the steam pan a shot, but I'm wondering if there's something wrong with my kneading or something.
It may also be what's happening in the rise. A long, slow rise will do more for the texture than a short, fast one. The texture will also be affected if you're kneading too much before the bench proof, or not allowing the bench proof to go long enough.
For sourdough issues in particular I'd recommend The Cheese Board: Collective Works. It's not a general bread troubleshooting guide, but it does have over 10 pages on starting, maintaining and using a natural sourdough starter.
Rose Levy Beranbaum, author of The Bread Bible, has a website which has a Q&A section with ideas and advice.
I am wondering what you mean by "never get good results". I realize that you didn't ask directly for troubleshooting help, but I'd be interested to know what recipe(s) you're following and how your bread didn't turn out.
Beranbaum's website is great. Hope you don't mind if I edit the URLs in your post into links.
Feel free. You can fix spelling mistakes too if you like. ;-)
A good book that explains the science of baking is BakeWise: The Hows and Whys of Successful Baking Shirley O. Corriher. For many of the recipe varients, she explains how each change in ingredients or procedures affects the finished product. Unfortunately, she doesn't go into that much on dealing with sourdough vs. other leaveners.
As for the specific problems you're having, it likely depends on what you mean by "rarely get good results". I'm guessing that a sourdough for breads may need to be more vigorous than what you'd need for pancakes, so looking at some of the tips specifically for sourdough:
From Harold McGee's On Food and Cooking: The Science and Lore of the Kitchen:
Guidelines for Working with Sourdough
The key to successful baking with sourdough starters is to limit bacterial growth and acidification, and encourage healthy yeast population. In general, this means keeping sourdough starters relatively cool, and "refreshing" them frequently yb adding new flour and water and aerating them vigorously. ...
... starters need to be refreshed frequently, two or three times per day. Adding new water and flour dilutes the accumulated acids and other growth inhibitors, and provides a fresh supply of food. Aerating the starter -- whisking a liquid one, or kneading a doughy one -- supplies the oxygen that yeasts require to build cell membranes for new cells. The more frequently the starter is divided and refreshed, the better the yeasts will be able to grow, and the more leavening power the starter will have.
Of course, this is for a non-refrigerated starter. It mentions 68-78°F / 20-25°C. If you're using a refrigerated starter, you may need to let it warm back up to become active before adding to a starter.
And I also looked through Howard Hillman's The New Kitchen Science: A Guide to Know the Hows and Whys for Fun and Success in the Kitchen, which is close to what you're asking for (more generic than just bread, though), but the only thing I found for sourdough was:
Why is a sourdough bagueatte denser and more acidic than a standard baguette?
The sourdough yeast (Saccharomyces exiguus) multiplies at a significantly slower rate than does common baker's yeast. A more compact and less airy loaf results.
Sourdough bread is more acidic because, unlike baker's yeast, sourdough yeast cannot digest maltose sugar. Bacteria are, however, willing and able to do it -- and a certain type native to San Francisco area does. In the process, a highly acidic byproduct is formed, one that helps give sourdough bread its characteristic flavor.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.917907 | 2011-08-26T02:45:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17145",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Nathan Beach",
"PluSeattle55",
"Sobachatina",
"Spirou",
"erickson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36804",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36806",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36813",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37676",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7334",
"lowtoxin",
"rfusca",
"shilantra",
"user30342"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
12958 | Best way to dissolve caramelized sugar
I have a chocolate syrup recipe that calls for around 1 cup of sugar and 3 cups of water. I have found that the recipe turns out better if I caramelize the sugar. However, when I add the water to the caramelized sugar, the sugar immediately hardens (due to the temperature difference, I assume). I have tried boiling the water, which helps, but the problem still exists(the melting point of sugar, according to wikipedia, is 320F, so there is still a significant temperature difference). Stirring until the hardened sugar dissolves is tedious and often leaves me with small, undissolved chunks. Is there a better way to dissolve caramelized sugar without it hardening?
Walk away.
No, really - it works. Once you add the water to the sugar, it will likely harden and clump up (I don't know how to stop that happening). But once it does, you can just walk away, and leave it to sit till it cools down.
A lot of the sugar will just dissolve on its own, given time and enough water to dissolve into. Some mixing (occasional stirs as or after it cools) will dissolve some more. And at the last, when most of it has dissolved, you can gently start heating the pan up again, stir it around, maybe bring it to a boil for a bit, maybe add a bit more water and heat some more to get at those last undissolved chunks...
It's sugar, in water. It will dissolve until the water's saturated. It takes time to dissolve on its own, and that's annoying if you want to use it right away - hence measures like heating, or stirring, or crushing the dried caramel to stir into water that way. But it really works just as well, and is less tedious, just to give it some of that time and let it dissolve away.
I did this when making a caramelized burnt-sugar syrup, and it worked. Adding the water was pretty spluttery at first (the caramelization had to be stopped pretty fast), but I did notice the caramel hardening to the bottom of the pot once it had settled a bit. I gave it a few stirs, and walked away to take care of something else - and by the time I got back to it, most of the lumps were well on their way to dissolving.
That's also how you clean up the caramel pan afterwards. Just fill it with water and come back in a few hours. It doesn't even need to be hot water. Sugar, even caramel, really, REALLY wants to dissolve in water. (So much so that it'll suck water right out of the air if there's any humidity at all, which is why caramel becomes sticky.)
Also boil the water first and add a lid on the pot as fast as possible after adding the water. That should help to keep the temperature above boiling for longer which should help.
Random things to try:
Add the molten caramel to the hot water (not the other way around), slowly, stirring vigorously as you add it.
Allow the caramel to cool (in a heat-proof plastic bag, or on a marble slab as in candy making, or even on parchment paper), then crush it. Put in cold water, heat while stirring (similar to melting granulated sugar)
I'm pretty sure the second one will work (assuming the caramel becomes hard; if not melting syrup should work fine too); the first one might, it's probably quicker though at a higher risk of burns...
Excellent suggestions- increasing the surface area of the sugar to make it dissolve faster. I think this requires some experimenting to see if they will save effort.
You can caramelize the sugar without melting it. Perhaps that will give you the results you are after. http://www.seriouseats.com/recipes/2016/05/dry-toasted-sugar-granulated-caramel-recipe.html
Very clever approach
The way I always made caramel/water mixtures was to melt the sugar dry and then add the water. When melting the sugar, there is always a period of time when it is still crystalline but starts being browned a bit like in the picture. But the caramel flavour would be pretty weak if you stopped at that point and added water.
Put the water in with the sugar and boil them together.
But the sugar will never caramelize that way- until you boil out all the water and then you are back where you started.
If the water was added gradually as the sugar caramelised it should be possible to get a very liquid caramel. Most caramel calls for some water to be added to the sugar before you start to heat it anyway, it's just a matter of slowly increasing that so the sugar dissolves but still caramelises.
I had never added water before caramelizing, but I see that you are right and several recipes call for small amounts. I will try that next time.
The water added before caramelizing in some recipes is just to help conduct heat as the sugar melts (to avoid burning the sugar). It is gone by the time the sugar reaches 213°F.
I finally got around to trying this. The sugar did not start to caramelize until all of the water was boiled out. What did work, was adding the water very slowly and stirring vigorously.
@derobert Nope... a syrup can reach far higher temperatures than 212°F ;)
@rackandboneman you're right there, and of course any good candy making reference will tell you the percent water left vs. temperature... Of course, it's gone by the time you hit caramel.
How do you then explain syrups (especially inverts) taking on a nice golden hue and a more complex flavor if you cook them long enough, even if they don't hit "officially sanctioned caramel temperatures"? What could also be tried is creating caramelization at the surface (blowtorch?) and stirring that back into the syrup.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.918843 | 2011-03-09T00:32:09 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12958",
"authors": [
"Alex Czarto",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Joshua Engel",
"MikeyB",
"Nobody",
"Sobachatina",
"derobert",
"donnie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26801",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26802",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26811",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52134",
"michael",
"mikesigs",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
45384 | Why is my soymilk going off so fast?
Long before the expiration date on my soymilk, I'm having to toss it and buy a new container. I use soymilk only for my morning tea, and it develops this strange metallic and bitter flavor (it may also be astringent, or it might be that it's no longer countering the astringency of my tea, it's hard to tell). When I dumped out the latest such container, it had grainy bits in the bottom as well.
I store it in the door of my fridge, only taking it out in the morning to pour some in my mug; is this not the best way to store it? Is this flavor actually even a result of it going off, or is there some other problem with my soymilk?
The milk in question is Silk Vanilla Soymilk.
Expiration dates on milk are not intended for open containers. Any open milk is only good for 3-5 days. After that, it is not safe for drinking, and taste is not guaranteed either.
Many people seem to not know that. Traditionally, you could only buy HTST pasteurized milk, which has 7-10 days of usable time altogether. It spent 2-3 days on its way to the customer, and if a milk opened on day 3 after production went off on day 8, nobody wondered, because it was on or just before the expiration date.
Today, you get also ESL milks and nut milks, which have a much longer life in the closed container. But once you open them, they start acting like any other food - they are only good for 3-5 days in the fridge, no longer. The expiration date doesn't matter for open foods.
I usually don't accept so fast, but that's almost certainly my problem, I'm replacing my milk every week or so. Dangit. Thanks
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.919322 | 2014-07-07T12:27:42 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45384",
"authors": [
"Carla Luna",
"Fariha Akter",
"Jackson 2.0",
"John Brown",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108134",
"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
} |
30131 | Why do my meat burritos not heat well?
I've been making freezer burritos and eating them for lunches this week. The first batch I made microwave beautifully: just 45 seconds and they're hot all the way through. They were layered with rice, beans, and corn, nothing else (I don't eat cheese and I wanted them to be non-spicy so I can eat them when I'm feeling unwell).
The second batch replace the corn with ground beef, cooked and seasoned. The exact same beans, the same rice made the same way. They're smaller, due to using a different package of tortillas; after almost 2 minutes of heating in the same microwave, the meat burrito I had brought still had cold spots in the middle.
What causes this? Can I avoid it somehow? Should I mix the ingredients instead of layering?
The ground beef is more dense than the corn and is taking longer to heat up to the temp you want. I would suggest stopping the cooking half way through and flipping the burrito over and then cooking for the final minute or longer. Mixing may help some but probably not an appreciable difference.
@Brendan That sounds like a good answer for me
I agree with Brendan's answer above. Having also made freezer burritos ahead of time, I find that it helps if I put some source of re-heatable 'liquid' in the wrap while preparing them (e.g. salsa, not sour cream, for example). It might have something to do with steaming the food instead of directly heating it, maybe? Let me know if that helps.
Microwaves heat water more efficiently than other materials, though you could also be right about water and steam helping transfer heat inside the burrito.
Does corn have more water content than beef? It might be that the corn heats more efficiently...
@Yamikuronue most crispy vegetables have a very high water content (over 90% is usual). Meat starts out with less and loses part of it during cooking. But you also mention rice, which should have less water than meat, even after cooking.
@Yamikuronue This may be too much, but here is a water content diagram based on ambient temperature and humidity: http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/pub811/1harvesting.htm#moisture
Accepting this answer based on the comments. It probably is just corn's higher moisture content, meaning if I add corn to my next batch of beef burritos, it'll probably heat well. Thanks everyone for the group effort!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.919479 | 2013-01-16T16:50:29 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30131",
"authors": [
"Andy",
"Brendan",
"Cascabel",
"DariM",
"Geeky Guy",
"Yamikuronue",
"domson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70309",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70311",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70711",
"rumtscho",
"younjin"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
45088 | Making sorbet with fruit frozen before processing
I've accidentally frozen a bunch of good strawberries with the leaves still on. I want to make them into sorbet. I don't plan to cook the berries. Should I:
Thaw the berries, cut the tops off, puree, make sorbet?
Try to cut the tops off the berries while still frozen, puree, make sorbet?
Leave the tops on, puree, make sorbet?
Some other procedure?
Thaw, remove the tops, ...
In my experience the tops won't hurt the flavour of your sorbet. The only downside is that you might have some green flecks in your final product
Thaw just enough to easily remove the tops and cut into halves or quarters, then puree while still semi-frozen. That will give you a head start on the chilling of the sorbet mixture. You want that super cold anyway, before you put it into the machine.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.919703 | 2014-06-23T15:31:01 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45088",
"authors": [
"Chris",
"Darlene Nelson Copeland ",
"Emmanuel Daniel",
"Ian Whittington",
"Max",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107289",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107292",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21312"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
46563 | Is cooked fish as perishable as raw fish?
I know that leaving raw fish out of the fridge for more than a couple hours makes it totally unsafe to eat. Most cooked meats are okay to pack in a lunchbox and hold at room temperature for the hours between breakfast and lunch, but some foods are considered unsafe to store at room temp even after preparation (like mayo-containing potato salad).
If I cook fish in the morning, let it cool, and pack it in my lunch, do I need an ice pack in my lunch or will it still be safe to eat 4-5 hours later when kept at room temperature?
The USDA disagrees with you regarding cooked meat, I can't imagine fish would be any different: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/17550/4194
@ElendilTheTall ...sandwiches are apparently evil. Go figure.
@ElendilTheTall you should post an answer.
BTW: The potato salad isn't special. It's just frequently left at room temperature for long periods and also (due to handling during prep) often starts with a higher bacterial load. The meat at least started refrigerated; the potato salad often doesn't...
You probably will be ok, but the safer method is just to cook it the night before and refrigerate it. Toss the whole thing in an insulated lunch container, and you should have no problems. Even if the temperature creeps up into the danger zone, it shouldn't be there more than an hour or two before lunch time, and should still be cool enough not to cause an issue.
Play it safe.
It has been said:
You probably will be ok, but the safer method is just to cook it the night before and refrigerate it. Toss the whole thing in an insulated lunch container, and you should have no problems. Even if the temperature creeps up into the danger zone, it shouldn't be there more than an hour or two before lunch time, and should still be cool enough not to cause an issue. – JSM Aug 21 at 17:44
I happen to disagree with this advice, personally. While it may be OK, is this something worth trying to find out?
Here is an excerpt from an FDA research paper about pathogenic bacteria in food handling
Growth rates of pathogens are highly temperature dependent. Ordinarily, pathogenic bacteria growth is relatively slow at temperatures below 70°F (21.1°C). In most cases, growth is very slow below 50°F (10°C), and 40°F (4.4°C) is below the minimum growth temperature of most pathogenic bacteria, although there are some exceptions. On the other hand, pathogenic bacteria grow relatively fast at temperatures above 70°F (21.1°C).
Think of a real-world example, say a soda can. You get the can out of the machine at a temperature around 35°F-40°C, which is refrigeration temperature. You set it naked (i.e., no "can cushy") on a table and just leave it there. Within 1-1.5 hours or so, it will be very close to room temperature, which on average is about 70°F to 73°F. That's when your fish will begin growing bacteria more rapidly, which it would continue to do until you are ready to eat it.
TL;DR
At the very least put and ice pack or other method of absorbing heat inside your lunchbox. Always play it safe when it comes to pathogens.
It's a little confusing what you disagree with. That advice is for playing it safe: it aims to make sure the food is not in the danger zone for longer than is safe. Are you saying you think it'll reach the danger zone more than a couple hours before lunchtime?
@Jefromi I'm mostly saying there is a big "Who Knows" variable, and while the comment most likely will be safe to do, I don't think it's a safe approach to just risk it
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.919825 | 2014-08-21T12:28:53 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46563",
"authors": [
"Caoimhain MacPhail",
"Cascabel",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Eva Macho",
"JSM",
"Jill Hess",
"Phrancis",
"Yamikuronue",
"dacapo3x Lubman",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112232",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112233",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"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
} |
44145 | Waay too much baking soda, can I salvage these tea buscuits somehow?
I baked something from the 2014 Canadian Milk Calendar's April page, cheddar onion tea buscuits, but I didn't have cream of tartar nor baking powder, and in a rush I substituted far too much baking powder (double what the recipe called for.) They turned out fine rising-wise, and taste great, until the weird stinging aftertaste (more of an during-feel, I guess) hits you. What could I top these with or dip them in that would counteract that so that I don't have to throw the rest of them out?
They are probably unsalvageable, sorry.
There are two possibilities for the bad taste. If you didn't have much fat in the dough, then what you are getting is probably an alkali taste. It is bland and subtly bitter. Alkali (basic) stuff can be neutralized with acid. But for the neutralization you need to mix your alkalic stuff with acid in a liquid environment. So, you could soak the bisquits in something acidic. But it is almost certain that the cure will be worse than the disease. There is a small possibility that you can get it to work right, if you use a sugar syrup with enough acid. You will get something dripping, revane-like.
In my experience, this kind of dessert is an acquired taste, and you may not like it at all, even if you manage to execute it, and if it works reasonably well (and these are two big ifs).
The second possibility is that you had sufficient fat in the dough to saponify it with the soda. Then you practically got soap in your dough. There is no way to reverse it at all.
Any tries to add something to the bisquits will fail. Humans are very good at detecting bad tastes, even when diluted. You can only try to "remove" the taste, and as described above, your chances for success are minimal.
I agree with @rumtscho, the chances of salvaging these is very slim, and you would spend as much time doing it as simply baking another batch.
Agreeing with @rumtscho and GdD. Would suggest you scrap and retry.
So, here's my experience so far, I made up some lemon water (would've used sugar as you suggested, but we're on a sugar-avoiding diet at the moment) and soaked a biscuit in it. Afterwards, the metallic taste was almost completely gone! The only this was, then its texture was that of very soggy bread, making it hard to even toast. However, if I let it dry out again it might at least make toast. (I know the time is "not worth it" but it's fun to experiment, and maybe a technique comes of it in the end.) So: not saponified I guess, despite the butter and cheese in them.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.920099 | 2014-05-15T03:37:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44145",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Kev",
"Oh Yoo-hoo ",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103676",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103677",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"jsanc623",
"user103676"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
43141 | Dipping sauce for shabu-shabu
I am at the Hilton in Narita, and I've just come back from a wonderful meal of Shabu-shabu. One of the dipping sauces was stated to be soy sauce, but it had a lovely sweet sort of flavor to it, so it clearly was more than just plain shoyu. It came with green onions and something pink that was stated to be spicy to mix into it. What was likely to have been in it? Is this something I can recreate at home?
There are a number or styles of soy sauces used in Japanese cuisine. Saishikomi shoyu is sometimes described as sweet compared to regular Koikuchi shoyu. Additionally there are soy-based sauces available in the US that have added ingredients such as corn syrup or MSG to enhance specific flavors.
Kikkoman makes an "enhanced" soy sauce that they call Amakuchi shoyu that is sweetened with corn syrup, as well as another call Umukuchi shoyu that has added MSG for savoriness. Teriyaki sauces, especially those made for use as a marinade, can be as liquid as standard soy sauce and are sweetened with sugar or corn syrup.
A traditional dipping sauce for shabu shabu is a 1:1:1 mixture of shoyu, dashi, and mirin reduced by 1/3 with rice vinegar added to taste. If you wanted it even sweeter, you could just add sugar to taste once it has reduced.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.920326 | 2014-03-29T12:46:58 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43141",
"authors": [
"Kris Van Bael",
"Shemayah",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100936",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100968"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
37802 | Can quickbread be prepared in advance?
I would like muffins, banana bread, and the like for breakfast. Could I prepare a quickbread ahead of time such that my husband would just have to pop it in the oven when he gets up?
Some muffins with very thick batter can be held for up to several days before being baked, but these are the exception, rather than the rule.
However, quick breads, whether sliced loaves, whole loaves, or muffins, freeze extremely well. Muffins are especially easy to reheat in the microwave or a toaster oven, and can be an ideal way to have quick breads prepared in advance.
Another way (which offers fresh, hotly baked breads) that I like I do before busy holidays that will have muffins or cornbread on the menu, is to prepare the dry mix, and the wet mix, and stick them (separately) into the refrigerator. Then, it is only a matter of combining them, putting them in the pan, and baking.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.920450 | 2013-10-21T20:57:14 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37802",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
46373 | How far in advance can I prepare a fruit cup?
My work used to sell fruit cups that were simply just plastic cups filled with cut fruit pieces, no syrup or anything. I quite liked having a mini fruit salad like that, and would usually buy ones containing pineapple, grapes, apples, and/or strawberries depending on the season. But they don't have them anymore :(
Obviously cut fruit doesn't last very long, even in the fridge. I could probably prep a cup the night before to take with me in the morning. But is there any way I could prepare it on the weekend to use sometime during the week? Do any of the fruits I like freeze well? Are there any fruits that would work better? What if I vacuum-seal the fruit? Can it in syrup like you find at the supermarket?
I would recommend vacuum sealing. I have found that, if done properly, vacuum sealing should remove all of the air and thus prevent the oxidative process that discolors and deteriorates foods
I have tried this with various cut fruits and vegetables including, but not limited to, avocados, apples, onions, tomatoes, etc. and have found that within 2 or 3 days there was no discoloration or deterioration. I can't speak to longer periods of time as I have always used the cut fruits and vegetables within one to three days, but it works well for up to 2 or 3 days.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.920554 | 2014-08-13T21:57:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46373",
"authors": [
"Barb Bonenfant",
"Donald Lutkin",
"Lynda",
"Thomas Copeland",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110732",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110733",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110737"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
107925 | Alternatives to onion gravy
Whenever I cook a dish with either no meat, or when I can't get any of the juices from the meat, I tend to make a gravy based on onions. I'm wondering what alternatives there are to onion gravy. To be clear, this is a gravy to compliment a meat dish (that is, I'm not looking for vegetarian or vegan options, necessarily).
I have seen mushroom gravy options, but I have a feeling that would taste strongly of mushrooms and overwhelm the dish.
You don't need onions or mushrooms, you can make gravy from strong stock, thickened using a roux or cornstarch slurry. This only really comes out well if you can get concentrated stock, it's not really that good with stock cubes, as they aren't really stock, more of a flavored salt.
My go-to gravy recipe uses Knorr stockpots, which are widely available in the UK and EU (from what I've seen in my travels), in the US they seem to be marketed as Homestyle stock, and they look like the same thing. I start with a roux made from 25g flour (about 2 tbsp) and 25g butter, cooked for about 2 minutes to give it a bit of color, then add 1 beef and 1 chicken stockpot and 600ml water, which is 2/3 of the normal dilution. I bring it up to a simmer, add some pepper, a drop of honey and a splash of dark soy for a bit of richness and color. If I have drippings I use those instead of butter to make the roux, if I have juices I will add this in addition to the base gravy recipe without adjusting it, it's just bonus flavor. If I have neither it still comes out well.
The flavor of the gravy comes from 2 things:
The roux: cooking the flour down to give it some color gives depth of flavor. You can use a cornstart (cornflour) slurry after heating but I find you can tell the difference. You can cook the roux longer and get more flavoring, at some point you start to lose the thickening power. You can make more roux than you need and spoon it out, adding it until you get the thickness of gravy you like
Concentration of the stock: you need a more powerful meaty flavor for gravy, thin stock won't cut it. If you have thin stock you can concentrate it down by gently simmering it to evaporate water.
I'll use Knorr at a push & certainly for the more unusual flavours, ham etc (unlike Oxo, which you'd have to pay me to use ;) but have you ever tried Kallo? tbh, I don't use them because of any 'green' credentials, but just because they really taste like stock.
I'm not a fan of Oxo either. I think I tried Kallo awhile back and didn't think much of it, but I'm going to try it again if you recommend it.
I've very much got used to it over the years. I find it 'milder' than Knorr, but somehow slightly less 'artificial', in a subtle way. I don't dislike Knorr at all, I think they're good. (The less said about Oxo the better, they can't even call their cubes 'stock' ;)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.920685 | 2020-04-26T10:25:10 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107925",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
40483 | Par boil roast potatoes
I tend to par boil potatoes before roasting them; however, a common error that I make is to over par boil (or as it is otherwise know: boil). Unfortunately, I'm unlikely to ever get this right.
So my question is this: is there anything I can do "after the fact" to the potatoes to stop them falling to pieces in the oven?
Have you tried different kinds of potato?
Once the potatoes are overcooked, there is little you can do to give them structure again.
Your best bet would be to re-purpose the dish, making them into potato pancakes, a home fry, or some other type of dish, depending on how much structure is left.
In the future, you can minimize the chances of mushy breakdown by:
Use a waxy potato (such as the US varieties Red Bliss or fingerling). These hold their structure better than starchy potatoes like Russets.
Start the par-cook in cold water, and remove the potatoes as soon as it is comes to the boil. This will still shorten your roasting time, but minimize the likelihood of severely overcooking.
Add a small amount of vinegar to the par-cooking liquid, which will help the pectin retain structure.
Depending on the variety of potato you are cooking, don't cut them up into small chunks. It is much easier to overcook small chunks than larger ones.
Don't par-cook. You will require longer for roasting, but it is slower and more controlled, and less likely to overcook.
I've tried both ways, and you definitely get a better texture when par boiling... even if it ends up as roasted mash. The rest of the comments are interesting though - especially the vinegar suggestion!
There are a myriad methods. Kenji Alt recipes are usually very good, and he is using Russets which have a texture I personally prefer. http://www.seriouseats.com/recipes/2011/11/ultra-crispy-roast-potatoes-recipe.html
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.920923 | 2013-12-22T14:15:40 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40483",
"authors": [
"Adnan Jamil",
"AkiRoss",
"Julien Vézina-Bernard",
"Paul Michaels",
"Rhiannon Kendryna",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3441",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94153",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94154",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94155",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94180",
"kizzx2"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
62877 | Combining melted chocolate with eggs
I've come across a number of recipes (the most recent of which was this) which suggest various combinations of adding hot melted chocolate to a mixture that contains eggs.
The problem that I have here is that if I let the chocolate mixture go cold, it hardens and can't be mixed, and if I don't, it cooks the eggs. I've tried stirring the mixture as the chocolate is added, which seems to be the most common suggestion, but it makes no difference. Can anyone offer any other methods of avoiding scrambled egg cake?
The cocoa butter in your chocolate melts fully at 43 degrees Celsius (110 F). But it stays liquid until at least 30 degrees C (85 F).
The most heat sensitive proteins in an egg white coagulate at around 65 degrees C (145 F), most proteins stay stable until 85 degrees C (185 F).
As you shouldn't overheat your chocolate anyway, you have a certain temperature range where the chocolate will stay liquid, yet the egg unaffected.
Note that the real problem and culinary art therefore is not the coagulating egg, but the effect of warm chocolate on any "foam" you might have produced in an earlier step: Too warm, and the bubbles might pop, too cool and the chocolate will harden as the cool other ingredients take up too much heat before it is fully incorporated.
Rule of thumb:
Melt the chocolate gently and let cool until barely warm to the touch. Stir quickly, yet gently, when incorporating the liquid chocolate into your batter.
(And read the recipe in case you need to deviate from this.)
Additionally, you can allow the eggs to warm to room temperature before cracking them. This will reduce the amount of chilling the eggs will do to the chocolate. I quite honestly store my eggs on the counter anyway.
@Escoce In most of the world, it's fine to store eggs at room temperature, but in the US, eggs from the grocery store must be refrigerated because of the way they are handled.
@AndrewRay no you don't have to. I keep my eggs on the counter in the USA. The worst they get is a little loose during the warmer months of the summer. I have in 50 years experienced two rotten eggs, and that was not caused by being on the counter for just a few days.
@Escoce The worst that can happen is that some bacteria lands on the eggs, gets through the shell, and starts replicating inside the egg. It's not likely, but you could end up getting something like botulism from eating American eggs that have been left out. Outside of the US, eggs aren't washed as part of the treatment process and still have a natural protective layer that prevents bacteria from getting into the egg.
Don't let the chocolate mixture go cold, let it go cool enough that it won't cook the eggs. It can still be reasonably warm - above room temperature certainly - and still be nowhere near hot enough to cook eggs. I usually place the bowl in another, larger, bowl filled with cold water, and give it a stir to bring it down quicker.
What kind of temperature am I looking for? 25 - 30 C? Presumably there is a given temperature that will start to cook eggs, and a slightly higher one that an average chocolate / butter combination will remain liquid ... ?
@stephie's answer gives you the answer to that. As you can see, the melting point of chocolate is well below the temperature necessary to start cooking an egg.
If you are adding butter to your chocolate then you can reserve a bit when melting it all together. Once the chocolate melts you take it off the heat and add your remaining butter, which will help cool it down faster.
The tempering method is the easiest I've found when combining eggs and a hot liquid, and it doesn't require a thermometer! First of all always let your eggs come to room temp before using them. http://noshon.it/tips/why-to-use-room-temperature-eggs-when-baking-cakes/
That said, the technique I use when adding eggs to the warm liquid in my ice cream bases is to simply add a small amount of the hot liquid to the bowl of eggs (I prefer to beat mine first, though apparently this isn't necessary), and whisk constantly as the liquid is added, slowly bringing the temperature of the mixture up without cooking the eggs.
This way, you don't really need to wait for the liquid to cool all that much nor, as I said, do you need to keep a constant check on the temp of your melted chocolate.
http://www.tablespoon.com/posts/how-to-temper-an-egg/e838d2ab-8509-4db0-bf67-8539a3aa1b06
Add eggs to the chocolate. Just make sure that the chocolate should be a little warm, right at body temperature (not be cold or hot).
Add the eggs to the chocolate and not the chocolate to the egg. The very reason is that chocolate is heavier and you don't want your eggs of go sitting, you need to make sure that the egg kind of Stowell in the chocolate.
I melt the chocolate with the butter I would put in to my cake mix then place to one side, then separate eggs beat white untill nice and fluffy, prepare dry ingredients, grab the yolks beat with milk and other liquids once choc has cooled down start by adding yolk mix little by little it will look like it's start to turn yuk thats ok it will eventually come together, once yolk mix is done start by adding dry ingredients little by little wooden spoon works best, once all dry ingredients are all combined it should be a very heavy batter, take a quarter of ur eggs whites and start folding in then half whats left of your whites and repeat, grab your lined baking pan and bake for bout 40-45 min in moderate oven,
Results beautiful moist light chocolate cake...
I'm sorry, but I downvoted your answer, which I hate doing with new posters who took the time to contribute. First, you are describing a different technique, not the one used in the recipes the author wants to follow. Second, you didn't mention when you add the chocolate.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.921223 | 2015-10-27T12:42:10 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62877",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"Escoce",
"GdD",
"Nathan",
"OpenAI was the last straw",
"Paul Michaels",
"Sheila Baxendale",
"Sudesh Chaudhary",
"Tracey Evans",
"Tracy Byrd",
"Vernon Morris",
"caron livermore",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149603",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149605",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149606",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149607",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85739",
"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
} |
46747 | How to remove the excessive saltiness from gammon?
I've tried a few time to roast gammon, typically my method is to soak the gammon and then roast for a few hours. The result is typically just this side of editable. I've even tried boiling it first (after a suggestion that this removes the salt), but to no avail.
Does anyone have any suggestions?
Soak at least overnight. In addition to that, consider a sweet glaze like apricot, or an acidic one like one that includes cider vinegar. Best yet might be all three, an overnight soak (change the water a few times) and a sweet, acidic glaze.
If you still find it too salty, go ahead and try boiling briefly in fresh water (blanching) after soaking, and then plunging in ice water before you continue to glaze and roast. If all of that isn't enough, and you are choosing the lowest salt gammon available to you, then gammon isn't your thing. Try a fresh ham instead.
I certainly haven't tried soaking overnight. I'll give that a go!
In the US, it is not uncommon to soak a dry cured country ham for days prior to roasting. Check out the section titled "Rehydrating your Ham" for two methods: http://www.lovelesscafe.com/2013/11/12/cooking-whole-country-ham/
When soaking very salty meats it is good practice to change the soaking water frequently. For the first 2 or 3 hours change hourly, and after that increase the time in between changes to 2 or 3 hours.
I have also found that a few carefully placed slits in the thickest parts of the meat can be helpful. You would want the slits to be no more than 1" wide, but they should go deep into the meat even to the point of reaching the bone. This will allow the water to get deeper into the meat.
Certainly soak the joint overnight. The following morning, pop it into a pot of fresh water and bring it to the boil for 10 minutes. This separates the fibres for the next stage. Do not allow the gammon to cool in the water but quickly put it in a slow cooker with pressed apple juice (NOT the concentrated stuff), which you also brought to the boil. Normally slow cook for 2½-3 hours. Do it like this and your taste-buds will love you for ever - as well as the rest of your family!
Heavily salted meats, like gammon, speck, country ham, proscuito di parma and such aren't intended to be eaten as a steak or roast.
They're typically used in small amounts as flavoring in other dishes.
If you're looking to roast a ham, you'll want to find a different variety that isn't as heavily salted. There are 'fresh hams' which isn't cured at all, and 'city hams' which are cured, but still need refrigeration for long-term storage.
A thin slice is great on a [us] biscuit, for example. Also great as a flavorant in soup or beans.
@PrestonFitzgerald : thin slices are fine, either in a sandwich, as a topping for or wrapped around something. Even on its own it's fine in small amounts ... but in large volumes, it's basically a salt lick.
I totally disagree with the assertion that these meats should only be eaten in thin slices or used as flavoring. Before wide spread refrigeration the only way you would have a roasted Christmas ham was to use one that had been dry cured after the slaughter in the Autumn.
@Didgeridrew : dry curing hams takes a 1-2 weeks in salt or brine, then 1-2 months to air dry ... if you waited 'til mod-November to slaughter, it might not be cured in time for Christmas. But by then, the average temperatures in Germany and Scandanavia (where the tradition is believed to have started) are quite cold, and wouldn't have needed a full cure ... they could've just smoked it, or lightly brined it.
To remove salt from Haddock, I use milk. I think it would be a good idea to let it soak for 6 hours. Then 1 hour in water. The meat will be softer anyway.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.921718 | 2014-08-30T10:32:52 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46747",
"authors": [
"Dave O Mahony",
"Dejan Kriek",
"Didgeridrew",
"Joe",
"L M M",
"Leslie Pate",
"Linda Kellar",
"Paul Michaels",
"Preston",
"Roger Hatfield",
"Sharon Richardson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112743",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112744",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112745",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112746",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112753",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114748",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"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
} |
50237 | What are the options for sweetening?
This question relates to a tomato based sauce, but I imagine it applies to all dishes.
I recently made meatballs in a tomato sauce; typically, I find that any tomato sauce is too bitter. I found a recipe that suggested boiling a halved onion and butter in the sauce for almost an hour, and that worked really well.
I've also tried adding sugar, which obviously works. My question is: what are the other options that can be employed to make a dish sweeter?
Some quick things which you may or may not find in your nearby stores which can act as sweetners:
Honey
Jaggery
Corn Syrup
Some citrus fruits like oranges
Berries
Winter Squash like Acorn, Butternut
Also Agave, Maple Syrup, Molases. The list is endless.
IMO, tomatoes should not be "bitter" it should become sweeter as it cooks down; usually we add some sugar to remove some of the acidity, but not the bitterness.
Use fresh, ripe and in season tomatoes; leave them out of the fridge.
I suggest slowly softening onions (up to before they turn brown) in oil (instead of boiling it); that should bring up some natural sweetness from the onions.
Add a little bit of tomato paste; this will add some sweetness (and more depth to the sauce).
Using dry herbs can render sauces/dishes bitter; use fresh if possible.
Added citrus will add some sweetness (oranges), but using the zest might also add some bitterness.
I would like to emphasize the sentiment given in the answer above that tomatoes shouldn't be bitter. If you are using canned tomatoes, consider moving to a different brand to give you a fresher and brighter tomato taste.
Having said that, I would also offer you another alternative called a gastrique to use as a way of finishing-off your tomato sauce. There are a ton of variations on the theme of the gastrique, but they all involve heating some sugar in about half its weight in water slowly over medium heat to caramelize the sugar slightly before adding something acidic like vinegar or citrus to the mix. For a gastrique that is more strongly acidic, sometimes the sugar is caramelized directly in vinegar to reduce the vinegar.
The vinegar and sugar gastrique is a common addition to tomato sauces. And while vinegar and sugar might seem to make strange bedfellows, their impact on the taste of tomato can be astounding.
Many times, just tossing a little sugar or other sweetener into the sauce can result in a sauce where you can taste both components but not necessarily an improved composite. Used conservatively, a gastrique tends to amplify what is already pleasant in the tomato sauce without announcing itself as a separate entity in the mix.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.922072 | 2014-12-01T12:23:00 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50237",
"authors": [
"Alex",
"Annie Velez",
"Dixie Palesch",
"Helene Martin",
"Krystal Duby",
"Lori Minor",
"Paula Gardner",
"Tanya Hart",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120150",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120151",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120154",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120155",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12602"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
56589 | Sausage discolouration - is it safe to eat?
This morning, I found some sausages in the fridge that had been there all week. The top of the sausage (that is, the surface of the skin facing upwards) had turned brown. I initially thought that if I just fried them long enough, this would be fine; however, while frying I did a quick search on the web, got spooked and threw them away.
My question is: what causes this discolouration and, have I needlessly thrown three very tasty looking sausages in the bin?
Whenever you are faced with a situation like this, ask yourself "Am I willing to spend 3 to 5 days in the bathroom feeling absolutely terrible for the sake of eating ?" If the answer is yes, go ahead and eat. Otherwise, throw it out and order a pizza.
What type of sausage? A fair bit of meat is colored reddish to look more "natural" but blood-less meat is not red (and blood darkens quickly anyways). You'll often see steak for example start to look more brown as the coloring fades before the meat has actually gone bad.
My question is: what causes this discolouration
Many meats are dyed to make them look fresher. They add red, cause meat is red right? Well no. Most meat will "brown" or "gray" as it is exposed to the air and the blood dries up (or drains out). This is not, in any way, a sign of bad meat. In fact it "may" be a sign of good, natural meat.
A YouTube Video that explains it
and, have I needlessly thrown three very tasty looking sausages in the bin?
Yes, probably.
Important note
When in doubt throw it out. A week in the fridge (not freezer) is border line for me. I would have probably cooked it, but I wouldn't fault someone else for not cooking it.
You can usually look for smell or slime to tell if meat is bad.
And don't freak out when you get home, and find that the ground meat in the package is almost purple (but a bright, even purple, not a dull, splotchy purple). It means that the meat was just ground, and hasn't had enough time for the color changes to start
The discoloring isn't a problem: it's just the meat reacting with oxygen in the air. The same thing would happen, only more slowly, if you'd frozen the sausages.
The problem is possible bacterial growth. By the time the bacteria levels become high enough to be visible, it's far past the point where the bacteria are dangerous. Further, many bacterial excrete toxic substances that aren't inactivated by cooking. This is why you should usually go with expiration dates rather than "what it looks like" to determine if food is safe to eat. (There are some exceptions, where either spoilage is visible or it simply doesn't spoil at all, but sausage isn't one of them.)
The one on top was probably exposed to air and its surface dried out which darkened it.
It's always better to be safe than sorry. I am a little more edgy and eat things others don't, but I have my limits of acceptable also. I wouldn't eat something a week old unless I was sure it was packed and stored properly.
I had an unopened roll of pork sausage that was previously in the freezer; however, it had been at least a week since I transferred it to fridge to thaw. I was skeptical about it, however, began cooking it. There was absolutely no grease/fat being produced while being cooked. So, I would safely say that would be a key indicator.Nothing goes to waste here, I threw in a few eggs n milk, finished cooking, then mixed.it in with some cat food that my kittens are not too fond of. Waste not, want not- there is always something out there that will and can eat it.
The brown colour is because haemoglobin in blood oxidises in air (like rust forming on iron), but this is distinct from changes caused by bacteria that leads to food poisoning.
Sausages (other than blood sausages) contain little or no hemoglobin, which is only present in blood cells.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.922313 | 2015-04-11T12:14:01 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56589",
"authors": [
"Aaron Coleman",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Joe",
"John Blake",
"Lenka",
"M D",
"Matthew Read",
"Shirley Bove",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134588",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"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
} |
88829 | Why do potatoes discolour when peeled?
I've noticed that potatoes will discolour when they're peeled; however, if they are submerged in water, or boiled and drained, they're fine (at least for comparable periods of time). Why is this?
Short answer: Potatoes oxidize.
Slightly longer answer: Potatoes contain an enzyme called polyphenol oxidase (the same enzyme responsible for browning in apples), which when exposed to oxygen in the air turns that brown/grey color. That process is called oxidizing. Because oxygen is required to, well, oxidize, any means of preventing the air from coming into contact will keep them from discoloring. Submerging in water is just an easy and convenient way of doing that. Also, polyphenol oxidase is neutralized during cooking, so cooking the potatoes immediately prevents the discoloration.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.922663 | 2018-04-02T12:36:59 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88829",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
41465 | Mushroom substitutes
I use mushrooms mainly to bulk up food, for example, I add them to cottage pie, lasagne, etc.. and they can turn 1lb of minced into 1.5lb. Also, I particularly like venison stew (which seems to require a huge quantity of mushrooms).
The problem that I have is that my daughter can't stand mushrooms, and studiously picks them ot of all her food. Is there an alternative for them for the two uses above?
If you have a meat grinder, you could probably get the mushrooms small enough that she can't easily tell the difference. (or pick them out, even if she wanted to). There are also companies that sell mushroom powder (typically porcini), but you can make your own from any dried mushroom if you have a spice grinder (aka, a coffee grinder that you don't let coffee near).
I concur with Elendi's answer, especially about the dumplings in stew (but I love dumplings).
As far as stretching minced (ground) meat, I recommend you try TVP. You might be amazed how innocuous it is, and how far you can stretch meat. For an organic product that does not contain hexane (the potential carcinogen noted in the Wiki article) try TSP. It's a bit more expensive, but once hydrated, it's a whole lot less expensive than meat.
Root vegetables are the standard bulkers - potato, swede/rutabaga and the like. For certain dishes you could also add beans and pulses (but if you put beans in lasagne you may find yourself banned from entering Italy). You can also make dumplings, which are great way to make a stew-based meal more filling.
Mushrooms aren't a particularly cheap way to bulk up a meal, and their flavor and texture is such that there is no real substitute. They don't have much nutritional content anyway, so there's no point in adding them unless people really like them. In a way your question is too broad as there's so many things you can do to bulk up a meal. You can serve it over rice or noodles, you can add barley, potatoes, beans, lentils, or just add nothing and put some bread on the side.
From a flavor perspective it's not so simple. Mushrooms have umami flavor, which adds a savory note to a dish. You aren't going to replace that flavor with root vegetables or carbs. If you want to replace that flavor with something else you could use something like mushroom ketchup, tomatoes, or soy - all have umami.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.922757 | 2014-01-26T15:40:08 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41465",
"authors": [
"Barb Hiebert",
"Carole Campbell",
"Jarrod Christman",
"Joe",
"Lori Drenyoczky",
"Patricia McGowen",
"WiJaMa",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96652",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96653",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96665",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96667",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96668",
"little- runaway00"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
95854 | Alternatives to coffee
I'm very fond of coffee, in fact, I have a grinder, grind my own beans and use a coffee stove to make it.
However, I've recently been advised to stop drinking anything containing caffeine (at least for a few months). I've always avoided drinking decaf because I read an article about the way that caffeine is removed, and I'm not sure it's wise to ingest a coffee bean that's been rinsed in (what appears to be) poison, for hours and hours.
I've noticed that there are certain teas that are naturally caffeine free, so I wondered if the same might be true for coffee. Are there any alternatives to coffee?
You do realize that almost every processed food is treated with what you call poison?
It's not really me that's calling it poison - as far as I can tell, that's quite a commonly held belief
And it's just that, a belief... The coffee itself is also poison, as are a lot of plant based products as most plants produce toxic chemicals. Those are in fact a major reason of many of the intestinal upsets and inflamations that people suffer from, often chronically. But as in everything, the dose makes the poison. The concentrations of the chemicals used to decaffiniate coffee in the finished product is harmless, or it wouldn't pass food safety standards inspections and be illegal to sell.
Wikipedia lists a few substitutes, some of which are fairly readily available. These may be based on roasted grains (like barleycup), chicory (though this is often combined with coffee), or both.
There are several processes for decaffeinating coffee. Not all rely on the organic solvents you're trying to avoid. The Swiss water process avoids then completely and is used commercially so you should be able to order some. CO2 decaffeinated coffee is rarer.
Roasted barley tea
Mugi-cha, or roasted barley tea, is my favorite substitute because it also has a roasted, slightly bitter taste. It is commonly consumed in China, Korea, and Japan and is widely available elsewhere as well. There are also roasted barley and chicory blends marketed specifically as "coffee substitute."
Strictly speaking, caffeine is a poison that certain plants produce to ward off insects and other animals. Other popular examples of chemical defences that humans like to consume are nicotine and capsaicin.
I've noticed that there are certain teas that are naturally caffeine free
Tea - in contrast to cofee - can be made of any number of different plants like various fruits, herbs, tree bark (cinnamon), roots and leaves of different species. The traditional black, green, yellow and white teas all contain leaves of Camellia sinensis, the tea plant. Since this plant uses caffeine as a chemical defence like the coffee plant, there are no naturally caffeine free teas of it. The caffeine free teas you mean are all made of different plants like peppermint, rosehip or hibiscus, to name just a few.
Removing caffeine from plant material is just as much a chemical process as the (natural) synthesis that creates caffeine in a plant. Since millions of people around the world drink decaf each day, you can be reasonably sure not to be poisoned. The taste, however, will differ slightly from unprocessed coffee.
Decaffeinated coffee is generally produced using organic solvents. However, it isn't produced using harmful (carcinogenic) benzene anymore, so stories you might have read about how poisonous decaf coffee is are probably wrong. While not something you would want to consume in a high concentration, the solvents used today are harmless at the tiny concentrations that remain in the coffee after decaffeination.
Not all decaffeinated coffee is produced with organic solvents though, so you can avoid them entirely if you want to. Look for decaffeinated coffee which has been produced using the "Swiss water process" or "mountain water process", which only use water to draw out the caffeine. There is also decaf coffee which is produced using a carbon dioxide process, but that appears to be quite rare as it is a more expensive method.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.922965 | 2019-01-22T07:57:52 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/95854",
"authors": [
"Johannes_B",
"Paul Michaels",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5770",
"jwenting"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
9670 | How can I tell if the food inside a pressure cooker is done cooking?
I've been looking into getting a pressure cooker since it works on the premise of increasing the boiling temp of water thereby cooking things more quickly. Operating on the premise that a pressure cooker is an enclosed system, is there a way besides following the time recommendations of a recipe to find out if it's "done", or is it like Schrödinger's Cat where you only know for sure when you open it and release the pressure.
It is also like Schrodinger's Cat in the sense that hopefully whatever is inside is not still alive. But seriously: the main thing is time. You start with the recommendations from your manufacturer (since all cookers vary somewhat in terms of pressure and therefore temperature) and then keep good notes as to whether you prefer slightly more or less time. For example, I've learned that with my cooker, if I'm making pinto beans without soaking, for whole beans I like about 35 minutes, but if I'm going to puree them, 40 is better.
Thanks. I'll try to keep track of my cooking times (and I definitely won't be cooking any cats!) I also won't be cooking any beans though since they give me uncontrollable flatulence.
I would just add that nothing's stopping you from adding a little water, putting the lid back on and giving it more time if you find that your stuff isn't cooked.
Smell.
Every time the whistle of a pressure cooker blows, you get a mild aroma of the food along with the escaping steam. The aroma is usually a good indicator of how good the food has been cooked.
Besides smell, the only other thing is time.
I may need to enhance my sense of smell because it's difficult for me to tell the difference sometimes - I guess it's going to come down to practice.
I agree smell can be a clue, though everything smells more intense when cooked in the pressure cooker - it really extracts a lot of aroma.
Too often these days, people are cooking by a formula. It's a great start, but I definitely believe in tasting/smelling plenty along the way.
With respect to this kind of pressure cooker:
My suggestion would be to count the number of whistles rather than looking at the clock. These cookers produce loud whistles which you can't miss even in sleep.
For the tender lentils like:
Masoor Dal (Red lentils)
Toor Dal (Yellow Pigeon Pea)
You need to soak them for half an hour.
You need to add a little less than half table spoon salt in the cooker.
W.R.T above conditions, it takes 3 whistles to get them done.
At first the gas flame has to be on high. After the first whistle, it is necessary to put the flame on simmer.
For the hard lentils like:
Kidney beans
Chick Peas
Bengal gram (Chana Dal)
You need to soak them for 12 hours.
You need to add a little less than half table spoon salt in the cooker.
W.R.T above conditions, it takes 7 whistles to get them done.
At first the gas flame has to be on high. After the first whistle, it is necessary to put the flame on simmer.
For white rice (without soaking) it takes 2 whistles to get it done.
For the rice, the flame is to be kept on high till 2 whistles.
After the specified number of whistles you are supposed to turn the gas off and keep the cooker as it is on the gas itself for 15 minutes.
The inherent heat from the gas stove and the steam formed in cooker will do their job in next 15 minutes.
My suggestions above are based on my personal experiences with this cooker.
I'll add the information about water quantity in the cooker in a few days.
"These cookers produce loud whistles which you can't miss even in sleep" - sounds like someone has been woken up frequently by cooker noises :-)
@Anon - ...I'd be afraid to nap with a pressure cooker on the stove, clearly they're braver than I! :)
In some cases, you can slosh the pressure cooker around to get a sense of the ratio of liquid to solids inside. This gives rough estimates of progress for things like rice, beans, etc, but takes some practice.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.923377 | 2010-12-01T18:20:13 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9670",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Doorknob",
"Frank Pierce",
"Greg B",
"Julian",
"Megha",
"Michael McCaffrey",
"Michael Natkin",
"Universal Knowledge bnweriw",
"bikeboy389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19785",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19807",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20406",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3491",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67058",
"mjyazdani",
"ryan",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
10116 | My cheese is too mushy
This past weekend I wanted to try to make my own cheese for the first time. I gathered the typical ingredients: milk, rennet, and citric acid and went to town. Making Riccotta and Mozzarella seemed to work out alright, so I decided to try a harder cheese; however, in order to do that I had to press the cheese so that it compressed into the proper form. It was difficult to determine how much weight to put on the curds to get them to form. Too little force and it gets mushy, too much and I felt like I would compress it into a singularity! Has anyone done this before that could offer some weighty advice?
It's important to mention that you actually need to worry about the pressure, not specifically the weight being applied -- so various recommendations about using 10kg for 8 hrs aren't useful without knowing what the surface area is of the container they were using.
How are you pressing the cheese? Are you using a cheese press? I have done some traditional cheese making and it does take a lot of force. Not quite to the point of creating an atomic reaction though. For something simple, look for a Dutch press. It is a lever based press that helps. A screw press can also work.
I was using exercise weights, but I wasn't really pressing down on them for too long - maybe my hyperbole was a bit much :) - I will keep an eye out for a cheese press next time I'm at the department store.
I think if it is too mushy, you can safely assume you need more weight. If it it compresses to nearly a singularity :), you just didn't make very much cheese.
If you slice the cheese into 1 inch slices, sprinkle it with salt and let it weep for 3 days at room temperature, the whey will be drawn out. Then cover it with brine and refrigerate. A press is not necessary.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.923728 | 2010-12-14T19:36:27 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10116",
"authors": [
"Frank Pierce",
"Joe",
"Mad Jim Jaspers",
"Patricia Fredette",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100003",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100005",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3491",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99927"
],
"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
} |
9573 | How can I maximize the caffeine content of my coffee?
Like many people, I rely on coffee in the morning to really get me going for the day. I always use more than the directions require to get more caffeine for that extra morning jolt.
How much ground coffee should I use to reach caffeine critical mass in my brew? Is there a formula for volume of grounds per unit of water that I can use so I can get the maximum caffeine experience without wasting coffee?
"How can I maximize the caffeine content of my coffee?" Chew it longer. :-)
Don't drink coffee on the days you don't really need it or skip coffee for a couple of days. This should get you off the more caffeine buzz and you'll get more effect of the coffee that you do drink. (I don't drink coffee in the weekends to get up quite easily on Mondays with a cup)
@Barfieldmv, you could end up with weekend headaches though.
Use lighter roast coffee: caffeine burns off as the roast darkens. All other things equal, though, the stronger the cup of coffee, the more caffeine will be in it. You aren't going to reach caffeine saturation just by brewing (even very) strong coffee. So brew coffee with lighter roasted beans to your maximum desired strength.
I had no idea this was the case.
It actually depends on how you measure. Bean for bean, light and dark roast have the same caffeine content, but dark roast has less water content, since more water evaporates during the longer roasting process, and the beans also get larger. So if you measure by weight, 1 gram of dark roast will have MORE caffeine than 1 gram of light roast. But if you measure by volume, then yes, the light roast will contain more caffeine.
https://www.kickinghorsecoffee.com/caffeine-myths-dark-vs-light
Start with a bean with more naturally-occurring caffeine.
Colombia Excelso 1.37%
Colombia Supremo 1.37%
Indian Mysore 1.37%
Prepare the coffee in a manner that produces the most caffeine.
drip: 1 cup (7 oz, 207 ml) = 115–175 mg.
brewed: 1 cup (7 oz, 207 ml) = 80–135 mg.
espresso: 1 shot (1.5–2 oz, 45–60 ml) = 100 mg
Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffee
Starting with Robusta would be even better - something like 2.7% caffeine by weight.
If you want to take in twice the amount of caffeine, why can't you just drink twice the amount of coffee? If you start messing with the ratio of bean to water, or trying other tricks, you're likely to just get bad tasting coffee.
If all you are after is caffine I'd just buy some caffine pills, you can get 16 packs here in the UK. If it must be in coffee then dissolve a couple in a normal brew.
However I must say I wouldnt recommend it - overdosing on caffine is bad - especially on a regular basis.
I don't think that caffeine pills will dissolve in coffee. (They don't in orange juice)
Why would you dissolve them? Just wash them down with coffee.
There is liquid caffeine you can add if you're just in it for the caffeine jolt. A capful of 5150 juice is 83mg and is comparatively extremely cheap when weighed against pre-made energy drinks and 5 hour energy.
You can add it directly to the coffee, which will make the coffee much more bitter, or you can take a shot of it and then drink your coffee as normal.
I can say from experience that although I am finding myself more and more immune to coffee, soda, and 5-hour energy, 5150 still works (and works well, and fast). Perhaps it's because so much of the caffeine is absorbed in the mouth.
Without wanting to preach, I wanted to say, as NBenatar mentioned: no matter what route you go, be careful. I also know from experience that caffeine addiction is very bad, and actually makes you significantly more tired. Over time you need the morning caffeine just to reach energy levels that normal people experience without any caffeine. From the second article:
The millions of people who depend on a
shot of coffee to kickstart their day
are no more alert than those who are
not regular coffee drinkers, say
researchers.
A cup of coffee, suggests a study,
only counteracts the effects of
caffeine withdrawal that has built up
overnight.
I can say with all honesty, the first week of drastically cutting back my caffeine really sucked, but now I'm more alert in the morning than my colleagues who drink coffee like it's their job...though, we're programmers, so I guess it kind of is their job :)
Be careful. This stuff is very dangerous and can kill you EASILY.
I really don't want to add anything extra to my coffee, especially if death is a symptom!
Well...kill is a bit strong, it would take 21 bottles to kill me and I'm pretty thin - http://www.energyfiend.com/death-by-caffeine However, I do FULLY agree, be VERY careful if you do buy 5150 (or caffeine pills, anything like that)! Caffeine addiction is no joke, and from experience I can say that the symptoms of even a mild "overdose" are no fun at all.
Buy cheap robusta coffee instead of expensive arabica coffee. Robusta has about twice as much caffeine as arabica. If you're only drinking coffee for the caffeine then buying arabica is a waste of money.
I will look into this. I always believed I should I use Arabica since it's believed to taste better.
Have you try Yerba Mate tea? It has similar effect as coffee and it is way healthier for you. You could drink more than a cup a day too!
It is believe to have cholesterol lowering properties (along with antiobesity properties) and contains minerals as well.
Having different flavors keeps it interesting too!
being an Argentinian, and a heavy consumer of yerba mate (as most people in my country) I feel obliged to comment on this one. The presence of caffeine as the active substance in yerba mate was long disputed, because it was reported that another similar substance ("mateine") was there. Now it's [almost] settled and accepted that yerba mate does contain caffeine. The arguments took a long time to ripen just because caffeine is not a well chemically defined substance, but a family of chemical compounds. Also, a main effect of yerba mate is diuretic (mild) and not "antiobesity".
I'm not much of a tea drinker but I will investigate.
@belisarius Ohhh okay, I have heard of mateine in yerba mate-- although I thought that mateine is "like" caffeine. Maybe I am mistaken-- But thank you for the correction, It's always nice to have other people's inputs!
You could brew the coffee the night before and let it sit on the warmer over night
Only brew about 4 cups should be down around 2 cup ms by morning this in theory should double the concentration of everything
You don't like drinking coffee, do you?
To get the best coffee (and therefore caffeine) ratio to water drink Espresso.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.923928 | 2010-11-29T19:09:41 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9573",
"authors": [
"Barfieldmv",
"Benjol",
"Dr. belisarius",
"ElmerCat",
"Frank Pierce",
"Greg",
"Hartley Brody",
"Jerry",
"Jlam",
"Michael Lucas",
"Michael Pryor",
"Nat Bowman",
"Priyanka Agarwal",
"Ross",
"Xiana",
"Zoé Martin",
"dan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19595",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19597",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19603",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19607",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19619",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19625",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19813",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3162",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3491",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42606",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/923",
"itshak",
"jjnguy",
"joel",
"konamiwa",
"stephennmcdonald",
"user5561"
],
"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
} |
42508 | Can I salvage undercooked flan
I nearly doubled a flan recipe and didn't cook it enough, and so now it's not set. It's been in my fridge for about 18 hours.
Do you think I can put it back in the oven for 20-30 minutes or so?
Original recipe was 45 minutes, I did 55, which I now realize was too short.
I guess it's edible now as a kind of gloopy pudding. If I can't recook, any ideas on what I could do with it?
What do you mean by "gloopy pudding"? Can you cut it, even if the shape softens, or do you have to eat it with a spoon? Are you sure that the original recipe makes a firm flan (sometimes it is a bad recipe)? Does it contain any acid? Does it contain flour or starch?
No flour, starch or acid. I've made it before, but this time messed up time, because I wanted it bigger. Must be eaten with a spoon and parts are creamy. It does have a little shape.
Generally, you shouldn't double a flan's volume, as the needed time and oven temperarture will change nonlinearly. You can remove the time from the equation by baking for internal temperature instead, but if the oven temp is too high, the sides may curdle while the middle is still too wet. If you need more flan, bake two flans sequentially. You can make the mix at once, but bake it in two batches. You can try a thick one too, but it is a risk.
@rumtscho "the sides may curdle while the middle is still too wet." Isn't that the reason to use a water bath? Or is there diminishing returns with that as well?
@JAB good point on the water bath. It is not perfect, since it is at 100 C and you want the eggs to stay cooler than that, but it does slow down the problem from the sides and below. But it doesn't help with the top, so I should have said that you get a curdled top and raw insides.
I haven't tried that, but in theory, a standard custard should be capable of rebaking. However, it will be a tricky matter, much trickier than the first baking.
For example, the temperature at which certain proteins in the egg coagulate depends on the speed at which the egg is heated. As a side effect, it is much harder to get a good custard starting with fridge-cold eggs than with room-warm eggs. Bringing the flan to room temperature first would not be safe (and no, reheating won't make it safe again). Second, they undergo changes not only during heating, but also during the subsequent cooling, and this may interfere a bit (I am conjecturing here - maybe it won't cause problems, but it is possible that it will). As a result, you will have a much narrower window between not-yet-ready and curdled. If the recipe contains acid, it will be even more problematic. High sugar levels will alleviate the problem a bit. What is even worse is that we are talking oven custard here, where you have much less control than on stovetop.
If I were in your situation, I would consider the experiment worth doing. I would be extra careful (water bath and bake by temperature, probably aiming at 83 celsius, less if the custard is thick). If you are inexperienced with custards and don't have a thermometer, it may not be worth the risk for you, after all a semiliquid custard is tastier than a curdled custard. But if you do it, don't forget to tell us how it went, as I am curious.
The above assumes a pure custard (egg yolk, dairy, sugar, taste modifiers or fillers). If you also used starch or flour, then it is too late to save it. This type of custard needs to be heated to very high temperatures (above 96 celsius) before an enzyme in the egg yolk converts the starch to goo. No sense in rebaking, but it can be reused.
If you decide not to rebake, there are countless applications for a thick-but-not-firm custard. If you don't want to consume it pure (and this is a viable option - sometimes it is made on purpose, as in vla), use it as a substitute in any recipe calling for creme angalise. You can dilute it with small amounts of cream if the recipe needs a more pourable consistency. If you decide to dilute, do it in small steps. You can also use it instead of creme patisserie, but without dilution.
I have a pure custard, with no acid. I have a thermometer. To clarify, you are suggesting rebaking the cold flan in a bath until a thermometer reads 83C.
@LouFranco yes, that's what I'd do. Stick the thermometer into the thickest part of the flan.
Worked perfectly -- thanks @rumtscho. It took about 1.5 hrs to get the temperature to 83, so good thing you suggested cooking to an internal temp, because I would never have cooked it that long otherwise.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.924472 | 2014-03-04T15:13:31 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42508",
"authors": [
"Dave Power",
"JAB",
"Lou Franco",
"Mikhail",
"Peter Green",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3559",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99299",
"rumtscho",
"tokyoxfrost"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
100184 | Can a pizza stone be fixed after soap has been used to clean it?
We bought a pizza stone from a thrift store (so at least it was cheap). Unfortunately we cleaned it with soap before reading up on how to clean them. I know, rookie mistake.
Is there any way to fix it or should I just toss it out and consider it a lesson is researching new tools before messing with them? Obviously, I have no idea if the prior owner misused it so this might be a lesson in not buying used stoneware.
I haven't tried baking on it since using soap on it and the soap was only lightly used. I guess I should perform an experiment and find out if it makes things taste soapy.
As you put it in the oven you'll smell soap if there is any left. Stone is porous so liquids can go through but is not a sponge. I'd say rinse well and let it dry for a couple of days otherwise water-vapor will break it from the inside in the oven.
@SteveHiner if possible, would be great to see a link on how to clean them in the question and, ideally, a reference suggesting that cleaning it with soap is not a good practice.
I would rinse well with clear water. Allow to dry thoroughly, and then use as normal.
There is a small chance that your pizza stone will impart a soap flavor to your pizza, but I would say that it is worth a couple of pizza cooks to determine if there is a long term problem. It's really not that much of a risk.
I'd agree, if you're particularly worried, you can slide your pizza onto the stone on a sheet of parchment. That would prevent any direct content with soap. That said, I'm guessing that once it spends a few hours at 500-ish degrees. Any soap residue may well burn away on its own.
Agreed overall, but I’d suggest “rinse well” shouldn’t be understood as just “run it under a tap for a few seconds”, but rather e.g. wet it thoroughly, let it sit wet for a couple of minutes, and then run it under a tap to rinse off, possibly also repeating and scrubbing. The key concept to remember for washing things thoroughly is to use soaking stage(s) to soften/dissolve the dirt (not necessarily sitting in a basin of water, but at least sitting with water on the item), followed by rinsing/scrubbing stage(s) to wash the dissolved dirt away.
I am with @kitukwfyer on this and in the normal course of things--assuming he rinsed the stone after cleaning it--he's done all that is needed and there will be no soapy taste at all and no soap residue to speak of. It's much ado about nothing.
Thanks everyone. I'll give it a try. Also, a note to anyone else looking for the same answer - @moscafj's answer says to "dry thoroughly", that really means what it says. Any time you have really wet a pizza stone you should let it dry for a long time before using it. Water inside any stoneware in a hot oven could make it crack.
One more note. Soap is formulated to rinse away. So rinsing should remove all of the soap and hypothetically leave nothing behind.
@Rob Most soap doesn't leave my hands properly; I doubt it'll leave a pizza stone easily.
@wizzwizz4 Use more water. Scrub as you rinse. Don't buy soap out of the bargain bin by unknown manufacturers.
@Rob I know; I have a good soap at home. But OP's soap is unknown, and the soap of those who visit this question in future is also unknown. (This pseudowisdom brought to you by the Soap Astrologers.)
@wizzwizz4 It doesn't matter. The concern is ridiculous.
@wizzwizz4. Try using soft water rather than hard. That dissolves soap better.
Wait, it's worth several cooks to you to determine if there is a long time problem? Do your cooks know about that? ;-)
By rinsing, you can only remove stuff from the surface and slightly below. You need to remove molecules which sit in the pores of the stone.
Chemically, you are working against diffusion and adhesion. By washing with soap, you have deposited a number of molecules onto the stone surface, these have diffused into the numerous pores of the solid. Now, these molecules cling there by means of adhesion, which makes it really hard to get rid of them.
Thus, instead of just rinsing, let it sit in a bowl covered with warm to hot water.
Heat and time will allow the molecules to slowly "come out of the cover" and go into solution instead. This is driven by the concentration of soap in the solution (you want little to none) and temperature (you want it hot!). Preheat the stone if you can.
Add a drop of oil to the liquid, and disperse by beating with a fork (or anything comparable - the idea is to have as many small droplets as possible). This will act as a trap for the soap molecules in the water and reduce the solute concentration - increasing the pressure for the remaining adhering molecules in the pores to go into solution. If possible, try beating foam, and if some foam forms, then remove that and introduce new oil.
I suggest somewhere around at least 30-40 degrees Celsius and a timeframe of 10-30 mins.
These are just guesses. Also, depending on what material the stone is made of, there might be additional reactions and/or interactions involved that could require a higher temperature or longer times.
Regarding the preheating, I don't think you want to heat a stone too much before putting it in (hot) water. If the stone is significantly hotter it might cool too quickly when put in the water causing it to crack.
Why do you need to remove molecules which sit in the pores of the stone? They aren't doing any harm there - it's only the ones at the surface which can get onto the pizza dough.
Yes let it soak for a few hours each time in fresh batches of distilled water.
@martin It is a good question. Two issues come to mind. First thing is, whenever you apply heat and have dough on the stone, that evaporates liquid -> soap in the pores gets drawn out and (perhaps) into the dough, and also, under heat, stuff tends to degenerate leaving (possibly) even nastier stuff to dissolve in the prepared food. In reality, as other answers suggest, it's probably safe to ignore both.
@JJJ I would advise to preheat the stone just a bit so its temperature matches the water. I leave you to decide how to actually do this.
Good points. Since soap bonds chemically to oils it would be a good idea to give it something extra to bond to. Of course it also bonds to water so it might be enough just to have water present but shouldn't hurt to have some oil around too.
Rinse it thoroughly and just cook some dough on it to throw away (instead of a full pizza with all ingredients). I don't believe the soap will be that resilient to withstand rinse+heat+food on it. It is not designed for that.
Taste it before throwing it away. You can always eat it with some garlic oil if it doesn’t taste of soap.
If you have a self cleaning oven, run the pizza stone though a cleaning cycle in the oven. The oven will heat up slowly enough to not cause thermal stress in heating. The oven locks for hours to allow for a long cool down cycle to avoid thermal stress when cooling. The stone was manufactured at much higher temperatures than you'll get in an oven.
Then I'd rinse the stone, and air dry it.
You might try giving it a good coating of oil. That could either help work the soap out or "bury" it in the stone.
My wife washes off our pizza stone from time to time in sudsy water. I really freaked out the first time I saw her do it, but since then I've calmed down and we've used it many times (and she's washed it a few more times) and I never could taste any soap in the pizza or whatever we were cooking.
TL;DR = It's no big deal. Don't worry about it.
Cool, I hope you're right. I considered using oil on it but I've also seen people say you shouldn't because part of the purpose of the stone is to let the bottom crust dry out a bit during cooking and if you oil the stone then you lose that feature. I know over time oil will get on it and someone block the porous nature of the stone. It would be worth trying if I get to the point of deciding to throw it out.
IDK... I've had stones that I oiled and seasoned like a cast iron pan, and they work remarkably well. They get really dark and slick. I'd think it's the fact that you've preheated the stone to 500+ degrees that dries out the crust... People are going to hate me, but there's not a lot of mystery to a pizza stone.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.924854 | 2019-07-14T00:07:43 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100184",
"authors": [
"Chloe",
"DevSolar",
"Francesco Zambolin",
"Gonçalo Peres",
"JJJ",
"Martin Bonner supports Monica",
"Michael",
"PLL",
"Rob",
"Steve Hiner",
"TRiG",
"antipattern",
"gnicko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56955",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57154",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60548",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61703",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9679",
"kitukwfyer",
"wizzwizz4"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
55716 | What is hunter's chicken
My long held opinion of this was that Hunter's Chicken was chicken breast, stuffed with cheese, wrapped in bacon and, occasionally, with barbecue sauce over the top. Recipes like these seem to agree with me.
However, I've just been looking around the web to see if I could get a recipe with any new ideas, and came across this. There's a few others in the same vein, which basically have it as a chicken stew.
So, which is correct? Or are they both?
The first one you linked didn't call it hunter's chicken - only a single commenter mentioned that name.
The first one was to give an illustration of my understanding.
@Johanna is definitely right, there is no set standard. When I think hunter's I think simple, the kind of thing a hunter might rustle up in the woods or a basic hunting lodge. I'd be inclined to go with the stew in this case as there's nothing simple about stuffing with cheese and wrapping with bacon.
There are a lot of different dishes, and not enough names, and different parts of the world don't agree with each other on what things should be called. In general, there is no standard for what a dish a certain name corresponds to. I believe for example Italy has standardized some recipes, but there are still people making their own version of that dish, and calling it by the same name. To summarize, both are correct. There is no universal body that names dishes.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.925932 | 2015-03-15T16:11:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55716",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Isaac Kotlicky",
"Marray Rodgers",
"Paul Michaels",
"alok goel",
"birgitta trulsson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132408",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132410",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132423",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33878",
"rhonda duffy"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
40236 | Are carrots safe to eat after they have turned black?
I recently got a bag of carrots out of the fridge, and find that most of them had turned black. What causes this, and are they safe to eat (with or without peeling)?
This was one interesting question... I wonder if you would buy carrots from market if they were black instead of organge :D (any other colour but these )
I have bought and eaten black carrots before now - but there is a marked difference between carrots that are black and carrots that have turned black
I definitely meant the latter, "carrots that have turned black". That's why I gave the piture link to make sure to include carrots with all possible colours, including the purple/black ones..
Apropos black carrot: Vintage carrot and camomile https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjN546QGSMA
When carrots turn black, it is almost always caused by rot. I would definitely not eat them.
Is it not safe to simply cut the rot away?
@pm_2 if it's just the ends, you might be able to generously cut away the rotted parts, but if it's a lot of them in the bag, I wouldn't take my chances.
@pm_2 - I'd think that if the carrots were sitting around long enough to rot, even the parts not rotted would at least be significantly worse than before in flavor and texture. I can get 2 lbs of carrots at the grocery store for about $1.40 USD, 1 lb bag for $.89 USD. Are you really that hard-up that you have to eat rotten carrots?
A few people have asked questions like: why not throw them away/why take the chance, etc. Whether or not I can afford to throw away a bag of carrots, surely we should be trying (as a society) to waste as little as possible. If we accept that, then it's down to forums such as this to advise on doing that safely.
The carrots are rotten. I would advise throwing them out.
Please toss them.... black is not good. They should be a bright orange (unless of course of it is the colored varieties, like purple)
there are carrots that have the black color because of their genes and not from rot so black color alone does not mean rot.
Were carrots not originally purple? http://mentalfloss.com/article/12388/carrots-were-originally-purple
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.926139 | 2013-12-14T13:12:05 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40236",
"authors": [
"Ami Heines",
"Caters",
"Ian njiru",
"Paul Michaels",
"PoloHoleSet",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"askrich",
"bonCodigo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24456",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26560",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93520",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93521",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93527",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94297",
"soegaard",
"user1312817"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
40480 | Keeping meat juices to make gravy
My gravy making technique is hit-and-miss to say the least. I tend to get the best results when roasting beef because it's rare. That is, it's just roasts enough to cause the juice to come out. What I find with other meats, especially chicken and pork (which need to be cooked for much longer) is that the potatoes and other veg that I roast seem to absorb the juices (which I see as a good thing), but then I have no juice left.
So, my question is this: how can I roast my potatoes and veg with the meat, but keep enough for gravy? I really don't want to start roasting the veg in a separate pan.
I'm in the UK. I mention this because I have visited America once, and the gravy seems to be far thicker there (more like a sauce than a gravy).
It sounds like you are trying to maximize the amount of pan juices, sometimes referred to be the French word jus.
Any piece of meat is only going to express so much jus; if you have potatoes or other absorbent vegetables in the roasting pan, they are going to absorb it and it won't be available for another purpose such as gravy.
What you still will almost always have is fond, the brown roasty bits at the bottom of the pan. Many cooks deglaze the fond with a small amount of stock or wine to create the basis for a sauce or gravy, as the fond has a very rich and complex flavor—and its flavor may actually be enhanced by aromatic vegetables in the pan.
Won't the brown roasty bits at the bottom of the pan simply turn into brown roasty bits floating in the gravy?
Some may, but other parts of the fond will dissolve.
Put a small rack in the bottom of the roasting pan and put the meat, potatoes, veggies, etc. on the rack and let the juices drip into the bottom of the pan.
I'm sure all the "proper" cooks here will tell me I'm an idiot, but I have a secret ingredient for cooking chicken (sorry, no experience with pork, though I'm sure it will work the same):
Water.
Add enough water, strategically, to the chicken to keep it plenty moist without needing to soak up the natural chicken juice. It will also mix with and add to the little gravy that you would otherwise have, resulting in a pan full of delicious gravy.
You can also cook it a bunch longer, without worrying about it drying it.
Now, the downside to this is that it will dilute the flavor a bit, both of the chicken and the gravy - however, if the flavoring is strong enough (and yes, it really does depend what kind - this technique does NOT work out good with all types), it will still come with enough flavor, and the extra moistness of the chicken, plus the ample gravy, will usually offset this.
Baking with water or other liquid is a wonderful and legitimate cooking technique, commonly called braising. It is a different technique, however.
@SAJ14SAJ "different" from what? Yes, it changes the cooking a bit, but you can add a bit of water simply enough to just about any cooking technique.
Different from roasting.
you can add water even while roasting...
Remove the juice as you cook. Pour it out into a cup every 20 mins or so.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.926378 | 2013-12-22T12:36:20 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40480",
"authors": [
"Aldus Bumblebore",
"AviD",
"Faisal",
"Kashyap Kansara",
"Manny",
"Mihai Tataru",
"Paul Michaels",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Scott Furman",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22074",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94150",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95837",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95847"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
45640 | Should a rare steak bleed?
I very much like my steaks to ooze blood on the plate - especially fillet or sirloin. However, I've recently (and only recently) noticed that when visiting restaurants and asking for rare steak, the steak that arrives is dry (or at least a lot dryer that I expect - even though it is rare).
I'm curious as to how this is achieved; my suspicion is that the steak is being "pre-cooked" to rare and then warmed up in a microwave, but I wondered if there was actually a method of cooking steak that would result in that.
Do you rest your steak when you cook it at home? Also, FWIW, the red liquid that oozes out of rare meat is not blood. It is water mixed with myoglobin.
If it's leaking liquid, it's likely that you're cutting in before you've rested the steak.
No - I never rest steak. I didn't ever realise that you should. How (that is for how long) and why would you do that?
I've read that steak places or caterers will sometimes have their steaks in a sous vide bath at exactly the target temp and then just open one and sear it when it is ordered. Foolproof, perfectly cooked steak. Kind of liked "pre-cooked" but in a delicious way.
It could also be because of dry-ageing, which results in a less leaky steak.
@Sobachatina That's not a terribly common practice due to the equipment and pre-prep involved, but it's definitely possible. I've seen it done with a variety of other meats as well. It's especially effective for thick cuts that take a loooong time to cook from raw.
You have mentioned in your comments that you don't rest steak. This is why it leaks the red liquid when you cut it. Any good restaurant will rest your steak, hence them being less leaky.
This Serious Eats article explains very well why you should rest steak (and any other meat). Essentially, as the meat cools, the shape of its fibers changes, allowing it to retain the liquid.
7-10 minutes is about the right length of time to rest a steak. Heston Blumenthal recommends resting on a wire rack rather than a plate to prevent one side steaming.
I've always felt that if the steak isn't bloody it's missing something (whether or not the red stuff is actually blood) - specifically: it's missing a source for the chips. I will try that next time I cook a steak and see if I can tell the difference though.
The rule of thumb for resting, as I learned from Alain Ducasse, is to allow the meat to rest for at least half as long as the cook time. So for a 7 minute steak, three and a half minutes should be sufficient.
@pm_2 Your solution for that is easy: make a separate sauce! Pepper cream sauce is a game-changer: http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/alton-brown/strip-steak-with-pepper-cream-sauce-recipe.html
+1 @buttlord, because resting too long results in cold steak :/
@pm_2 it's not blood, it's red water! Rather have ketchup meself...
I certainly won't argue what the liquid is, but the important thing is: is tastes good (or at least it makes the chips taste good). Water doesn't do that.
Well, if you prefer it that way, do it that way. You will find that a certain amount of juice leaks out of the steak during resting (less than when you cut into an unrested steak), you could pour that on your chips :)
@pm_2 - If that's what you like, then when you order a steak, tell the server that you like the messy juices all over the place, mixing in with the side dishes, and ask them if you can have the steak without the usual resting period.
When the surface hits the heat the juices are forced to center of meat. Then you flip it and the same thing happens to that side causing the center to be over saturated with juices. By resting the steak for 10 minutes you give the juices time to spread back out to the edges. By not resting you are basically butting a ballon. The center can't handle all the juices so it burst out when you cut. The reason to rest is so that the steak retains those juices for every bite and keeps you from having to smear each bite in the juices on the plate.
The last sentence is the only piece of credible information in your answer. Please see the information in this answer if you want to understand why you have been down-voted.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.926697 | 2014-07-16T20:06:02 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45640",
"authors": [
"Alex Noisemaker",
"Chris Steinbach",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Joe",
"Ming",
"Paul Michaels",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Sobachatina",
"buttlord",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130774",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
42314 | What's the difference between using stock and water?
I realise this sounds like an odd question. However, to use an example, when I make cottage pie, a lot of recipes suggest using beef stock. Okay, so as I understand making beef stock, you basically take some scrag ends of beef (bones, etc), and boil them. So what's the difference between doing that, and adding the water directly to the cottage pie when you make it?
Using stock (or broth) has two advantages over plain water:
It is more flavorful, giving your pie a better, deeper background richness
It contains gelatin, which may improve the mouth feel of your pie, giving it a thicker, silkier, richer texture
Depending on your particular pie recipe's filling, this may not make a huge amount of difference, or it could be the difference between a so-so and a great pie.
While the liquid that you end up with in your pie will be similar to beef stock in that it has had beef cooked in it, the difference is that the flavor compounds will have cooked out of the beef already in your dish. This means it's basically just diluting the flavor of your beef.
If you start with stock on the other hand, there is beef flavor is in the stock itself so it's actually adding more flavor compounds to your dish rather than just spreading around the ones already there.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.927111 | 2014-02-25T18:23:31 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42314",
"authors": [
"Angela Babin",
"Janet Bartee",
"Kathy",
"MadmanLee",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98793",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98794",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98795",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98796",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98797"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
71589 | How much gluten flour do I need to add?
Ill spare everyone the boring details and just say that im trying to mimick a pizza at home. I know that the original pizza uses a flour with 15% protein but I can't find that flour available. Instead, I'm using bread flour that has 12.7% protein.
I have gluten flour that has 75% protein. How much gluten flour would I need to add to the bread flour to get an overall 15% protein level?
How much flour total does your recipe call for?
http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42055, I would even be inclined to see it as duplicate. Or are there differences?
Possible duplicate of Create my own high-gluten flour by mixing vital wheat gluten and bread/AP flour?
The answer in the duplicate question explains the general math, so get your recipe, some scrsp paper or a calculator and you'll be fine. Enjoy your pizza!
If x is the fraction by weight of bread flour, then:
0.127x + 0.75(1-x) = 0.15
0.75 - 0.623x = 0.15
0.6 = 0.623x
x = .963
So, use 96% bread flour and 4% of your high-gluten flour, by weight.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.927264 | 2016-07-22T04:09:52 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71589",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
10277 | Spritz cookies not sticking to pan when pressed from cookie press
We're having a good deal of trouble getting our spritz cookies from our cookie press to separate from the cookie press and stick to the cookie sheet. Is there something we can add to the cookie batter to make them separate from the cookie press and attach to the pan more easily?
I've noticed that different cookie presses place more/less batter per press, and have different sized openings. I've had bad luck using recipes that weren't specifically from the manufacturer of that press. You might compare the manufacturer's included recipes to see if the proportions of the recipie you're using are similar.
As I understand your question, the problem is really that you can't get it out of the cookie press, and not an issue of the dough "flattening" once it hits the baking sheet. If that's correct, then there are a few different factors that could be contributing:
You might not be using a strong enough flour. I've always used a 1:1 mix of bread flour and pastry flour. All-purpose flour isn't great for spritz cookies and many home baking recipes do odd things to try to strengthen the dough to compensate, such as increasing the quantity of egg. Not much more I can say without knowing the specific recipe, but try to find a recipe that doesn't use AP flour.
You might not be using enough flour, or you might have added too much water or milk. The dough should feel relatively firm once it's well-blended, not soggy or watery. The preparation I use also contains a good quantity of icing sugar, which has its own starch; if you're using regular granulated sugar instead then that will be a contributing factor to sogginess/stickiness. Also don't forget to sift the flour.
Home baking recipes often make wild guesses as to the quantity of eggs, based on assumptions about the size and age of eggs you'll have. The ratio I use is 20:13:8:6:3 (flour:fat:sugar:eggs:milk/water), by weight obviously. If you use too much egg then you'll end up with a slimy texture that's hard to separate while raw.
You may have added the eggs all at once, which makes it difficult to incorporate without overmixing the dough (or not incorporating well enough, which again will give you that slimy texture). Make sure you're only adding one at a time.
If your recipe calls for oil as a fat, or you're substituting oil for something else, that could be a problem. Typically you'll want to use a mixture of about half shortening and half butter. You don't necessarily have to use shortening, but butter has a low melting point and melting will, again, cause your dough to become too wet.
Did you cream the fat(s) together with the sugar? That's another important step to getting the right consistency of dough. You should have a mixture that's light and fluffy before you add the flour, eggs, or milk.
Make sure you're adding the flour last, otherwise you risk overmixing.
As far as sticking to the baking pan itself is concerned, just line it with parchment paper and don't grease it. If you've made the dough properly then it will "set" and not sink.
FWIW, I also find it easier to pipe spritz cookies than to use a cookie press.
Chill the cookie sheets in between batches. Stick them in the freezer or outside (depending on the outdoor temperature). I was having the same problem and this was my mother's solution.
maybe you need to chill the cookies, they might be too liquidy from the room temperature
I just discovered that the disc in my press was in upside down. It had nothing to do with the temperature of the dough or the pan. Now it is working perfectly. So check your disc if your Spritz dough is not sticking to your pan.
Place the cookie sheets in the fridge before using. Also wash the cookie sheets after each use to remove butter and then place in the fridge. I've also noticed, if I press the cookie press and then lift up from the cookie sheet real quick, it seems to help too.
I just made 9 dozen tonight, tinted the dough pastel colors and dipped cooled cookies in melted white chocolate and sprinkled w different colors of sanding sugar. No Probs! The last time I made them I had a HOLY MESS!! Dough wouldn't come out of wilton press, (I had chilled the dough. Make it, then use it) and then wouldn't stick to the pans. Do not spray or grease the pan, don't use hot pans, don't use nonstick pans or line them w parchment or pan liners! My dough is nothing special. I follow the Wilton Recipe that is on the Wilton website, under recipe tab. And I mean no problem!
A lot of good points about temperature -- don't chill the dough or it'll be too stiff, and that you need to let your pans cool down sufficiently between batches or it'll melt the dough right at the surface and prevent it from sticking to the pan so it releases from the gun.
What I ended up doing is rolling dough into little balls. I then placed a piece of parshment paper over it and pressed it down with the bottom of a glass. I had a long piece of parchment paper and had to move the paper over each time to keep the glass from sticking to the dough. I then sprinkled with colored sprinkles. Same great taste without using the frustrating cookie press. It does help if the dough and cookie sheet are chilled.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.927383 | 2010-12-18T23:38:33 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10277",
"authors": [
"Amanda",
"Brandon Mowat",
"Digbyswift",
"George",
"Joe",
"Jonathan Ilowite",
"Kerry-Ann Fairley",
"Robert Summerfield",
"Waer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154205",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20977",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20978",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68225",
"user20976"
],
"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
} |
10751 | Cheesecake Cooking Time Change with Pan Change?
I've made many cheesecakes before using a 9" spring-form in a water bath, and have always loved the result. For a party coming up, I'd like to make individual-sized cheesecakes using a muffin/cupcake pan (Including liners). So the question I have is what do I do to the cooking time?
All the recipes I've found for muffin-pan cheesecake say about 30 minutes (for example: Cupid's Cherry Cheesecakes). But the recipe I plan on making (a modification of White-Chocolate Raspberry Cheesecake) has a cook time of 55 minutes (in a normal spring-form).
So, what I was thinking is to only bake for 30 minutes. I don't want to open the oven too often to check (and risk cold-shocking the cakes), so I'd prefer to get some insight. I'm also planning on doing a water-bath below the muffin pan.
What do you think?
The 30 minute cooking time is somewhat similar to my experience with mini-cheesecakes in a muffin tin, although I would recommend checking between 20 and 25 minutes with a toothpick. In my experience mini-cheesecakes were cooked until set entirely in the middle, but if your recipe is for an NY-style cheesecake that seems to wobble a bit, things might be different.
Just for the record, it took the full 55 minutes to fully set. I don't understand it, but they came out ok, just took a while...
@ircmaxell: If your water bath started cold, that's part of the thermal mass you need to heat, so the cupcakes aren't really that much "smaller" (because its the whole thing you're heating, cupcakes + water bath vs. springform pan + water bath). At least, that'd be my hypothesis.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.927838 | 2011-01-05T14:04:02 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10751",
"authors": [
"Glen",
"Silvia",
"Wilson421",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22027",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22028",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22029",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4110",
"ircmaxell",
"nativist.bill.cutting"
],
"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
} |
5714 | Thawing frozen turkey slices
This is something I've planned on trying but haven't wanted to spend the $ for experimentation.
Buying sliced turkey for lunches at the deli is a tad pricey. At my local market I can get frozen turkey breast for a much better price per pound. But, the turkey breasts are 3+ pounds, and my household would use ~ 1# a week.
I figure I can just get a turkey breast, roast, make slices, and freeze a couple of batches for upcoming weeks. So, for the question. Do turkey slices thaw out ok in terms of texture and taste?
For short term freezing they should be just fine as far as texture and taste are concerned. Just make sure you avoid freezer burn by wrapping them tightly in plastic wrap and then either aluminum foil or a freezer bag. If you store them more than a few months then they will start to degrade.
Heh. It won't be stored for more than 3 weeks at most.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.928013 | 2010-08-21T18:16:04 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5714",
"authors": [
"Diego Castro",
"M.N",
"Spammer",
"arberg",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11252",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11253",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11254",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11256",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1759",
"wdypdx22"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
45232 | Can I make meringues with commercial egg whites?
I want to make a bunch of meringue cookies, but I don't want to waste a bunch of eggs. If I buy something like Egg Beaters Whites, would that work?
You could always make some custard or custard tarts with the egg yolks. Yum :)
Egg-whites in a carton are usually pasteurized. Pasteurized eggs are not great for meringue because the heat from the pasteurization process negatively affects the proteins in the whites that make for good meringue. With a lot of whipping (and more cream of tartar or other stabilizers) pasteurized egg whites (whether from pasteurized eggs or from cartons) can make meringue though it most likely won't be as stiff as those from non-pasteurized eggs.
I would suggest getting regular eggs and trying to use the left-over yolks for something like creme brulee.
Aha! That product IS pasteurized, though I had to dig deep into their FAQ to find out (they purchase pasteurized whites to flavor and resell)
I looked it up in a couple of pages and the difference between egg whites and egg beaters is the texture with the later being a bit watery and may require more whipping time for it to achieve a solid form. So probably you might want to give it a go try and make a meringue cookie but it may come out as good as the one using natural egg whites. The difference between the two is given here
Year ago, you used to be able to buy instant meringue mix. The packet had egg white powder and sugar, and some food acid. Just add water and put in the mixer machine. They worked great, and often gave better results than fresh eggs
Haven't seen them in the shops for years, it's all sugar free, and fat free rubbish
You can still buy meringue powder. King Arthur Flour's is pretty highly rated. I don't think it's sweetened though.
@Jolenealaska "King Arthur Flour" is not a global brand :-)
@TFD Unless you're talking about Coca Cola or Microsoft, I don't know what a "global brand" is. You can buy King Arthur Flour products online from their website. If you are outside of the USA or Canada you simply contact them to arrange shipping. :-)
Lots of places sell meringue powder. If all else fails, look in the cake decorating section of the craft store. As Jolene said, though, they're not usually sweetened.
Even though it's more of a hassle, DEFINITELY use fresh eggs. I've been making meringues for years with no problem (unless it's humid and in that case I wait for another day).
I bought a couple of containers of the pasteurized egg whites (they are more runny). Made 4 batches, whipped the heck out of them, oven 365 for 30 min and left them in the turned off oven an extra hour or more. They were just ok, not as fluffy and certainly didn't make as many because the volume was low.
Going back to the fresh eggs. Incidentally, I freeze egg whites (don't overfill container though) They thaw well and they can be used to make great meringues.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.928137 | 2014-07-01T14:33:54 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45232",
"authors": [
"Cass G",
"Desiree La Bruno",
"Divi",
"E D Mobile Auto Detailing",
"Furniture12 spam",
"Jolenealaska",
"Marti",
"Michelle Lewis",
"Preston",
"TFD",
"Yamikuronue",
"computerdigital",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107677",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107678",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107692",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107701",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"spammer"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
44807 | Pots and Pans in the dishwasher
Settle a longstanding feud in our household for me: is it safe to put pots and pans in the dishwasher?
Assume we have both stainless steel and various non-stick pans. Assume we have frypans, sauce-pots, and larger pots that would conceivably fit, but we're not talking about cast iron pans here, or bakeware. The answer may differ based on the type of pan specifically being used, but assume all boxes and manuals have been lost since we bought the pans and we don't know if it's rated for the dishwasher.
What would be unsafe about it? You will shorten the life of pans made from some materials, and not others. There is neither a food safety problem here, nor the danger of a pan shattering in the dishwasher or something like that.
@rumtscho "unsafe" is probably a bad term, I mostly mean will it damage the cookware or shorten the life
I answered another question which was posted a few hours before yours when I logged on today, and the answer covers yours too: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/44827/4638.
Putting non-stick pans in a dishwasher mainly sounds like a huge waste of hot water, heat, and dishwasher soap to me. Non-stick pans will generally clean completely with a few swipes of a soapy brush and some hot water -- a fraction of the water, energy and soap a dishwasher uses.
There is no problem with putting either stainless steel or non-stick pans in the dishwasher in terms of their materials. However:
Non-stick pans are often better washed gently by hand without too much soap, so they retain a bit of oil. This helps them stay non-stick. You may note that a dishwashed non-stick pan is quite sticky the first time you use it after a wash.
Non-stick pans hold odours quite readily. Many dishwasher soaps are quite strongly scented, and this can be retained in the pan itself, and thus transferred to your food when it's heated up. I remember well a batch of marinara sauce with a noticeable lemon-fresh overtone!
Dishwashers knock everything around while they work. If your pans' handles are sturdy this shouldn't be an issue, but you can find that handles can loosen up after a few bouts in the dishwasher.
So, in summary, yes, you can put pots and pans in the dishwasher, with caution. Personally I put my Ikea stainless steel pans with welded handles in without a second thought, but I reserve my non-stick Tefals with bolted handles for hand-washing.
Go not to the Elves for advice, for they will say both no and yes
I've had problems in particular with lids - my stainless set has a metal rim wrapped around glass, and dishwashing always manages to seep into the gap and get into the rim, which is nearly impossible to get back out. Handwashing avoids this problem.
@logophobe you can cut small gaps in the metal rims to allow water to drain out, then there is no issue with dishwashing the pot/pan lids. In an ideal world, well designed sets would already have some kind of hole in the rim of course.
@Coxy Agreed, but my point is that it's still a pain and the reason that I no longer put them in the dishwasher. This wasn't something I considered when buying the set, but it will be in future, and it may well be something to check when determining whether you want to put your set in the dishwasher.
Depends on how you value your pans and the detergent you are using. If they are cheap and old, then toss them in the dishwasher. If they are expensive and new, it probably doesn't make sense to risk it. Lodge claims that over time the harsh detergents can cause spotting and discoloration in stainless cookware.
If you are specifically using stainless and non stick, I can't imagine you are saving much time by putting them in the dishwasher - assuming you are seasoning your stainless pans properly.
You can easily maintain a good seasoning on stainless steel frying pans so that they require nothing more than a rinse and an occasional (soap-free) wipe down after use. If your non-stick pans are in reasonable condition, this should be the case for them as well.
I had never heard of seasoning stainless till now. A brief search has Epicurious calling it an "internet trick" but it worked for them to make a stainless pan non-stick. However, once washed, you had to re-season it. I'm just always wary of tricks I've never heard of.
You shouldn't really be scrubbing a seasoned pan regardless of the material. Woks and cast iron work the same way - if you scrub you have to re-season to get it back to non-stick, and if you don't re-season a cast iron pan it will rust. Alton Brown has a couple of good episodes on this, and in them he says "just sprinkle in some kosher salt, grab a pair of tongs, and use the salt as the abrasive to clean everything out. Rinse under warm or hot water (scrub with a soft bristled brush if you have to), and you're done. Avoid using dish soap or detergent since that can break down the seasoning."
My comment is about stainless, not cast iron or anything else.
I've been under the impression that placing pots and pans in the dishwasher will reduce their lifetime. However true that may be, in the overall lifespan of the pots or pans the difference is negligible.
In my experience with non-stick pans, they will wear out from normal use before the dishwasher will wear them out. I usually replace my pans every 2 years depending on use with commercial ones. They're not super expensive to replace, and the convenience of having a good coating is worth it.
What's nice about non-stick, as the name implies, they're really easy to hand wash. As a result they're the last thing I'll put in the dishwasher, but if I'm swamped with things to clean then in they go!
Stainless Steel follows the same rule, hand wash preferred but dishwasher safe. I've had a stainless steel pan for 3+ years now and it's still going strong, handle is well attached and the surface is smooth to the touch. I reserve stainless steel for more heavy duty cooking, such as situations where I make a reduction sauce, foods that require even cooking or anything that could damage non-stick pans. While the dishwasher works, it does a poor job of cleaning the pan and dulls the finish.
What I also find with stainless steel pans is they need an occasional thorough cleaning to remove built up residue. One culprit of such residue is making hash browns at a high temperature--after 7 days in a row of this the pan will get a thin sticky gold buildup. A little bit of elbow grease and acid cleaner like Bar Keepers Friend will remove the majority of this buildup.
So in summary...
Non-stick: Dishwasher safe, hand wash preferred and easy to do. Replace when the coating starts to wear.
Stainless: Dishwasher safe, hand wash preferred and gets the pan cleaner. Occasionally clean thoroughly by hand with Bar Keepers Friend to regain stainless finish.
The gold buildup is polymerized oil -- you're effectively seasoning the pan, like you would with a cast iron skillet.
Scrubbing your stainless pans with acid cleaner makes me cringe - stainless should be seasoned to prevent sticking just like cast iron
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.928528 | 2014-06-12T12:15:33 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44807",
"authors": [
"Bashir And Nadia - Vaughan",
"Borju89",
"Carey Gregory",
"Coxy",
"Crake",
"Eden Kathol",
"Edward Lindon",
"Joe",
"Rae Mertin",
"Rob",
"Spammer",
"Yamikuronue",
"benhxahoitphcm",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106425",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106427",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106508",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25419",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"logophobe",
"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
} |
7051 | Is dry rub necessary in making bbq ribs?
Normally when I make bbq ribs in the oven at home, I have to prepare the ribs approximately a day ahead. I usually cover the ribs with a dry rub mixture (made of garlic powder, paprika, sugar, salt, pepper, etc.), wrap it up in foil and let it sit in the fridge for about a day, lather it in bbq sauce and stick it in the oven. While this method produces quite delicious ribs, it does require a lot of effort and planning. My questions are:
Is a dry rub really necessary in making bbq ribs?
Is there an alternative to this dry rub?
Will the ribs taste the same if I just lather them in bbq sauce and cook then straight away?
Your ribs will have a lot less flavor if you do not use a dry rub. However you can minimize some of the time (and only a bit of the flavor) by putting on the rub, wrapping in foil, and immediately putting them in the oven or on the grill. The process of putting your rub together probably takes only about 5 minutes - it's the fridge time that takes a while.
Sitting in the fridge allows some of the flavors to permeate, and if you used a more permeable material could allow your ribs to air out a bit. These are good things, but for my rib recipe I don't put the ribs in the fridge and they still taste great. I also don't put the barbecue sauce on until about the last 20 minutes of oven time, when the foil comes off and the sauce goes on. Until then the ribs stay in the foil.
I looked up North Carolina (which uses a sauce that isn't tomato based in the eastern part of the state), South Carolina (a mustard sauce), Texas, Memphis (which uses no sauce), Kansas City (tomato based-sauce that is rather sweet) - all of them used a dry rub even with wide variations on the sauce and for both beef and pork ribs.
Memphis is of two minds regarding sauce or not. There are excellent restaurants serving specializing in each style.
Thanks for your answer. I might try your cooking method next time. That way I can save time.
For traditional BBQ (low and slow), dry rub does tend to add quite a bit to the flavour. However, you do not need to leave it on that long. As a matter of fact, if your rub has a lot of salt in it, leaving it on that long will result in ribs that are "hammy" (almost cured like ham or pastrami).
You'll notice after 5-10 minutes of putting on rub that the salt has been sucked into the ribs along with some moisture (they'll get a clammy look). That's long enough.
With regards to saucing, always glaze at the very end. If you like the sauce baked in a little, put them back in for 5-10 minutes, but keep an eye on them. If the temperature is too high, sauce with a high sugar content will burn. My personal preference is a really thin glaze (or none at all) and sauce on the side. Let the meat speak for itself instead of masking it with sauce, as way too many people do.
You can certainly do without the rub before hand. Keep in mind though that one of the functions of marinating in an acidic wet rub will be to break down the connective tissues. Going straight to the grill without a marinating wont be as tender. One alternative is to cook the ribs in a slow cooker full of sauce all day while you are at work. This will cut down on the planning and result in a fall-off-the-bone outcome.
the OP indicated a dry rub rather than an acidic wet rub
The OP also mentioned alternatives and cooking right away without prep
good point. The downvote wasn't mine, but I thought you might want to edit to indicate that alternatives would be 1) an acidic wet rub instead of a dry rub or 2) Skipping any rub or 3) Slow cooker. FYI - I didn't downvote.
Thank you for your answer. For the acidic rub, do you mean like lemon juice? Or more like yoghurt to permeate/tenderize the meat?
Usually BBq sauce containing vinegar is a common choice but lemon juice would work as well. Can't say I've had ribs with yoghurt in it, but that could make for some interesting experiments.
There are other ways to keep your meat from drying out while it tenderizes, but the rub is just so darn delicious.
You could probably get away with BBQ sauce only, but it would definitely not be as robust a flavor. A marinade would get you there in the flavor department. I had Coca-Cola marinated babybacks once, and they were outstanding.
Or you could try putting ribs in oven immediately or shortly after applying the rub. A salty rub can begin curing your meat, which would result in a bit of a "hammy" taste to the ribs. I'd say, before anything else, do what you normally do except change the amount of time the ribs sit with the rub on them. This may be enough to get you past your prep time objections, and you're only changing one variable at a time.
For most smoked/BBQ/low-slow meats, a brining or marinating process with liquid is indicated, and the dry rub is applied just before the smoking/cooking process begins. You could try vinegar, apple cider (I love that one), watered-down beer, etc. I've made my own marinades from combinations also; vinegar and water with Worchestershire, "liquid smoke", and Tabasco works pretty well on some things, including ribs.
I've had great success with this wet marinade/dry rub approach.
Oh, and BBQ sauce is saved for serving time (there are a few "weirdos" who don't like it ...) :-)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.929112 | 2010-09-10T12:07:06 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7051",
"authors": [
"Daphne Law",
"Dennis Williamson",
"Homer",
"Jean",
"Kevin_Kinsey",
"Penguinolog",
"Puzzeling",
"Sumit Kumar Saha",
"awithrow",
"henry p",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14375",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14377",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14378",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14379",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2429",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42457",
"justkt",
"oanhjessicayahoocom"
],
"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
} |
7143 | Looking for a rice cooker, steamer, deep fryer, slow cooker combo that can cook rice and steam at the same time
I know this is slightly crazy, but I am a minimalist.
I try to get by on as little "stuff" as possible.
Basically I want a rice cooker that can steam my vegetables and chicken for a meal all at the same time, and it would be nice if the same appliance could be a deep fryer the few times I need one or a slow cooker.
Anything like this?
I've wondered for years why companies didn't mix all of the functions together, particularly how they're all just containers with heat. (and rice cookers are smarter than slow cookers, as they cook 'til the liquid's boiled off, not for some set number of hours). In the last couple of years, I've seen rice cooker / steamer / slow cookers, but I haven't yet seen one that includes a deep fryer.
I want a car that can fly. :P
I say you have two options:
A quality dutch oven
. This can do it all, although steaming might be difficult unless you can find a steamer insert for your dutch oven. It's certainly the closest you're gonna get to a slow cooker.
A quality stock pot with a steamer insert (or two). I have a great 12 qt stock pot
with 2 steamer inserts. I deep fry in it often, the high sides contain spatter. The only thing it doesn't do well is slow cook.
First time seeing this old question/answer; I use my cast iron casserole pot as both a dutch oven and a steamer (the latter using an ordinary foldable metal steaming basket). I don't use it for rice, but personally, I've always found rice cookers to be rather pointless.
I think you will have difficulty in finding one that will also deep fry.
I have a 4 in 1 electric cooker that does rice (with a vegetable steaming insert), porridge (it has a seperate button for this), slow cooking and steaming - no deep frying though.
Its a tefal 4 in 1 fyi.
You could be interested to the Presto® Kitchen Kettle™ multi-cooker/steamer.
The Deni Multi Fryer is a combo cooker / fryer / deep fryer / slow cooker / rice cooker / steamer all in one. You will love it I do.
Looking at other items by Deni, it looks like they don't have anything still on the market that's a deep fryer ... but they do have a couple of slow cooker / pressure cooker / rice cookers on the market.
I have this rice cooker, although it's branded "National", not "Panasonic". It has a perforated platform that you can put in after the rice and water, and it sits about an inch above the bottom of the pot. Perfect for steaming salmon filets. It's not a deep fryer nor a slow cooker.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.929557 | 2010-09-11T22:33:38 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7143",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"AlienTwist",
"Brad B",
"Cathy Collins",
"George Mauer",
"Jennifer Patico",
"Joe",
"Mike Zany",
"Petey",
"Z .",
"collapsar",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14556",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14618",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147650",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"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
} |
15423 | Which types of fish in sushi must be cooked?
Sushi fish is raw... except for eel, which is a fish but is cooked. Are there other types of fish that are cooked in sushi? Is this a food safety issue? (e.g. shrimp/crab/seafood which aren't served raw either)
In my experience, if the chef has access to live shrimp then they will almost always be served raw—the head is removed from the body (while living), the tail is peeled, and served immediately. The head is then either fried or boiled in a soup. Given that shrimp spoil so quickly, though, if live shrimp are not available, then the shrimp is pre-cooked (as ElendilTheTall explained). The same goes for octopus, squid, abalone, &c.: If they are alive, then they will likely be served raw (and sometimes still moving!).
All of the following are generally cooked items:
Shrimp, ebi, available raw in sashimi, but almost always lightly poached. The poaching brings out sweet and subtle flavors otherwise masked by a metallic tang. It also prevents the highly perishable shrimp from losing texture to spoilage.
Octopus, tako, available raw in sashimi when sliced very thinly, but otherwise poached lightly. The poaching reduces toughness and brings out additional flavors in an otherwise bland meat.
Eel, unagi, as you noted, is ALWAYS grilled, and steamed. This is necessary to achieve the truly transcendent flavor and texture of unagi. In fact, the cooking of eel is such a challenge that it is generally a whole separate chef profession in Japan. Most eel comes from one of the professionals, because sushi cooks know they will never be able to match the quality themselves. Improperly cooked eel becomes tough and has unpleasant flavors. Raw, the blood of eels is even toxic!
Sweet egg omelet, tamago, is by definition cooked. This is not to say that raw egg doesn't have a place in Japanese food though; tamago kake gohan is a dish of raw egg on rice, with soy sauce.
Cockle is lightly poached
Crab, kani is always cooked because... well eating raw crab meat is just vile.
For further reading, I highly suggest the online sushi encyclopedia.
Food Safety:
Sushi is only prepared from the very freshest and highest quality seafood, and sushi chefs are trained to identify parasites and signs of spoilage. In addition, some areas (including the EU) require sushi to be frozen for 24 hours to kill parasites.
If that wasn't enough to help settle your stomach, the pickled ginger and wasabi served along with sushi are more than garnish or simple condiments! Both ginger and wasabi have potent and documented anti-microbial and anti-parasite properties. Ginger is also well-known for combatting nausea. Source: the CRC Handbook of Medicinal Spices, page 310 for wasabi and 316 for ginger. (links are to Google Books copy).
There are a couple of other sushi ingredients that are usually cooked:
Shrimp starts to break down very soon after being caught so is poached ASAP. After that it's not usually cooked, however.
Octopus is poached when used for sushi, but kept raw for sashimi, where it is sliced very thinly. It is cooked for sushi to improve the flavour.
Sushi fish is generally of a better standard than other fish, and is subject to more rigorous controls. FDA regulations require all sushi fish to be frozen at -20 degrees for 24 hours in order to kill parasites. In addition, sushi chefs are trained to look for signs of spoiling or parasitic infection.
In addition to the already mentioned I have seen the following:
Cooked Tuna in more western style sushi such as spicy tuna roll
Shirako (cod sperm sack) is also used cooked in gunkan
Seared fish some fish such as tuna and, in Japan especially salmon is often seared with a blow torch on the nigiri
Food Safety:
A common misconception is that the fish needs to be as fresh as possible which is not true in all cases. In high end sushi restaurants part of the skill is to age the fish appropriately to bring out more complex flavors similarly as is done with beef. In general, larger darker fish such as tuna would be considered most delicious 1 week to 10 days after the catch while smaller lighter coloured fish would only be aged for a day. To accomplish this without the fish spoiling the fish should ideally be killed using the ikejime method https://youtu.be/TS4AM9mPX-8
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.929821 | 2011-06-13T11:23:03 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15423",
"authors": [
"ESultanik",
"Lyn2015",
"Mikhail",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32658",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32677",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"mcu"
],
"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
} |
14105 | Does aged onion/garlic turn green when frying?
I was frying onions and garlic the other day and the paste turned green. I had bought the onions/garlics many days ago (20-30 days) I guess. Could that be the reason? There was no fungi or something suspicious when I cut them by the way.
I've also had this happen when cooking an onion-garlic paste. I've found several web pages where the phenomenon is discussed, listed below. In summary, it's normal and happens due to certain chemical reactions between the garlic, cooking utensils and water. In your case, it's probably not due to the age of your garlic or onions though, as one source suggests it is less likely to occur with aged garlic. I've only seen the paste turn green myself, though interestingly you could also get blue garlic:
Garlic contains sulfur compounds which can react with copper to form copper sulfate, a blue or blue-green compound. The amount of copper needed for this reaction is very small and is frequently found in normal water supplies.
Garlic Can Turn Blue
Raw garlic contains an enzyme that if not inactivated by heating reacts with trace amounts of sulfur (in the garlic) and copper (from water or utensils) to form blue copper sulfate. The garlic is still safe to eat.
Garlic can turn Green
If the garlic was not fully mature or dry, pigments in the garlic may turn green when in the presence of acid. Garlic will also turn green (develop chlorophyll) if exposed to an temperature change or is exposed to sunlight. Some people say it can be stored for 32 days at or above 70 - 80° F to prevent greening, but I'm not yet sure that is true. Green garlic is safe to eat.
Source: http://www.gourmetgarlicgardens.com/pickle.htm
Some other pages where this is discussed: http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/471608, http://www.cheftalk.com/forum/thread/45254/onions-turned-green-while-frying, http://whatscookingamerica.net/Q-A/bluegarlic.htm.
Amazed that an amount of copper sulfate that leads to visible discoloration is ok, given the stuff is a well known emetic :)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.930224 | 2011-04-17T10:20:56 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14105",
"authors": [
"Jossi",
"Mouton",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29616",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"mark",
"rackandboneman",
"user29615"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
37001 | What are the differences between fresh beans and dried ones?
I recently came across some fresh black beans at my local farmer's market. It was the first time I had seen black beans that weren't either canned or dried.
I'm sure the fresh beans will cook faster and not need to soak, but are there any other differences I should know about? How will the resulting beans cook compared to dried beans? Will they also taste different? Are some dishes suited more to fresh beans than dried?
What about other types of beans since fresh Cranberry and Lima beans were also at the market?
You can cook fresh black beans as mentioned in the recipe here : http://ask.metafilter.com/100550/How-do-I-cook-fresh-black-beans
Taste
Fresh beans are sweeter on the palate. They also have a "fresher" quality to them. The best example of this is the difference between a fresh pea dish and a split pea soup. Both can be delicious but the fresh pea dish might be sweeter and have a more floral, aromatic quality to them.
Dried beans can slightly more grainy, but this can be mitigated via cooking methods.
Cooking
Because the fresh beans are more tender, they cook much quicker than dried beans. Roughly 20 to 30 minutes versus the 1-3 hours for dried beans.
The skin of fresh beans are both tender and sturdier than dried beans. They hold up better when cooking so typical bean-issues like burst and broken skins are much less of an issue. The fresh beans hold up to early salting, turbulent boiling water, and vigorous stirring because of the strength of the skin.
Nutrition
I couldn't find much research on the topic other than how many nutrients dried beans retain rather than lose. The general consensus seems to be that dried beans retain much of their nutritional value.
Much of the water-soluble nutrients of beans can leak out during the soaking and cooking process but provided that one also consumes those liquids it's easy to enjoy the benefits.
There is a difference in texture. Dried beans tend to be slightly more grainy. This is based on my experience cooking fresh borlotti beans and comparing them with dried ones. The skin on fresh ones seemed more tender and they kept their shape better. However this was a very direct and critical comparison with both beans next to each other. I imagine it would be harder to draw these conclusions if you don't have the beans cooked next to each other.
There is also a nutritional difference; dried goods lose most of their water soluble vitamins. These include vitamins B-complex and C. Although neither vitamin is present in great numbers in beans.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.930418 | 2013-09-22T16:32:31 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37001",
"authors": [
"Meredith metz",
"Mike",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"Sweet72",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20025",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87412",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93597"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
37002 | What is causing my sauerkraut to smell sweet?
I've been fermenting a batch of sauerkraut and it's been going for about a month. It's tasted great and has just recently started to develop some winey flavors.
Today I checked the crock and there is a strong sweet smell that reminds me most of those cinnamon-sugar pretzel places that they put in malls and airports. The kraut is still fine and doesn't taste sweet except for the smell.
The only thing in the kraut was cabbage and salt.
In my experience a month is a bit long (although of course this depends on the size of the batch, etc) for active fermentation - however I don't think that's the problem. In fact, I don't think there is a problem. Since Sauerkraut is a 'wild' food, there are some variables that you can't (and shouldn't) control.
The most likely (85% sure without knowing other factors) situation is that your kraut has picked up an uncommon variety of wild yeast and that yeast is doing its thing and putting-off this sugary/sweet smell as a byproduct of its processes.
Are you doing anything different with this batch that you've not done in the past? Fermenting it in a different part of your house, maybe? Is the temperature unseasonably warm/cold? Regardless I think you'll be safe and come out with good kraut (which doesn't seem to be your concern) - but if you come out with REALLY good kraut, maybe you'll want to try to duplicate your experience :)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.930758 | 2013-09-22T16:59:01 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37002",
"authors": [
"Jim",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86929"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
77131 | I bought a bag of Brussels sprouts that looked fine but smelled exceptionally bad, even for sprouts
I recently bought a pre-packaged bag of brussels sprouts. The sprouts in the bag looked great, green and plump with not a spec of black or brown on them. The next day I cut open the bag and found that the entire bag smelled like a mix between vinegar and over-ripened cantaloupe. If I cut open a single sprout the smell was even stronger.
There was no evidence of spoilage or a mushy texture, all the raw sprouts were firm.
I have eaten and cooked brussels sprouts many many times before so I am familiar with their normal cabbage-like or sulfurous scent. These sprouts were not like that, it was a strong sour smell.
I tried cooking with them and the smell never went away after either boiling or roasting. They also tasted like they smelled.
Does anyone know what could have happened? Was there some kind of chemical involved?
Was these packed with protective atmosphere? Maybe washed in something before packaging? What was written on package? And what was "best before" date? As far as I know (and that's not far) both atmosphere and washes are designed to prolong "sellability" first, health safety second, and taste & smell last.
@Molot The expiration date was at least a month away. I've since thrown out the package so it will be a little bit before I can find any info about the washes/packaging
What you are describing is what we call a food that has "soured". (This is what I was taught growing up.) The food looks and feels perfect but has that awful sour odor.
In my experience it is from improper storage, usually from foods being kept too warm or not getting enough air circulation. (Not necessarily by you, but somewhere along the transport chain.)
I have found it in both Brussels sprouts and broccoli. I have even bought broccoli, used some of it, and later taken the rest out only to find it soured. Or bought Brussels sprouts and kept them for a couple of days before using and found that they had soured. This says to me that the souring process had already started.
Additionally, I have had it happen with fresh corn that was left on my porch in warm weather.
I have also found it in bagged salads and spinach. With those, a good washing and fresh air sometimes gets rid of the odor - but not always.
Unfortunately, we don't always know how foods have been handled and stored before we buy them.
I have searched extensively to find out more about this, to no avail. I can find information about how to tell if food is going bad or rotting, but this is a totally different thing. You have no way of knowing that this souring process is happening. That is, until you smell it.
Not meaning to start a "war"; just an innocent observation from another direction, but I never heard, growing up or since, of food that had "soured" (except dairy products of course.) In our family a vegetable was either rotten (or on its way there), or it was good. We did not have the concept of "soured". My location being Calif, USA., it seems fascinating that in a lifetime of eating, cooking, picking, and observing vegetables, our two -- "micro-cultures" (?) have developed differing understanding of how they behave. [FWIW]
@LorelC. No "war". :) I know people who have observed this and I know others who haven't. This is entirely different than a vegetable or other food rotting/going bad. I don't know the science behind it, thus the attempts to research it. Also, I don't know if the term "sour" is scientifically correct or if it came into use because of the sour smell. However, I assure you that it exists. If you haven't experienced it, consider yourself lucky.
wow, interesting: do you think it might be a specific bacteria type or something that only rots the smell and not the texture?
@LorelC. I don't know. It's an extremely unpleasant odor. I've never known anyone to eat anything with that smell. I was always told that the food wasn't good and it was tossed. Again, nothing scientific. I've wondered if there might be some type of fermentation going on but can't find anything about it. But I would think that fermentation would affect the look and texture.
@LorelC., as a Spaniard I also never experienced (or rather paid attention to) the souring . But then I moved to Poland and turns out that pickling/fermenting is a traditional way to prepare some dishes: kapusta kiszona, [ogórek kiszony] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pickled_cucumber#Polish) (and it can be delicious!). The german sauerkraut is also about this: fermented cabbage. "Various lactic acid bacteria" generate lactic acid, which causes the sourness. So, probably in fact you have experienced this in soured milk, yogurt, etc.
Also interesting (to me at least): in Spain, soured milk was automatically considered bad. Here I learnt that it can be used in a number of ways, and even soured purposefully for some recipes, etc. So to me it looks heavily cultural.
@hmijail : it's also possible that it's regional because of types of bacteria in the region or climate (going sour slowly vs. quickly as they're at different temperatures). And as you mention sauerkraut -- cabbage, broccoli and brussel sprouts are all related, and the process is just leaving it to sit (in an anaerobic environment). Cabbage leaves are also used for making a local sourdough starter, as they catch wild yeast as they grow.
@Joe on the cabbage leaf thing, is it more likely they provide the lactobacillus to the sourdough? As hmijail says, that’s what ferments sauerkraut and it’s also in sourdough. I increasingly read that the yeast in sourdough comes from the grain itself rather than the air as we all previously learned.
To all involved in the above discussion. Of course rotten and soured are different things. Perhaps they might coexist, I don't know, but both happen to spoiled food. Souring can be a conservation way, tough ( sauerkraut, yoghurt, ....). The point is that a sour yoghurt is good, a sour cream might be, a sour mayonnaise is not....
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.930923 | 2017-01-05T01:35:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77131",
"authors": [
"Alchimista",
"Cindy",
"Joe",
"Lorel C.",
"MeltedPez",
"Mołot",
"Spagirl",
"hmijail",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1963",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
11646 | Why does canned mango pulp have no vitamin A?
Mango contains plenty of vitamin A (http://www.thefruitpages.com/chartmango.shtml). I have some frozen mango which confirms this on the bag. However, a can of mango pulp says that it has 0% of the daily recommended amount. Why is that?
I thought it might be broken down by the heat, like Vitamin C, but I couldn't find anything about that (and I did find one source saying that it's fairly stable with high heat).
@Brendan: It wouldn't be heat, because the frozen kind is fine and mangoes (and all fruits) are also blanched before being frozen. I suspect, but can't verify, that it's more to do with the fact that this pulp is a by-product of juice processing and all of the Vitamin A has simply been extracted already.
@Aaronut: It seems like the way to verify that would be to check if other vitamins also seem to have been extracted away - assuming the other vitamins are also in the juice.
@Jefromi: It's a little bit more complicated than that; commercial juicing is significantly more involved than juicing an orange or mango at home. There are all sorts of chemical, physical, and even microbial treatments that happen to both the juice and the pulp. The plant may be deliberately extracting a specific vitamin from the pulp to put into the juice. Maybe not - again, this is nothing but speculation - but the presence of other vitamins doesn't necessarily preclude that explanation.
Another factor may be the serving size specific to a certain brand.
The vitamin loss is due primarily to the puree'ing. The viramin A in mangoes comes from beta-carotene, and beta-carotene breaks down easily due to oxidation. On a similar note, I've seen recommendations that carrots (another good source of beta-carotene) not be chopped into small pieces before canning to preserve their vitamin content.
Lots of vitamins are also destroyed by the heat of canning, but beta-carotene is not as susceptible to this problem because it is fat soluble.
This sounds reasonable. Do you have a reference for the oxidation hypothesis?
Sure, lots of sites on canning techniques say something similar. Here's something a bit more concrete: "Fat soluble nutrients, including vitamin A, E, and carotenoids including lycopene are
sensitive to heat, light, and oxygen. Since these nutrients are fat soluble, little is lost in
blanching [precursor to canning]." -- http://www.mealtime.org/uploadedFiles/Mealtime/Content/ucdavisstudyexecutivesummary.pdf
Lets be clear - if you claim something is in there, you need analysis to back up the claim. Testing for Vitamin A requires sophisticated equipment and trained staff. It is cheaper to not make any claim about Vitamin A content, than it is to prove that it is in there - that would put the price up. So they say there is no contribution ...
The interesting thing: If you lost the carotene (which still is a vitamin A precursor), wouldnt you get serious discoloration at the same time?
On this website they say:
"We take intensive care to retain the natural characteristics of taste, colour, nutritional value and flavour of the fruits."
So maybe it depends on the brand. Some brands use a more 'rougher' process than others, that could be the reason. I'm not sure though, but check out other brands, maybe some will have vitamin A in it.
Just analysed for vitamin A in mango puree.
There is none or rather it is lower than my LOQ of 27 ug/100 ml.
This is despite the retinol colour on the puree during extraction.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.931432 | 2011-01-30T05:15:24 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11646",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Brendan Long",
"Cascabel",
"Cindy",
"David",
"James Barrie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23908",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24006",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5660",
"jan",
"michael",
"rackandboneman",
"user23908",
"yacomink"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
23805 | Extracting colour out of strawberries
Are there any techniques which I can use to get the colour of strawberries condensed in a way that doesn't contain the flavour?
I am looking to colour cakes in particular with a more natural alternative to bottled colouring agents without affecting the flavour and thought strawberries might be a good place to start!
No, strawberries are a bad place to start, they don't have nearly enough color. Try beets or elderberry, but be aware that their red is slightly purplish.
Cochineal is entirely natural and produces a vivid red. It is made from the shells of beetles.
Could get some color into the cake by macerating strawberries in a cake recipe's entire sugar quantity. Strain and weigh the resulting liquid. the additional liquid has to be subtracted from recipe too.
Problem there is that sugar is a good flavor vehicle...
Tomato? There are those crazy old-fashioned red velvet cakes. Could also try beautifully ripe red bellpeppers (chilli peppers work too, ouch) either as a puree or used to stain the recipe's fat/oil/butter.
Nothing above is even close to commercial colors in that consistency or flavor is influenced but maybe you will find a combination that satisfies you. I'm still looking for a natural orange for kids Halloween!
As the comments seem to suggest, making food coloring from strawberries is generally not done because there is not enough red pigment in the strawberries to develop a concentrated red dye.
Food dyes generally need to be really concentrated to provide the coloration without introducing too much liquid(especially in baked goods). It seems unlikely or at least very impractical to concentrate the pigment enough to be useable as food coloring (unless you want a pale pink).
In this article, someone makes a dye from strawberries to dye yarn: http://knitting.about.com/od/dyeingyarn/ss/Dyeing-Yarn-With-Strawberries.htm by boiling strawberries and then simmering for 20 minutes. But the concentration of the dye needed to dye yarn is much less than what would be need to dye cake. The dye would introduce way too much liquid in the cake before it can really dye the cake the vibrant red. It seems likely that if you boil down the strawberry liquid enough, you might be able to produce a dye that gives a light pink but nowhere near the bright red that you seem to want.
I have had success making a naturally dyed pink cake...
Puree
The color with raspberries is better, but I have used strawberry puree too. The recipes with puree (even simmered, reduced, and strained) always seem a bit too wet in the end, to me. What a sad waste of good ingredients. Here are the posts on my blog of cake with raspberry puree and one with strawberry puree. The people I fed liked it, the flavor was very pleasant. But, I wasn't totally pleased with the texture.
Freeze Dried Strawberries/Raspberries
Again the color with raspberries is a little bit more strong, but both work! To color the batter I processed the fruit in a blender until powdered. Then, I sifted the powder to remove any seeds or larger pieces. Finally, I added the sifted powder to the dry ingredients of a white cake recipe. This is my preferred method (over puree). I also posted the results of this process on my blog.
One last thing...do not bother with fresh beets. I have not tried using canned, but the fresh beets DO NOT WORK. I tried it many ways, pureed, steeped in the wet ingredients then strained, I made a very acidic batter hoping that would help...none of it worked. They also tasted faintly dirty. Blegh. Every time the batter would be gorgeously pink, but, like a sick magic trick, the color would cook out.
I would still love to find a way to make a pink cake that is very intense, but the powdered freeze dried fruit does result in a pretty, soft pink. I hope this helps!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.931746 | 2012-05-17T12:04:56 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23805",
"authors": [
"Diane Fernandez",
"ElendilTheTall",
"I'll do anything for 1 doller",
"Student Shervon Moore",
"TommyG",
"Trixie Wolf",
"Vered",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54003",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54004",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54005",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54021",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54041",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
5864 | Can you freeze bagna cauda? (cream basically)
Yesterday we had bagna cauda at a friend's house. It was too much, so everyone went home with a leftovers bottle (around 1 liter).
Will it ruin if I freeze it?
You can freeze cream, but it will undergo some separation issues. When you thaw it you can shake or mix it to reintegrate the milk solids that have separated. Unfortunately, it will not regain the same mouth feel as never frozen liquid dairy. Basically I never freeze dairy that I want to drink, only things I will be cooking with or baking with.
In the case of this dip, I assume it will be reheated when you want to eat it, so I would say that you can freeze it and when you reheat spend some time with a whisk to recombine fully.
I freeze it in an ice cube tray then zip lock the cubes in a bag. Then for a quick snack I put one or two cubes into a microwavable coffee cup, warm it up and dip bread into the hot mixture. Works great!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.932328 | 2010-08-24T04:35:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5864",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
16496 | Why in this one recipe parsley is used in 2 different ways?
I found a "Shrimp and Pasta" Recipe here. It's a nice and simple, but I don't quite understand the way it uses parsley. Why part of the parsley is fried with shrimp and the rest are just mixed with pasta? And what does TB mean?
Parsley is both a flavoring herb and a decorative element for plating the finished dish. By adding it during the cooking, it imparts flavor to the shrimp. By adding it to the finished dish, it provides color and flavor. The cooked parsley will have a slightly different taste to it than the fresh parsley. This is how cooks layer the flavors in a dish.
TB stands for Tablespoon.
Thanks. BTW, should I mince the parsley before frying it?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.932434 | 2011-07-30T00:35:28 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16496",
"authors": [
"Erik",
"Josh Davis",
"LeafGlowPath",
"Rafa M",
"Thomas Sobieck",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35161",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35162"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
6742 | Is sausage casing edible?
I bought some pork sausage and baked them in my oven. The taste was good but the sausage casing were a bit hard to chew.
Should I remove casings before I bake sausages?
I also find them hard to chew when baked, but they are edible. To make them easier to eat, you want to finish them up using a different method to get a crunch on the outside. I find you can either:
turn the heat up in your oven at the end, or broil them
briefly pan-fry them after they're done cooking in a little bit of oil on a skillet (cast iron preferred)
grill them after baking
I usually boil or bake them first, or simmer them in some water in a pan on the stove (not enough to cover them, just enough to kind of steam them) and then finish them on the grill for best flavor and texture. I'd recommend finishing on the grill over any other method.
You can also completely cook them on the grill if preferred, but that can be a bit tricky if they're raw sausage and not pre-cooked, so keep an eye on them and make sure they're done completely throughout.
You can definitely remove the casings, and depending on what dish you're making that may be preferred. However I have had success making an appetizing whole sausage using the above methods.
What about the cloth around summer sausage?
It also very much depends on the type of sausage you are using. Some (usually cheap) sausages use an artificial casing which I find makes the sausage at worst leathery and at best a bit chewy.
Assuming you have good quality sausages, the best way to cook them (I find) is to fry them on a cast iron grill pan at a low temperature for a long time, 20-30 minutes usually (maybe less if they are thin) they are done when they start to get sticky and start to "sing".
Casing removal should only really be necessary when you just want the sausage meat itself.
Typically sausage that's made with artificial casing isn't sold with the casing still there; it's used for things like hot dogs, where the casings are stripped off before they're packaged and sold. (although, some brands of hot dogs use a natural casing). There are processed 'natural' casings that are made from collagen, rather than a direct item taken from an animal, but they don't tend to be any tougher than the old-fashioned casings.
+1 for the frying technique. I go for an hour on the very lowest flame I can get.
The casings are perfectly edible.
If you're finding them chewy, I'd suggest roasting them, you that they fry a little in the fat that renders out, which should crisp them up nicely. It may be the case that you're not cooking them long enough, and giving them a chance to brown sufficiently.
I've roasted and fried the Caroline Sausage to hopefully rid of the chewy leather casing. To best rid of this unpleasantness it is best, in my opinion, to remove the casings from these particular sausages. Not all sausages have casings on them that are this unpleasant. Recently, at a church breakfast, there was a sausage that was served that was very tasty. The casing itself was delightful in texture and taste. It was very soft and melted in your mouth. I'm trying to identify these sausages for future purchase but, I have yet to do so.
Pork casings are edible but even though its edible, I wouldn't eat any beef bung casings. I peel it back and slice e.g. sopressata
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.932542 | 2010-09-04T16:45:03 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6742",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Robert Fisher",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37281",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68012",
"slim",
"user1271772"
],
"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
} |
6104 | What is the difference between a Sfogliatelle and a Lobster Tail (Pastry)
What are the differences between Sfogliatelle and a Lobster Tail (Pastry).
There is conflicting information about them being either different or the same pastry. Additionally, I'm curious of other variants besides the two listed above.
The difference is that in sfogliatelle the filling is made of Ricotta cheese, while in the Lobster Tail the filling is made of French cream.
Lobster Tail is not something prepared in Italy; you find it on New York City. I had to ask to friend of mine living in USA, to know what Lobster Tail pastry is.
In fact, Lobster Tails originated in Hoboken, NJ, mostly because Italian immigrants in 1910 couldn't source high-quality ricotta.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.932832 | 2010-08-27T01:32:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6104",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Saaru Lindestøkke",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15099",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"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
} |
44435 | When should I not use a cornstarch slurry?
When thickening sauces, due to time constraints, my roommate almost always ends up making a cornstarch slurry and dumping that into the sauce instead of letting it reduce naturally. When would that be a bad idea? Or is it always appropriate to substitute?
Why not make a batch of roux and freeze individual blocks? That way, when you need to work fast, you can just dump one in... and then another one...
Reducing a mixture is simply boiling out water present in the solution. Adding a starch (either cornstarch or other flours) doesn't remove that water but instead causes the starch to expand and "trap" some of the water.
Cornstarch in particular doesn't work especially well when there isn't enough moisture in the base mixture, or if there's too much fat or sugar present, so it's not suitable for really rich sauces, for example pepper cream sauce. It also doesn't work well in acidic mixtures like tomato sauce.
The worst thing you can do for a cornstarch-thickened mixture is to cook it at a high temperature (i.e. more than a moderate simmer) or for an extended period of time. These will expand the starch granules so much that they pop, breaking the cornstarch and causing the sauce to thin again. So, be very careful of cooking temperature when using a cornstarch slurry.
I have also found that cornstarch doesn't respond very well to cooling and re-heating, so it's not the best solution if you plan on saving some of the sauce for later use.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.932921 | 2014-05-27T00:34:58 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44435",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Idoor Garge door service Spam",
"Julie Binning",
"Spammer",
"forgodsakehold",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104470",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104472",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
17935 | Why do different brands of butter taste different?
This has been playing on my mind for a while and I thought it was time to ask!
In any supermakert, there is usually at least 5+ regular brands, then 3-4 supermarket brands. In addition to some supermarkets stocking expensive/specialised brands.
Forgetting margarine or low fat/special butter where chemicals are added, traditional butter is just milk with salt sometimes added.
Now, it doesn't matter where I buy milk from, it always tastes the same. Considering this and that traditional butter is just churned milk... Why do different brands of butter taste different!?
Different brands of milk definitely taste different to me...
@rfusca - I can't vouch for everywhere, but, I have cereal most mornings and buy my milk from whatever shop I am nearest at the time... obviously different grades taste different, but, I usually buy semi-skimmed and it tastes the same no matter what supermarket I buy from :/
FYI Napoleon Dynamite could tell from its milk what the cow had been fed, so there must be differences between milks.
Cook's Illustrated (AKA America's Test Kitchen and Cook's Country) has done taste tests of various brands of butter, salted and unsalted, cultured and not cultured.
They found that the single most important thing in unsalted butter was how it was wrapped. Butter wrapped in foil doesn't pick up off flavors from its environment. Land O Lakes (incidentally my go-to brand) treats the parchment it wraps its butter in, and that parchment does keep out off flavors. Butter wrapped in regular parchment not only picks up off flavors, but over time loses moisture. The wrapping is an issue in salted butter as well, but not as big of one.
Secondly, obviously some butters are cultured and others are not. In the United States, most cultured butter is imported and is significantly more expensive. In the tastings, most people preferred cultured butter to uncultured when used as a spread. When used in baking, they found no difference.
The third issue they found was whether or not the cows were grass fed. Some tasters picked up what they called "barnyard notes" in the grass fed. Some tasters liked that, others did not.
In salted butter, the amount of salt varies widely. For use as a spread, most tasters preferred brands with more salt. For baking and cooking they almost always recommend unsalted butter.
Just FYI, Cook's Illustrated recommends keeping butter in the freezer until just before the stick's first use. Even foil wrapped butter will pick up some off flavors from long storage in the refrigerator.
There are some other factors with imported (typically European) vs domestic (USA) butters -- for one, European butters are also typically fattier than US butters.
I am guessing here, but it is an educated guess. I think the reason why the difference in flavour might be greater between different butters than between different brands of milk is that the fat content in butter is so much higher than it is in milk. Just think about meat: The main flavour component in any meat is the fat. If you take a lean cut of beef and compare its flavour to that of equally lean pork, chicken, duck etc. they will all taste quite similar. If you do the same comparison but with high-fat cuts the difference in flavour will be huge. Ergo, it should be the same for milk vs. butter, especially if you compare different brands of semi-skimmed or skimmed milk, where the natural fat content is reduced. But as I said, it is just an educated guess. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Just to add a little bit on this. It would be the fat, butter is almost all fat and as you guessed it not all fat will taste the same. It is all about the feed the cow is given. This is why steak from a grass fed cow tastes different from a per corn fed cow. The flavors will be more pronounced in things like butter with a higher fat content and cream.
Also there is another component to butter tasting different. They are not all processed and made equal. Some actually have a higher fat content (not a lot but higher none the less). Some are churned, and the machining methods for this vary between manufacturer. And others are cultured (like a french or European style) to produce there butter. I for one favor the higher fat cultured butters.
Since trying higher fat, cultured Irish butter I am NEVER going back. The taste is MILES better, oh man. And re: the taste thing, I don't like plain milk, but the closest I ever came to liking it was when we got milk from a local dairy delivered when I was a kid - had a totally different taste from any other milk I have ever had.
I agree with franko that the cow's diet will have the largest effect on the final flavor of the butter. This includes changes from season to season as the cows move from grazing outside on fresh grass to inside on hay during the winter.
In addition to that, some of the specialty butters such as Lurpak are cultured with bacteria that enhances the flavor.
I'm going to guess that it's all based on the diet of the cows. Grass versus hay makes cheeses taste different, so I don't see why butters and milks should be any different.
Milk doesn't always taste the same, especially the organic brands which also have different nutritional values as well. It can taste quite different, but not completely. Also the ability to taste is subjective. Some can detect these differences while I suppose others cannot.
As to why the butter can taste different. The listed ingredients only make up part of the taste (those ingredients which have to be listed according to the FDA, not every ingredient is necessarily listed). A major factor in taste is how it is processed and preserved (preservation processes may occur more than once at different times). As food gets old it is going to lose flavor and/or taste different. To hide this there are many preservation techniques to mask this. Adding "natural flavor" (IE: highly concentrated artificial flavor derived from "natural" sources) to mask this is consider preservation and not required to be listed as an ingredient.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.933082 | 2011-09-22T16:18:34 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17935",
"authors": [
"Batman",
"Doug",
"Katey HW",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4559",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6755",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7082",
"jeffwllms",
"rfusca",
"wilhil"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
13159 | Do rice cookers bake good cakes?
The new rice cooker I bought shows that it can bake a cake--like a sponge cake--in a rice cooker. I have also read that cakes turn out misshapen when made in a rice cooker. I've never baked a cake before and don't know too much about it, so using the new rice cooker to bake it is tempting.
My definition of good:
Not misshapen
Doesn't taste bad
is like a cake that is baked normally (not in a rice cooker)
Thanks!
The first requirement will almost certainly depend on your rice cooker. The second will depend a lot on your cake recipe...
I'm only guessing, having never tried it, but I would suspect a sort of "steaming" effect to happen as compared to cooking a cake in an oven. After all, it isn't called a "cake cooker", so it seems unlikely it will be more than moderately successful.
I'm having trouble seeing much more than a yes or no question here. I think you'll be better off trying the recipe and coming to us if you have problems.
I agree with hobodave. Try it and come back with results.
I haven't done it myself, but since the "goodness" of a cake is largely subjective, I think you should try it and see what happens.
Be scientific about it: if you don't like it, change a variable and try again.
A cursory search on youtube might also help. Here is one I found:
Zojirushi Mother's Day Cake
My rice cooker recently turned out the highest chiffon/sponge cake I've ever made in any appliance including my oven. In answer to your question, my rice cooker is capable of baking a "good" cake, but all rice cookers are not equal, and for sure all recipes are not equal.
Explanation of "good" follows.
1. Shape
My cake's shape slightly resembled a wheel of cheese. I happen to have a pot with a rounded base, and my cake was overcooked so it did not sink upon cooling, creating rounded edges on both top and botton. However I would not have considered it misshapen. If it had not been dark blue (food colouring) I'm sure my guests would have recognised it immediately as a cake. I have seen other rounded-base rice cooker cakes that had flat tops, and flat-base rice cooker cakes with flat tops and bottoms. Presumably if you had a cake-shaped rice cooker pot you could bake a cake-shaped cake in it - whatever you feel that is.
2. Taste
Actual taste is almost entirely down to my recipe, as mentioned by another poster. I chose to ignore the rice cooker recipe which didn't seem right, and use a combination of recipes of bloggers who have made rice cooker cakes, and my own judgment. As far as rice cooker-related taste factors, there was no clear evidence of Maillard reaction in my rice cooker and therefore no caramelisation or burning on top despite being (deliberately) overcooked.
3. Like a cake baked normally
Of course your mileage will vary depending on your definition of normal. My answer is yes and no: yes for the purposes of presenting an acceptable cake and no because there were certainly differences. Some of these differences made the cake better in my opinion than if it had been baked in an oven.
As mentioned my cake rose very high, 2-3x the height of the original batter, and then did not sink upon cooling, something I have not replicated in a conventional oven. I also found the crumb much more even than most of my oven baked cakes, ie no undercooked centre. The texture was soft and moist. It did not have any kind of crispness on top, only a slight membrane.
Overall I consider it was a "good" cake and would make one again.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.933650 | 2011-03-15T14:57:33 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13159",
"authors": [
"Aaron",
"Alanna",
"Allison",
"Doryan Miller",
"Megasaur",
"Shog9",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27269",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95226",
"jaadhimalli"
],
"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
} |
34591 | Razor clams good or bad?
I bought some razor clams today and all of them were open with their "tongue" or meat coming out of the shell. When I got home I noticed they had a really strong smell to them. This is the first time I've bought razor clams....so how do I know if they are safe to eat?
There are two types of razor clams. Since you are in the US according to your profile, I am guessing you have the type from the Pacific Northwest, which look like this (picture from Washington Fish and Wildlife):
It is normal for the razor clam to not completely fit into its shell; in particular, the digger or "foot" will extend from the shell.
According to Piscatorial Pursuits (I couldn't make that name up):
The neck tips are very tough and give off a very strong scent.
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has a detailed page on cleaning and preparing the clams, with pictures. Note that they indicate (emphasis original):
During cleaning, you may find small "pea crabs" or flatworms inside
the body of the clam. NEITHER OF THESE AFFECTS THE QUALITY OF THE
RAZOR CLAM MEAT.
Interesting. I'm from the east coast of the US, and to me, this is a razor clam.
@JoeFish That is the kind that my research indicated was common in England.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.933948 | 2013-06-08T21:50:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34591",
"authors": [
"JoeFish",
"Kenny Mcmanus",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Samr ",
"Shermen Fire",
"andyhauty",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80633",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80634",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80635",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80639",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8522"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
61792 | Does meat marinate while it is in the freezer?
Put a skirt steak in a plastic bag with a marinade and then promptly put it in the freezer. It has been in the freezer for a couple of days now. I want to thaw it out for dinner tonight, but I'm wondering if the meat has had a chance to marinate in its frozen state?
Marinating steak - apart from very acidic marinades - will affect only the outer few mm of your meat. While these are the first to freeze, they are also the first to thaw, together with the marinade.
Your total marinating time will be
(time until outer layer is frozen) + (time since outer layer thawed, before cooking)
Unless you flash-froze your meat and thaw in a microwave, this can be a few hours. In frozen state, marinating is basically stopped. So do the math, according to your desired total marinating time. You can always leave the meat thawing/marinating in the refrigerator for a bit longer, if neccesary.
I did the math, with engineering and chemistry math - I say that marinating is still in progress in the subzero celcius freezer. It is not "stopped", just slowed.
@BlessedGeek: Veeeery muuuuuuuch sloooooooooooooooooooooooooooowed. To the point of stopped, for all practical purposes.
But with salt in it, the marinating is actually quite effective while in the freezer, over two weeks - slow gradual and even marinating action. The ionic activity of saline ice at -5 C is still quite significant. Should not confuse the ionic activity of saline vs that of plain water.
"To the point of stopped, for all practical purposes." You wanna take a look at the phase diagrams of saline at subzero temps before making that statement.
@BlessedGeek So for heaven's sake just write your own answer - we appreciate knowledge here, me included.
@BlessedGeek: I'm sure amazement, surprise and shame will be battling it out for most surfacing emotion, if I knew what to look for in saline phase diagrams or actually knew what they are, but, like Stephie said, write up an answer, and don't be shy to highlight the practical implications of it all. Practically, for me, the continents don't move, but apparently they do. If subzero-saline-phase-diagrams show the same amount of activity as tectonic plates, I stick with my comment ;)
I for one hesitate to apply chemistry or engineering calculations applicable to ideal conditions to what happens in food, unless the action is actually studied or observed in food. There are a TON of potential confounds when you're considering not just ionic activity but also the interaction of other compounds and the cellular characteristics of the beef itself.
"hesitate to apply chemistry or engineering calculations applicable to ideal conditions". Engineering is the adaptation of ideal mathematics into non-ideal situations. Otherwise, the 3GHz processor we engineered for you would not have worked.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.934103 | 2015-09-16T22:24:40 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/61792",
"authors": [
"Amy Daughtry",
"Cynthia",
"Miriam Ross",
"Nora Hayes",
"Stephie",
"Susan Sherry",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146681",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
12639 | How does one remove the "fishy flavor" from seafood?
My sister really doesn't like a strong fish flavor and is very picky. Are there any effective ways to prepare the seafood in such a manner that reduces the fishy flavor/taste? If "seafood" is too broad, then please limit your answer to include fish and prawn.
Thanks!
Why do you want to cook fish for someone who doesn't like it? Why not just give her something else?
Erm, but I never said that she doesn't like fish, only the strong fishy taste.
Aquatic bacteria are accustomed to reproducing in low temperatures and will grow happily even in very cold (i.e. unfrozen) seafood. The "seafood" smell most of us are accustomed to is the indication that the seafood is past its prime. The best solution is to use only the freshest seafood you can get. If that is not enough, try the answers below.
Fresh seafood shouldn't be overly "fishy". It's generally older seafood that will get a stronger "fishy" smell and flavour.
That said, there are 3 approaches to a "less fishy" result:
Absorb/reduce fishiness: you can always try something like soaking it in milk (which you can then save to use for a fishy bechamel when your sister isn't dining with you). You could then rinse it off and cook it however you want. This should help "absorb" some of the fishiness and make it milder.
Disguise fishiness: The other angle is to "cover up" the flavour with lots of spicy glaze or garlic/lemon flavours instead.
Pick mild seafood: The other thing to try is to pick a more mildly flavoured fish (e.g. a white fish instead of something like tuna or salmon). Avoid oily fish as they tend to have a stronger flavour. Choosing something really fresh also falls into this category.
I've seen one person powder a prawn with corn starch and salt and then rinse it off, does this fit in #1?
@subt13 - One usually dusts things in corn starch (or flour) to absorb moisture, rather than do anything affecting flavour. Dusting and then rinsing off seems a bit counter-intuitive from this perspective. I can't imagine that a light powdering would do much to reduce fishiness but it's unlikely to do anything detrimental either.
Bay leaf is another herb which masks the fishy smell as well..
@Allison you mean you don't recommend bluefish?
@notthetup use bay sparingly. You only need a leaf or two for an entire 6 servings.
An old trick from the Indian subcontinent is to rinse it well, dust lightly with salt and powdered turmeric and leave for half an hour or more. You can rinse this off before cooking or leave it on - turmeric is a good source of that very desirable umami taste.
You should leave it covered, in the fridge. And not out on your counter for that length of time.
I suppose it depends on where you live, but generally speaking, if fish spoils on your counter after half an hour, you need to find a new supplier ;-)
Incidentally, turmeric is a powerful but gentle antibacterial agent so mitigates your (imo slightly paranoid) concerns.
One additional consideration in fishiness is the fat itself. My wife dislikes fishy flavor, and so when she eats salmon (for example), she enjoys the pink parts, but dislikes the gray (which are typically near the skin where much of the fat resides). Most of the 'fishiness' is indeed in that oil - a slight rancidity to the oil, perhaps, but more often simply the oil itself is what is disliked (google "fish oil pills" and you'll see all sorts of comments).
As such, I cook the fish in a manner that does not disperse the oil (so grilling or sautéeing is out - a good poach in vegetable broth works though) and then give her the pinker parts, reserving the fattier, tastier parts for myself and the little ones: as such, we both win (I get better fish, my kids get smarter, and my wife doesn't complain about fishiness!)
I had an "old salt" say that it is the "belly meat" that tastes fishy. When fileting, don't cut all the way down to the belly. Seems to be the secret.
Soak the fish covered in water with salt and sugar for 10-30 min. About 2 tbsp of salt and the same amount of sugar when using a cup of water.
After soaking, rinse the fish, then rub in the same amount of salt and sugar (like a dry rub). You can add some black pepper too, if you like.
Let the fish sit in a bowl until the oil starts coming out of the fish (30-60 min). Pour out the oil and let sit some more. Keep waiting and pouring out the oil until most of the oil is pulled from the fish.
The amount of fishyness you pull from the fish depends on how long you want to keep pouring off the oil. An hour or two is OK for salmon. It might take overnight in the fridge for fishier seafood.
After extracting the oil, rinse the fish very well. Cook or smoke after that.
Cut out the red meat aka bloodline and discard. For fish like a Tuna that has red colored meat, cut away the darker red portions and discard. Soaking in milk also works.
cajun spice, salt, and flour mix coating fried in canola oil works like a charm.
Mix vinegar with fresh water then soak fish in it for 5 minutes; rinse and dry it with paper towel before marinating. This method will be able to reduce 50% fishy smell. You should not cook fish if you want to remove fishy smell 100%.
Ben
Your final sentence contains a slight ambiguity. I assume you mean it is best to avoid fish if you want to avoid the smell altogether, not that you should eat uncooked fish.
My mom taught me to soak all seafood in milk to remove the strong fishy flavor. It really works!
I understand the original question, at least as to how it applies to prawns. There is a word in Indonesia (where seafood always comes to the pan still kicking) -which refers exactly to an unpleasant 'seafloor' or 'bilge' smell -and taste present in some prawns. I've noticed it particularly in some Australian prawns though whether due to age or species I dont know.
I haven't tried the suggested milk solution, but an overnight soak in salt does help.
As for fish, assuming it's all very fresh of course, different kinds of fish can have vastly different smell and taste so it's important to get to know which is which. A GOOD fish supplier (usually NOT yr corner fish'n'chips shop) should be able to advise.
Oily fish, such as bluefish or herring, can be balanced by including acidic ingredients like tomatoes, lemon, or vinegar in the cooking process and/or finishing sauce. Think of it as making a well-balanced vinegrette.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.934395 | 2011-02-27T20:31:54 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12639",
"authors": [
"Allison",
"Amanda Reilly",
"Anne Slattery",
"Bobbi Lee",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Cindy LeBlanc",
"Escoce",
"J G",
"JS.",
"Jonny Sooter",
"O.O",
"Paul Butcher",
"Peluqueriahbfactory spam",
"gallly",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107965",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123634",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3604",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4593",
"immutabl",
"lordofsarcasm",
"notthetup",
"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
} |
13160 | What is the purpose of a pressure cooker in a rice cooker?
Some of the more expensive rice cookers advertise that they use pressure in combination with induction to cook rice. On one Japanese website that sells rice cookers, they showed some diagrams that I couldn't follow since they were in Japanese, however, the images seemed to indicate that the water is changed in some way (maybe taste) because of the pressure cooker.
The rice cookers that include a pressure cooker cooking method are also more expensive. So, what exactly is the purpose of this pressure cooker method?
Thanks!
The usual purpose of pressure in pressure cookers is that they can heat water to >100°C without it starting to boil, thereby reducing cooking time.
Mine takes 50 minutes for white rice and it is brand new. How much will it reduce cooking time? A lot, a little?
I'd say that depends on several factors, mostly on what rice you use and what pressure the cooker generates. A quick websearch has pointed me to http://missvickie.com/howto/grains/rice-cooking.htm, it seems the reduction can be quite drastic... 4-8 minutes for white rice!
I think the 4-8 minute time is more likely for rice that has been processed to cook normally in the 10-20 minute range; pressure cookers don't typically reduce cooking times by more than a factor of two, or three at most. So I would expect that you could cook your white rice that takes 50 minutes now, in 20-30 minutes in a pressure cooker.
@Erik, my rice cooker is of the pressure cooker variety :)
@subt13: 50 minutes for white rice? It takes 15-20 minutes on the stove. Are you referring to brown rice, which normally takes about 50 mins?
50 minutes for white rice?! My very very very cheap electric countertop rice cooker does it in about 15 minutes. If you were mainly interested in the pressure cooker-version because it could reduce cooking time, I'd suggest reviewing the expected cooking times of other rice cookers as well.
@Martha, KimbaFYa, the cheap rice cookers usually take about 15 minutes as you say, but the nicer ones are designed to produce better quality/tasting rice. It says in the manual from 50 to an hour for regular white rice. It shocked me at first too, but my gf from Japan says that is normal. Good rice is worth the wait..
@adebaumann, can you expand on the importance of why it is important that the water doesn't boil?
Sorry about the delay... your question was hiding.
The main effect of the pressure is not to prevent the water from boiling, but to raise the temperature at which it boils.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.934972 | 2011-03-15T15:02:03 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13160",
"authors": [
"Arun",
"Erik P.",
"KimbaF",
"Martha F.",
"O.O",
"ShoeLace",
"Thomas",
"Zaenille",
"adebaumann",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27270",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4593"
],
"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
} |
12651 | Should rice be washed with hot water or cold water?
For both long-grain (Jasmine) and short-grain rice I typically rinse the rice with cold water to remove some of the starch and to clean the rice a bit. What temperature (hot/warm/cold) should I use to wash the rice, and why does it matter?
Thanks!
Why did you put "Jasmine" after long-grain? I use Jasmine rice occasionally for Thai dishes, but it is not the most common form of long-grain rice, Basmati is far more common.
I only use Jasmine long-grain rice, this is the first time I have heard of Basmati. Thanks for that info.
I grew up in SE Asia and now live in Australia. Long grain always refers to Jasmine rice. Basmati is always explicitly named.
@subt13 - you haven't heard of Basmati? You poor thing - it's the nicest rice by a mile (admits english curry addict)
@mgb - I need to get out more :(
The discussion in this question (http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12693/why-clean-a-pot-used-to-cook-rice-with-cold-water) is relevant. Basically, hot water runs the risk of causing the starch to clump.
Unfortunately I don't agree with the given answers. I recently bought a $350 zojirushi rice cooker. According to the manual there is such a thing as "rinse-free" rice. There is even a function on the rice cooker for this setting. In addition, the rice cooker manual explains that the rice should be rinsed several times with cold water.
"rinse-free" rice is a product sold primarily on the Japanese market, which is short-grain Japanese rice that's been milled in such a way as to not need rinsing. This kind of rice requires a bit of extra water; however, this setting is not for other kinds of rice. (comment suggested by anon. user)
It is usually recommended that basmati and jasmine not be rinsed because they are not overly starchy and the taste is better unrinsed. American style short grain rice and japanese rice is usually rinsed to provide a cleaner flavor, but this can also wash away some of the vitamin fortification. Do not rinse risotto rice, since the starchiness is important to the dish.
When you do rinse rice, the purpose is to clean it and reduce the starch, but not to cook it, so cold water is probably best, but it likely does not matter much.
In the end, rinsing or not is not terribly noticeable, and mostly comes down to taste. You will definitely see both sides argued well. To me, this usually means either way is fine.
Who recommends unwashed jasmine? Every source I can remember coming across recommends rinsing at least 2-3 times (some people suggest as many as 6 times). If you want it to be sticky then I suppose you wouldn't rinse it.
As I said, it comes down to taste. If I was using jasmine, it would be to get that creamier consistency. But, I fully support that you might prefer it differently. I found a reference which might help someone decide whether or not to rinse different types here: http://busycooks.about.com/od/howtocook/a/ricescience.htm
I always rinse basmati rice, it's not polished so there is a lot of starch. Rinsing is the only way to get it light and fluffy.
I also rinse basmati rice most of the time -- recommended to me by Iraqi relatives who make rice all the time. When rinsed, the rice separates into individual grains that remain distinct even when mixed with other ingredients. Unrinsed, the rice will be slightly clumpier, and have more distinct flavor rather than blending into other ingredients.
Ditto. I always rinse my basmati 5 or 6 times, then soak it for 15-20 mins, then rinse again once or twice.
[citation needed] "Recommended" by whom exactly? It seems rather a dubious recommendation to me.
@verbose The citation is the chefs I have worked for at restaurants. That doesn't mean you can't disagree. The nice thing is you can cook a couple servings of rice and decide for yourself.
I cook both jasmine and basmati on a regular basis and I no longer bother to rinse either of them. The recipes I started with suggest rinsing with cool water until the water goes clear, but I found that it didn't really make a noticeable difference to me, so I stopped rinsing it. My rice turns out fluffy and delicious every time. Other types of rice might have a more noticeable difference whether rinsed or not. For example, a starchy rice like arborio, you specifically DON'T rinse because you usually want the starch to make risotto or rice pudding creamy.
My guess is that jasmine and basmati just aren't starchy enough to make the rice sticky with my cooking method, since that would presumably be why you'd want to rinse -- for a fluffier, less sticky result. Getting the right ratio of rice to water will probably have a bigger effect on the final texture. Whether you prefer the texture achieved with or without rinsing is largely a matter of personal taste. Since I like it just as much without rinsing, I skip that step.
For reference, here's my cooking method:
1.5 cups jasmine rice (or 2 cups basmati rice)
1.75 cups water (or 2.5 cups for basmati)
Bring to the boil, then cover and simmer on low for 15 minutes.
Remove from heat and let rest 5 minutes (or 10 minutes for basmati) with the lid on.
I suspect there may also be a cultural component to rinsing rice, which may depend on factors beyond starch level in the rice, such as tradition/history and how rice is processed/packaged/sold in different countries. As long as your rice does not need rinsing to clean it, I doubt there's really a "right" answer as to whether or not you should rinse your rice. Try making a batch of rinsed at the same time as a batch of un-rinsed, compare, and decide what suits your tastes.
According to On Food and Cooking, rinsing removes surface starch, making for a fluffier, less sticky result, while soaking allows the rice to absorb some water, speeding cooking time. It also mentions that in China and Japan, cooking methods are oriented towards rice that can be easily eaten with chopsticks, so removing all the starch is less desirable.
I'm in agreement with this. I used to rinse rice but no longer do. I think, though, that the rice:water ratio might need some experimentation for each individual. I'm certain pan construction & simmer temperature have a great effect on necessary ratio. On my home stove, using what I've discovered is the lowest temperature simmer ring & heavy, well lidded anodised aluminium pans, my ratio is about 1 rice to 1.6 water. Any more & it comes out sticky. I use a similar simmer/rest method as you describe, but tend towards 15/15. I check for the 'crackle' sound to determine my switch-off point.
The main reason for rinsing, and indeed soaking, rice is not starch, but arsenic. Surprising people are unaware of this.
'Arsenic In Rice: How Concerned Should You Be?':
https://foodrevolution.org/blog/arsenic-in-rice/
Scare-mongering. https://www.nutrition.org.uk/nutritioninthenews/headlines/arsenicinrice.html
@unlisted That link doesn’t support your claim of “scare-mongering”, the issue is a lot more nuanced than that. In particular, the articke contains the recommendation that “[h]igh consumers of rice may wish to consider cooking methods which reduce arsenic concentration in rice.”
I always rinse mine after cooking with boiling hot water. I never rinse if having with cream and sugar for desert. Many restaurants and even many Iron Chefs agree; washing rice in HOT water then frying it with whatever is the way it should be done.
Doesn't the boiling water rinse start cooking the rice?
Which Iron Chef?
With the information about arsenic levels in rice, it seems prudent to rinse multiple times or soak rice.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/rice-cooking-arsenic-traces-poisonous-boil-water-away-drain-excess-danger-food-a7568436.html
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.935221 | 2011-02-28T00:30:47 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12651",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Aliénor",
"Allison",
"AnSy",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Juan",
"KatieK",
"Konrad Rudolph",
"Martha F.",
"Martin Beckett",
"Megasaur",
"O.O",
"Orbling",
"Tetsujin",
"Tracy Gilbert",
"blake buoye",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26083",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26084",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26253",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4593",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62489",
"jack harper",
"lemontwist",
"michael",
"rumtscho",
"user4878",
"verbose"
],
"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
} |
5081 | Peeling roasted green chilies
Last time I roasted green chilies, which consisted of charring the skin, I had a tough time peeling them. Is there an easy way to peel roasted green chilies, or some secret I'm missing?
See: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2517/what-are-some-good-ways-to-roast-peppers
@hobodave: People aren't taking the hint...I'm afraid your going to have to merge them
@dmckee Alas, there was no hint for me to take. I searched for "peel green chilies" and there were no results for peppers on the entire page of search results. Perhaps "peel" isn't even the right word, but hey, I never claimed I was a pro.
Possible duplicate of What are some good ways to Roast Peppers
@Luciano : agreed, but for whatever mods see this -- merge the AttilaNYC question to this one. (there's a strange history w/ the AttilaNYC questions, and it's better to not leave them around)
The standard advice is a paper bag, but I don't think it is optimal. I always put them in the smallest bowl that will hold them, and put a plate over the top of that. The idea is for the peppers to sit in their own steam for a few minutes while they cool down. The steam seems to loosen the skins.
Whatever you do, don't take the skins off under running water, which is a tip that you will see sometimes. It makes it easier, but washes away a ton of the flavor!
Consider wearing food-grade latex gloves while doing this procedure if the chiles are at all spicy. It will save you from burning hands later.
Thanks for these great tips. I ran them under water last time, too, when I had trouble peeling them! I tried green chilies again tonight, and the roasted skins practically just fell off after letting them steam for a moment.
I pop them into a paper bag and close the top for a few minutes right out of the oven. Shake them a bit. It seems to help loosen the skin which will then peel off in large sheets. If it still sticks a lot, try roasting them longer next time.
You may still miss a few (mostly small) pieces, but that isn't a big deal.
Don't recall where I learned that.
I like the shaking idea, I'll be sure to try that next time!
I use a tupperware with a lid that seals. Have had bad luck with paper bags. I give them a solid 5-10 minutes, and then use a sharp paring knife if the skin is still sticking or just to make lifting the (now very slippery) pieces of skin easier.
I was warned a long time ago that I might have a problem using a sealed tupperware as opposed to a paper bag, as the hot steam can't escape - two different people told me that my tupperware might explode, or that it might contract so much that it pulls itself out of shape. Neither has happened yet, thankfully, and I've been roasting peppers regularly for years now.
If you fully, fully char them, it should make it much easier, so if there's any possibility you're not blackening them enough, give them another few minutes on the fire.
Agree with Michael about not doing it under water, it definitely makes it easier, but you lose so much flavor!
I use the heavy plastic freezer bags (similar to @stephennmcdonald Tupperware method) making sure to seal the chilies in their own steam for a couple minutes. Wipe the charred skin off with a clean dish towel or paper towel.
Are you charring them over an open flame, and at high heat? If not, doing that should help. Also make sure that they are roasted enough. You could always but a chilie roaster. If you've never seen these in action, they can do entire sacks of chilie at a time over a propane burner, inside a rotating drum that take a lot of the skin off. I really miss the smeel of roasting chilie in the fall.
I use water! Yes, I admit it. But not to rinse the chiles, I use it on my hands, dipping from time to time to rinse and moisten them so I can feel the chiles and skins and that small bit of extra moisture helps lubricate the process.
I use plastic bags or plastic wrapped bowl for a few minutes to steam.
In Santa Fé when buying the thin burlap like bags full of chiles coming out of the roasters from people selling in parking lots, we'd immediately put them in a plastic trash bag and get home quickly, put a bucket of water in the middle and get to peeling.
Use the edge of a spoon to scrape of the peel. It works really well if the chile's are roasted properly and be sure to keep them steamed in a plastic bag. Also, I wear plastic gloves to keep my hands from burning
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.935970 | 2010-08-13T04:34:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5081",
"authors": [
"Greg Bacchus",
"Jason Griffey",
"Joe",
"John",
"Luciano",
"Mickster",
"Sherwin Flight",
"dIvYaNsH sInGh",
"dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1928",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9864",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9865",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9868",
"indiv",
"stephennmcdonald"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
6266 | How should I prepare Bok Choy before I cook it?
I just bought a pack of bok choy that I want to steam inside a bag along with some halibut. How should I cut it up before putting it in the bag? Would the preparation be different if I was cooking it for stir-fry (or something else)?
Should I separate the white stem from the leaf and eat both? Won't the leaf cook much faster than the rib? How much of the stem should be eaten?
Also, this isn't the "baby" bok choy, the shape is more like a head of romaine.
I've never tried steaming bok choy, but yes, the ribs and leafy bits cook at different speeds.
For stir frys I trim the bottom so the ribs come free, clean off any dirt that's gotten trapped in between, then stack up the leaves and cut the leaves from the ribs. I slice the ribs into about 5mm / 3/16" slices, and add them towards the end; the leaves I cut into ribbons (perpendicular to the ribs), and stir them in at the last second, so they barely cook. The center I just chop the top off the leafy bit, and slice the more rib-like bits a litte larger than the rest of the ribs (they're thinner, so cook faster).
As I've never tried steaming it, and I don't tend to cook in bags (except for silver turtles when camping), this is going to be a complete guess. Now, it tastes fine al dente, so you could leave the ribs as large as I use for a stir fry, but en papillote tends to be fancier cooking, so I'd probably try for maybe 1/6" slices or a little thicker (maybe 2-3mm), and if you had a mandoline so they all came out even, that'd be great. I'd still cut the leaves into ribbons, just because it's easier to eat than a huge intact leaf.
I'd assume that the leaves would cook at a similar rate as spinich, and the ribs closer to fennel, if that helps at all.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.936349 | 2010-08-28T22:19:10 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6266",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
81960 | Rice Variety for Puerto Rican Rice?
I recently visited Puerto Rico and was blown away by how consistently good the rice was at restaurants. It appeared to be a medium grain rice very similar in consistency and texture to East Asian rices that have a certain degree of stickiness while maintaining its shape and grain integrity. Later, I was very surprised to learn that Puerto Rico imports nearly all of its rice, but that gave me hope that I might be able to find the same variety back home. I visited a supermarket while there, however, all of the rice I found was labeled "Long Grain" (despite appearing to be medium or even short grain).
What variety of rice is typically used in Puerto Rican cuisine?
Wikipedia suggests that longer grain rice is often used in the Puerto Rican diaspora; I am specifically interested in the type of rice used today in Puerto Rico, and what typical varieties I can use to mimic it.
Why are you so sure that the "long grain" rice wasn't? Different varieties of rice have different grain lengths, true... so even standard "long grain" rice looks short compared to basmati, for example.
I'm not sure. The grains in the rice labeled "long grain" at the supermarket looked very similar to arborio. Also, the rice served at restaurants behaved in all ways similar to medium or short grain rice (with much more amylopectin than a rice like basmati or jasmine).
Pan Am imports Company. Imports 80% of the rice into Puerto Rico. Majority comes from California. I have had California rice in the Philippines. Also called American rice here. Sold here also. A lighter fluffy rice with mid starch. Does this sound like it? Long grain rice. Used here for special traditional Spanish dish's. Also imports some rice from China to Puerto Rico. It is a different rice than your Midwest rices I have had that also. On the guessing side. California rice. Most from there is exported. Not sold in much of America.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.936541 | 2017-05-24T14:48:09 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81960",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"ESultanik",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
96703 | How to prepare vegetables for a sandwich that can last for several days in a fridge?
I'm not much of a cook but neither am I a complete stranger to the kitchen. I like to prepare sandwiches to take with me to work in a box. Since I do it often, I like to make them more "interesting" than just plain bread-meat-cheese. So far however I've only come up with the idea of putting in various off-the-shelf sauces/dressings/whathaveyou that I can buy in the supermarket.
Whenever I buy and eat pre-made sandwiches, they taste a lot better than what I make myself. I've tried to figure out why this is and I think it's because they contain vegetables. I like vegetables in a sandwich - cucumbers, lettuce, tomato, avocado, bell peppers, etc.
The problem with adding them myself is that it just takes too much time to do. I usually make the sandwiches in a hurry in the morning, so I have about 5-10 minutes to do it. Washing-peeling-slicing-storing - that just takes too much time. Sometimes I add pickles, but most of the time I consider even that too big of a hassle.
So I was thinking - if I could pre-slice the vegetables and store them for several days (ideally - up to 5 days), that would do it. I'd just have to grab them from a box and throw them on the sandwich. I'm afraid however that sliced vegetables won't keep so long, even in the fridge. I haven't tried it though.
Are there any tricks out there that could help me? Some way to make sure they last longer, or perhaps are much quicker to prepare in the mornings? We can skip tomatoes, I think a sandwich with tomatoes in it would be a mess after several hours in a box anyway.
Or perhaps other ideas to quickly give a sandwich an interesting taste? (Subjective, I know, but I'm not picky and will try different things)
There’s a third option between storing the vegetables for a week and cutting them in the morning:
Cut just the amount you need for one morning the evening before. Storing overnight is not a safety issue (assuming basic principles like storing in the fridge are followed), and you still can “slap them on” as requested.
Another thought:
You describe cutting in the morning as too time-consuming, but my favorite tool in this context is a small cheapo vegetable slicer (like this one). I hold it right over the sandwich, shave a few slices of cucumber or similar right on it and am done. Thirty seconds, tops, including a quick rinse.
If you are interested in other toppings, I suggest you take a second look at the leftovers from yesterday’s dinner: Leafy greens like lettuce (sans dressing!) keep well for a few days and some roasted vegetables are also interesting: Either they are already spiced or a dash of lemon or mild vinegar plus an overnight stint in the fridge gives you a perfect sandwich vegetable - not unlike antipasti. Slice them right when you are packing them up, of course, for a grab-and-go sandwich preparation.
Well, I have a slicer like that already (not the cheapest either), however I don't think it's much easier than just using a knife. And extra washing up too. As for cutting the previous evening (or even making the whole sandwich?)... well... that assumes a fair deal of discipline which I may or may not have. ^^) But it's solid advice, no doubt about that.
@Vilx- 5-10 minutes is a very long time to make a sandwich, unless you're cooking something. Even with the extra washing, you should have the time, if you know what you're putting on it. If you don't go with a mandolin like the one mentioned, a veggie peeler might be able to satisfy the need for quick veggie slices, they'll just be thin. :)
Well, true, 5-10min is pretty long for a single sandwich. I guess I didn't phrase that very well. The truth is I'm making at least 2 sandwiches for myself, one for my daughter, and another for my wife. And everyone wants different things in theirs, so I need to make at least two trips to the fridge every way just to get all the stuff. Unwrap and rewrap things. Slice a dozen cheese slices. Etc. It kinda adds up. About 10 minutes is usually what it takes and I usually do it in the last moment because we all want to sleep a bit more...
So, yes, you're right - simply getting up 5 minutes earlier would probably be a much more simple solution. But also... much harder. For reasons entirely unrelated to the kitchen.
But you do work assembly line style, right? Laying out everything you need in a handy order so that you can easily grab whatever you need for a specific sandwich without further wrapping/unwrapping of items or going back and forth a few extra times? That’s the real game changer for me (yes, I have kids at school and we adults sometimes pack lunch).
Well... kind of. I do bring everything from the fridge to the table at once, and then I set aside the bread for each of them. After that I make the sandwiches by person, because ingredients for two different people almost never overlap (except for bread which I set aside before). So I normally touch every package/jar/container just once.
Personally I wouldn’t bother fully washing up the slicer/knife after every use to slice half a cucumber or a tomato - the vegetables you’re cutting with it you obviously consider clean enough to actually eat and their juices are water-soluble, just give it a quick rinse.
It depends on your vegetable, but the best way to store most prepped vegetables is to make sure they stay moist. The best way to do this is to cover them with a damp cloth. Another thing you can do is to add lemon juice. The acid acts as a natural preservative and a flavor enhancer.
Wouldn't moisture also encourage mold? Lemon juice - interesting, I'll have to try that.
in the refrigerator with an acid on it? You will get mold eventually no matter what but you should be safe.
If your crisper drawer is clean and you keep the slices in a container just overnight, not really. It Depends™, but I’ve had to toss out “forgotten” veggies from my fridge now and then and they were usually withered, sometimes slightly rotting, very rarely moldy. I also use those perforated bags meant to keep vegetables fresh, as far as I know they work by keeping some amount of moisture and CO2 around the vegetable, and they work wonders at least for intact vegetables. (I once used a capsicum that’s been in that bag for two months or so and it was still crisp.)
If your vegetables are wilting (especially about lettuce) then you should take a box with a lid (if it seals well, that's better, but normal does it too), put some water on the bottom, and put the vegetables raised above the water - either large pieces directly on something trivet-like, or smaller cut pieces in a second, smaller box sitting again on a trivet (or a makeshift trivet).
If your vegetables are going slimy or moldy, there is nothing you can do. The lifetime of a cut vegetable is 3-5 days in the fridge, just like any other perishable food, and it can be shorter in some unlucky cases (e.g. if your vegetables were older or already had some invisible stage of mold when put in the fridge). Short of preserving them (so e.g. using pickles instead of cucumbers on the sandwich), you can't really do anything.
The last resort would be to freeze them, but the texture will change so much that most people would not eat a sandwich with thawed vegetables, so it is very unlikely that this is a viable option.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.936729 | 2019-03-03T20:26:11 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96703",
"authors": [
"Jorgomli",
"Stephie",
"Summer",
"Vilx-",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2361",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73083",
"millimoose"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
117240 | When washing ingredients, does it matter if the water is cold or warm?
Inspired by What is the point of washing produce in cold water?
Multiple times I remember reading or getting advice that [ingredient X] needs to be washed in cold water before preparing and that warm water will... not precisely ruin them, but somehow make it worse.
Now, I don't remember precisely which ingredients those were... fish maybe? Or mushrooms? Could be some other vegetables too.
Anyways, this advice always has seemed suspicious to me. The difference in temperature between cold and warm water is maybe 30°C, not really enough to do anything chemically I think, and warm water is so much more pleasant for the hands... And especially for ingredients that you intend to cook right afterwards anyway, what harm can it do?
So - are there any ingredients that actually need to be washed in cold water, otherwise it negatively affects the quality of the end result? Preferably ones that are not super exotic.
This doesn't exactly answer the question you asked, but you should not drink hot water from the tap. Hot or even warm water will corrode a metal pipe more quickly than cold water. Older plumbing often contains lead. Lead consumption can have serious negative consequences, especially for children. The amount of additional lead in hotter water may not be huge, but considering the risk, it's generally recommended that you not drink or cook with hot water from the tap.
Indeed there aren't many situations where the temperature is relevant for the food quality. I can think of only one where this would be the case.
Cold temperatures help tender leaves stay fresh longer. If you were to submerge lettuce leaves or similar greens in warm water and wash them there, you might get a less crisp salad. The difference will be very small though, usually it wouldn't be noticed.
One of the main reasons I always use cold water is the fact that it is cleaner. It does not go through boilers and all other heating machinery, which could alter its taste or smell and then spoil your food. If your house is old enough and the water heating system has had a chance to get rusty and dirty you can actually see that the water looks different (it's not quite as clear as the cold water).
If you were to heat up the cold, clean water in a clean way (which obviously doesn't make sense, just a thought experiment), then I don't think it would make much of a difference. Having said that a friend of mine claimed that if you wash fruits in warm water it can actually open up their pores and make the dirt go inside them rather than be rinsed of, but to be honest it doesn't make a ton of sense to me.
Actually... in my condo that might actually be the case! You see, we get cold tap water supplied by one company, and the heat energy by another (which is supplied by a pipe of super hot water). And then in the basement the cold water pipe gets split into two, with one half going through a heat exchanger and the other straight to the tap. So there's very little difference between the cold water and the hot - it's literally just that one was warmed up.
It depends on the plumbing — and location. In the UK, for instance, hot water traditionally went through a cold water storage tank, a heater, and sometimes a hot water tank — some of which might have been open to the elements, or silted up, or whatever, so not safe to drink. Whereas cold taps in the kitchen (and sometimes bathroom) come straight from the rising main, and so are safe drinking water. (This is also why mixer taps aren't common here.) Of course, these days we're more likely to have combi boilers or other heaters providing safe hot water directly.
If your hot water supply is not clean enough to use the water to wash your food, do you trust it to wash yourself? I would suggest to change the system to a more modern one where the hot water is of drink water quality, as is easily done these days.
@gidds' comment is still true for a lot of the UK. The cold header tank is covered (if modern) but not sealed. Mine certainly has some silt in it. The hot water tank might peak at 60°C, but with a timer on the hot water system can sit at a fair bit cooler for hours on end. However it is still clean enough to wash dishes you eat off. Old systems with uncovered header tanks may not be - dead vermin in them isn't unknown - so are deprecated
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.937279 | 2021-09-18T22:47:51 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117240",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Juhasz",
"Vilx-",
"Willeke",
"gidds",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2361",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81092"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
50374 | What is a "raw smoked" gammon (or ham)?
In many recipes I've come across the term "raw smoked gammon" (sometimes also "raw smoked ham"). English is not my primary language, so such terms are sometimes difficult. This site has an answer on what "gammon" is (meat from pig's hind leg), but I'm baffled by the "raw smoked" part. How can something be raw and smoked at the same time?
The way I understand these terms:
If it's raw then, well, it's raw - it hasn't been processed in any way. The butcher cut a piece off a freshly slaughtered animal and delivered it to the store, probably cooled (but not frozen). You can't eat raw meat, you need to process it first.
Smoked on the other hand means that it's been processed with smoke, all the bad bacteria have been killed, and it's safe to eat. Also, it's the very opposite of "raw".
So... WAT?
Added: also, I realize that such things might be regional. Foodstuffs that are common in one country might be nonexistent in another. Perhaps this is one of such cases, so I'll really appreciate a detailed explanation. :)
What country are the recipes from?
@Batman - UK, I suppose. One reference I remember was in BBC good food.
There is a lot of ambiguous and misused terminology in cooking... added to that, different countries have specific legal definitions for foodstuffs that vary from one jurisdiction to another.
Gammon vs. Ham
Some sources call it gammon if it is raw, while others claim gammon differs from ham because it is cured with the belly and then detached, whereas hams are detached from the rest of the animal and then cured (a nearly useless distinction); also the words gammon, ham and bacon are sometimes used interchangeably. In the US we call it ham when it is cured, whether it is cooked or raw; and we call it fresh ham if it is uncured (We pretty much call anything from the hind leg of a pig ham).
Fresh vs. Raw vs. Cooked
Raw does not mean that no processing has been performed, it just means that it hasn't been cooked or the proteins haven't been denatured chemically. Curing, smoking, marinating, freezing, and drying, and milling can all be performed without cooking.
Generally, "Fresh" means no processing has been performed. In the US and UK, the term "fresh frozen" has gained a foothold more as a marketing term than actually providing useful information.
There are a number of cured hams that are eaten raw and are safe. For example prosciutto, jamón ibérico, jamón serrano, and some country hams in the US. Most of these are dry cured and may or may not be smoked.
Types of smoking.
The more commonly known type, and what most people call "smoking", is actually hot smoking. Hot smoking is what happens when the item being smoked is kept in a smoker at a temperature high enough to cook the item, usually in the 225-250˚F/105-120˚C range.
The other type of smoking is cold smoking. During cold smoking the smoker or smoking chamber does not get hot enough to cook the item being smoked, usually 100˚F/38˚C or lower. This type of smoking used to be much more common as an added protection and flavor for cured foods as well as food that are more delicate. These include gammon/hams, fish, cheeses, bacon, and seafood. Just as many foods that were previously dry cured are now wet cured, many of these products are now produced industrially using "wet smoking" or smoke flavor additives instead of cold smoking methods.
As with cold-smoked meats, some "wet smoking" yields a product that is technically raw, because its proteins have not been denatured by heat. Instead, liquid smoke or smoke flavor is added to the brine or applied as a coating before cooking.
Cold smoking has had a bit of a resurgence lately with the invention of smoke guns, which allow you to add smoke without the need of a large cold smoker.
This gets my +1, but I'll add the tl;dr - "raw smoked" means cold-smoked, such that the item is smoked without being cooked.
'Raw smoked gammon' indicates that it is a piece of cured pork that has been subjected to a cold smoking process to improve flavour but NOT enough to cook it to ensure that it is safe to eat - so it counts as raw meat and still needs cooking. Smoked hams (in UK anyway) are usually sold cooked and safe to eat.
To quote BBC Good Food :"Simply put, gammon is raw and ham is ready-to-eat. Gammon has been cured in the same way as bacon whereas ham has been dry-cured or cooked. Once you've cooked your gammon, you can call it ham."
Smoking doesn't mean something is cooked - for example, you can buy raw smoked bacon but you still need to cook it in order to eat it!
Worth noting that you can HOT smoke and COLD smoke.
That's nice, but it doesn't answer my question...
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.937660 | 2014-12-06T14:31:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50374",
"authors": [
"Batman",
"Doug",
"Doug Kowalski",
"Jumping Rascals",
"Mark Naff",
"Tim Tillotson",
"Tommy Peters",
"Vilx-",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120536",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120553",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120570",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120577",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2361",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29230",
"logophobe",
"marie ryan",
"sasikumar padmanabhan",
"spammer"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
43950 | Why don't I have to season my cast-iron teapot?
This seems a bit silly really, but every single discussion of cast-iron cookware begins with "Seasoning your cookware", yet I've never heard of seasoning a cast-iron teapot. Is there a reason for this? Should I have been seasoning the things this whole time? Assume they're not enameled, and I use them to brew tea but not to heat water.
I've seen cast iron kettles, but all the iron tea pots I've seen were coated with enamel on the inside. Are you sure it isn't intended just for heating water?
@user5561 The outside isn't enameled, and it doesn't look shiny inside, but I can't fit my hand inside to touch and I've long since lost the paperwork. So maybe?
You can season the exterior of the kettle to help prevent rust, if you like.
The interior of a cast iron tea kettle is often rust-proofed through chemicals that accrue during normal use. One of these is lime scale. Repeatedly boiling water, especially hard water, will build a coating of lime scale that will keep rust at bay.
Another set of chemicals that help reduce the occurrence of rust are tannins. The tannic acid in tea leaves will react with red iron rust on the kettle to produce a more stable, blue-black compound called ferric tannate. To "season" a brand new tea kettle you can save used tea leaves and bags then place several in the pot and adding boiling water. Allow the "tea" to sit for 20 minutes then discard and rinse.
As other answers state, a traditional fat-polymer seasoning of the interior is unnecessary because you do not need to prevent food from sticking to the kettle.
nice, just the info I was looking for. "ferric tannate." where did you learn that?! Come to think of it, ferrite and tannin naturally suggests ferric tannate I suppose, but thanks for the info.
The reason for seasoning is to prevent foods from sticking while cooking. The polymerized fats that constitute the seasoning layer provide an extremely slick surface which doesn't bind well to foods, so sticking is vastly reduced.
None of this has applications in a tea pot, where sticking is not a concern, so seasoning is not necessary.
Yeah, if your water is sticking to your teapot, You've Got Problems(TM). :)
@Marti And then ... it depends on what kind of tea you drink
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.938170 | 2014-05-06T20:11:43 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43950",
"authors": [
"Alan",
"Chris Wang",
"Dave from south carolina",
"Dr. belisarius",
"Ellise",
"Hope Clinical Research LA",
"Lukas",
"Marti",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103153",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103154",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103162",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103226",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54825",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"user3157695",
"user5561"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
45479 | How soft does a Kohlrabi get when cooked?
I'm told Kohlrabi will soften when cooked, but I cut it in medallions and it still seemed really firm after stir-frying. How soft can I expect it to get?
The canonical application for kohlrabi that I'm familiar with is soup, for which you shred the vegetable (or if you're feeling fancy, julienne it). Naturally, the smaller pieces then get pretty soft when cooked. Dunno if stir-frying is really an ideal cooking method for kohlrabi.
I spoke with the farm that sold me the kohlrabi; they have seen people make something akin to mashed rutabaga by boiling kohlrabi for ages and ages, so it gets about that soft. Note that mashed rutabaga is apparently still firmer than mashed potatoes, but obviously soft enough to mash into a pulp.
For a stir-fry, they suggested a match-stick shape rather than medallions; my second such stir-fry found them to have about the texture of halfway-cooked onions, soft enough not to crunch anymore but firm enough to hold their shape on a fork.
Perhaps a par boil would help with frying medallions.
I always find wet cooking methods most effective with kohlrabi. They're great in braised dishes, as they'll hold up pretty well to lengthy cooking. A fairly long roast works well too.
Kohlrabi is essentially like a giant broccoli stem.
If you steam it or boil it, the texture will be like the "tree trunk" part of a broccoli stalk.
You can use a potato peeler to get thin ribbons and steam those. That should be flexible enough to use as a non-gluten pasta substitute.
It is also good shredded with a tart apple and some carrot and tossed with a slaw dressing, but you don't cook that.
I've had kohlrabi with a very pleasant texture without boiling forever. It behaves a bit like carrots, but needs some more time.
I can't imagine stir fry being enough for the kohlrabi to soften, it just needs its time. Maybe 20 to 30 minutes of boiling should be enough for the medallions. You can possibly add them to a stir fry afterwards, although if you want them from the pan, tempura might be the tastier option.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.938404 | 2014-07-11T12:42:24 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45479",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"Marti",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
42177 | Can lettuce wraps be less messy?
Tonight's dinner was a beef with rice wrapped in lettuce leaves. It was tasty, but very messy and time-consuming to wrap. Is there some trick to this that makes it easier?
What lettuce were you using? I like something like boston or butter lettuce for this sort of thing.
@Joe We used boston
Yes, they can. Most people I know who make them for the first time just use too much filling.
Traditional leaf-wrapped dishes (I know them under the Turkish word sarma) use a softened leaf (use pickled ones, or blanch fresh leaves) and a small amount of filling. Use one heaped tablespoon of filling on a 10 cm leaf, then wrap tightly.
A demonstration with sauerkraut sarmi is available on YouTube: enter link description here. Watch 2:10 to 2:30.
The end result does not fall apart, even after cutting into it. (grape leaf on the left, sauerkraut on the right).
Not sure if this is what you're looking for, but rather than trying to solve the problem, you can also just accept it. Bring it all to the table, and just make wraps as you eat them. It won't make it less messy, but it won't be much slower than eating pre-made wraps, and you'll be spending that time at the table with people instead of waiting to eat.
To reduce the mess at least a bit, go for leafier lettuce, avoiding the parts with thick, stiff ribs, and definitely avoiding varieties like iceberg. (I've seen people recommend iceberg for wraps, but it seems like an awful choice to me.)
You can also potentially use other greens. There's napa cabbage and blanched cabbage, but also things with a bit more flavor that you might find in an Asian grocery like perilla (shiso, kaenip, ...) - I'm not sure I've had all of them, but the leaves used for ssam are probably good ideas.
Lettuce wraps are great further wrapped in rice paper, like for fresh rolls. It gives the wraps an additional layer of lovely texture and holds everything together, making eating them a whole lot less messy.
Blanch the leaves briefly (I like cabbage over lettuce)
Instead of minced (ground) meat use a decent sausage (whole meat). Prick the sausage skin well so it releases it's cooking juices into the cabbage
Add sauce inside or outside the leaves (as you prefer), and bake as you like
Quick and simple, little mess, tastes almost the same
The beef was in slices, I'm told it was flank steak, but the rest of your tips look good :)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.938598 | 2014-02-20T00:19:18 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42177",
"authors": [
"Beganyi Law spam",
"Connie",
"Haw'n Hillbilly",
"Joe",
"Kim Oun",
"Olivia's Flower's spam",
"Spammer",
"Yamikuronue",
"cookingstuff",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98459",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98460",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98461",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98465",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98466",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98628",
"neydroydrec"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
21931 | Coloring ham green
It has come to my attention that in the book "Green Eggs and Ham", the property "green" is applied to both the eggs and the ham. How can I achieve this effect (green ham) at home? I have years of green eggs + normal ham to make up for ;)
When I did this as a kid with my mom, we just put food dye (the same we put in the eggs) on the slices of ham.
As someone who has tried this though, I have to strongly recommend you don't. While it's easy to get around the fact that the eggs you're about to eat are green, ham that's green just doesn't look right. It was a struggle to eat it even though I knew it was only food coloring.
My dad wouldn't even touch it because it looked so wrong.
Disclaimer: I cannot guarantee the following will be tasty or edible...
My first thought would be a brine of some some sort. I imagine that should turn your ham green, by soaking it in a quick brine. I've heard of people brining hams, so if you do a google for that, that might be a place to start and add food coloring to it. However, like many brines/marinades, it might not soak all the way through... So I don't know if you'd pre-slice the pieces or what...
Or perhaps, even simpler you could just "paint" your ham after cooking...
something with parsley maybe?
Kool-Aid comes to mind for the brine coloring here. It works well with pickles, why not ham too? http://www.google.com/search?q=kool-aid+pickles&num=20&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=Yaz&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvnse&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=PXRRT_3eGIaMsAKb7fHvBQ&ved=0CDoQsAQ&biw=1402&bih=931
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.939080 | 2012-03-02T20:58:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21931",
"authors": [
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"nico"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
32444 | How do price and quality relate in blenders?
I've seen blenders for anywhere from $20* to $2,000, and I must say, the variety of marketing-speak has my brain in a tizzy. In plain english, what are the major price levels in blenders (general ranges, obviously there's some variety in quality at each price range) and what sort of features can I expect at each level? For example, I'd not expect a $20 blender to, say, heat up soups like one famous (but more expensive) model is known for.
* I use USD, but I can convert prices easily enough
I would suggest approaching blenders from the perspective of what you want it to do for you? Make frozen margaritas? Puree soup? I would submit for most non-ice-crushing uses, immersion blenders may actually be more convenient. That is all I own.
@SAJ14SAJ Make frozen blended alcoholic drinks and smoothies, mostly
Also, how often will it be used? Much of price goes into build quality as well as features.
Like any other product, price and quality don't always relate. However, here are some notes and features to help you:
What food stuffs you can blend in your blender and expect good results, how often, and for how many years depends on the following:
Quality of the motor: When the material you're blending gets hard to blend (say oil separated peanut butter mixed with dry almonds), you can easily send the blender up in smoke. A better blender might hit its maximum-current/temperature switch, shut-down, and protect itself. An even better blender might happily blend (saw a giant one with the motor made by Harley Davidson, it didn't care what it was mixing). See the notes on power/wattage.
Speed of the blade (RPM): Cheaper blenders tend to only reach a couple of thousand rpm. The Brand you're (not)mentioning can go near 30,000rpm. At that spin-rate, frozen fruit starts looking like Gelato (smooth and shiny). In a $20 blender, they look like frozen fruit slushy with ice crystals remaining relatively large.
Wattage of Blender: Generally the higher wattage blenders are more powerful, although not in every case. This is again one of those features that leads to being able to make apple/carrot/beat juice in your blender or make a contribution to your local appliance landfill. Top Gear tried to make a Beef, Bovril and Brick smoothie with a V8 Engine.
Intended use: Commercial blenders are designed to be running practically all the time (like the ones at StarBucks), hence the $2000. The 'Prosumer' ones, might heat up if under heavy and long duration use and shut-down for a few minutes at a time. The low-ends can last you a lifetime if what you're blending is not very thick/viscus and you don't keep it running for long sessions.
Quality of the Jar, Blade, and Gears: In the low-end of blenders, the ones with glass jar might be better since they're easier to clean and don't get foggy. The high-end blender manufacturers (sort of) treat the jar as a consumable that you'll have to buy once in a couple of years. Fresh blade, and clear jar.
Pro-Tip: Sometimes it costs you an extra $250 to get the model with the adjustable speed dial. While there normally is a perfect blending speed for any given 'input', you're looking at diminishing returns since the two-speed type will blend just as well given minimally more effort.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.939239 | 2013-03-05T19:50:01 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32444",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"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
} |
39632 | How to ship holiday cookies?
I like to give my friends boxes of cookies for Christmas. How can I ship boxes to those living across the country or in neighboring countries without them getting damaged or going stale in transit? Would vacuum-sealing help? Do certain types of baked goods ship better than others? Should I use a certain type of box?
Depending on your recipients, the "mix in a jar" might also be a nice thing to send: http://allrecipes.com/recipes/holidays-and-events/christmas/food-gifts/cookie-mix-in-a-jar/
This question has attracted a Close Vote as Too Broad. Shipping cookies really does depend on the cookie in question. Perhaps this would better as "I want to ship [specific cookie] - what's best?" or "Which cookies ship best?"
Choose Wisely
Cookie selection is key. You want to ship cookies that are going to stand up to the journey well.
Hard, dry cookies like biscotti or Mexican Wedding Cake cookies ship well.
Denser bar cookies, like brownies or blondies, packed well, should also stand up to shipping, and their rectangular shape makes it easier to fit them into the shipping container.
Moist, chewy cookies like Snickerdoodles or Chocolate Crinkles may dry out if the shipping time is extended, so only ship them to people you know can receive the shipment quickly.
Avoid filled cookies or those that are only at their peak for a day or so, like most sandwich cookies or French macarons (Coconut macaroons actually ship quite well).
Avoid any cookie requiring refrigeration.
Avoid cookies with small points (from cookie cutters) or delicate decorations which may break off during shipping.
Packing
Optionally, wrap pairs of cookies together back to back, in film wrap. This will help them stay whole, and provide a little extra padding.
Pack the cookies well in an airtight container, neither under nor overfilling it (perhaps using some loose crumpled food safe plastic or aluminum foil to fill any voids in the container, so that the cookies don't jumble around in the container.
Avoid mixing moist and dry cookies in the same container.
Use good cushioning such as bubble wrap or packing peanuts when you pack the cookie container into the shipping box.
Shipping
Ship by the fastest means that isn't prohibitively expensive.
Milk
Do not include milk in the package.
See Also
Land O Lakes
AllRecipes
Betty Crocker
I've had no complaints using two different methods of shipping:
Assemble a paper plate of assorted cookies.
Place on a sheet of aluminum foil larger than the plate.
Place another sleet of alumium foil on top
Crimp the two sheets together tightly to lock the cookies in place.
Pack the wrapped plate tightly in a box to keep it from shifting around too much. (I tend to send t-shirts as gifts, so I'll place the shirt on top, so it'll wedge the plate in place. Bubble wrap would also work, or crumpled paper, or the 'pillow packs' bags of air that some mail-order companies use ... I personally loathe styrofoam peanuts.)
The last few years, I've been using 9" round aluminium take-out containers ... but I put a few sheets of crumpled up waxed paper in the top to keep the cookies from bouncing around in the container. I don't recommend aluminum foil for this, as it won't bounce back after it's been crushed.
I also tend to use USPS priority mail (flat rate boxes). I've only once shipped cookies overseas (to Spain ... again, no complaints ... can't remember what class of mail I used, though. I think I also put the plates into gallon zip-top bags for that shipment.
And I should also state that all of the cookies tend to be of the firmer varieties. (shortbread, gingersnaps, peppermint candy canes, bar cookies, etc. If I have thin cookies, I'll stack them up on each other. I also tend to make smaller cookies (shortbread and bar cookies in 1" (2.5cm) squares, round cookies maybe 1.5" (~4cm) across, mostly so that people can have a couple rather than just one large cookie, but it also keeps the slenderness down which can affect breakage.
... and I've seen the results of the shipment via putting the take-out containers in checked baggage, and had no breakage.
Where did you ship them from?
@tricase : Maryland (DC Metro area). Shipped in the US to as far as San Francisco and Washington state.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.939503 | 2013-11-21T23:25:25 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39632",
"authors": [
"4g0tt3nSou1",
"Jared M",
"Joe",
"KatieK",
"Philippe",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/92008",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/92009",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/92010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/92045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/92046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/92056",
"laurenhallden",
"ournatural wellness",
"tricasse"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
13470 | Konbu discoloration still edible?
Some of the Konbu that I recently bought has a whitish discoloration as opposed to a black/green color. I am wondering if it can still be eaten/used in cooking.
Konbu
Thanks!
This is perfectly normal. Many people believe the flavor is most concentrated in those crystallized bits. Embrace it!
In fact, you want to avoid washing off the konbu before using it so as not to lose the white powder, which results from natural, slow, drying.
WiseGeek on Konbu
Practically Edible on Konbu
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.939854 | 2011-03-26T17:09:46 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13470",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
19411 | Why is it important to add salt during cooking?
This may seem like a silly question, but given that each persons' tastes are different why is it that salt is added during cooking? It seems better to just allow the person eating the food to add their own salt to taste as opposed to forcing the same amount of saltiness on everyone equally.
A few general reasons:
As soegaard says, the salt is often better distributed through the food if it's added during cooking. This is especially true for foods which have been carefully assembled; you can't always just stir things up! Some foods also take a while for flavors to soak through; think about potatoes in a chunky soup. If you add salt only at the table, the liquid will benefit, but the potatoes will generally taste bland, like they were unsalted. Then there are things where it really needs to be cooked in - I doubt many people want to sprinkle salt on a chocolate chip cookie.
Sometimes the quantities need to be pretty small, so mixing a small amount into the whole recipe is doable, while if you tried to add it at the table, even a little sprinkle would be too much. Baked goods are a good example here too.
Virtually everyone likes at least a little salt, so it's usually quite safe to add at least a little. The food will end up tasting good to many people, and then some can add more. Often the groups of people that we eat with have similar enough tastes that it's a non-issue.
Sometimes salt actually affects the cooking process, not just the flavor. It can help draw moisture out of sweating vegetables, softening them faster. It's abrasive (before dissolving, of course), and can help denature proteins.
But of course, if you're eating with people who don't like much salt at all, and salt can easily be added at the table (a pureed soup, for example), then there's nothing wrong with waiting until then.
Actually, I love a light sprinkle of kosher salt and turbinado sugar on top of oatmeal-peanut butter chocolate chip cookies, but that is neither here nor there.
This doesn't deserve a new answer so you might add it to yours. Another reason to add salt while cooking is that is will have mechanical or chemical effects independent of flavor. For example salt in sweating vegetables will draw out moisture and soften them faster. Salt will also denature proteins and is abrasive.
@Sobachatina: Thanks! If you'd like to edit further, please feel free. I'm familiar with the drawing out moisture, but don't have much knowledge of protein denaturing effects.
I think the point about moisture and abrasion is particularly important, as a role for salt other than for flavour. It can really significantly affect the result of preparation with salt, eg when added to crushed garlic
Besides the above entries;
Adding salt later brings the taste of the salt forward and masks the taste/flavors of the meal.
The main reason salt is added during cooking and not after is to ensure a better distribution.
This makes every bite taste as intended by the cook.
Here are 2 more reasons salt is often added during cooking.
Meats: It dries the surface of whatever you are cooking, like when cooking meats Brazilian-style. Salt in significant quantities is a desiccant and thus contributes to the "cooking" of meats and other moist proteins.
Baking: Incorporation of salt into baking doughs during preparation and/or cooking helps regulate the leavening process by counteracting alkalies (baking soda), and acids (baking powder). Salts are produced when acids and alkalies react.
Here are some reasons to salt after cooking.
Salt protects the flour and oil from going rancid due to bacteria and it may slow the growth of yeast used for leavening in bread dough. But this is a reason to put salt on the surface of doughs after preparation and before baking.
I find that salting after cooking (except for baking dough or cooking meats) allows the use of much less salt (for health reasons) while retaining the same pleasant salty flavor and preservative benefits. Maybe it's my imagination, but I imagine salt on the surface helps reduce bacterial contamination of food as it sits with its surface exposed to air at room temperature before serving.
Your tongue cannot taste the flavor of particles incorporated deeply into compounds and mixtures, so you'll only enjoy the taste of the few salt particles that reach the surface exposed to your tongue, so for maximum "bang for the buck" you want all seasonings on the surface.
Of course, when you salt the exterior, the salty flavor is "courser", less evenly distributed. I prefer this "flavor texture" to the homogenized saltiness of processed foods.
Not only does the salt allow for more even distribution of the salt, but salt has the ability to bring flavors out.
This can be illustrated by sautéing veggies or searing meat.
If you give the ingredients a little kosher salt, you can really change your dish around.
(Especially kosher salt since it has a lower sodium level that other salts, therefore more curing and less salty)
A great example of this steak. Before searing a steak, give it a light dusting of kosher salt and let it rest for ~15mins or so.
When you throw it in the pan, you'll notice a delicious crust forming.
That's because the kosher salt brought out lots of protein laden water from the steak to the surface.
Hope this helps.
EDIT:
A bit of clarification about "kosher salt being less salty".
It's not actually that Kosher salt has a different chemical compound, but if you measure it by volume, you can get some drastic differences.
For example:
Hain Iodized Sea Salt - 1/4 tsp - 1.5g - 590mg sodium
Diamond Kosher Salt - 1/4 tsp - .7g - 280mg sodium
That's a 200% difference.
Of course if you did it by weight, like a real chef/baker there would be no difference, only the size of the crystals.
This is why I said that Kosher salt is a less salty salt. ::tonguetied::
Do you have a citation for kosher salt's "lower sodium level" than other salts?
It's not a lower sodium level. NaCl is NaCl. But kosher salt has a different shape than table salt, so 1 tsp kosher salt has less sodium than 1 tsp table salt (how much less depends on brand: Mortons and Diamond Crystal are different). 1 oz—that is, by weight—has the same (well, within epsilon, table salt may have iodine and anti-caking additives)
@derobert says it much more eloquently. I didn't mean to allude that the chemical compound was different. Thanks for speaking for me derobert.
I do think the main reason is that it's better distributed but I'll add just a little something: Osmosis!
If your water is not salted then the minerals inside your ingredients will be released in order to have a balance with the water. On the contrary if the water is too salted, then your ingredients will absorb the salt, and then it will be too salty.
Usually I don't like that much salt, but when it's come to boiling, I fell like I need to add a lil' bit of it. Otherwise, the food seems to have lost some of its taste.
Chemically, salt is just salt, that is sodium chloride. Salts from different sources may have different degrees of contamination, but these are small and pretty well irrelevant in the context of the dilution in a dish of food. Salt is very readily detected by the tongue on impact and that is why the salt that comes in large flakes - and added after cooking - is prized. Add flaked salt after cooking - you'll get the impact without the health repercussions of excessive salt intake - the rest is marketing hype. (I exclude of course things like breadmaking where salt is integral to the process).
The short answer: seasoning. We can only taste four (or, five, depending on whether or not you consider umami) flavors: salty, sweet, bitter, and sour. Without any of these, food will taste bland, no matter how it was prepared. The best tasting food usually combines all of these in some ratio, depending on which flavors the cook wants to emphasize and which flavors will play a supporting role.
Salting during cooking is a subtle technique to season certain ingredients/flavors and intensify their flavor. Thomas Keller has a good explanation: http://www.latimes.com/features/food/la-fo-master-class-thomas-keller-20110428,0,3142391.htmlstory
When properly seasoned, food shouldn't taste salty. Adding salt at the end of cooking almost invariably makes it taste salty, rather than seasoning and intensifying flavors.
Salt is used to draw the moisture out of sweating vegetables.And it softens them faster.
Certainly many foods need salt added during cooking, for convenience sake if nothing else. But meats I think often benefit most from salt added just before putting them in your mouth. Salt added during cooking just soaks in and makes them taste SALTY like a cheap hotdog or a can of Spam. The flavor just seems burned out, and the extreme saltiness makes me very thirsty. If I'm cooking a nice steak on the grill and cut it up and sprinkle the salt on at the last moment, it really brings out the flavor without using all that much salt. It is almost like I'm salting my taste buds rather than salting the meat, and changing their perception of the flavor rather than altering the composition of the food.
Also consider that the process of osmosis tends to draw water from the less salty interior of meat the salted exterior, which would tend to remove juiciness. Obviously at some point the salt does penetrate inwards as well.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.939952 | 2011-12-05T20:53:35 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19411",
"authors": [
"Avi M.",
"BlairH",
"Cascabel",
"Eva",
"Programmer",
"Ricardo Valeriano",
"Sam",
"SharkHugger",
"Sobachatina",
"Sue Mcqueen",
"Suikota",
"baka",
"copy",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42240",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42264",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42265",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42399",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42466",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6428",
"mfg",
"user42482"
],
"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
} |
10858 | Freshly Ground Beef vs. Store Bought
What is the benefit of grinding your own beef via a food processor or grinder compared to just buying ground beef in the super market? Is there some magic freshness to the beef that can only be captured by grinding the beef immediately before use?
Obviously, the home grinding leads to more control, allowing for a finer grind or to mix several cuts of meat together. But beyond that flexibility, does freshly ground beef impact the taste of the final product?
What if I'm making a stew or chili versus a burger? Is freshly ground preferred in both cases?
Like you said, the main benefit is control. I'd say the two main variables you're controlling for are amount of fat in the mixture and the tenderness and quality of the cuts used. Depending on the application, you might use a different mixture of meat. (For burgers, Alton Brown uses a 50/50 mixture of chuck and sirloin.)
Grinding your own could also be considered a play for increased food safety. If there are any bacteria on the surface of the cuts of beef that go into the grinder, they will be pretty well distributed throughout grind. The longer (and warmer) the ground beef is stored between when it is ground and cooked, the more chance that the bacteria could grow to sufficient numbers that they could do some serious harm to the consumer. This is why it's recommended that ground beef is cooked to a higher internal temperature than say a steak. In grinding, everything effectively becomes surface area so you have to cook a burger all the way through to be sure you've killed any bacteria.
If you're grinding you're own, you can make the interval between grinding and cooking arbitrarily short, so if you want to take your chances with a rare burger, this would probably be the best reason to grind your own. You're still running a risk in this case as any bacteria that were on the outside of your meat are now on the inside of your burger and won't be killed if the meat is left rare. You would just be trusting that the butcher did a good job of keeping the outside of the cuts you purchased relatively free from infection. Also, any food safety benefit assumes you're doing a good job of cleaning your equipment. Meat grinders can be a real PITA to clean well.
As far as the flavor difference is concerned, I would assume that to be minimal, again if you control for any difference in quality and cuts of beef that might be used. If your butcher grinds the beef and stores it cold in a case or wrapped for a day or two before it goes out the door the flavor shouldn't change enough that you'd notice it after seasoning and cooking. Oxydation would have had a chance to change the color of the meat over that period, the reason why ground beef can look brown on the outside but still nice and pink when broken up. But there shouldn't be enough time for there to have a marked effect on the flavor.
If there is any perceptible flavor difference you'd probably notice it more in a burger where you're tasting the meat by itself for the most part than in something like a chili or stew. (As an aside, you don't necessarily need to grind all the meat in those anyway as they tend to be cooked long enough to soften bigger chunks of tougher cuts.)
I prefer ground for chili since it makes it seem more like the meat is EVERYWHERE, with every spoonful. With chunks, even though tender and chewy, it makes it seem like just another ingredient in the mixture.
Agreed. If you like a medium or rarer burger now and again - do it fresh.
You've basically got it. Cold oatmeal is right too.
Two main things to consider. And they're both related to control.
The act of grinding meat hugely increases the surface area. This is a problem since
Bacteria and pathogens are now spread throughout the product, and have lots of surface area to grow on.
This problem gets really scary when you consider that problematic pathogens like e Coli are often spread from feces getting on meat during meat processing ( e.g. The intestines are cut open and poo gets on the meat, e coli in poo, now on meat). These are supposed to be caught and diverted, but that doesn't always happen. So they compensate with a wash e.g. Mild bleach solution). Then the meat goes to a processor who makes ground beef, in a HuGe batch, 10,000 lbs all mixed up before the machines get cleaned. The ground beef goes to distbribution and sits for a week. You go home and eat it and get food poisoning. Some people die.
That's why usda recommends cooking your burger until 165- to kill everything.
Think this doesn't happen? Go look up and see how often you get ground beef recalls. Often for e coli, in HUGE batches. Its scary.
You can buy meat thats not produced by the big boys, but you still have a potential problem.
By ensuring that the beef is ground recently, you're giving yourself a better chance of "cleaner" product.
This also dramatically affect a quality, oxidation and flavor. Fresh hamburger is 100x better within 24 hours. 4 days later and it turns grey. 7 days started turning green and sour.
Fresher is better. Exponentially better. You don't have to grind yourself, but if you're assured at its been ground that morning that helps a lot.
This affects two things
A) growth of bacteria and pathogens.
Oh yeah- you cant tell by looking. Especially at supermarket wrapped ground beef. The plastic does a decent job of keeping the moisture away and keeping it looking pretty. If it looks not quite right, its well on its way to being bad.
Your nose is a better indicator of freshness, you don't want any sourness.
And texture, it shouldn't feel slimy.
This surprises me as most supermarkets in my area grind the meat on premise, and often you can ask the people working at the counter to freshly grind a pack of beef to order.
I have been experimenting with different cuts on my Kitchenaid grinder. For burgers I really like chuck ground on the largest setting. The juiciness and flavor is really noticeable over anything I've had before. I believe chuck is a relatively well-used muscle part of the cow, so the meat is more flavorful and tougher. Also, the chuck steak I used had plenty of fat and tendon, so as these were distributed through the meat it made for great texture.
EDIT: I should add this is grass-fed beef, so YMMV.
Though I (cough) rarely end up at a fast food joint (I live in the U.S.), I've noticed the trend in the upper-end sirloin-style burgers seems to be a more course grind to the meat. Apparently, better imparting of flavor idea is catching on.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.940790 | 2011-01-08T16:52:06 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10858",
"authors": [
"Anoni",
"Chef",
"Greg Bowyer",
"MeltedPez",
"Merlynne",
"Solomon Choe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1963",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22265",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24430",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24529",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4179",
"tracy",
"user24430",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
40872 | Why is wine not a common ingredient in (meat) stock?
My inclination is to think that red wine would go well in a beef stock and white wine in the making of a chicken stock but I rarely, if ever, see it as an ingredient. Is there a common reason why wine shouldn't be used to help add to the flavor and acid of the final stock?
Surely, if someone wants to cook with wine, they can add it themselves? Stock is stock.
I can think of more than a few reasons...
Wine is (relatively) expensive. Stock is normally supposed to be very inexpensive to make, using ingredients that you'd normally just throw out (bones, necks, etc.) Frugality is not the only reason to make a stock, but it seems like a waste of perfectly good wine.
Stock gets to simmer for many, many hours. A lot of the wine and almost all of the alcohol will have evaporated by the time it's done. You can try to very precisely control the temperature to prevent any evaporation, but in my experience, even on the best of days, I have to keep topping it off with liquid. Again, waste of perfectly good wine.
Finished stock generally doesn't get used all at once, it will sit in a refrigerator for days or in a freezer for months. You can freeze wine, but it will leave sediment and crystals and, depending on the type of wine, might still develop off-flavours. It will definitely start developing off-flavours shortly after it's been thawed. On the whole, it seems like a great way to turn something that's almost impossible to screw up (stock) into something finicky and unreliable.
Adding wine directly to the stock is sort of like adding a lot of salt directly to the stock in the sense that it limits your future options. While I'm sure you could make a great velouté with wine-based stock, I think it would make a pretty lousy base for chicken noodle soup.
Wine and stock are both already liquids. Adding wine to the stock isn't really going to accomplish much that wouldn't be simpler and more efficient to do by mixing them together after the stock is made. And the two are pretty much interchangeable in any recipe calling for a "flavoured liquid" - in virtually any recipe calling for a cup of stock, you can substitute it for a cup of wine, or half a cup, or whatever. You're not eating the stock by itself; if you like the taste of wine in your stew or risotto or whatever it is that you're making, then just add wine!
The whole idea reminds me of garlic salt - pretty pointless thing to have, you can do exactly the same things and a lot more with just plain garlic powder and salt. Same thing here, I'd rather have good clear stock and a good bottle of wine separately than having both in the same container.
I agree most with 4, you can always add wine later but you cannot take it out.
That's a bit like asking why mint isn't a typical ingredient in a buttercream. If the flavor turns you on, there is no reason not to use it. However buttercream is buttercream, and stock is stock. If you'd like to give the stock (or buttercream) a different favor, that's why we use recipes.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.941360 | 2014-01-05T17:24:58 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40872",
"authors": [
"Amit Agarwal",
"DATA HUNTERS spam",
"Dawood ibn Kareem",
"GdD",
"QIAN ZHANG",
"Spammer",
"clancy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95171",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95173"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
15353 | What makes oil stick to the pan so bad that it is so difficult to wash out?
My parents went out of town for a bit and so I had to fend for myself with cooking! I made some chicken and some quesadillas on a particular pan. However, my parents got back and my mom is astounded to find the pan all dirty with oil still sticking to the pan. I washed it with soap, so why is it still sticking??? It is like it is embedded into the pan. Not sure what happened! Anybody knows? I am also unsure about the type of pan it is. At this rate, I'll be buying new pans every so and so months if I lived alone. :( I wonder if it has anything to do with cooking food in a not so high temperature?
probably the same thing: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8927/gummy-residue-from-baking-spray-oil
Not quite the same - the gummy residue in that question is compounded by lecithin from the baking spray emulsion.
@klypos: As mentioned in that question, it happens with normal oil too, and the question itself isn't specifically about sprays.
There was no gummy residue, more like a thin layer of oil in a portion of the pan which glistened in the light.
Whether it's gummy or not is probably more about thickness - if there's only a thin layer, it won't feel as gummy.
You are frying too hot. The oils are oxidizing and crosslinkng.
As I understand it, when you combine high heat and vegetable oil you get a fairly stable polymer (much like a plastic or resin). The polymer bonds with the surface (which is porous), and results in robust surface. This is what we use to season cast iron cookware, but it's less desirable on stainless and other lighter coloured hardware.
You can prevent the coating from forming by never allowing he oil to maintain a high temperature for long periods by itself. Keeping food in contact with the pan will both help keep the temperature down, and reduce the chance of the oil bonding with the steel.
Cleaning the oil off once it's formed is usually pretty simple: add water (or soda water) and heat for 10-15 minutes. Often the oil will wipe out (or need mild scrubbing with an appropriate scrubbing pad). You should not have to use steel wool (or a caustic cleaner), both of which can damage the smooth surface of many pans.
alternatively and I think preferably (i.e. it's easier). Deglaze the hot pan with fresh water before allowing the pan to cool. Cooling hardens the hot immature polymers and it's hard to rehydrate once it's had a chance to become a true solid. Reheating works, but deglazing right away is much easier. If water doesn't work with what you tend to cook, use white vinegar.
If you get oil too hot, it can form a really sticky layer of the heavier oil residues.
To remove it, use a little fresh oil, warm the pan, and spread the fresh oil all over the surface. Let it rest for a while, then spread the oil on the surface again. Tip the oil out, rubbing away as much residual oil as possible with paper.
Now you can rub neat dishwashing liquid onto the surface and all the residual oil will emulsify, and can be washed away with water.
What type of oil did you use in cooking?
There are Drying oils, Semi-drying oils, and Non-drying oils.
Drying oils are polyunsaturated materials such as linseed (flax), or Tung oil. People usually use oils like these to finish furniture, but some, like walnut oil, do get used in cooking.
Semi-drying oils, like corn, sunflower, safflower or soybean oil, have high enough unsaturation to oxidize into a gooey mess on your cookware, especially if you get them too hot.
Non-drying oils, like olive, canola or peanut oil, are relatively saturated and don't easily oxidize to form the sort of hard varnishes you have to clean off off with a scrubby pad or angle grinder.
If you cook with non-stick pans, you should also be careful to read the instructions on the pan. Mine says to never heat above medium. My last pan was ruined after heating above medium with a black substance much like yours.
Oil, butter, wax and greasy substances like that are all hydrophobic, meaning they do not mix with water. The following site can explain this. https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-hydrophobic-definition-interactions-quiz.html
That's true, but if that's all it were, a healthy amount of soap would take care of it. If you just pour oil in a pan then try to wash it out, you'll see that this works, while if you cook in it and the oil polymerizes and sticks to the pan, you'll need something more to clean it.
Here's the other matter. After you've cooked with oil in a pan, mine is the one with the dreaded circular groves, as in Circulon® and any residual oil remaining will turn into the thick sticky substance after at least a day. My mistake was not washing it shortly after using the pan(skillet). If you use a quality oven cleaner, that will take care of the problem, but be sure the manufacturer thinks it's OK for its cookware (or if you know it's scientifically alright to do so without damage to you or cookware). Be careful of the fumes.
Use a baking soda paste to clean the baking tray.
Before applying oil? Or to clean the sticky residue?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.941658 | 2011-06-09T22:02:43 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15353",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Elias Papadeas",
"Erica",
"Escoce",
"Nicolas Berthier",
"O_O",
"Sandra Kidd",
"Susancatalyst",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162877",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96350",
"klypos"
],
"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
} |
15369 | How can I stop chocolate chips sinking to the bottom when I make cakes?
I love making and eating chocolate chip cakes - both large cakes and cupcakes, but almost always when I make them, the chocolate chips sink to the bottom (or, occasionally, rise to the top).
Is there anything I can do to try and stop this happening? If so, what?
I have this problem as well when I put m&m's in a cake.
Coat the chocolate chips in flour (whichever type of flour goes into your cake). Put a few ounces or two of flour and the chocolate chips into a zip-top bag, close tightly and shake. The coated chips will then adhere and tend to "float" in the batter. Subtract the amount flour used to coat the chips from the flour otherwise used in the recipe.
You could do this with cocoa powder instead of flour.
Being lazy on the whole subtraction thing, when I've done this (for blueberry muffins, never tried it for chocolate chips), I measure out the flour, then just scoop some out of the stuff I've already measured.
These tips should help:
Dust the chocolate chips with flour or cocoa powder as suggested by @KatieK
Use mini chocolate chips or chop the bigger chocolate chips into smaller bits. The weight of the cake should be enough to hold the weight of the chocolate chips and bigger chocolate chips will more than likely sink.
Try sprinkling the chocolate chips over the cake instead of folding them in
Add a lesser amount of chocolate chips than what the recipe calls for
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.942176 | 2011-06-10T23:07:31 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15369",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Liz Jones",
"Mien",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94073"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
28050 | How to make cakes/scones that won't go off, for display purposes
This is a bit of a strange question, but I thought someone here might be able to help.
I am trying to make some cupcakes, scones or similar to display on a home-made cake stand in a shop window. I think the cake stand really needs to have something on it as part of the display, but obviously I don't want to just put normal food on it as it will gradually go off (and mouldy cakes won't look nice!).
Does anyone have any ideas for recipes for cupcakes, scones or something similar that are unlikely to go off for a couple of months, or at least, if they go off, won't smell or look bad? I don't care about whether they will taste nice or not, as they won't be eaten!
Part of me is wondering whether I can modify a recipe to add extra dry ingredients (flour?) and remove some of the perishable ingredients (butter, eggs?) to help this?
Does anyone have any ideas?
When I was a kid I made a bread once for display purposes. It was heavy on the salt. So, maybe you could mix instant yeast and double or triple the normal salt content of your cupcakes. Also, after getting it to the correct color and hight, lower the oven temp and bake them dry.
We used to make "display bread" using salt dough. Basically you add as much salt as flour (eg. 3 cups) to make it uninteresting for bacteria. To make the end result hard enough to last, you can add either hot water and a little oil or cold water and a spoon of wallpaper glue. Add as much water as necessary to form a bread like dough. Add anything (eg curry, blueberry sirup, ink instead of water - anything goes since you are not going to eat the result!) to color (parts of) your dough. Wholemeal instead of white flour will give you a stone or concrete like color.
Do not use yeast or anything else that will change the shape of your dough. Yeast probably will not work in all that salt anyway.
Then shape your cakes and let the result dry for a day before baking it. Not in direct sunlight (it might dry too fast and crack).
To see some results, search for "Salzteig" on German Google Image search. :-)
i've used that dough too for beads and Christmas Ornaments shaped like cookies. I would definitely use it for fake cookies and breads.
Bakeries often create fake cakes for display purposes that are non-edible structures decorated with royal icing and such that will last for long periods of time without going bad.
I found this website with step-by-step instructions on making a fake cake:
http://m.voices.yahoo.com/how-fake-cakes-display-564492.html
Many cake supply stores will sell styrofoam 'cake forms' in various sizes and shapes ... so you can get perfectly round fake cakes. (or perfectly square ones)
Cake supply stores will typically sell 'cake forms'. They're made of styrofoam in typical cake-tier shapes (round, square, etc.)
You can then put icing or fondant over the form and decorate it as if it were a real cake.
They're also useful if you need to hide something inside a cake.
eHow has a few pages with instructions on fake or display food. A strong creative side may be necessary for some of them.
Using shellac, felt, upholstery foam, and joint compound:
http://www.ehow.com/how_4877356_make-fake-food-displays.html
Using glue:
http://www.ehow.com/how_6397785_make-fake-food-elmers-glue.html
using clay:
http://www.ehow.com/how_6768696_make-fake-food-out-clay.html
using Amazing Mold Putty:
http://www.ehow.com/how_4868327_make-fake-food-art.html
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.942357 | 2012-10-27T09:02:02 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28050",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Christopher",
"Jerold2525",
"Joe",
"Kristina Lopez",
"NotIrish",
"Samantha Dendle",
"Tony Stinnak",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64503",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64510",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64518",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64570",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"jaia",
"jeff",
"spicy"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
11853 | How long to cook asparagus on a BBQ?
I'm going to be grilling some asparagus which I have never done before. How long should I be having them on the grill so that they're not all mushy and soft? Is there something I should be doing to them beforehand to help them retain their crunchyness?
If you don't have a grill pan, and your grill has large openings on the grates, you might want to use a couple of skewers to make something that looks like a raft out of the asparagus ... it means they'll only cook from two sides, but it's better than lossing most of 'em as a sacrifice to the grill gods.
I sometimes steam asparagus before sautéing on a high heat with some lemon juice to get some caramelization on the outside of the asparagus. You could adapt this idea to the grill by sealing the asparagus in tin foil with a little water and steaming for four minutes (for finger thick spears). Then give them a bit of colour by placing them directly over the grill for a minute.
Clean and dry the asparagus, and then hand rub with olive oil, sprinkle with fresh ground salt and pepper
Char on very hot BBQ grill turning frequently until the surface starts to bubble
I rub them in butter, salt then contain them I n aluminum foil tent to cook in the grill. I keep the coals to one side and put the veggies on the other side, place the grill lid on and open the vent holes above the food. Cook to desired tenderness.
I grill asparagus frequently on a gas BBQ grill. Some tips:
I prefer to use thicker spears when grilling, at least 1/2" thick at the base. Anything thinner and they'll stick to the grill and get floppy.
I use olive oil, pepper, soy sauce or salt, and a bit of sugar which helps it carmelize better. No need to soak in oil-- just toss the seasoning into a gallon ziploc bag, dump in the spears, close the bag, and shake.
When cooking, I usually put directly on the grill, but using indirect heat. I use fairly low heat, maybe 350 degrees. They usually take 5-10 minutes to cook depending on thickness. Make sure to put the spears perpendicular to the grill bars; I've lost so many spears over to falling through!
You'll need to flip them once. To know when to flip, look for splotches of dark-brown caramel color on the bottom edges. If black, that's too long. If completely green with no brown, keep cooking.
When flipping, I use tongs to pick up and flip 3-5 spears at once. Saves lots of time. It takes practice to get the hang of flipping. Make sure to grip the spears really tight and flip quickly, otherwise they'll fall out and often through the grill. Think of the motion as lifting and swinging back down to the grill (like a inverted U of motion) that gradually rotates the spears without creating a lot of centrifugal force which can cause them to fall out.
After you've flipped, cook the other side for about half as long as the first side. To see if they're done, pick the thick end of a spear with tongs. It should feel firm but flexible, and just a little bendy. If it doesn't bend at all, let it cook for another minute or two. If it's floppy, you cooked it too long.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.942699 | 2011-02-06T15:09:00 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11853",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"gion_13",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24400",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24433",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"user24433"
],
"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
} |
54354 | How to clean fresh champignons?
I bought some fresh champignons from the supermarket. What's the proper way to clean them before cooking (or rather frying) them?
Should I just wash them with cold water? Should I peel them?
I've never heard "champignons" as a name for a mushroom variety in English, and it just means mushrooms in French. I searched and Google has a dictionary definition saying they're little brown ones, while wikipedia says little white ones are sometimes called "champignon mushroom". So is this a particular variety? Or are you just asking how to clean mushrooms?
Interesting. In Germany it's you usually call these white mushrooms champignons. I thought that's the common name for them in english, too.
@Jefromi the name is not perfectly delineated, it's usually a button mushroom, but can cover portobello and other agaricus. It's one of the most cultivated mushrooms in the world, and if there was something very special about cleaning them, I expect it would have been mentioned in the broader question. In fact, it's the first mushroom many people think about when the type is not specified.
http://static.chefkoch-cdn.de/ck.de/cms-uploads/chefkoch/467/Champignons_2.jpg - those are the kind of mushrooms I mean
That image seems to contain both white mushrooms and Crimini or "Baby Bella" mushrooms.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.943139 | 2015-02-03T18:15:07 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54354",
"authors": [
"Barbara Bank",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Estate Planning Attorney Bronx",
"Lauren Fox-Hall",
"Lu Luca",
"Tamara Giguere",
"Tara Boone",
"ThiefMaster",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127861",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127862",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127868",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127897",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4727",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
104965 | Can cast iron with non-metal components be seasoned?
I have a cast iron mortar and pestle, but only the interior is raw cast iron - the outside and part of the handle are enameled, and the majority of the handle is covered in some kind of hard rubber. Is there a way to season something like this, maybe at a lower temperature for a long period of time?
If not, what's the best way to care for this and keep it from rusting? If I just wipe it with oil after using it, it gets gunky pretty quickly.
Bonus question: any idea who made this? It has no brand identifier on it, and I bought it years ago.
Curious, why would you season a mortar and pestle ?
It's been in storage for a while and developed some rust spots. I want to keep that from happening again.
Follow-up question: why on earth would anyone make a mortar & pestle out of cast iron? It seems like the worst possible material. Suggest that you deal with this by replacing the M&P with one made from more standard stone or ceramic.
A better solution would be to clear the rust off and then ensure it doesn't rust again, by cleaning by hand and drying immediately after use, and keeping in a dry place. I've certainly never heard of seasoning a mortar and pestle, and would worry that a coating of oil would affect its operation.
Le Creuset say 450°F/230°C is the maximum temperature their enamelled cast-ironware will take. Other manufacturers seem to be sometimes lower, though that could be a handle/lid requirement rather than the enamel itself - see Why are most enameled cast iron dutch oven's only rated up to 400-450 F?
Your problem, assuming you season the mortar with a low-smoke-point oil is that your pestle is going to have to be carefully done over a flame. That handle is not going to survive in the oven. If it's silicone, then about 180°C is about all it can take… that's if you're certain it's silicone.
I'm gonna have to edit that apostrophe out of the linked question, it's burning a hole in my OCD ;)
My grandmother and I had a similar cast iron mortar and pestle. She used to use paraffin wax to preserve it if she wasn't going to use it for long times.
I'd suggest using food grade paraffin oil or wax.
I am not sure if this is the best method, but it seemed alright when she did it.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.943309 | 2020-01-26T16:06:42 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104965",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Max",
"Stuart F",
"fields",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4746",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78562"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
17686 | Why do people smash garlic?
It seems a lot of people say to smash or crush a clove of garlic before they cut it up. Why is this?
I've cut up garlic both ways, and I could see crushed being potentially a little easier to handle since it's flatter and doesn't roll as much.
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/367/how-does-the-way-that-i-cut-my-garlic-affect-the-taste-of-my-food ; http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9805/what-is-the-advantage-to-crushed-garlic-over-minced-garlic-beyond-texture
I smash it first to loosen up the papery skin, which makes it much easier to peel.
I try not to smash it totally as it makes it harder to get a nice even chop. Cut the root end off, a bit of a smack to loosen the skin, and away we go.
I always cut the root off after peeling. I give it a gentle crush to loosen the skin before peeling off it. I find it easier to peel that way (as the little lip around the root is easy to get a nail under).
If the garlic is raw I find smashing to be the fastest way to "chopped", hit it with your meat tenderizer and then a few seconds with the knife and it is ready for whatever you want to do with 'chopped' garlic.
If the garlic is roasted, then smashing it turns it to a mush that is easy to spread.
For me it's more of a texture issue.
When I want the garlic to be crunchier, I chop it.
When I really want it to melt into a dish, I smash it.
In either case, I tend to use so much garlic that there's plenty of flavor. :)
There are two reasons to smash garlic.
If you are using fresh garlic, it makes peeling really simple. Merely separate out a clove and smash it with your knife. The skin pulls away easily.
The other reason is it does make it easier to chop. If you going for finely chopped garlic. Smash it, and using a chefs knife you can now easily rock back and forth of the garlic to make it fine.
This is probably going to repeat what many others have said but:
Garlic comes in a papery outside cover that you need to remove before cooking (unless you're going to roast it). Otherwise you need to get the garlic free from this, which is best done by cutting off each end and slightly crushing the clove, so that you can remove the skin.
Remove the skin, lay the clove flat,put the flat of a knife on top, and smash down with your hand to spread the fibres. It is then flat and you can chop it sideways across the clove to produce finely chopped garlic.
Garlic is a very complex ingredient, but its other ways of use are, I think, outside the scope of this question. Its effects depend on how it is chopped/sliced/crushed, where it is added and how and how long it is cooked - pretty well a text book in inself.
Although the mentioned-above statements are true, crushing garlic also releases a certain natural chemical compound that makes it basically a super anti-fungal,bacterial and viral destroyer. Garlic will pretty much rid the body of any bacteria, virus, fungas or parasite. It kills worms in your body and in animals. I'm not positive but I'm pretty sure the compound is called amicillin or something like that but I was always told, when you catch a cold, crush garlic and let it sit for about 5 minutes before chopping and injesting.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.943548 | 2011-09-12T22:49:01 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17686",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"Figaro",
"Joe",
"Mihai Ovidiu Drăgoi",
"andynormancx",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38057",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7412",
"sfm"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
18260 | How to prevent separation/layers in panna cotta?
I recently discovered how easy it is to make panna cotta via a recipe by Mark Bittman. The only problem I found was that my panna cotta started to visibly separate into two distinct layers after a couple hours in the fridge. Google searches brought up others that complained of different types of separation, but mine was, unlike most, very much gelled layers with one creamier than the other on top. I enjoyed the distinction between the two while eating, but I would like something more evenly distributed in the future.
I followed Bittman's directions to the letter, with the same proportions and quantity of everything but the lime that I substituted for dried lavender to taste. Half an hour or so of cooling time before pouring brought it down to room temp, which was ~65F. I strained, poured, and chilled for 5 hours before serving.
Is there anything I can change in the future, including the proportion or mixing of half-and-half and cream (which I suspect is the cause of separation), that would prevent this from happening? I would not mind leaning towards an all half-and-half solution to this, as the richness of all cream feels kind of cloying to me.
The one ambiguous ingredient in that recipe is 'one packaged unflavoured gelatin' - how big is a package? Are you using the same size as he is? I have had the same trouble with different sizes of leaf gelatin.
@ElendilTheTall – Good point, I ended up using an envelope of Knox gelatin instead of leaf. Given that both layers were gelled the same, I didn't think that mattered so much.
Cream and milk usually mix up very evenly...
It sounds to me like you didn't get the gelatin dispersed properly.
Since the recipe you linked to doesn't explicitly mention it, and neither does your question, I'm going to assume that you didn't bloom the gelatin first. You must do this if you want proper dispersion of any gelatin product.
To bloom powdered gelatin, just sprinkle it over cold liquid and leave it (cold) until it's visibly swelled. This usually takes about 5 minutes. Then simply heat and stir (thoroughly) to disperse.
To bloom sheet gelatin, you do almost the same thing - soak them for a little longer (up to 10 minutes) in cold water a separate vessel, then squeeze them to wring out any excess water, and then add to your cooking liquid (in this case cream).
You might also consider use a stick blender/immersion blender to make sure that it is completely dispersed after melting. This is usually unnecessary for gelatin, but if you're blooming it and still can't get uniform distribution, that will help.
I'm certain that if you follow the proper preparation, your panna cotta will turn out fine next time.
P.S. Do be careful not to add too much lime or other acid; gelatin will not set properly at pH levels around or below 4.
This was my first time working with gelatin so I will definitely try that next time. Given that the two layers were gelled pretty well, just one obviously richer-tasting than the other, I wasn't sure if it was a gelatin problem or just cream floating to the top.
I know more than a year has passed, but I'm usually late to the party.
This is not a problem with gelatin dispersion; it's simply that the cream separated from the milk and rose to the top. It happened to me once when I made panna cotta, too.
I have not come up with a solution to this, but I did learn something today that I hadn't known before (from America's Test Kitchen, so I tend to trust it): While milk and half-and-half are homogenized, apparently whipping cream and heavy cream are not. This explains the separation.
I'd be thrilled if someone knows a way to keep the cream from separating.
If the whipping cream is liquid when opened, it is homogenized. I sometimes buy an organic brand which isn't, and it separates in the package before opening, building a thick, non-liquid buttery layer on top which I have to stir into the rest before using it. But after the stirring, it needs a few days to separate again, so even nonhomogenized cream shouldn't separate in the short gelatin-setting time.
I believe the different layers are milk as one layer and cream as the other. I have overcome the problem by waiting for the mixture to start setting, then giving it a good stir, BEFORE pouring it into already chilled moulds. This then enables it to fully set before the mixture has time to separate. I chill the moulds in the freezer so that they are really cold.
I believe this to be a cream , milk issue. The cream is visibly thicker and fatter than the milk when you look at at separate layers. I Know I lot about milk , I milk cows for a living , all I have done to stop this , is once The Panna-cotta has sat in the fringe for 30 min BEFORE it starts to harden up , I skim off the skin floating on top and re stir the panna cotta mixture. this does help.
It's odd that no one has thought that acidity might cause the problem. Lemon panna cotta is a common recipe. You could in effect be making very bad gelled cheese floating on the separated gelled whey.
The OP isn’t using citrus in their recipe.
Hey also I find the method of cooling is has a huge affect
It is good to wait till the mixture is at room temperature before adding to the glass /jar / mould
And then put to the fridge
Put piping hot mixture in to the fridge will affect the setting of the pannacotta
I've had this happen to me the last 2 or 3 times ( I make some every week ) I've come to the conclusion that it is the cream floating like you used to get with milk bottles before homogenisation came in as main stream. I'm gonna try and cool the mix a little and stirring before potting
It's the gelatin. If it were the cream, the top layer would be fatty.
As in the first answer, you need to 'bloom' the gelatin properly
Maillard1, welcome to the site. We have a rule here: new answers must give new insights - this has a lot to do with how the site works: Unlike most webforums that repeatedly add "I think so too" comments, we express agreement by upvoting existing answers. Please have a look at our tour and the help pages.
I don't think it is the gelatine. I strongly suspect that it is the mixture of milk and cream. I am going to make a test version using only milk to test my theory.
...and we hope you will be back to add your results, making this into a very helpful answer. Annabelle, welcome to the site!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.943880 | 2011-10-08T09:22:04 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18260",
"authors": [
"Debbie Wood",
"Donald Singleton",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Laurent S.",
"Nathaniel is protesting",
"Patricia Walsh",
"Sneftel",
"Spencer",
"Stephie",
"els60livenl",
"glenatron",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155333",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39452",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39453",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87867",
"janeylicious",
"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
} |
93788 | Is it possible to get American-style cream cheese in the UK?
As far as I can tell, the "cream cheese" in UK supermarkets isn't much at all like the foil-wrapped cream cheese blocks I remember from my youth in the U.S. (not even the ones sold under the Philadelphia label). The UK cream cheese is more of a spread, definitely seems much more processed, different texture, and different — though similar — taste.
I have several reasons for wanting it: Baking a cheesecake, a couple of other recipes² that use it, and I frankly just prefer it.
Other than from absurdly-expensive¹ American import boutique shops, is it possible to get U.S.-style cream cheese in the UK? Some other term for it or...?
¹ (along the lines of £24 for 1.3 kg)
² ("recipe" may be a bit over-the-top for one of them: taking the block, dumping salsa over it, and eating it with tortilla chips)
If this fails the "every answer is equally valid" test, apologies in advance and I'll understand it being closed. I could see it either way, so...
As a born-&-raised Brit... Philly cheese isn't what it used to be here, either - I'm sure it had more 'zing' to it, and though I can't remember how it was packed when I was young, it wasn't in oval plastic tubs.
@Tetsujin - Yeah, I'm sure it's sold that way in the U.S. now, too. Which seems a shame, the old way (foil wrapping inside a cardboard box) seems rather more sustainable than these plastic tubs, and I don't recall any issues with it. I suppose tampering would be less evident. sigh.
@T.J.Crowder I'm in the US and it's still sold here in foil wrapping inside the cardboard box. I have two in the fridge right now! I think the ones in the plastic tubs are the whipped varieties that are supposed to spead easier. (We have those, too.)
@Cindy - The old fuddy duddy in me is very glad to hear that, thanks! :-)
I've been living in the UK for almost 16 years and I've never seen an equivalent. The cream cheese sold here is much softer, with a higher fat content.
The best way to 'get cream cheese' is to make cream cheese, fortunately it isn't difficult. Here is a great video detailing how you can make cream cheese yourself with whole milk (full-fat) milk and lemon juice. This will be very much like the Philadelphia brand cheese you are looking for.
I did wonder if this was where I was going to have to go. :-) That does look surprisingly easy, I'll have to give it a try.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.944497 | 2018-11-10T17:27:18 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93788",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"GdD",
"T.J. Crowder",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5836"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
14720 | Stuffed peppers that don't burn on to the pot
My wife and I enjoy peppers stuffed with a meat/rice mix (with spices). We start with raw peppers and uncooked meat, and put the peppers in a small pot (or tagine) with tomato puree or tomato paste-based sauce around them, and cook for ~40 minutes. The result is usually to our liking (tasty, meat is cooked through, peppers are an appropriate firmness, etc.), with one exception: the peppers always burn on to the bottom of the pot. This puzzles me, since the tomato-based sauce around them boils gently or simmers, which I would have thought meant that there was enough liquid to keep the peppers from burning on. Apparently not!
Does anyone have methods for cooking this or a similar dish that avoids burning? (Again, the dish tastes great--the burnt-on pepper just complicates clean-up.)
You need a small wire grid to put on the bottom of your tagine. You can make one by cutting up an old cake cooling rack
Also consider baking for 3/4 of the time and then switching the oven to grill with the tagine lid off for the remaining 1/4 time (or thereabouts) . This should still keep them moist, but just lightly crisp the pepper tops without burning the tops or bottoms. These results are not to every tagine owners liking though
The sauce itself will stay not much above 212 F, but locally at the bottom, it can get much higher and scorch, and that will be especially true under the peppers. One option would be to cook the peppers and filling separately, then stuff the peppers and simmer them only briefly with the sauce. You could also try oiling the pot, that may help some.
Bring it to a simmer on the stove, then stick the pot in the oven.
Sounds like a reasonable idea--but at what oven temperature? We have used the tagine in the oven and still ended up with burnt-on peppers. I don't recall what temperature(s) we used, however.
I would say 350 F. If it still burns, try a different cooking vessel. Some are more prone to scorching than others.
I often make stuffed peppers with a rice/mince mix in the oven. A little brown on the peppers is good - some of the nicest pepper flavour comes from the Maillard reactions; I do a number of things to prevent the peppers being too burnt, though:
I use raw peppers, seared mince and half-cooked rice (i.e. for Basmati, same volume of water and rice in a pot, bring to boil, let all the water boil out).
I put a little butter in the bottom of the pot, and put the liquid / herb / spare stuffing mix in before the peppers so that a layer of sauce separates the peppers from the bottom of the pot. I also add a small amount of the liquid into the stuffing mixture itself. (The liquid component is typically not tomato based for me, though; I have tried variations with a tomato base a number of times and generally find them too sour for my liking. I use stock made with bayleaf, and creme fraiche - this works even better for stuffed cabbage leaves :) )
As the mince is pre-seared and the stuffing mixture already warm when the peppers are stuffed, I can get away with a lower oven temperature than would otherwise be required to ensure it is cooked through. I generally also go for a longer cooking time than 40 minutes. I use enough liquid to reach about a third of the way up the peppers at most, and cover the pot with foil to prevent it from boiling dry and to allow the top to steam; unlike a pot / casserole dish lid, foil is thin enough that the tops of the peppers / stuffing will begin to brown and crisp towards the end of cooking.
I mix crushed tomatoes with the hamburger and rice and spices. Place in a stove top oval pan. Add water to tomato can and pour into bottom of
pan. Simmer on low. Comes out perfect.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.944751 | 2011-05-12T02:01:39 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14720",
"authors": [
"Carl",
"Jasmine",
"Jen",
"Mike Baranczak",
"Paddy Merrill",
"Rex Kerr",
"Teresa",
"foobrew",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31006",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31064",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5861",
"jonnyknowsbest",
"rwking"
],
"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
} |
14872 | Brown sugar instead of white sugar
I want to replace a white (granulated) sugar in a recipe with brown sugar. Is this a one to one substitution?
The original recipe calls for 2 cups white sugar. Can I replace with 2 cups brown sugar? Packed or unpacked?
What are you making?
Making a carrot cake.
Yes you can...by volume. You'll definitely need to pack the brown sugar. The taste will be different (obviously) and the weight will be slightly different as well, but it'll work. Mind you, brown sugar does not dissolve the way white sugar does, so you may get some crunching if you don't combine it with your wet ingredients first.
Don't substitute by weight. Brown sugar weighs more.
Its also worth noting that brown sugar is actually molasses and regular suger. Molasses has some diffrent properties like beeing higher in simple sugers meaning that it'll taste sweeter than regular sugar.
if you do substitute them one-to-one expect the cake to taste sweeter than it normaly would have.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.945105 | 2011-05-17T20:14:37 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14872",
"authors": [
"Carmen",
"JonTheMon",
"Meuy Saechao CA-Sacramento",
"Sandie G.",
"Shai",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144609",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31353",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5918",
"keithjgrant",
"nmc"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
15157 | How do I coat popcorn with flavor?
There are commercial flavored popcorn (i.e. BetterMade) that aren't topped with flavor but coated like a potato chip. How do I re-create that coating at home? Specifically, I'm a fan or the 'hot' style coating (bbq, buffalo chicken, jalapeno, flame). I've tried oils, tossing in a bowl, spraying from a bottle, but no luck - it's just regular popcorn with a little chili powder sticking to each kernel.
Similar: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5772/how-to-make-movie-theatre-like-popcorn
How you are popping your corn makes a difference.
Air popped corn with flavoring added afterwards may be healthier but it is difficult to make flavorings adhere.
Using an agitated oil popper and putting the flavoring infused in the oil will make the difference. The flavors will be part of the kernel and not just stuck to the outside.
Lately I've seen several table top, agitated oil poppers at places like costco for reasonable prices.
Anyone ever try just popping with your regular oil, but 50/50 mixed with India Mustard oil,
and then before dumping the popcorn into the oil, add 1 tsp of Turmeric powder, and 1 tsp of
Reshampatti chilly powder ( hot India ground chilli ) in with the popping corn ?
When it pops, you get a hot curry taste, and an atomic yellow colored corn.
Salt with unflavored regular popcorn salt, or, powdered India "Black Salt" for an unusual taste sensation.
Dave
That sounds delicious Dave. Welcome to Seasoned Advice.
I've had great success infusing butter with flavor and then putting it and the popcorn in a plastic tub and shaking it for a few minutes.
A method I like to use is to pop the corn in a large steel frying pan, and adding the seasonings into the oil right before the kernels begin to pop. My frying pan ratio is 1TB olive oil per 1/4 cup of popcorn, and also up to 1tsp of seasonings into that, sometimes a tad more onto the popcorn after it has been popped. Use a lighter olive oil if you want less of that bold flavor, but olive oil is definitely nice because a) of the flavor and b) it can nicely withstand heat and thereby pops the corn quickly.
The basic process here starts with getting the pan hot, then adding oil, then kernels, and lastly the seasoning. The flavoring is trickier because you don't want it in the oil for too long because it can take on too dark of a charred flavor if you add it too soon. Some seasonings suffer more from being in the oil too long (like garlic), and some don't work well with this method at all (like the Nacho Cheese). If you can have your flavoring at the ready, wait until the very first kernel pops, and then throw the seasonings on and stir it vigorously into the oil - put the lid back on promptly so you don't loose the popcorn as the kernels pop.
Because of the flavors you mention, I highly recommend you try the Kernel Seasons Cajun. What's nice about all their flavors is the fine grind helps maximize coating, your primary concern, though it still doesn't all stick. My favorite is to pop with Cajun and sprinkle on some Nacho Cheese afterwards - yum. Another favorite in our house is a homemade powdered rosemary salt.
A search for "popcorn coating" at the patent office turned up several possibilities. This one (# 4,767,635 - 1988) seems like it might be adaptable to home use:
A free-flowing uniformly flavorant coated unpopped corn and method of preparation thereof wherein the unpopped corn is essentially oil and fat-free and retains a substantial amount of added salt and flavorant upon popping in a hot air popper comprising unpopped corn coated with an adherent flavoring consisting essentially of an edible adhesive, e.g. gelatin, an edible salt and optional colorants and flavors.
I use spray on vegetable oil which is a good and light adhesive, plus add extra taste to flavoring.
To start, coat the bottom of a medium sized pot with canola oil.
-Cover the pot and pop the corn on medium heat
-Add ~4 tablespoons of soy sauce (I drizzle it over the popcorn in a big bowl, trying to get as many pieces as possible, but you do not want to drench it!)
-Take a handful of baker's yeast and sprinkle it over the soy sauced popcorn
et voila!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.945235 | 2011-05-31T18:26:18 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15157",
"authors": [
"Hari Maha",
"Preston",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100429",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"nathansizemore"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
16102 | Sugar forming tiny bubbles in microwaved coffee?
When I heat up coffee in the microwave and then pour in sugar, a layer of tiny dense bubbles forms at the top of the glass and stays there for the duration of the drinking, diminishing slightly over time. When I prepare the coffee by other means of heating this does not happen. What causes those tiny bubbles?
Normally, a microwave is capable of superheating water. It is then above 100°C, but still liquid, because it lacks nucleation sites. Crystals like sugar provide such sites, so this would have been my first guess. But "stays there for the duration of the drinking" is strange, I hope you don't drink your coffe while it's above 100°C. Do you think this might be it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superheating
@rumtscho I seriously doubt it because, although I am not the best judge of temperature, it seems to happen even when the coffee is not that hot (i.e. below boiling point).
I doubted it too (else I would have written it as an answer), but it sounded so similar, I felt it was important to get it mentioned on the way to a differential diagnosis. I have no more ideas right now, but maybe more info can help somebody else: Does this happen with coffee only, or also with other hot liquids? What are the bubbles like? Air-filled, fat-filled, something else? A real foam crown like on bear, or only a few of them?
Re other beverages, I could have sworn it happened on tea as well, but I edited the tea out of the question because I don't have the means of testing it right now.
Is there something in your mug besides coffee? Milk/cream? Or maybe even a tiny bit of residue (soap or a previous drink)?
@Jefromi It happens consistently and with clean, empty glasses. Could it be that there is consistently [close to invisible] soap residue left on them every time I do dishes? Would that explain it?
Upon addition of sugar to the superheated coffee, the formation of bubbles (phase transformation) occurs because the fine particles of sugar provide sites for the heterogeneous nucleation of gas from the liquid.
When the introduction of a fine inoculant (such as sugar particles) results in sudden fizzing of a liquid, it is an indication that there has been minor superheating of that substance.
Superheating tends to occur more in microwaves than on stovetops because people use metal saucepans/kettles on the stove, while generally using glass or glazed ceramic containers when heating a volume of water in a microwave oven.
When water is heated in a glass or glazed ceramic container rather than a metal one, the very hard surface of the container means that there are few scratches on it to act as sites for the heterogeneous nucleation of gas. Fewer heterogeneous nucleation sites means less heat loss through the transformation of liquid to gas.
This university site also makes a good point about the tendency for stovetop heating to cause localised superheating in the vicinity of the container walls... However, I think that this would tend to cause more boiling due to localised heating to the point that homogenous nucleation can occur (with the homogeneously nucleated bubbles then acting as further heterogenous nucleations sites) – not because of stirring of the water.
With regard to why your bubbles remained present for the duration of drinking, I would hypothesise that this perhaps has something to do with the oils in the crema of the coffee, and/or reaction of the dissolved sugar to form something that increases the surface tension of the water. (Not sure what you would call the opposite of a surfactant effect).
A final thing I would like to mention is that (as indicated on the UNSW page), microwaving liquids has the potential to result in violent reaction, or even explosion, of the liquid — in other words, you are risking serious burn injuries by taking a shortcut to heat it up.
Adding a powder (like sugar or instant coffee) to superheated water is particularly bad because in doing so, you are introducing millions of nucleation sites at once. That said, you should also be aware that since gas bubbles themselves promote heterogeneous nucleation, simply placing a spoon in the cup can be enough to cause an 'explosion'.
If you really need to microwave a liquid, (e.g., if you are cooking something), consider heating it in a microwave-safe plastic container that has been washed a few times (and is therefore abraded on the inside). You should also stop the microwave to check the temperature of the liquid at regular intervals, rather than nuking the fluid for an excessively long time.
To eliminate the risk you can place a wooden skewer in the vessel to provide nucleation sites.
This doesn't seem to be anything to do with the temperature, or at least not the temperature alone, because in my experience it only happens after the coffee has had a chance to sit (hot or cold) for more than about eight-ten hours. If you were to superheat (microwave) a very fresh cup in the same style container (coffee mug) then dump in a teaspoon of sugar, nothing happens - I've tested this because it has long bugged and perplexed me. I believe it must be some kind of oil into acid degradation (probably chlorogenic acid, mostly) to the point where a high enough concentration then reacts to the introduction of glucose leaving a transitional compound of excess lipids which encase particulates of both the sugar and coffee contaminants, which compound then would naturally collect a bit of the gas escaping the neutralization reaction as well, because of the viscosity difference between the lipids and the water. Put all that together - foamy residue. I'm not at all sure this is true, but it is my best hypothesis. My only other evidence supporting this is that if you allow the residue itself to adhere to your coffee cup, then rehydrate it slightly later, it feels like an oily/fatty substance when rubbed away.
It can be water overheat. When you pour in sugar water starts boiling slightly. Maybe you can achieve such result while cooking on a stove.
Such effect also can be seen when you put salt (or sugar) into almost boiling water. It seems that process starts to run strongly.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.945987 | 2011-07-12T13:54:38 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16102",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Emma",
"Rhett",
"Sobachatina",
"WAF",
"august",
"countermats",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34274",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34275",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6451",
"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
} |
29028 | What causes the texture difference between Greek style yogurt and regular yogurt?
In the US, Greek-style yogurt and regular yogurt are both made with cow's milk, yet they have a distinctly different texture.
When I described the texture of Greek yogurt to my nutritionist, she used the word "pithy". It, to me, feels like a thin layer of fuzz (like the skin of a peach) gets left on the surfaces of my mouth when I eat it.
Initial thought would tell me that it's because Greek yogurt has less water in it, but I made some homemade yogurt last weekend, using Greek yogurt for a culture, and despite being quite thin, it still had that pithy texture.
What gives Greek yogurt this texture? Or, what makes regular yogurt not have this texture?
See also the related question 'What is the difference between Greek yogurt and Plain yogurt?'.
After creating a new batch using the same process as my first one, but with a different, non-Greek, starter yogurt (which uses a different set and balance of bacteria than the starter I used for my first batch), I found that the texture was the same as my starter yogurt and was without the pithy texture.
Therefore, it seems that it is, in fact, the difference in fermentation, which depends on the types of bacteria cultures in a given yogurt that determine the texture of Greek vs non-Greek yogurt.
I would describe it as an almost chalky texture. Greek yogurt is typically strained 3+ times before packaging and in most cases is made from dairy with a higher fat content. The tang and texture are due to the whey being almost completely removed from the yogurt. The higher milk serum content (whey) in US yogurt makes it sweeter and obviously less viscous.
Whey doesn't make it less tangy, the reason is the different fermentation. Traditionally, yoghurts on the Balkan peninsula are made with Lactobacillicus Bulgaricus instead of Streptococcus Debrucii, which makes a more sour yoghurt. A good manufacturer will use the strain anywhere in the world for greek-style yoghurt. Also, sourness depends on the fermentation temperature, with warmer fermentation producing more sour yoghurt, in extreme cases with acetic acid in addition to the lactic acid.
rumtscho, so why did you post your comment as an answer?
Greek yoghurt (as sold by us) is obtained by means of final filtration, to remove the residual acidic water.
Method to do it home.
Prepare before the yogurt using the machine normally, following the instructions.
Place a strainer into a bowl. Place the strainer inside a tightly woven cotton cloth.
Pour the yogurt in cotton cloth. It does not matter if you just did, it is okay the next day also.
At this point, wait for the whey drip into the bowl, for a couple of hours or more.
The whey is what gives the flavor a bit sour to the normal yougurt.
In a couple of hours you get the thick yogurt. The more time passes, the more it becomes thick yogurt. After 4-5 hours, becomes like cream cheese.
During the filtering, every so often, it is good to reshoot the yogurt with a spoon, so that the more dense (that it lies in contact with the cotton cloth) not makes a "cap" to the more still in the surface.
================================
PS
By us in Italy yogurt is made with both, Lactobacillicus Bulgaricus and Streptococcus Debrucii. In addition we put probiotic ferments.
The Russian microbiologist Ilya Ilyich Mečnikov isolated Lactobacillus bulgaricus and Streptococcus thermophilus. And recognized that these Lactobacillus were responsible for the process of breaking down lactose into galactose and glucose. These "ferment" act with a mechanism proto simbiotic: streptococcus works first, creating the conditions for the lactobacillus do the work of breaking down lactose.
Although opinions are sketchy at best, today, in contrast to what is touted by advertising, it is believed that these two enzymes play no active role in the human body: in fact, they die as soon as they come into contact with gastric juices human, I can not stand the acidity
By the result of the positive feedback the use of probiotic ferments in the medical field, today some manufacturers have begun to add yogurt to their products. The probiotic ferments, unlike the Lactobacillus bulgaricus and Streptococcus thermophilus, are able to withstand the free acidity of gastric juices, to survive and replicate in the gastrointestinal tract. Since, generally, as bacteria already present in the human body, they are able to restore the bacterial flora to a normal state, when this has been compromised as a result of treatment with antibiotics, by stress or by improper nutrition.
The probiotic ferments exercise also a positive effect in many processes of digestion and prevent intestinal infections and attacks by fungi, strengthen the immune system produce bacteriocins, the so-called "natural antibiotics". The main probiotic ferments added in the fermentation process are the following: Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus casei, Lactobacillus lactis, Bifidobacterium bifidum.
The fermented milk obtained from their action deviates slightly from yogurt (traditionally obtained only with the use of Lactobacillus bulgaricus and Streptococcus thermophilus), giving rise, rather, to a Kefir.
kefir
I won't try to edit your copy again, but you may wish to use the word "whey" instead of "serum"... in this context, serum does not make sense.
Sorry, I'm not english. And my English is very bad. As suggested from your admins, I use Google translator. Please, try to understand. Sorry again.
@violadaprile It's fine, we know not everyone is a native speaker. But when the native speakers do come along and try to help out, please avoid rolling back their edits - I'm not sure if it was deliberate or not, but you reversed all the corrections SAJ14SAJ made. (If you want to recover them, you can look at the revision history.) And while Google translate is certainly pretty cool, you might also find an Italian-English dictionary more helpful for specific cases; I'm sure there's a good one online somewhere!
I didn't reverse anything, not intentionally - I just changed "serum" with "whey", as suggested. I don't know about any other changhement...
Again I ask your pardon. But since I'm a journalist, among other things, just on food and cooking, I thought I could make a useful contribution. Otherwise it does not matter.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.946530 | 2012-12-07T22:09:52 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29028",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Ezekieo",
"FuzzyChef",
"Motaka",
"Nicholas Mulianto",
"Ronaye Willington",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67227",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67228",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68941",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"pizza fan",
"rumtscho",
"violadaprile"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
8013 | How to brown the sugar for pumpkin flan?
I've made pumpkin flan from the following recipe http://www.rachaelraymag.com/Recipes/rachael-ray-magazine-recipes/mucho-gusto-latin-recipes/Pumpkin-Flan
I follow the instructions to a tee: "In a medium saucepan over high heat, add the sugar and pour 2/3 cup water around the perimeter. Using a wooden spoon, cook, stirring, until golden, about 5 minutes. Lower the heat and cook until copper-colored, 1 to 2 minutes."
My sugar never browns like shown on the picture. It's a translucent off-white. I feel like there is too much water.
Is my pan just too small of a diameter? What is the diameter or volume for "medium saucepan"? Is it something else - like the recipe? When I put the sugar into the pie dish, it seems to be a really thick layer of sugar when usually it's a thin layer for flan, no?
Any advice is appreciated, thanks!
The techniques used for getting sugar as brown as you wish have been discussed in a previously asked question. The time should be closer to half an hour than 5 minutes.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.947116 | 2010-10-10T20:35:09 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8013",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/183",
"papin"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
25688 | What does "rap" mean for brownies recipe?
I just made Ina Garten's Outrageous Brownies last weekend and I omitted the "rap" step: "Bake for 20 minutes, then rap the baking sheet against the oven shelf to force the air to escape from between the pan and the brownie dough."
What did they want me to do, push the pan against the back of the oven? Thanks.
Did you look up the word? rap There's nothing special about the cooking use of the term.
Good point. For whatever reason I kept thinking they must have meant "wrap" because I'm so used to wrapping things in aluminum foil in between cooking and I kept visualizing the back of the oven when they said "shelf" ^_^
The oven shelf is not the back of the oven. Basically what you would do is lift one side a little (maybe an inch or so) and let it drop. Then you can do the other side. This will give you a more fudgy and less cake-like crumb, as the cake-like finish comes from trapped air bubbles. If you rap the pan to help the air escape then you have less trapped air and thus a denser, more fudge-like crumb.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.947236 | 2012-08-16T15:21:09 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25688",
"authors": [
"Ayoko Samuel",
"Elizabeth ",
"Marti",
"Maur",
"Noir",
"Rhea",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58907",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58911"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
76865 | Vacuum sealing vs. water displacement method when doing longer sous vide cooking
Modernist Cuisine recommends that for longer sous vide cooking (times greater than 36 hours) that bags are vacuum sealed rather than just using the water displacement method to remove the air from a ziploc bag.
What is the reason for this? Will I be losing something essential if I just use a regular ziploc bag without vacuum sealing?
There is no real safety issue if you do a really good job removing ALL of the air with the displacement method. The challenge is in removing all of the air. According to J. Kenji Lopez Alt at Serious Eats, "Excess air causes oxidation that can develop into off flavors or promote spoilage."
The second issue is with the seal if the Ziploc bags. Generally speaking, these bags are not designed to withstand high temperatures, especially not for long periods of time. It is quite possible the seal will fail during a long cook, ruing your food.
You could certainly use Ziploc bags and give it a shot, there is no dooming reason not to try it. Before cooking your expensive brisket or whatever you're looking to do a long cook with, I recommend trying to overcome these two issues with something cheap to see if you can get rid of all the air and if the seal will last.
Use the reccommended "freezer" bags. They are thicker and close more securely. If hot water bothers you when closing the bag, close it in tepid water then place in the bath.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.947394 | 2016-12-27T17:27:18 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76865",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
92690 | What are the best apples for juicing, and which ones should I avoid?
I make cider as a hobby, and I juice quite a lot of apples, and have tried quite a few types.
I've noticed that some apples are great for juicing, and some are very poor. You generally get less juice from softer apples, than you do from crunchy apples.
I'd like to know which types of apples are good for juicing, and which ones should be avoided.
All edible varieties are welcome; cooking apples, desert apples, and cider apples.
I've done some searching online, for apples rated by their suitability for juicing, but have found lots of conflicting information.
I thought it might be a good idea to ask about it here, and then we can get a better collection of answers that can help more people.
Note: I am aware that there are specific varieties of cider apples, but I tend to make blends that include desert apples, as I find using more varieties adds a better depth of flavour to the end product. Please don't feel the need to constrain answers to cider varieties.
Almost impossible to give a consistent apple, because even some of the most praised apples will vary radically by location and year to year. Do note though that many cider apples won't hurt you, but are generally not culinary apples as they are far too astringent. Even within cider apples there are three categories, sharp, bitter and sweet and the best cider often are a combination.
Some of my personal favorites will be considered poor by others, but I will mention them anyway. A Northern Spy requires considerable chill, is a huge tree, tends to biannual, and take a long time to produce, but is an old time traditional tart fresh cider apple with nice body and lots of juice. A newer and popular apple, honey crisp is very juicy, and makes a nice base but I would tend to mix is with something with more body. Winesap, a great fresh cider apple, but also tends to biannual, is a northern apple and has fallen out of favor. My personal favorite, Cox Orange Pippin, but it needs to be an English version by this name, the US version is inferior, and it is not cold hardy. It is however an excellent fresh apple, makes a very good fresh cider and is an apple that makes a nice hard cider even without mixing. If you are in the wrong environment it simply will not grow though and "real" ones are often difficult to find depending on where you are. Local extensions are a great source for this though they typically will only test common varieties.
I would suggest though that most important is to find what varieties perform well in your location, it will vary, and know exactly what you want and like, sweet, tart, hard-draft, hard-dry. Then I would recommend you are on the correct line wanting a mix to build a deeper body. And do not be afraid of using crabs. A few crab apples can make all the difference when added to otherwise drab juice.
I don't juice much. But I was raised in apple county and worked on some orchards. For me the juiciest is Red Delicious straight off the tree. Never had a Red Delicious that juicy in the store. Some growing season will be more juicy than others but does not vary much with apples. Peaches can vary a lot season to season. I would say farm fresh is more important than the type of apple.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.947569 | 2018-10-05T15:27:56 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92690",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
16945 | Why would heating salt in a pan prevent food from sticking?
Quote from www.saltworks.us:
Preventing food from sticking - Rub a pancake griddle with a small bag of salt to prevent sticking and smoking. Sprinkle a little salt in the skillet before frying fish to prevent the fish from sticking. Sprinkle salt on washed skillets, waffle iron plates or griddles, heat in a warm oven, dust off salt; when they are next used, foods will not stick.
I've heard this more than once but never tried this, because I simply can't imagine why or how this works, and mostly the descriptions are a bit vague (for example, what temperature should a "warm oven" be?).
If it does work, how long does the effect last, just the next time it's used? And would there be remains of salt left in the pan when it's used next, so that one should use salt with caution after applying this procedure?
Can't answer the main question but terms like, "warm oven" and "hot oven" do have a meaning. My grandmother always used to refer to cool, warm, moderate, hot and very hot ovens for baking. My mother used gas marks. I have always had electric ovens in C. So my whole life has been spent converting between these three systems. Roughly a cool oven is down at 110-120C, a wram oven maybe 150-160C, a moderate oven around 170-180C, hot ovens would be at 200C, very hot at 220C.
I'm guessing salt works similarly to cornmeal in preventing bread from sticking to bakeware, by putting a layer of material between pan and food. However, I think this is also a great way to cause salt corrosion damage to your pans, particularly cast-iron stuff.
@Bob Thanks. I think it's not really meant for cast-iron ones, because if they're seasoned properly, they're pretty much non-stick anyway. My guess is that it's probably more meant for aluminium ones without teflon or any other kind of non-stick coating. Good point about the cornmeal, I just wonder how much salt would be left after "dusting off" to have any effect.
@Rince Thanks, that at least gives me an idea about the temperatures.
I don't know how to google and find citations to prove a negative, but my best guess from understanding the science is that salt sprinkled in a pan then wiped out will have precisely no affect whatsoever. The claim is quite silly.
If you cook on a stone grill, you usually don't work with butter or oil, but with salt. Perhaps because the stone is so hot the butter/oil would burn? Putting some salt on the stone really prevents sticking though.
Most of the described method will help you to clean and dry your pan. A clean pan, especially when it is cast iron, is a happy pan and will work better. A clean and smooth surface, and rubbing salt on it will clean and smooth a metal surface, will also help to prevent food from sticking.
Sprinkling your pan with salt immediately before frying fish or meat is pointless. What salt does to food is to bind water and less moist things stick less. But your pan should be so hot that the little salt can't make a difference. If the salt has time to dry your food, your pan just isn't hot enough.
Agreed. The salt just acts as a physical abrasive while rubbing. Note that the first tip says to prevent "sticking and smoking" - it obviously refers to the removal of particles remaining on the pan from the last cooking process, which would start to smoke and glue the food to the pan while turning to charcoal.
It sounds like this would be pretty much equivalent to properly cleaning your pan with a good scrubber, then heating the pan sufficiently to make sure it's dry.
From previous experience, salt was used on seasoned pans as a means of cleaning off a pan's cooking residue while still on the cooking line. This enables keeping pans working without going to the dishwasher.
With regard to using salt as a means to making it non stick, I believe the salt restores the non stick pan seasoning. A coating of oil may have been added to a cast iron pan after use, or some left over from previous use. A surplus of oil in a pan tends to get sticky, defeating the purpose of the non stick pan surface. Adding salt to a warm pan and scrubbing would absorb/remove the surplus oil, restoring a pan's non stick seasoning. In my opinion, that is.
Try it before you knock it! My mom did this when I was growing up. I do not know why it works but it does. She would put about a tablespoon of table salt in a seasoned cast iron pan on top of the stove and heated it until the salt turned a little brown. She would wipe the salt out with a paper towel and throw it in the trash. Amazingly the cast iron was as non-stick as a brand new Teflon pan. I do not know the chemistry behind it but I do know that something happens and the difference is amazing. Just try it. It will not hurt your cast iron.
I saw a chef on European TV who always sprinkles a little salt on his hot skillets, swirls it, and then wipes it before grilling anything. Nothing sticks. His explanation is that the salt absorbs the extra moisture ingrained in the pans, especially cast iron. I do that whenever I remember, especially when searing meat or chicken without adding fat, and of course for fish. It works.
I've used this method for 70 years, learned from my mother. Sprinkle a liberal amount of salt, let it get good and hot, wipe clean with paper towel and cook your food. I use it at least a couple times a week (cast iron skillet) when making pancakes.
John
Do you have any ideas as to why this method works? And do you also put oil in the pan? (I would imagine so for pancakes, but don't want to make false assumptions.)
@LorelC. While some people use butter or oil in the pan when cooking pancakes, there are many of us who do not.
If you have a pan that has micro-scratches from using metal cooking utensils, then it is always advisable to fill you pan with salt, heat it, allow to cool slightly, and using a kitchen towel to rub the salt well into the pan. This will remove the scratches. Following that, season your pan as normal.
What the salt is doing is acting as a fine abrasive. When I was a chef, I was proving and seasoning pans all the time. We also used sand as well depending on the state of the pan.
Im an ex Airforce Chef and we would Prove our Omelette pans with salt once every 2 weeks. Proving the pan with salt drew all the moisture out of the pan and the pan would become non stick. a high heat would be used and the pan and salt would be on the heat for no more than 5 minutes.
Doesn't heat dry out any moisture?
My mother always salted the cast iron pan before frying meatballs. I believe this method is meant for meat that will render fat, alleviating the need to oil the pan. I don't think fish would work.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.947879 | 2011-08-18T08:07:59 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16945",
"authors": [
"4nana",
"BobMcGee",
"Cascabel",
"Chris Maynard",
"Christopher Hale",
"Cindy",
"Lorel C.",
"Mien",
"Rincewind42",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11150",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36352",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6615",
"rox0r",
"rumtscho",
"takrl"
],
"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
} |
40134 | How long can fresh yeast be frozen?
I've heard that I can actually buy a large box of fresh yeast cubes, freeze it, and take one out of the freezer twelve hours before using it, to let it slowly get to room temperature again.
How long can I freeze the yeast for? Will it slowly degrade, or will it just be suddenly unusable after a certain length of time?
A lot of people seem to be sharing the opinion that fresh yeast doesn't last long/is 'highly perishable'. However, I have made quite the opposite observation... I've bought fresh yeast from the supermarket, carried it around for about 16-20 hours with about 20 degrees Celsius or more outside two times; both times, I put the stuff back in the fridge to see if it still worked. And yeah, it did (I always first put it into a bowl with a little sugar and luke warm water).
I also once kept my yeast weeks longer than the best-by date would have suggested. No problem.
I'm not a biologist, but I reckon biology says yeast (yeah I know, not exactly your supermarket kind, but still...) has been around for ages, and also been used long before everybody had fridges in their homes... so.. maybe it's not as perishable as most people are led to believe (it isn't, as I have discovered).
The reason dry yeast is so popular is that it is easier to store, and is less persnickety about it than fresh yeast. Treat dry yeast right and it can last for a couple of years or more. Fresh yeast is highly perishable, and it should be frozen if you're not going to use it within a couple of days. If you're lucky, you can get significantly more time from fresh yeast by freezing it within just a day or two of getting it home.
The thing is, yeast is a living thing and you just can't know what experiences it has had before arriving in your kitchen. As such, it's impossible to predict just how much extra (past the expiration date) time you are going to get from freezing it. A month? Probably. Two months? I wouldn't count on it, but maybe. 6 months? Highly unlikely, but stranger things have happened.
If you do freeze fresh yeast, wrap it very well. Moisture and air are your enemies. Do put it in the refrigerator at least 12 hours prior to use, then let it spend the last hour on the counter. As a last step before putting together your dough, proof it. Proof the yeast by mixing it with the warm (100Fish) water called for in the recipe and, if applicable, the sugar. If there is no sugar in the recipe, give it a 1/2 tsp of flour (per loaf). Within 5-10 minutes it should be quite bubbly and growing. If it doesn't look like it's doing much, throw it away. You might as well throw away all of the yeast you have from that batch. Go to the store and get more yeast before proceeding with the recipe.
Properly stored, yeast usually dies at least somewhat gradually. You may see a slight progressive decrease in the vigor of your yeast as it gets older. Personally, once I see that I'll use it that time, but I'll get more for next time.
Anymore, fresh yeast is hardly seen except in professional bakeries. It's easy to see why. If you're going to make multiple loaves in a week, then maybe fresh yeast is worth it. Now that I have found 2 pound packages of Fleischmann's instant dry yeast (expiration almost 2 years out) at Sam's Club for $6, I think my days of messing with fresh yeast are over. (BTW 2lbs of dry yeast = about 130 loaves)
EDIT: Interestingly, Red Star disagrees and doesn't recommend freezing fresh yeast. This goes against my experience and the cynic in me wonders of their recommendation has more to do with selling yeast than anything else.
Their recommendation almost certainly has to do with quality outcomes. Freezing is not good for yeast. A significant portion of the culture in the fresh yeast will die, degrading its potency and furthering the fairly unpredictable nature of how fast it will proof.
Well I wouldn't recommend buying fresh yeast today, freezing overnight to bake tomorrow, but I have successfully baked with 4 month old fresh (frozen) yeast. How fast it proofs is less of an issue if you do, in fact, proof. I'd rather have "maybe" in my freezer than dead in my fridge.
If it were not directly non-responsive to the question, I would recommend eschewing fresh yeast all together. There is absolutely no benefit today.
On that we completely agree.
Thanks for this ... I disagree with the "fresh yeast is hardly seen" bit though - probably for the same reason that the brand names you and @SAJ14SAJ mentioned don't ring any bell with me - I'm in germany and not in the US. I've hardly ever used dried yeast, which is why I've asked this question in the first place.
Really? I was born in Germany [that is just an aside, it means less than nothing] I find it amazing that you find it difficult to get 'active dry yeast'.
No, that's not the case, it's as easy to get as fresh yeast, just that no supermarket seems to have anything else than 3*7g sachets, and I simply didn't fancy buying 50 of those to store them somewhere - those seem to distribute themselves within the kitchen cupboards a lot more than a few cubes of fresh yeast within the fridge. Also, most of the recipes I use call for fresh yeast, and so far I haven't been tempted to convert them.
@takrl Buy a tupperware box which can hold 50 of them and store the box in a cupboard, problem solved. The reason why they sell it this way is that this is indeed the option most easy to store. A large package of dry yeast starts ageing once you open it, so people store it in the fridge or freezer once opened, which is less convenient seeing that cupboard space is usually less constrained than freezer space. And live yeast not only eats fridge space, it dies easily. "Converting" a recipe to dry just means to take exactly 1/3 of the given amount in weight and follow the steps as with fresh.
@rumtscho I'd agree with the storage option if I was the only person using that kitchen. I'm not, and frequently I have to search for items that were put 'somewhere' instead where they belong. Same goes for loose sachets of [put ingredient here] - I've simply given up on that.
Ok @takrl, for real? Fresh yeast is the solution to this problem? Really?"
Plain and simply, no. In my life as it currently is, there simply is no solution to that problem. But we're digressing ... fresh yeast is what most of my recipes call for, as I already mentioned. I really just wanted to find out if freezing yeast is a viable thing for me to do, since I'm using two to four cubes a week.
Freezing yeast is certainly viable (brewers do it all the time). You just need to use a 25% glycerin solution to keep the cell walls from being damaged by ice crystals.
Hmm, all my dry yeast packets are in the fridge (as is my dry yeast from a large package, transferred to a jar - as is my dry brewing yeast.) In a possibly related anecdote, I've never had dead yeast (even long after expiration dates.) When storing/culturing brewing yeast for re-use, I use the simple in water, in the fridge method, and many years later it is generally fine. http://www.brewery.org/brewery/library/SterileDW1096.html I don't bother with that for baking yeast, but see no reason it would not work as well.
I found this useful:
http://www.wessexmill.co.uk/recipe/freezeyeast.html
As soon as I get it home I crumble 12g [of the fresh yeast] into approx 30g (2 dessert spoons) of a ordinary bread flour and mix it up so that I have a dry crumbly mix, and put into a small plastic bag. I do this to approx 70% of the yeast so I have about 50 small bags i.e 1.5kg bag of flour. I then put all the small bags into a big bag and put them in the freezer.
Mixed in with the flour and frozen I find the yeast keeps for a couple of months, it may keep longer, I don't know, I've usually run out by then and started again.
Good Luck
The info is useful, but we discourage link-only answers because links have a tendency to go bad, leaving undesirable clutter. I edited in some pertinent information and removed the all-caps, something else we discourage. The info is helpful though, welcome to Seasoned Advice. Check out our Help Center to learn more about the site, and don't hesitate to edit your answer again if you would like to add more to it.
Being a Professional Baker Fresh yeast cannot be frozen I have tried it is dead on defrosting and cannot be ressurected with sugar. Neither do I like dried yeast the bread dough is too heavy and takes too long to rise it spoils the taste of the loaf
Anyone who follows grandmas recipes knows that fresh yeast rises better and definitely makes your product taste different and better. Coming from my roots in New York, any baker worth his weight in gold uses fresh yeast in their products. As far as whether you can freeze fresh yeast it is a crap shoot. I have had it rise fine and other times it's has not and you have ruined all your ingredients. My recommendation is always to buy it fresh at the store. Some Wal-mart stores carry it by their biscuits doughs or eggs. Problem is they order to much and is usually out dated. That's why most stores stop carring it. They are loosing money. If they bought smaller quantities more often they would sell more
I disagree with eschewing fresh yeast. I am trying to make bread like I used to get as a kid in Northern NJ and it is pretty much impossible to get the dried yeast to provide the necessary lift. The recipe I was trying to use shows the cook Dannielle Forrester on "Baking With Julia" using Fresh yeast. I have been using starter added to the water with yeast and proofing it then using it was the water eliminating the adding fresh yeast part. She mixes up the water and flour first then adds the fresh yeast and after kneading it adds the salt.
I'm getting the right crust but the inside is just not lifting and making the big holes as it should.
So I'm on the definitely use fresh yeast if it is called for side of the question.
I did a lot of searching online and calling yesterday and I am going to have to drive a couple hours to get it from a baker who is willing to sell me some of what he uses but its not on the shelf anywhere I could find in NW Oregon. Pretty much everyone I spoke to had no idea what it was except for this one guy.
I found this page in my attempt to fond out how long I can freeze it as that will dictate how much I buy. Maybe 4 months is the conclusion I see so I'll probably only be getting a few ounces.
Thanks all
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.948616 | 2013-12-10T08:30:33 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40134",
"authors": [
"Beefster",
"Carolyn Drake",
"Dane Weeks",
"Ecnerwal",
"Google",
"Isaac Middlemiss",
"Jim Johnson",
"Jolenealaska",
"MItzy Biggins",
"Natalia Rice",
"Neti Utami",
"Robert Guida",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"Tanya Lacy",
"Teresa Miss Tere",
"Tim",
"Vernon Averill",
"Vino",
"Vornique Penn",
"Wendy Kornbloom",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119323",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122144",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139586",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154327",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93213",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93223",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93224",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93226",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93323",
"polynomial_donut",
"rumtscho",
"takrl",
"texdr.aft",
"user5561"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
33799 | Why does soda bread preserve less well than sourdough or yeast based bread?
Most soda bread recipes I've come across (for example, this one) say something along the lines of "best eaten the day it's prepared", "will keep for a day" or similar. This is not the case for most sourdough or yeast based breads. So, why does soda bread preserve less well than other bread types?
Almost all bread is best eaten on the day it is prepared, whether leavened with baking soda or with yeast. (Exceptions might be some whole-grain dense breads with strong flavors that "settle" and improve after a day or so.)
Fermentation time does in fact have a small impact on how fast bread goes stale, though. Staling generally encompasses two things: (1) degradation of the crust by excess moisture migrating from the interior of the loaf, and (2) hardening of the crumb due to recrystallization of certain starches.
The first aspect isn't that significant in soda bread, since its moisture content is high and its rising power (compared to yeasted bread) is relatively low, so it rarely develops the kind of crackly crust you might find on a French baguette. In that respect, soda bread's crust won't degrade noticeably faster than, say, a typical moist yeasted sandwich bread.
The second aspect might make soda bread more likely to stale faster. A long fermentation allows time for various enzymes to do some work in breaking down some starches in the bread and converting them to sugar. If the starch content in the final bread is lower, staling will be reduced somewhat. For example, amylase enzymes are naturally part of yeast fermentation and will break down starches, though sometimes they are added to improve bread texture and shelf life. (Home bakers often use amylase in the form of barley malt.)
Is this effect significant, though, assuming you don't add enzymes to your bread dough during fermentation? I'd guess that it probably only becomes significant for yeasted breads with long fermentation times, including those that use preferments or sourdough starters, or where fermentation takes place overnight in the refrigerator or something. The long fermentation will allow time for the natural enzymes to activate and do their work.
So, some yeasted breads will have noticeable slower staling due to the process of yeast fermentation. However, if you compared a soda bread recipe vs. a yeasted bread recipe with similar ingredients that is only fermented for a couple of hours, the difference in shelf-life between the two would probably be negligible.
The only major difference between the two is moisture, soda bread tends to be wetter than yeast breads, more like a cake than a yeast bread in many ways. Bread gets stale partly because of the action of moisture, and mold needs moisture as well, so because soda bread is more moist than many yeast breads it will get stale and moldy faster than most yeast breads.
Keep in mind that just about all breads no matter how they are leavened are best eaten fresh, although they will keep for several days. This includes soda breads, which will keep for much longer than a single day. Stored properly you should get 3-4 days out of it. So the recipes saying that soda bread will keep for a day are not really that accurate.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.949490 | 2013-04-27T19:09:29 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33799",
"authors": [
"Dalene C. Mahaffey",
"Dr. Slooky",
"Robert Miller",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78500",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78520",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78656",
"sagar_acharya",
"yash"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
19005 | Tres Leche Without Homemade Cake?
I've been wanting to make a tres leche cake and I have a few cake box mixes at home (yellow cake, spice cake and a chocolate cake). Could I use the yellow cake and then just fork it and pour over the tres leche sauce or is there something about typical tres leche cake recipes that makes them better suited to the sauce and the overall dish?
I think tres leches is usually more like a white cake. Not that yellow cake flavor is that strong or anything - but it would probably look a bit different, since cake mix yellow cake is pretty yellow.
Good point. I guess that would be my little spin on it.
Tres leches cake is always of the sponge variety.
It is much higher in eggs and the extra protein lets it hold up to sitting in a puddle of milk overnight. A regular white cake would not be a good plan. It would be at best pudding in the morning.
If you are trying to get rid of boxed cake and want it to be a sponge cake you could try beating egg whites and folding them into your batter.
Personally I think sponge cakes are so easy that I would rather just make the tres leches from scratch and save the boxed cake for a trifle or to give away to someone who doesn't care.
Okay, I'll save the box mixes for other occasions! Thanks for your advice.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.949791 | 2011-11-18T08:11:30 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19005",
"authors": [
"AppTest",
"Cascabel",
"Chad",
"Kwiknis",
"Timothy Taylor",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41240",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41251"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
33949 | What kind of cheese is the result of boiling milk with vinegar at home?
With this recipe http://www.wikihow.com/Make-Cheese-at-Home, which out of the following required cheese will I get at home?
http://www.food.com/recipe/incredibly-delicious-cheese-garlic-bread-spread-18914
You will get paneer or chhena, I think you know those.
The resultant cheese in your first link will be a fresh, soft cheese, nothing like either of the Parmesan or cheddar cheeses mentioned in your second link. It is also an acid-based cheese, not a made with either rennet or bacterial cultures as are most other cheeses.
Parmesan is a very long aged cheese.
Cheddar is a... well... cheddared cheese (cheddaring is a process which reduces the moisture content of the curds) that is then aged for varying periods of time.
The fresh cheese in your first link will not serve you well in the same roles as either Parmesan or Cheddar. While I realize these products may not be available easily where you live, they are very distinctive and hard to substitute for with homemade products--they just also not the kind of cheese that is normally made at home.
The home made cheese described is most similar to an unaged feta (although not goat's milk), or a Mexican queso fresco.
That's very sad. So, I have no choice other than looking for those cheese in market for making "cheese spread"? Cheese spread made from fresh home made cheese will not taste great?
I won't say it will be bad, but it will be different.
can this cheese do instead? http://www.zopnow.com/pizza-cheese-mozzarella-v-1-kg-p.php
@AnishaKaul The home made acid paneer will be different than pizza cheese. It will not have the long stringiness or the same melting characteristics, although it may be similar in that the primary flavor is a mild dairiness.
http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/9276994#9276994
What about mozzarella?
The pizza cheese is a type of low-moisture mozerella.
So, can that be used?
You can use it, but again, it is going to be a very different result.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.949950 | 2013-05-04T12:31:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33949",
"authors": [
"Alex",
"Aquarius_Girl",
"BrownApple",
"Jim Giner",
"Mien",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78908",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78911",
"yashC"
],
"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.